I drive a Mazdaspeed 6 which I consider "sporty". About 275 hp turbo 4, with AWD and limited-slip. Bose standard. 28 mpg highway. It cost me a little over $22K new in 2008.
I don't see myself going down to a Buick dealer to try a Regal, or to any other GM store to try and find something better. Mazda released this vehicle-design in 2005. 5 years later where has GM progressed or even matched this?
I haven't heard all those Toyota lover's criticizing ALL the other automakers about the scrap they make, where are they now? Come on, all the car makers have recalls and issues with their cars. The thing that bothers me with Toyota is they lied to our face while drivers were dying in their cars because of a faulty accelerator they still don't know how to fix. Toyota finally sends the owner of Toyota to the USA to repair the damage that has been done and admits they lied and witheld information that they had an accelleration problem. What about the 4 million siezed engines that Toyota built due to engine sludge, we never heard about that either. The best thing we can do is buy cars that are built in North America and not just assembled here to make it look they're an American car company. When you buy a foreign car the money, research and development and mostly jobs go back to Asia or wherever. If my neighbors don't have jobs, eventually neither will I.
Do you know that GM China is bigger than GM America?? GM in China sells more cars than here. And if GM is kicked out of China - it's going to go BK instantly. And GM gets all the money from selling its cars in China. C;mon buddy - get real. This is the era of globalisation. Where it is manufactured is more important now . :surprise:
So what do you buy if you want a full size car but not the luxury price tag?
Yeah, looks like the end of an era for yet another class of large-ish car. First, the big old mastodons of the 1970's started dropping off, with GM ditching them all for '77 (Except for the Eldo/Toro, which held on through '78), Ford, Mercury, and Mopar dropping them for '79, and Lincoln for '80.
Then the next range, of downsized full-sizers started dropping off, with Mopar for '82, GM phasing them out and giving up completely after 1996, and now Ford making the Panthers fleet/special order only, and on the verge of dropping them completely, if they haven't already.
And now that "tweener" style of car is starting to disappear...cars like the Avalon and Lucerne and 300C/Charger, cars that might be classified as full-size by the EPA, but in my mind, fall about half way in between what a full-size and a midsized car should be.
Once upon a time, GM really had control of this market, with the FWD C and H bodies, and later the G-body. Chrysler sort of got into it, with the Intrepid/Concorde, but IMO, Ford really didn't start in this market until the 500/Montego. But the Taurus seems smaller to me. The EPA has it listed at 102 cubic feet of interior room...the same as a 1978-83 Malibu sedan. I have trouble calling that a "big" car, even though the Taurus has about 3 more cubic feet of trunk space.
And the Avalon's not bad inside, but doesn't it have like a 14 cubic foot trunk? That's a compact, in my book!
Exactly what I'm trying to say. The once biggest North American company needed to set up shop in China and created a lot of Chinese jobs when we already had them here. Why? Because Americans think they can buy things and not have to check where they're made. The Chinese love GM vehicles and purchase them because they create jobs there. What is BK? If your job goes to China and you're out of work should I care? I better.
They didn't go to China because they had to. They went with dollar signs in their eyes because they saw the enormous market developing there. Good move on their part.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It was a good move but they really did have to go to China because North America is flooded with foreign cars, not just Asian. And some of them have zero interest in North America. If North Americans aren't buying GM cars like they used to then they had no choice but to find another market. You won't find too many GM cars in Japan or Korea. They know better.
I'm also getting a bit concerned about GM model proliferation, as well as musical chairs in the executive ranks. I think GM should be focusing their money in two areas:
1. Improve or replace the 2.4L Ecotec 4 banger. The engine just doesn't drive as nicely as some of the competition. It barely gets by in the base LaCrosse, where I think a Camry or Accord 4 banger would do much better. Gas is going to $5 or better in this decade. Not just growing global demand, but increasing need for tax revenues and infrastructure is going to drive up gasoline taxes. This means an engine in this size area is going to probably become a pretty standard powerplant in a lot of vehicles.
2. Increase the use of high tensile steel, aluminum and other materials to reduce weight. Face it, a lot of GM vehicles are kind of porkers compared to many transplants, although I'll admit that Ford may even be worse in this area.
Model proliferation is like brand proliferation, it wastes resources by leading to too much duplication and frequently consumer confusion. Spend those resources improving product competitiveness instead.
