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
IMO, the 2012 Focus makes the Cruze look an old man's car.
I don't mind the looks of either one, although I'll agree the Focus has a more youthful look to it. Although some might say it looks a little "Boy Ri-...ah, er, Racer".
I'm not a big hatchback fan. Even though I'll agree they're more versatile and make more sense with smaller cars, I just like the looks of a regular sedan or coupe better. However, I think the Cruze looks a bit awkward in the C-pillar area. It makes me think a bit of a Saturn Ion.
Pictures of the interiors I've seen are a draw IMO. Both the Focus and Cruze have very nice interiors for the class they are in. But of course, the competition won't be sitting still.
Ford will have a sedan version too.
I predict they'll outsell the Cruze.
I understand your point. But who are they marketing these cars too? They want and need youth. Selling base Cruze's to 60 year old ladies doesn't work. You need young people who'll check off on the options like more powerful engines, dual clutch transmissions (oh yeah, GM doesn't have one), and the tech packages etc. In this area Ford has a big leg up IMO.
Sure it does...Toyota's been doing it for decades now with the Corolla! :P
I do like the sedan version of the new Focus a lot better. However, with the rakish roofline, I think they would've been better off just making that a hatchback, too. One of those "stealth" hatchbacks, like what the Mazda6 used to offer (still might, for all I know).
In the end, I'd pick the car that fits me the most comfortably, if I was shopping for something in this class. I like the fact that the styling of the two is different...one going more youthful and the other going a bit more conservative, but still handsome. At least they're not trying to ape each other!
I think the first-gen Focus did a pretty good job at spanning all age brackets. I saw young, middle-aged, and elderly alike behind the wheel, but there was enough of a mix that the car never got stereotyped, IMO.
You got me there! LOL
I think the first-gen Focus did a pretty good job at spanning all age brackets. I saw young, middle-aged, and elderly alike behind the wheel, but there was enough of a mix that the car never got stereotyped, IMO.
Maybe that's why Ford will still offer the Focus in both sedan and hatchback form.
I don't think the Mazda 6 is offered in a hatchback anymore.
The Cruze looks like a slightly shrunk Malibu. I understand trying to have a brand look but in Chevy's case that is NOT a good thing until they come up with a better look for the whole fleet.
I think that Chevy-corporate front end style works better on the Cruze than it does on the Malibu! I think it might be because the Cruze is a bit more angular, chiseled, and rugged looking, where the Malibu is more rounded and softer, somehow. Plus, the way the grille sticks out and the headlights are inset a bit, I think it makes the Malibu look a bit swollen.
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE 3RD BEST IN A CLASS CAN OUTSELL THE TOP TWO.
I didn't say the Focus would be the sales leader. I just think it will outsell the Cruze. I certainly could be wrong. Currently the Focus and Cobalt are getting spanked the Civic/Corolla.
That said, I don't have any idea of how much production GM and Ford will have for the Cruze/Focus.
Even with more appealing products, which I think the Focus and Cruze will be very competitive, it doesn't mean they will outsell the Civic and Corolla.
The real issue is that GM has hired designers and artists almost exclusively from the same literal handful of design schools for decades. The whole industry in North America has, in fact. And it means everything looks almost exactly the same as a result. Why does this happen? Because in order to get a good grade in those schools (School of Art and Design in Pasadena, CA comes to mind), you have to pretty much do the projects and work to the people in your department's ideals and standards. You are allowed to think outside the box only so far. The classes all teach the same material as well. It's cookie-cutter education taken to a level of extreme refinement.
Now, decades ago, this worked fairly well, since people as a rule took this as a basic template like music lessons are, and then worked with it and did their own thing for a decade or so before being hired by GM and the like. But what's happening is that you have terribly un-creative wrote memorization and robot-like curriculum learning Gen-X kids from high schools around the country being taught how to do "design" like a process and then immediately hired to work for these types of companies.
So everything looks exactly the same.
I've honestly seen better "Design" from the local JC's art department where they stress doing whatever you want as long as it's functional and works. You have to teach these kids, now, how to BE creative in the first place, because real learning and individuality is in short supply these days.
How to fix GM? Find the most interesting artists and designers that you can find and stick them in a room together. And fire the idiots in the cubicles who churn out soulless junk like this year after year. If GM has a "look and feel" problem, then they need to just start over with new talent and new blood. And STOP hiring from these same few design schools. I know it makes it easier for the HR department, but it's not going to produce different results.
In the computer world, it reminds me of the old saying back in the day...
"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM".
In so many ways, companies often take the envisioned "safe and secure" route...then get surprised by a company that goes off in a radically new direction, succeeding beyond all possible expectations.
We can do better. There's no reason that GM or anyone else couldn't make their sheet metal look like the smaller companies do. Ferrari is stunning lately. Aston Martin is beautiful. And it's just sheet metal and plastic. Why we can't get good looking vehicles in a wide range of colors is beyond me.
