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 really loathe the new fad of huge fake air intakes on each corner of the lower front bumper valence. Designers are such lemmings.
I bet if some of you impala haters saw me broke down on the side of the road in my LTZ, you'd still stop to help old jayrider. I'd appreciate the aid even if it did come with an "I told you so."
As for GM, I got a Traverse as a rental a few weeks ago (Hertz was actually out of full size cars). It seemed nicer than some of the older GM models. It was built pretty tight and had good, supportive seats. Too big for me to buy, and a few cheap spots like seat recliner handles, but maybe GM is turning the corner. It definitely was an improvement over some of the GM stuff I got the past few years.
Because, with that grill, it looks like a modern Towmater
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/MaterCars.jpg
I agree that a company shouldn't rely on fleet sales. But ALL the rental car companies, other commercial ventures, and the gov't are looking for cars and trucks. If you were in charge, would YOU turn down an order for 1500 of a particular model every month??? I know the last 2 Buicks I saw at rental companies were CXL's, and not CX's
Regards,
OW
link">http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2006-to-2009-chevrolet-impala-2.htm20- 06-2009">
Like I said, no GM cars are on my shopping list and the Impala would be the last car I would consider at the end of the day.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Back in '02 when I bought my Ultra, I was looking at a lot of Lesabre's as well, and they were all base Customs as opposed to the better Limiteds (which would have had leather as opposed to cloth). I found the lack of ammenities frustrating.
Not only will a 6 speed tranny get much better gas mileage but it will be faster 0-60 MPH too! It's a win-win. A no brainer!
So they favor vehicles for the Big 3 because they stand for:
1) Bad performance and gas mileage
2) Bad reliability and dependability
3) Poor resale and tremendous depreciation
4) Unlikeability and therefore excess inventory and low prices.
These people would rather pay less than get more. They just want a super bargain no matter what that means. They don't understand what quality and long term value are. They only see short term costs, not longterm value.
In this way the Big 3 faults are actually good things in these people's eyes:
1) Contribute more in gas taxes to the government.
2) Contribute more to the economy by way of high repair bills for auto shops, mechanics, auto parts, and tow truck companies.
3) Buy it on the cheap when it's 1 or 2 years old but has the depreciation of a typical 5 or 6 year old car.
4) Buy it for even less because it's undesireable to most of the population.
The funny thing is these "deals" on 1 to 3 year old domestics really aren't all that good. You could buy a 10 year old Civic for the same amount and the Civic will cost you less to keep running in the long run; at least up to 300,000 miles.
I ran this experiment with a 10 year old Civic in 2002 myself, took it from 166,000 miles to 200,000 miles in about 2.2 years, and payed for about $1,000 in maintenance & repairs plus $800 in depreciation (sold it for just $800 less than when purchased). So my total true cost of ownership was only $1,800 (not counting insurance, gas; and it got great gas mileage).
You actually thought $58B just vanished?
No, but
Yes you did. "they don't pay any taxes" were your exact words.
So following along, we should have LESS efficient companies, and have more WASTEFUL fuel economy?
Just change the subject when proven wrong?
You just can't admit that GM over the years has pumped huge amounts of money into the US economy. They have provided millions of jobs in America. The taxes they and their employees have paid into fed, state, and local economies over the years dwarfs any benefit from not having the bailout. I personally generated taxes paid to the US fed, state and local of over a quarter of a million dollars during the years I worked for GM. That doesn't include the tens of thousands I paid in fuel taxes over the 30+ years of driving GMs. Now my $350 share of the bailout is a big deal?
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
You are talking about one year out of the last 100 years. Even at that, with GM's truck sales, I doubt your argument holds water. Even at that, you are admitting that GM creates almost the most sales tax revenue of any carmaker. Maybe second only to Toyota. Pretty far away from where you started with saying GM pays no tax at all.
I could care less, so have many other companies in the US. I'm not going to buy a GM product or support a bail out based on that.
I guess I have to agree, GM has caused a lot of people to help stimulate the economy. I know I've spent my fair share keeping POS GM vehicles running.
You know that the marketing effort has failed when your "excitement division" is selling most of its cars to fleets. Good decision to shutter Pontiac.
No, you are confusing me with andres3, who wrote:
"Profits from GM have been a misnomer for over a decade now. They don't pay any taxes"
I pointed out that GM paid no income taxes. GM, as a corporate entity, paid no income taxes, which is what most people would assume you mean with that statement -- especially when following the line "profits from GM have been a misnomer for over a decade now". ANY company with employees pays taxes if you use YOUR logic. I think we all know that GM has employees! Most people would find this logic quite clear.
So following along, we should have LESS efficient companies, and have more WASTEFUL fuel economy?
Just change the subject when proven wrong?