I'm also getting a bit concerned about GM model proliferation, as well as musical chairs in the executive ranks.
Agreed. You know you can pull the company out of the trash, but can you remove the trash from the company? Not enough change in divisions, models, management, or company DNA.
I agree with you about the 4 cylinder. Honda definitely makes the best one. But GM has cut a lot of models from their lineup which is better than it used to be and most of GM's engines are almost all lightweight aluminum and plastic. Their 3.6L V6 is an amazing engine(camaro). Some of the V8's are still the old style cast iron block, push rod but I beleive they are working on an overhead cam V8 that will compare to 3.6L with an aluminum block and they are already making a lightweight aluminum V8. I'd like to see North America get back some of the auto jobs we've lost to foreign countries. Even third world countries are getting on board.
The 3.6L is competitive, but has a reputation for eating timing chains. GM mothballed their plans for an OHC V8 to replace the Northstar, which will be dropped with the Lucerne and DTS in a year or so.
And now that "tweener" style of car is starting to disappear...cars like the Avalon and Lucerne and 300C/Charger, cars that might be classified as full-size by the EPA, but in my mind, fall about half way in between what a full-size and a midsized car should be.
Its a shame. I will always be a "full size" car driver while I can still get them. My Genesis is fairly roomy, but I am used to something bigger. I had an Avalon and the interior was really huge but as you mention the trunk was kind of small.
Hopefully the market can keep the larger sedans around for awhile. Its going to get pretty dull if all the sedans are either CamCord size or Civic size.
Is GM going to bring back something like the G8 as a Chevy or Buick? That would interest me.
Again. I ask, if the Escalade is produced on the Lambda instead of the GMT, what model do you kill, Acadia or Enclave??? In 11 months, GM sold about 110,000 of those 2 models. I can't see either one nameplate selling that many. The Escalade had a little over 13,000 sold thru Nov. Even if they sold 30,000 Lambda Escalades, I can't see just an Acadia OR an Enclave selling 85-90,000. But both of them? Yes.
".....Is GM going to bring back something like the G8 as a Chevy or Buick? That would interest me. "
I believe so. At some point Caddy is getting the XTS, and I believe that the new Lucerne will be based off of that, as well as the Impala. It will ride on what they call the "Super Epsillon" platform
You kill the brand and the name. Whether the dealer currently sells a GMC, Buick, or Cadillac, they all get the same basic vehicle with a GM-badge on it. Every dealer still gets the vehicle. The reason you'd lose sales iis if the dealer stops carrying the vehicle. But don't do that. Each brand and dealer still gets the vehicle.
However the vehicle would be presented in 3 Options at each dealer. There would be no difference between a GMC dealer, a Buick dealer, and a Cadillac dealer. You could buy the base version (equipped like a GMC), a mid-version (Buick equipment) or Premium (Cadillac). Sell 1 vehicle with 3 option levels to it.
If you did that you could actually INCREASE sales, as it would give each dealer more options. For example if I have a GMC dealer 5 miles away, but I want the premium version - more than GMC, but the nearest Cadillac dealer is 60 miles away, GM might lose a sale because I go over to Ford or Jeep which are 6 miles away.
Each GM dealer no matter what they hang-up for a sign now, should have been given the right to sell ANY GM vehicle. GM could have simplified their lineup to 10 or so basic vehicles, which would come with different option levels, and be sold thru all their dealers. Maybe Saab and Hummer would have been a success if you could go into any GM dealer, see and buy one, and have the service much more local?
There are admittals of engines with as little as 4,000 miles having timing chains replaced. It's leaving alot of them scratching their heads as to why a 6 year old design is still affected by GM's cost cutting.
Wait a second tho, where is "uplanderguy" to tell me I'm full of it and making it up? Maybe he can parade into that forum and tell the "experts" that they're "full of it" too... :P
The very basic difference, anything, between your posts and mine, is that I don't claim the vast superiority of domestics over foreign, as you and others here do the reverse. You'll post about a recall of 2,900 GM vehicles, while saying nothing about foreign-maker recalls in the millions. Why is that?
And do you still claim you saw two SRX's, out of the recall of 2,900, on fire? I mean, really.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I know someone that had that happen to his wife's '08 CTS. Actually, it was one of many issues with that car, but his wife liked the car enough that they traded it in on a 2010 CTS. So far the new one has been much better. IIRC, the 08 had the timing chain issue within the first 10k miles.
