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 actually kind of like the styling over the front 3/4 of the car. It's the rear that I'm not fond of.
I'm curious to see how I like it. My wife has talked to a few co-workers who've suffered through Grand Prixs and Impalas who now have the new Taurus and they've all said the Taurus is by far the nicest company cars they've had. Which I would expect considering the GP and Impala are/have been seriously outdated in all areas.
I probably wouldn't buy one, but I won't be ashamed to drive it either. I can't say the same for some other cars we've had.
"When the customer walks in the showroom, it's huge and has exactly one of every car, truck, and SUV in it. But there is no new inventory on the lot. It's handled a lot like how BMW does with its Mini brand."
It just didn't have the open, airy feeling that the previous 500/Montego did. Still, it seemed like a decent, solid, well-built car.
It just didn't have the open, airy feeling that the previous 500/Montego did. Still, it seemed like a decent, solid, well-built car.
That is in line with what I've read about the car. I've looked at them, but I haven't sat in or driven one.
I expect it to be a good car, but not a great one. My wife will have it for 80-90k miles, so I'm sure I'll have ample opportunity to express my opinion of it.
She had a 500 and no question it didn't suffer from lack of room. While the 500 wasn't exceptional in any way, it was competent and completely tolerable. It probably is a great used buy for those who just want a large solid and reliable car. The 500 still stands out as the best company car my wife has had. But it doesn't take much to stand out in a crowd of made of Impalas, Tauruses (old model), and Grand Prixs. Suffering through those cars made it clear for me to see why Ford and GM were getting killed by the competition.
I believe the Buick Skylark in the 90's was the really ugly vehicle though that was based on the Malibu. Or was the Malibu then called the Corsica? I had a '94 Corsica but I don't remember the lineup. The person who designed the front of that Skylark should have been tarred and feathered in the auto industry.
A good gauge at the popularity of older models is the Barrett Jackson auction, which is currently on Speed Channel every night this week.
I always found them to be classy looking cars.
That's it, exactly! I just went to the EPA's website, as they list the interior volume of the cars, and I notice the new Taurus has 102 cubic feet of interior volume, and 20 cubic feet of trunk space. In contrast, the old 500/Montego had 108 cubic feet of interior room and 21 cubic feet of trunk space!
Looking at some of the interior measurements, it looks like the new Taurus is a bit narrower inside than the old 500, and it's given up some headroom and legroom in the back seat. It was still big enough for me to fit comfortably, but didn't have an abundance of room, like the old 500 did.
Oddly, the Impala is rated at 105 cubic feet of interior space, and 19 cubic feet of trunk space. Yet, I find the Impala to be horrible in back. My head hits the ceiling, and I can't fit back there unless the front seat is moved way forward. The Taurus feels roomier to me overall than the Impala, but you can't always go by those interior volumes. Some cars more room in the places where you DON'T need it. For example, when the Taurus was restyled for 2000, it went from 101 cubic feet of interior volume to 105. The reason was that the roof was restyled, and you got a lot more headroom, front and rear, at least at the point where they measure it. And that was enough to boost the interior volume. But the sides still curved in as much as they ever did, making the outboard passenger lean in. And there was no more shoulder room or legroom, so if that's where you needed more room, the extra 4 cubic feet the '00 Taurus gave you over the '99 did nothing for you. If you carried three people in the back seat, and the center passenger had a beehive hairdo, then you might benefit, but that's about it.
I found that too. We compared the 06 Impala to the 06 500 when my wife was deciding which car to choose. I sat in the back of the Impala and it was uncomfortably tight. No leg room at all. The 500 seemed limo like in comparison.
The Grand Prix has to be about the worst when it comes to car size vs interior room. At 97 cubic feet, it's only 3 more than a Cruze. I feel like I'm stuffed in a sardine can when ever I'm in the GP. The rear seat is dangerous for a tall adult.. My head will basically rest against the rear window. I wouldn't want to be rear ended while sitting back there, you might actually lose your head.
The old 500 had an abundance of rear leg room, even with the front seats all the way back.
That's really bad for a sedan. Heck, old mid-70's intermediates like my '76 LeMans, Cordoba, Torino/LTD-II/"small" T-bird had around 95 cubic feet of interior space!
I always thought the '04+ Grand Prix was a bit of an odd beast, like they tried to take one car and make it a coupe and a sedan at the same time. I thought the '97-03 GP was a really good looking car...another one that was hopelessly cramped for its size, but at least it had, IMO at least, really nice lines.
That's the optional head warmer feature. People pay good money for that! :P
Yeah it did, the 04 refresh was a step in the wrong direction. They did little to fix what was wrong and ruined what was right (exterior).