Well first, I wasn't proven wrong because you were claiming words of mine that were not mine. Second, it is not a change of subject, as you wrote "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 were implying that Honda's efficiency and use of less staff by using robots was limiting tax revenue. I questioned why you would be in favor of a company that used more labor (= lower labor efficiency) since you seem to think Honda's use of robots which might lower taxes is a bad thing.
You just can't admit that GM over the years has pumped huge amounts of money into the US economy.
Again, wrong. I have no problem admitting that. It does not make some of your statements accurate, however.
You are talking about one year out of the last 100 years. Even at that, with GM's truck sales, I doubt your argument holds water. Even at that, you are admitting that GM creates almost the most sales tax revenue of any carmaker. Maybe second only to Toyota.
I was just pointing out that your assumptions about total sales tax revenue in a recent year were false. No disagreement on your overall statement here. But ask yourself what good is GM if they have been destroying wealth for over a decade?
If you assume GM sold 21% of a market of 13M vehicles, that is 2.7M vehicles/year. If the average purchase price of a vehicle is $25000, then total sales would be $67B. If sales tax averages 8%, then that's $5.4B in tax receipts paid by the public (NOT GM) on cars. By comparison, GM needed over $60B in the bailout. So they sucked up over 10 YEARS worth of sales tax revenue - in a single year!
Also realize that trying to claim sales tax revenue as "generated by GM" is false for another reason. The vehicle market needs a certain number of cars each year. And there are a lot of vehicle makers. If GM did not exist, people would buy other makes and the sales tax revenues you want to credit to GM would still be generated by other sales!
It's not always a big difference, though. Now back in the old days, when cars made the switch from a 2-speed to a 3-speed automatic, the difference was pretty noticeable. The 3-speeds had a quicker first gear for better acceleration, and a taller axle for better highway fuel economy. When they started going from 3-speeds to 4-speed automatics, there tended to be another boost, although this time it was mainly in fuel economy, as it was usually accomplished by tacking on an extra-tall 4th gear. Sometimes they'd give you a slightly quicker axle ratio, too.
Now that they're going to 5-, 6-, and even 7-speed automatics though, they're not always giving you a faster first gear or a taller final gear, but rather filling in the gaps. So, if your car did 2500 rpm@75 mph with a 4-speed, it might still be doing that with a 6-speed. Only difference is that if you need to downshift, the 4-speed might have jumped to 3750 rpm, while the 6-speed might only jump to 3000 rpm. But, if that wasn't enough, then it might have to downshift yet again, which could put you to 3500 rpm or so.
With each additional gear, you do get some improvement, but there is a diminishing return. And the cost to manufacture for each additional gear tends to rise dramatically. I'm sure it gets to a point where it's just not worth it.
And then some engines, I just don't think would benefit from extra gears, anyway. Small engines with no torque, that like to rev tend to do well with a lot of gears, but a big, torquey engine that doesn't rev all that high, and has a wide torque curve, really isn't going to benefit from a bunch of gears. Heck, I think a lot of drag race cars use Mopar 426 Hemis, with 2-speed GM Powerglides mated up to them! Of course, they're not so concerned about fuel economy...
My Expedition is the first auto 6speed trans I've had and after experiencing how it improves performance, I'd never want to go back to a 4 speed, particularly when towing where there is a night and day improvement.
GM 4l60E 1st 3.059, 2nd 1.625, 3rd 1.000, 4th .0696
Ford 6R75 1st 4.17, 2nd 2.34, 3rd 1.52, 4th 1.14, 5th 0.87, 6th 0.69
Both my Suburban and my Expedition have 3.73 final gear ratio. First gear in the Expedition is awesome when pulling our boat up a steep boat ramp and makes for getting a heavy load moving from a dead stop much easier. The 4l60e sucked for towing. It was slow from a dead stop, then once out of 1st gear and especially 2nd, the gearing was to tall for towing. Any hill or passing required a huge drop to second meaning 4krpm+ at 50mph, where with the expedition I can pull the same hill often in 4th. Granted Ford's 5.4 has a noticeable torque advantage under 4krpm and doesn't need to rev so high for pulling power (plus it's much quieter at high rpm). I rarely have to spin it past 3500 rpm when towing, where I often had to run the 5.3 past 4k rpm when accelerating or pulling up a hill.
As for durability, I don't know. Seems like the CVT's are questionable, but 6speed auto in my Expedition has lasted 20k miles past the first 4 speed in my Suburban. It shifts much smoother too. If it costs more to rebuild, I don't care, I like it a lot better.
Yet quarter mile ‘drag race’ acceleration capability [ or any other such metric one might choose ] is still rather impressive – at least to me.
I found that having 6 gears to choose from [ and selecting manually, most of the time ] in my Corvette, and in my current GM vehicle [ with a similar drivetrain – including a 6 speed automatic trans ] allows at least 2 gears that are appropriate for any given situation.