GM is hardly alone when it comes to such design issues. If I like the car and the manufacturer properly fixes the issue, I can deal with it.
Amen, brother! By some of these posters' logic, I can go to Wal~Mart and buy an unassembled bicycle made entirely of Chinese-manufactured parts, put it together, and then claim it was "Made in the USA!"
My idea of a "full-size affordable car" is something like my Mercury Grand Marquis. I've thought of cars like the Lucerne, 500/Montego, Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300 as "tweener" cars too. They're to full-size cars what the Dodge Dakota was to pickup trucks. Even my Cadillac DTS seems diminutive for my tastes. I'd hate to have to spend the money for something like a Mercedes S600 in the future to get a car of the size I prefer.
Well, you missed it then. Unfortunately, my angry response to one of our resident trolls who posted around the same time got deleted by Steve due to my poor use of language...
But, if you read the link I posted, I saw (1) SRX on fire in upstate NY and when I googled looking for a recall I found the article on the other one which was from Michigan...
And actually I think you've got me wrong. I don't claim superiority of anything. I like cars from all over the world and just so you are aware?
"......Each GM dealer no matter what they hang-up for a sign now, should have been given the right to sell ANY GM vehicle."
THAT is what would help sales across the board. Especially if every dealer had to treat their Chevy customers like Caddy customers. State franchise laws being what they are........
If you go and price an Acadia and Enclave, the price points are perilously close together. And that is what I think draws the most criticism. But, the only thing I can't get out of my mind is when you consider the difference in looks. I'm sure you recall the days when you could look at an early '80's Sedan Deville, Delta 88 and Lesabre, and you could tell that if you put the nose of one and the tail of another on the third, it would fit, just like a Mr Potato Head!! But look at the 3 Lambda variants and picture the Escalade as one. In spite of the closeness in price points, they do LOOK different enough and have different "personalities", that I can't shake the idea that if you look at any one of the 3 current models, and they all have a price of $45K give or take $1500, that by eliminating one version you may lose sales.
In other words, all things being equal, people may just prefer one style over another, and dismiss the other 2 out of hand.
My idea of a "full-size affordable car" is something like my Mercury Grand Marquis. I've thought of cars like the Lucerne, 500/Montego, Dodge Charger/Chrysler 300 as "tweener" cars too.
The MGM is not all that roomy inside for its exterior dimensions. The 500/Montego was much bigger especially in terms of rear legroom. Heck my Avalon was bigger inside than my Grandfather's 03 MGM. I love the bigger true full size cars, but I really think they are gone. The Avalon, Lucernce and DTS are about as big as you get. The S, LS and 7 are also fairly large but they are in no means affordable.
When my Genesis comes off lease next May , I think I am going to buy a Town Car (a low mileage 2010/11) and keep it for a long time. Unless somthing really changes there are few new cars that really do it for me anymore.
With me, it isn't so much the interior dimensions as I simply like my cars to have that sleek and classic "long low and wide" profile.
True, the S, LS, and 7 are definitely not affordable. I think my DTS is about the ceiling of what I'd like to spend on a car and it is plenty luxurious enough for me. I don't even use half the features on it. They are merely cool things to show your friends when you first get the car and then remain unused.
The DTS is put away for the winter. I miss it, but the crappy winter weather and the salt would wreak havoc on the nice black finish. I'd shudder at the thought of running a snow brush across it! Swirl Mark Central! EEEEEK!!! :surprise:
I simply like my cars to have that sleek and classic "long low and wide" profile.
That makes sense. I have similar tastes.
I'd shudder at the thought of running a snow brush across it! Swirl Mark Central! EEEEEK!!!
I don't blame you at all. Black cars take an absolute beating in the winter. If you can keep it off the road do it. They certainly don't spare the salt in Philly and South Jersey. This morning was a prime example of that.
Blacktop streets actually turn white after the snow is gone. Sometimes the salt itself will blow around in a fine mist when things start to dry. I'm constantly cleaning the Grand Marquis as a result. Fortunately that car is white and more forgiving of salt and snow brushes than a black car.
Heh. That said, Ford still does make the car and when you can get a last year model at the end of the year for $25K out the door, with leather and all the goodies, it's a fine choice. Given that Ford will keep making the platform forever, due to fleet sales (they have nothing in the works to replace the Town Car for limo use), you can be happy.