I think that the first major maker that figures this out again will pretty much eat the rest of the industry for lunch.
Have you read anything, and I mean anything, about the Malibu that's out now (2008 and newer)? Obviously, not. Lumping it in with a 2000 model is the same as lumping the current Taurus with the 2000 model. Same car in model name only.
Long story, but I might be buying it! Long live disco! :P
Just about go to any airport and the midsize segment is dominated by Malibu followed by Optima and Fusion !!!
2009 MY registrations
Malibu - 30.1% Fleet
New year, new model, new design... Even won an award for it.
"2009 Fleet Car of the Year"
How about 2008?
Original Link is dead
Oct. 2008
But the auto maker said Wednesday that of 19,725 Malibus sold last month, 10,462, or 53%, were sold to fleets.
I can tell you with 99.9% accuracy that it's not a '78 Century;)
Regards,
OW
In so many ways, GM often takes the envisioned "safe and secure" route...then get surprised by a company that goes off in a radically new direction, succeeding beyond all possible expectations.
Regards,
OW
And congrats on the new ride!
Let the designers get creative, just dont hire Homer Simpson!
I don't think that necessarily is a bad thing. Here is a quote from an article on fleet sales from Autoblog:
"......So do all these fleet sales spell trouble for GM and Chrysler? Not likely. Retail sales have remained relatively flat over the last year while fleet sales are up across most automakers. Detroit automakers also see higher fleet sales because each produces a large amount of heavy duty trucks and vans, while the overseas competition doesn't compete in those segments....."
Unlike rental car sales, trucks and vans have a much higher profit margin (the '07 Savanna 3500 I drive at work was last redesigned completely in '96, so I'm sure the tooling was long paid for. For options it only has A/C and dual rear wheels) and they almost NEVER wind up back on the dealer lots as program vehicles(all our fleet vehicles end up auctioned, and we see them puttering around the state being used by self employed painters and carpenters).
Also, the spike in rental car sales is just due to a pent up demand for these cars, as the rental fleet was aging.
Now, I'll agree that fleet sales aren't highly optioned, but rentals are back on the lot in 12-18 months.
At Verizon, all our managers and CO techs that use the cars are driving around in Cavaliers and Neons. Remind me, what was the last year THOSE models were produced???
The upcoming IPO of GM is being rushed by the "White House gang" to show how they saved the General with "cooked books", taxpayer $$$$$s, and massive govt fleet buys..Domestic GM sales are in the sewer with China and South America carrying the water..
The big rush is to get the public's money before "oil prices" hammer car sales..Winter is coming and we are in a iffy situation created by the libs on "oil drilling"...$4.00/gal by Christmas 2010..
Back to GM, they have diddled away money on the Volt to satisfy the Liberals and the Ecology nutballs, however the car is being hammered as"worthless", so they must get the IPO done ASAP..$100/share?????, sure will boost the Ford stock, and all the Foreign nameplates!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I sure won't stand in line for the IPO of one sick corporation, it's a giant fleece..Their product line sucks, and the upper management is a totally political staff of thieves...
My Ford Mustang GT, and my Pontiac GPGT are both serviced by non-dealer related independent mechanics..all the good fixers have bailed out of the dealerships due to pay scale..Warranty is gone on the Pontiac, and the Ford is still covered, however my mechanic handles the warranty issues with the dealer if any arise..Southern Fla. is loaded with talent, and prices are not really cheap, but one avoids the dealership mentality with their bloated staff..
Well, their market share has been flat, but mainly because shuttered brand losses are offsetting core brand gains, and core brand gains have been associated with new models (Lacrosse, SRX, Equinox, etc). We've yet to see how a high volume car such as the Cruze will sell. Also, (rightfully so) flagship sedans (Impala, Lucerne, DTS) are aged and in a state of flux, probably because of the economy lagging and the recent uncertanty of gas prices. Once the lineup turns over and some of the new models also get a refresh, then we should have a better idea of what happens to the market share.
I also agree w/ motorcity. This IPO is being rushed. 2 good quarters does not a turnaround make. Wall ST is slumping now. Maybe next spring would be better.
One other thing. Toyota has been going hard and heavy with the incentives, as well as Hyundai making a charge. The "success" may lie in the fact that in spite of all this, GM's retail sales were "up" 1%.
I have two relatives who are GM loyalist, not matter how much time their vehicles are in for repair. They both have Saturn's and Pontiac's which range from 5-7years old. They both are planning to keep those vehicles for at least 3-4 years before getting new ones.
There are most likely many other Saturn-Pontiac people throughout the country who are holding onto vehicles they already have bought until they run them into the ground and have to get new. MY relatives, and others most likely, have already told me they are planning on staying with GM despite not being able to get a Saturn or Pontiac anymore. So they are obviously going to flock to Chevrolet and Buick when those vehicles get older.
I think in possibly 3-4 years from now you'll see a increase in those people who are going to switch from Saturn/Pontiac to Chevrolet/Buick when their vehicles expire thus bringing increase sales back to GM.