The interior design was a slight upgrade, but man has it aged poorly. What looked good in a photo, looks and feels cheap in reality.
But that was the "old" GM, seems GM has learned a bit from its past sins.
Regards,
OW
Sonata + Optima = Malibu + Impala. Watch out Accord and Camry...
If that happens, it just shows how anyone with determination can beat complacent GM-Government Rescued...as well as damaged Toyota and lackluster Honda.
Regards,
OW
That may be an oversimplification of it. Let's say GM buys all its headlight assemblies from company A and Ford buys from co. B. But Ford buys it's taillamps from Co. A. COmpany A goes belly up because of the loss of GM and Chrysler contracts. What happens when Ford can't get their Taillamp assy. molds and machinery out of Co A's bldg for 6 weeks so Company C can make them?? Ford's plant sits idle for 6 weeks!! Toyota can't get the Tacoma headlight assy. equiptment out of Company A to Co C for the same time frame?? Tacoma lines get shut down.
Now, because there is a 6 week delay, one of 2 things happen; either other suppliers begin to go belly up because of lost work from not only GM and C, but Ford and Toyota's shut lines, or Ford and Toyota must fork out money to continue to purchase parts from those suppliers, even though they aren't making any money from the shut down lines.
What makes you think that the other carmakers have the time to wait for a company to retool for them when they need their parts they can't get from a shuttered supplier NOW??
Of course it's a simplification. But the general idea holds. That's why I said the transition would be difficult.
When there is a critical demand for a product, people will flock to meet it. Of course there could be some delays.
I almost chose the Regal. Didn't want to take a risk when so soon into their attempt to re-build their name. Unstable to trust right now. For me atleast.
This insinuates that this company "A"'s business survives based on what happens to these 2 brands... which unless you lived under a rock, knew like the rest of us that they were circling the drain for the past 30+ years.
What a poor business model IMO. :sick:
It's been 40 years since center of the automotive universe revolved around Michigan. :lemon:
Pretty loose with the numbers there, buddy. You don't think that in 1972 Detroit was 'still the center of the automotive universe'?
I'd say you were a good 23, 24, 25 years off.
Our biggest customer? Government Motors...
Half of our business came from these guys, which in the grand scheme of things they do more overseas than in the US btw. China, India, Korea, Uzbekistan, Canada, Mexico, etc. These plants were buying more of our equipment while the US division was seeking bankruptcy and took 68 billion dollars from tax payers.
Our company survived just fine. No layoffs, no paycuts, no benefits lost... Sure, the sales took a minor hit, but that was maybe 5% of that was because of GM/C?
Shoot, we took more of a hit from the 100's of other companies we supplied to because the economy was so shaken by economic recession they were holding back until things got better. We adjusted just fine tho because we had well over 1000 accounts out there around the world.
My point is, in any business, diversity is key. Just like the choice to purchase a vehicle from any brand that builds the best product that meets my needs and my budget. Again, the world nor this Country should not revolve around what goes on in the golden towers of Detroilet. :shades:
lol, yup everything instantaneously and surprisingly went belly up in 1995... :lemon:
Now that Detroit is recovering from its 40 year decline the ruins question is being faced.
TIME magazine: Detroit and the Auto Industry have been in decline for 40+ years
You're forgetting a few things in parroting the falsehoods that were put forth by the auto industry.
First:
If you look at the Days-Supply of vehicles sitting on dealer's lots under normal circumstances, or the increased-supply when vehicle-demand fell in 2008, a 6 week delay in production would not have caused the dealer's lots to go empty. The vehicles already built would have lasted the market 9+ weeks.
Second: If the auto industry is a "national emergency problem" as was stated, the federal government could have still let GM and C fail. The federal government could then have given $ or loans to the suppliers so that they would not have shutdown 1 day! The Treasury could have transferred any number of billions of $'s overnight to their bank accounts as they did in TARP. GM and C could have failed, the suppliers saved, and the suppliers converted over to making the increased demand from other manufacturers.
The course of action that was chosen was simply the best option for the auto industry and UAW, who lobbied our politicians to protect their interests. It was not the best option for everyone, it was the best option for those with power and wealth! Just like the banks and Wall Street! Our government serves those with power and wealth!
How long before they crawl (or fly) back to capitol hill begging for more cash?
DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors has promoted veteran engineer and human resources executive Mary Barra to lead its vehicle development efforts, another step in a management shakeup led by new Chairman and CEO Dan Akerson.
Barra, 49, was named senior vice president for global product development on Thursday, replacing Vice Chairman Tom Stephens, who on Wednesday was moved to the new position of chief technology officer.
Barra's new job is arguably the most important at GM with responsibility for bringing cars and trucks to market that people want -- quickly and with no problems.