I do miss the Roadmaster, though. Excellent vehicle. But GM lost 2-3K on every one it made.
All of that said, the size classes have all dropped by one size due to more rounded roof lines and more sound deadening materials eating up interior space.
Amen, brother! By some of these posters' logic, I can go to Wal~Mart and buy an unassembled bicycle made entirely of Chinese-manufactured parts, put it together, and then claim it was "Made in the USA!"
So tell us which cars are full of Chinese parts? The only significant Chinese parts I know about were the engines from the previous Equinox. :shades:
Full sized? To me this is full sized. I always wanted one of these but couldn't afford it at the time. Good thing too as it was the last since the '73 gas crisis.
I don't know much about those SUV's, so let me pick an example I do know. Let's consider the Pontiac Solstice and the Saturn Sky, which as we both know have met their demise.
Now say the market for that basic vehicle was 50,000 / year, which might be close. GM spent $ to develop the basic parts, but then spent EXTRA $ to make 2 sets of parts that differentiated the Solstice from the Sky. They had different dash, different body pieces, badging, 2 sets of brochures and advertising for each. They spent many, many millions of $'s by creating 2 models from the same vehicle. Maybe the sales were split 30K for the Pontiac and 20K for the Sky. So when you take those many millions spent and you divide it by how many you sold, that is all extra cost you took on. So in the end you now have to price the average Solstice at $30K and the average Sky at $32K. But if you didn't spend those extra millions, you could now afford to offer the vehicle at $23K, $26K, and 29K, cutting the cost to the consumer by thousands of $'s.
And when you cut the cost of your vehicles (or any product), your sales are going to rise. The vehicle would then look that much more attractive to those who are out contemplating a Miata or Mustang convertible.
It's a fine strategy to differentiate when you're selling the same vehicle at 300K units and 250K units and can better absorb the extra millions in cost to do each model/brand. But when you're sales are low on these vehicles, you really can't justify spending $25M to sell 20K of a model, increasing the cost for that vehicle.
As you said some of the problem may be franchise laws of each state for the dealers. That is why I said the whole GM-system needed to be shutdown and rebooted, and all suppliers, dealers, and workers came in and signed new agreements to make an efficient 21st century operation.
With the coming mpg-requirements, you'll still be able to purchase full-size vehicles, but I bet there won't be many and thus you'll pay a premium.
Either that or you'll be gettign a diesel or hybrid. The days of an affordable Lucerne and similar vehicles being built, are numbered. In a decade or 2, you'll want to start shopping at the Barrett-Jackson auto auction, looking for custom restorations.
Now say the market for that basic vehicle was 50,000 / year, which might be close. GM spent $ to develop the basic parts, but then spent EXTRA $ to make 2 sets of parts that differentiated the Solstice from the Sky. They had different dash, different body pieces, badging, 2 sets of brochures and advertising for each. They spent many, many millions of $'s by creating 2 models from the same vehicle. Maybe the sales were split 30K for the Pontiac and 20K for the Sky. So when you take those many millions spent and you divide it by how many you sold, that is all extra cost you took on. So in the end you now have to price the average Solstice at $30K and the average Sky at $32K. But if you didn't spend those extra millions, you could now afford to offer the vehicle at $23K, $26K, and 29K, cutting the cost to the consumer by thousands of $'s.
I used to make the similar argument a few years ago when 62vetteefp was here. He would respectfully argue that it didn't cost that much more to make a few more parts, and that the other divisions had different demographics and so the sales were greatly increased at fairly small cost.
Of course I didn't really believe it much, although I could see that there might be some truth to it. But of course the market did what it did and now GM has far fewer divisions (although still way too many IMHO).
A company like Apple has shown that you don't have to be the market share leader to be a profit leader. GM couldn't make any money even though they were the biggest. They should worry less about reduced sales, and more about profitability. And that of course means making better vehicles that command higher prices. It will be better for them, and the U.S., if they are smaller but more innovative and successful.
You want FULL-SIZE? I once had one of these in Georgian Silver with a dark blue top and dark blue interior. This one belongs to a member of the Cadillac club to which I am a member:
My Grandfather had one of those in a pale yellow. I was too young, but I've seen it in pictures. I wonder if they are bigger than my 79 Continental was.