Again, this is just an idea. Doesn't mean all Saturn/Pontiac owners are going to stay with GM and not say go get a Hyundai or Honda, Nissan, etc so its just something to keep in mind.
I know, I know, opinions are like...well, everybody has one...but I'd never make a blanket statement that this car or that car looks better....but that is one that doesn't look better than any of its competition IMHO. I much-prefer the styling of the previous Sonata. Tasteful.
It looks like an over-exaggerated Camry to me. I think there's one angle it does look good from though...down now, rear 3/4 shot, like this:
I think this angle hides how big the greenhouse is, in relation to the rest of the car. Still, it may prove to be a fine car, overall. It might even grow on me. Heck, I didn't like the style of the Intrepid/Concorde when they came out for 1998, but got used to them enough that I bought a 2000.
I do think the previous Sonata was more nicely styled, though. The style before that was pretty good looking too, I thought. I have a friend whose mother has a 2002 or 2003 Sonata. I forget how many miles are on it now, but it's holding up well.
Oh, and you'll get a kick out of this. I got into an automotive discussion a few months back, and it turned to Hyunai and their styling. A "friend of a friend" mentioned that he had a Hyundai that people said looked like a Jaguar! The car? One of those XG3-something or others! :surprise: Now, I'll confess, I kinda like those cars. But my Park Ave looks more like a Jaguar than that Hyundai does!
You are upset by that?
Why don't you try to split hairs by claiming fleet sales are not actually sales?
If that doesn't work, say that GM stole their operating capital from the poor starving taxpayers.
Whatever you do, don't give GM credit for trying.
Remember, there are 22.770,000 government workers in America, each making an average of $129,000 a year in income. But make sure the focus is on how the remaining 75,000 GM workers need to become more productive. How they should be destroyed if they can't exceed the efficiency of a S. Korean worker. You know, the country where you get audited if you buy American?
Whatever you do, don't focus any attention to the efficiency or productivity of the 22.77 million gov workers. Should we lump GM workers in that gov category, making it 22.7775 million? No, we still need to bash them on efficiency, intelligence, ethics, and productivity.
How can you consider the Genesis a trick. It has been a complete failure in the marketplace. Sales from Jan-July 2010 are a paltry 15,200 and that is for both the coupe and the sedan which are very different vehicles. Hyundai does not split the sales out because it would look like even more of a failure.
I'm not trying to defend the gov't here, but that $129K is in what they call "total compensation", and not just income. My company shows us what it considers to be out "total compensation", and in my case, it's about 28% higher than my actual income.
But, I do remember seeing that chart, and it is a wakeup call. IIRC, the "total compensation" was $129K for federal gov't, ~$81K for state/local gov't, and ~$61k for the private sector. Now, the private sector also includes a lot of minimum-wage jobs, like cashiers, fry cooks, waiters and waitresses, etc, that probably drag the levels down. In contrast, the lowest federal GS payscale job starts at around $22K per year.
Also, is that 22.77M ALL gov't workers or just federal gov't? Either way it seems too high, but I think it's actually ALL gov't workers (state and local as well as fed)
If they want the German, Korean, and Japanese automakers to take them really seriously and truly competitive, match the level of incentives the foreign automakers and if your still selling more than them, then maybe you have a right to gloat! Until they do, its just a bunch of BS!
You can't look at incentives only. Look at the average transation price the top automakers are selling at (source is Edmunds) for the first 6 months of 2010:
1 GM $31,627
2 Ford $30,218
3 Chrylser $29,210
4 Toyota $26,954
5 Nissan $26,756
6 Honda $24,888
7 Hyundai $22,074
The US automakers sell alot of trucks, which are not cheap. They will have the highest transaction price and will alos have the highest inventives because of this. Each Hyundai sold is at an average transaction price of $9,500 dollars less than the average GM. Puts things into a bit of perspective.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Let's see GM get a midsized 4-door car with as much value/efficiency as the 2011 Sonata for the price and beat it through the traps. Come on Regal!
Lots-O-Luck! Rather, GM should settle with "Fat Chance" considering their failed, bankrupt historical execution as an auto manufacturer!
Regards,
OW
You need to go out and drive the Regal and Sonata. First of all the Sonata is a very good effort by Hyundai. I was impressed by it and it is right with Accord/Camry/Fusion/Altima/Malibu. The Regal is much more refined than the Sonata. Road noise, steering, brakes and handling are all better. The Regal feels like a luxery vehicle compared to the above cars I mentioned. My guess is you have never driven one or you would not be making a comparison between two vehicles that will never be cross shopped.
Whitacre was never going to stay long term. He said this when he took over. This should be no suprise to anyone.
I think the look says:
"cheap obnoxious"
I think it is oversytled and dont't care for it at all. I would never buy it. The only Hyundai I would consider is the Azera, for 1or 2K more.