I had occasion to drive a CVT recently [ Altima 4 cyl. ] as a rental. In normal driving, I was surprised that it was not nearly as annoying as I had expected. Odd, but not as weird as I had anticipated. I do really doubt it would work for me in [ um ] enthusiastic driving.
- Ray
Tried a 7 speed dual clutch auto-manual recently – nice!
And Conestoga helped us win the West. :P
Regards,
OW
Makes total sense.
May the Best Car Win....and they will. Anyone who doubts it will own one of the bad decisions resulting from those bad business models.
Otherwise, the bad decisions to strip content at Chevy would be blasphemy instead of Fact. The Caddy clone of the Lambda would be Blasphemy instead of fact. The Existence of Buick and GMC would be Blas...you get the picture.
Change is tough but when you make it it only gets better. The tough decisions are yet to come. Anyone who thinks GM will tack a straight line to #1 is deliriously unhinged. The current reflection GM makes is far from delivering stellar results. The competition still is better. Distilled to pure fact.
Regards,
OW
I actually am proud to have supported them just disappointed that the support yielded such little return as the junk years went on.
Se la vie.
Regards,
OW
Hate to keep reminding you that despite your excellent luck and admirable loyalty, your GM failed at the end of the day. Today, it's actually not the GM you supported. Buying cars from Uncle Sam is not my cup of tea. I already paid my taxes and took my GM lumps! The car you own financed a bankruptcy. Just like mine.
Regards,
OW
But at the end of the day, I ALWAYS wish him and you luck with their GM.
Regards,
OW
Well, as a rough reference point, a month or so ago when I had my '85 Silverado in for a transmission service, I asked the owner, just out of curiosity around what it would cost to rebuild the 4-speed automatic in my 2000 Park Ave. He said around $1800. I almost fainted when he said the old 3-speed THM350C in my pickup would only be around $650!
All that newfangled technology is great for selling new cars. But, once they become old used cars, sometimes, simpler is better.
Or you can just buy new technology that isn't designed with planned obsolescence in mind. Buy a drivetrain that'll last and "replacement" costs become a non-factor.
Sure, my DSG dual clutch transmission would probably cost several multiples or more to replace than the $1,000 3-speed the Neon had that needed replacement at under 65K miles. But I'm extremely close to 65K miles today in my '06 A3 and there is no sign of needing a new tranny anytime soon..... :shades:
May the best car win....
I'll take the $10,000 tranny that lasts 1,000,000 miles over the $1,000 dollar tranny that lasts 100K miles (or less) anyday of the week.
One thing that would make the transmission repair in the Park Avenue so expensive is the car's FWD configuration vs. the RWD configuration of the truck.
The fix?
The models involved include the 2007-2009 model year Chevrolet Silverado 3500 pickup truck, Avalanche, Suburban and Tahoe; Cadillac Escalade, Escalade ESV and Escalade EXT; GMC Acadia, Sierra, Yukon and Yukon XL; and the Saturn Outlook.
The model year 2009 Chevrolet Traverse is also included.
Models from the 2008-2009 years include the Buick Enclave and Cadillac CTS.
Also recalled are the model year 2006-2009 Buick Lucerne, Cadillac DTS and Hummer H2.
No Fix? No Problem...remove the part!!
Toyota shoulda done it with the accelerator pedal...just pay the customer $100 to remove it completely!
Too funny. Junk as usual.
Regards,
OW
What is rather surprising is this:
1- Hyundai got a better engine NHV rating that Buick, not to mention higher output. Hyundai builds better engines than GM now ?????
2- Lexus ES350 got more fun-to-drive points than LaCrosse CXS??????
Car and Driver did mention the stylish LaCrosse tells there is still life in Buick. It is obviously not quite near the top though.
I read that comparison and it was interesting. The one strong point of the ES is it's powertrain. It's simply a lot smoother than GM's 3.6 or Ford's 3.5. Plus it was significantly faster and got better fuel economy.
I've only sampled one GM 3.6 and that was in an 07 Saturn Aura XR, I thought it was way ahead of GM's pushrod V6s but still not as smooth as what I've sampled from Honda/Acura and Toyota. Nissan was up there, but it seems they've gone back a step or two since boosting the power of their 3.5 and 3.7, seems they get a bit buzzy past 7k rpm.
I sampled Ford's 3.5 in my brother's '10 Fusion Sport and I was really impressed. It's not Toyota smooth, but I thoroughly enjoyed driving it. Ford's 6 speed was far more sorted out than what I sampled with GM's 6 speed in the Aura XR. But that was nearly 3 years ago, hopefully GM has recalibrated their 6 speed as I found it slow to downshift and often confused.