That's a beautiful Caddy. I really liked the subtle revisions on the '75 and '76, much better than the '73 and '74. Ever see a Calais from that period? You could get a plaid interior!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
That is a handsome looking car. I thought all of the Marquis/Grand Marquis models from '73-78 were good looking cars. In 1973-74, you could even get them in a true 4-door hardtop with no B-pillar, although they were pretty rare. Most of them were of that thin-pillar style, with the frameless windows.
As big as those cars were though, according to EPA measurements they're really not that huge inside. For instance, the EPA lists the 1978 Grand Marquis as having 108 cubic feet of passenger space, and 23 cubic feet of trunk space. The Ford LTD had 106 cubic feet for passengers and 23 cubic feet of trunk. A '78 Chrysler Newport/New Yorker 4-door only has 107 cubic feet of passenger space and 22 cubic feet of trunk.
My 2000 Park Ave actually has 111 cubic feet of passenger space, technically roomier than those 70's mastodons! Yet it doesn't feel nearly as big inside to me. I've tried sitting in the back of my Park Ave and my knees brush against the seatback, but I remember sitting in those mastodon Chryslers and having room to spare. Can't remember how the Ford and Mercurys were, though...been awhile since I've been in one of those. I think the difference is that those old cars were long and low, and inside they might have had good shoulder room and legroom, but they didn't have as much headroom inside as today's newer cars. That didn't always mean your head was more likely to hit the ceiling in those cars though, as the seats tended to sit lower as well.
And, if you add, say, an inch of headroom to any given car, that will increase the interior volume more than adding an inch of shoulder room. But, it may not make the car feel any bigger inside, unless your head happened to be already be touching the ceiling.
Also, with those older cars, you didn't always have as much intrusion from wheel wells, transmission/dashboard humps, dashboards, etc. Those are things that can make a car feel more cramped, but won't necessarily affect interior volume the way the EPA calculates it.
He would respectfully argue that it didn't cost that much more to make a few more parts,
I agree with 62vettefp if it's a few parts. However I think we both know that it's more than a few parts! The problem with having 2 models instead of 1 isn't just the extra drawings, and the extra tooling that the suppliers need to setup; it's the xtra testing, the extra orders that Purchasing needs to place, more part #'s to be inventoried and safety stocked, and because there are usually minimum orders for parts, it is likely that when production of the Solstice and Sky were stopped that there were extra parts leftover not just from 1 model but now from 2.
A company like Apple has shown that you don't have to be the market share leader to be a profit leader.
A company like Apple also runs stores where you can meet someone worth $50 or $50M. GM is not selling Rolls Royces, Mercedes, or Ferraris that have some real brand prestige, where you expect something special.
And that of course means making better vehicles that command higher prices.
That is the only thing I really disagree with your post. If anything this economy is shrinking the pool of new carbuyers. There's a disconnect right now with vehicles getting more loaded and more expensive, with people really getting hit with inflation; I'm not sure how the F eds can miss the energy, health insurance, and food increases! If I were GM I would concentrate on how to make exciting, unique vehicles in the $15K range, and sell to the many millions who want a new vehicle but can't afford the average $25K+. VW is selling a Jetta for around $15K. GM should be targetting that, and beating that vehicle soundly in performance, cost, and mpg. If the Cruze is that competitor, GM needed to come in around $13K with a business-plan to sell about 400K units to minimize the fixed costs of the design and the factory.
>>> A company like Apple has shown that you don't have to be the market share leader to be a profit leader.
A company like Apple also runs stores where you can meet someone worth $50 or $50M. GM is not selling Rolls Royces, Mercedes, or Ferraris that have some real brand prestige, where you expect something special.
Well Apple was getting a premium for the Mac long BEFORE Apple had dedicated stores. Of course Apple's approach to stores was revolutionary, as many other makers (Dell, Compaq) had tried and failed. Most people thought Apple was a joke when they tried to do stores. Of course now nobody is laughing.
Just goes to show you that GM could be a lot more innovative. There is more than the vehicle itself. They could have company demo facilities, and then you order on the internet and it is delivered to your home from some central storage location in a couple of days. Of course the franchises probably preclude that, along with the numerous (still) brands. If they could have really done a longer BK then they might have killed off some of the dealer franchises and the UAW. As it is, I wonder if they did enough to be successful. Or will they do well until the next recession, then their soft underbelly could become vulnerable again?