Akerson, who has been concerned about GM's product development, said in a statement that Barra will bring a "fresh perspective to the critically important job of developing vehicles that delight global customers.
The new CEO told reporters last week that the company is a year behind in vehicles due to spending cuts while it went through bankruptcy protection in 2009. The company had only one new vehicle to unveil at the Detroit auto show last week, a place where it normally shows off several new models and concept cars that often go into production.
GM CEO Bashing GM Management!
Regards,
OW
An HR executive?
Really?
In that position?
- Ray
Strikes me as very odd....
Do you love it? Do you hate it? Well, there it is, the way you made it!
That's the thing with American cars. You could spend 0 dollars on it over 100,000 miles and still consider it a lemon due to the LOW quality indicators.
Even if I had spent nothing keeping my Neon rolling, I'd of considered it a piece of junk. It is due to the signs of poor miserable quality, such as 1,000 rattles per second, glue seeping out of the window trimming, noises, clunks, clanks, raspy underperforming engine that guzzles more gas than it should, things falling apart (even if they did still theoretically work).
I admit I haven't driven a Kia since the 20th Century, but when I did, it made the Neon seem like it had German Bank Vault construction standards in comparison.
There's a scene in Jim Carrey's movie "The MASK" where his car just completely falls apart and all the pieces fall to the ground until he's basically left with a steering wheel in his hand and nothing around him. That scene is how I felt when driving the Neon around, like it could happen to me at any time.
There was no risk on flying in the space shuttle until the first explosion.
- Start importing cars from Australia and Europe. If it's already made, that saves hundreds of millions in new platform R&D as well as time. Modifying something to DOT standards is trivial by comparison.
- Streamline all of the brands into maybe 20 cars that are decent - and simply drop the rental filler. Truth to be told, there's zero reason to have a "full line" of vehicles. Building something to fill a hole in the market is pointless and wasteful.
- Move towards a single "GM" dealership and get rid of brand names entirely. "Envoy/Regal/Cruze" - all simply models. Or make them just names only, like how Toyota does with "Scion" (which are just "Toyota'" in Japan)
- Move towards a unified shopping experience. You go in, you talk to a sales consultant, and they help you configure your vehicle. (Mini does this already, so it can be done) But make it even less like a dealership. Take it one step further and make it like buying a house or insurance. More of an agent/client type of relationship. Very little inventory is kept on-site. Build to order should be the expected/default arrangement.
- Build cars that are different looking. Hire lesser known, hungrier, and more aggressive talent to do the sheet metal. George Lucas was famous for this early on, btw. Lots of unknown talent who worked harder and did very well because they were hell-bent on making it big. And it saves money. Stop hiring from the same design schools as your competition. In fact, stop hiring from design schools entirely and start hiring artists.
Note - this is a whole sub-topic here. The wrote junk that most design schools teach and expect results in nearly zero creativity in today's cookie-cutter students who have been forced to memorize and deal with "standardized curriculum" all of their lives. Instead of creativity and flexibility(which is the real determiner of intelligence), you get a trained monkey who has a learned skill-set that enables them to get good grades in their classes. You want talent and you get the art equivalent of MBAs who can draw. So of course most of your cars look like your competition.
And it's a crying shame, since we're talking about metal and plastic. You could make your car look like almost anything. But we get jellybeans instead. In this generation of forced complacency, over-reaction to individuality, and a systematic crushing of the middle class, people crave the ability to stand out and be different more than ever. If you build something that looks different, enough people will buy it simply because it's not a toaster on wheels.
The CTS is a perfect example of what to do - it needs to be as identifiable from 500ft away as an Olds 442 looked different from a GTO (back in the day). "Different looking than our competition" should be a mantra again. Also, that the CTS drives as well as it does, well that helps a lot, too..
edit
Buick's new vehicle should frankly replace the Regal. Why? Because despite having 2 cubic ft less space inside than the Regal, it weighs 400 lbs less. And that makes a tremendous difference. 2-3mpg alone - the reason fuel economy from the 4 cylinder in the Regal is uninspiring is because the car is over 3700lbs!
The engine in the new vehicle is powerful enough to get the job done, while the Regal just suffers. Too costly, not enough power compared to the competition, and slightly too large and soft to really fit into its intended market segment. If I was running GM, I'd toss the Regal and Lucerne. Both seem useless at this point. Nobody will buy the Regal once this comes out, and nobody buys the Lucerne, because if they want a big car, they buy a Cadillac for a little more money than the Lucerne.
I had to check which forum I was in. I thought I was in the Toyota discussion with the runaway toyotas exploding, crashing, burning! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That describes most of the GM products I've had experience with.
No, all it insinuates is that with such small profit margins for a supplier, one contract that big could mean the difference between making a profit and having a loss.