>>>And that of course means making better vehicles that command higher prices.
That is the only thing I really disagree with your post. If anything this economy is shrinking the pool of new carbuyers. There's a disconnect right now with vehicles getting more loaded and more expensive, with people really getting hit with inflation; I'm not sure how the F eds can miss the energy, health insurance, and food increases! If I were GM I would concentrate on how to make exciting, unique vehicles in the $15K range, and sell to the many millions who want a new vehicle but can't afford the average $25K+. VW is selling a Jetta for around $15K. GM should be targetting that, and beating that vehicle soundly in performance, cost, and mpg. If the Cruze is that competitor, GM needed to come in around $13K with a business-plan to sell about 400K units to minimize the fixed costs of the design and the factory.
I agree with you in principle, but perhaps what I should have said was "...vehicles that command higher prices for the class of vehicle." I agree an exciting $15K vehicle would be good. But perhaps it is very entry level (city commuter car?), but not cheap. GM has done cheap so well over the years (especially in the entry and midsized cars) that they need to change that market impression. So as you can get a Cruze with a 4 cyl for $28K, but boy it is REALLY high quality and nice inside. Sure it is expensive, but you know and see you are paying for high quality.
Sort of like an Apple product. GM should exceed the quality of competitors in the same class. If it is a bit more expensive, that's ok, as the vehicle will be more profitable. The alternative is the low rent vehicles. We can see how well Chrysler did with big, cheap, unrefined cars. Nobody wants them as their own personal vehicles unless they are desperate. And even then they'd rather buy a used Honda.
".....It's a fine strategy to differentiate when you're selling the same vehicle at 300K units and 250K units "
And that is about where you are for the Lambda trio; 250,000 units selling for probably $40,000 on average. Now, add another 30,000 Escalades at $65,000 (and remember, although there is none available, a 5.3 V8 will fit in the engine compartment---Escalade only???) tell me they'd be foolish not to add it to the lineup.
The Thetas (SRX, etc) have sold over 250,000 as well, and there are 3 of them.
Comments
I don't see myself going down to a Buick dealer to try a Regal, or to any other GM store to try and find something better. Mazda released this vehicle-design in 2005. 5 years later where has GM progressed or even matched this?
Yeah, looks like the end of an era for yet another class of large-ish car. First, the big old mastodons of the 1970's started dropping off, with GM ditching them all for '77 (Except for the Eldo/Toro, which held on through '78), Ford, Mercury, and Mopar dropping them for '79, and Lincoln for '80.
Then the next range, of downsized full-sizers started dropping off, with Mopar for '82, GM phasing them out and giving up completely after 1996, and now Ford making the Panthers fleet/special order only, and on the verge of dropping them completely, if they haven't already.
And now that "tweener" style of car is starting to disappear...cars like the Avalon and Lucerne and 300C/Charger, cars that might be classified as full-size by the EPA, but in my mind, fall about half way in between what a full-size and a midsized car should be.
Once upon a time, GM really had control of this market, with the FWD C and H bodies, and later the G-body. Chrysler sort of got into it, with the Intrepid/Concorde, but IMO, Ford really didn't start in this market until the 500/Montego. But the Taurus seems smaller to me. The EPA has it listed at 102 cubic feet of interior room...the same as a 1978-83 Malibu sedan. I have trouble calling that a "big" car, even though the Taurus has about 3 more cubic feet of trunk space.
And the Avalon's not bad inside, but doesn't it have like a 14 cubic foot trunk? That's a compact, in my book!
1. Improve or replace the 2.4L Ecotec 4 banger. The engine just doesn't drive as nicely as some of the competition. It barely gets by in the base LaCrosse, where I think a Camry or Accord 4 banger would do much better. Gas is going to $5 or better in this decade. Not just growing global demand, but increasing need for tax revenues and infrastructure is going to drive up gasoline taxes. This means an engine in this size area is going to probably become a pretty standard powerplant in a lot of vehicles.
2. Increase the use of high tensile steel, aluminum and other materials to reduce weight. Face it, a lot of GM vehicles are kind of porkers compared to many transplants, although I'll admit that Ford may even be worse in this area.
Model proliferation is like brand proliferation, it wastes resources by leading to too much duplication and frequently consumer confusion. Spend those resources improving product competitiveness instead.