I was going to reply to bvdj84 on a similar point.
You may very well be right that a Cruze based Regal and a "Lacrosse based" Lacrosse may fill all the price points and sell as many cars as all 3 models. Maybe they are getting too cute there.
But I was looking at the sales figures. For 2010, GM's trio of Compact cuv's (Equinox, Terrain and SRX) all posted triple digit gains over the outgoing models (sub the Torrent for the Terrain). The SRX was a RWD variant last year. This year they moved it to the same platform as the others. So, that one worked
There have been rumors that the next gen Escalade will be a Lambda crossover. That would make 4. I know that has caused a lot of criticism. But, looking at the sales figures, Which one would you eliminate (Acadia or Enclave)??? I can't find full year sales, but thru Nov. GM sold 48,792 Enclaves and 60,677 Acadias. Note GM sold 13,832 Tahoe based Escalades. I just can't see GM selling a combined 125,000 Lambdas if you dropped one (not including the Traverse). However, I could see 135,000-150,000 if you kept all 3.
So, I don't think it's just that easy to say what to make and what to drop.
The Lucerne is, well, pointless like the Avalon is. It fills another in-between spot that doesn't really have a solid market. Anyone who wants a big luxury or semi-luxury sedan will just but something better or if they are loyal to GM, a Cadillac at the end of the year for about the same price.
In 2010, Toyota sold 28,000 of them, mostly to fleets.
Lucerne Sales:
2005 8,821
2006 96,515
2007 82,923
2008 54,930
2009 31,292
2010 26,459
It's time to toss this model for sure.
note - the new Regal is *barely* out-selling the Lucerne, which places it as a solid failure as a new car. The expected buying bubble the first year was stone cold dead and typical of the end of a production run. I fully expect the new Verano to sell 3-5X the Regal's numbers and be a solid performer long-term. Note: the CTS sold 45,000 units, which places it at exactly the Mini's sales figures. Not bad. 20K a year is a waste of R&D and money.
Let's start a list for dead weight.
Buick: Regal and Lucerne
Cadillac: DTS, STS, and the Escalade variations. (2K total sales - don't bother even producing them.)
Chevrolet: Cobalt (don't produce cheap junk, at any price-point) and ???
GM Trucks: Colorado/Canyon and ???
2004[9] 117,475 27,193 144,668
2005[9] 128,359 34,845 163,204
2006[10] 93,876 23,979 117,855
2007[11] 75,716 20,888 96,604
2008[11] 54,346 14,974 69,320
2009[12] 32,413 10,107 42,520
2010[13] 24,642 7,992 32,634
Yeah, time to kill it as well. It's hopelessly outclassed by everything else by now.
Oh, and get a new catch-phrase/slogan for Chevrolet, as the common joke now is "(Drops) Like a Rock" - Almost every year sales for GM trucks decline as the model gets older and more dated.
So what do you buy if you want a full size car but not the luxury price tag?
Lucerne Sales:
2005 8,821
2006 96,515
2007 82,923
2008 54,930
2009 31,292
2010 26,459
This sales drop is pretty common once a model has been introduced. If you were to look at the Avalon since 05 (redesign year) the same thing happened.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Icon I6L Golf Cart
GM needs to take a page from BMW and simply not get involved with the budget and fleet sales any more than is absolutely necessary. Move from the 1950s era thinking of brand loyalty and instead make cars that are the step up and what you buy after you've tried the budget stuff from other makers.
And the real deal-sealer for the Verano is.... wait for it... A manual option. This further relegates the Regal to uselessness. And it is kind of required if for no reason than to take a chunk out of TSX sales/cover that sporty segment since all of the competition offers a manual option. Even if it is mostly for marketing purposes, it's important. You shouldn't just give 10-20% of your potential sales to other brands.
What's the median income in this country - about $40K? Who wants to spend about $450/month + insurances + gas on a new blah-mobile. Another 190" long, silver or gray, 4-door sedan with a mediocre 4 or 6 cyl engine, that will lose 50% of its value in a few years?
Thus you see auto manufacturers spending over a billion $ per model to design a vehicle that sells less than 100K units to a population of over 300 Million.
My biggest disappointment of recent years with GM's styling was the Camaro. I owned a '98 6-cyl Camaro, and then later traded for an '01 V-8 Firebird. Those cars despite their shortcomings, were much lighter and better styled than the new Camaro which is overweight and has visibility issues. I've bought 4 new GM products in the past, never had any serious problems, used to have a GM card; but nothing today excites me about their products. A Corvette is decent but I'm getting tired of the design, and I certainly wouldn't buy a new one given their optioned prices, when a slightly used one can be had for so much less.