This is the GM forum. Your post wasn't about GM.
Agreed. You know you can pull the company out of the trash, but can you remove the trash from the company? Not enough change in divisions, models, management, or company DNA.
Clones abound. Management shakeups continue....China sales lead...competition offering better value...
No one mentioned the 1 new model unavailing at the home-town auto show.
Speaks volumes without ever saying anything else.
Regards,
OW
Its a shame. I will always be a "full size" car driver while I can still get them. My Genesis is fairly roomy, but I am used to something bigger. I had an Avalon and the interior was really huge but as you mention the trunk was kind of small.
Hopefully the market can keep the larger sedans around for awhile. Its going to get pretty dull if all the sedans are either CamCord size or Civic size.
Is GM going to bring back something like the G8 as a Chevy or Buick? That would interest me.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Again. I ask, if the Escalade is produced on the Lambda instead of the GMT, what model do you kill, Acadia or Enclave??? In 11 months, GM sold about 110,000 of those 2 models. I can't see either one nameplate selling that many. The Escalade had a little over 13,000 sold thru Nov. Even if they sold 30,000 Lambda Escalades, I can't see just an Acadia OR an Enclave selling 85-90,000. But both of them? Yes.
I believe so. At some point Caddy is getting the XTS, and I believe that the new Lucerne will be based off of that, as well as the Impala. It will ride on what they call the "Super Epsillon" platform
However the vehicle would be presented in 3 Options at each dealer. There would be no difference between a GMC dealer, a Buick dealer, and a Cadillac dealer. You could buy the base version (equipped like a GMC), a mid-version (Buick equipment) or Premium (Cadillac). Sell 1 vehicle with 3 option levels to it.
If you did that you could actually INCREASE sales, as it would give each dealer more options. For example if I have a GMC dealer 5 miles away, but I want the premium version - more than GMC, but the nearest Cadillac dealer is 60 miles away, GM might lose a sale because I go over to Ford or Jeep which are 6 miles away.
Each GM dealer no matter what they hang-up for a sign now, should have been given the right to sell ANY GM vehicle. GM could have simplified their lineup to 10 or so basic vehicles, which would come with different option levels, and be sold thru all their dealers. Maybe Saab and Hummer would have been a success if you could go into any GM dealer, see and buy one, and have the service much more local?
There's numerous threads out there about it, even GMI's mechanics and experts have a thread about it.
"3.6L Timing Chain Failures due to redesign?"
"Acadia 3.6L chain stretch "
There are admittals of engines with as little as 4,000 miles having timing chains replaced. It's leaving alot of them scratching their heads as to why a 6 year old design is still affected by GM's cost cutting.
Wait a second tho, where is "uplanderguy" to tell me I'm full of it and making it up? Maybe he can parade into that forum and tell the "experts" that they're "full of it" too... :P
And do you still claim you saw two SRX's, out of the recall of 2,900, on fire? I mean, really.
GM is hardly alone when it comes to such design issues. If I like the car and the manufacturer properly fixes the issue, I can deal with it.
But, if you read the link I posted, I saw (1) SRX on fire in upstate NY and when I googled looking for a recall I found the article on the other one which was from Michigan...
And actually I think you've got me wrong. I don't claim superiority of anything. I like cars from all over the world and just so you are aware?
I'm a Ford guy.
THAT is what would help sales across the board. Especially if every dealer had to treat their Chevy customers like Caddy customers. State franchise laws being what they are........
If you go and price an Acadia and Enclave, the price points are perilously close together. And that is what I think draws the most criticism. But, the only thing I can't get out of my mind is when you consider the difference in looks. I'm sure you recall the days when you could look at an early '80's Sedan Deville, Delta 88 and Lesabre, and you could tell that if you put the nose of one and the tail of another on the third, it would fit, just like a Mr Potato Head!! But look at the 3 Lambda variants and picture the Escalade as one. In spite of the closeness in price points, they do LOOK different enough and have different "personalities", that I can't shake the idea that if you look at any one of the 3 current models, and they all have a price of $45K give or take $1500, that by eliminating one version you may lose sales.
In other words, all things being equal, people may just prefer one style over another, and dismiss the other 2 out of hand.
The MGM is not all that roomy inside for its exterior dimensions. The 500/Montego was much bigger especially in terms of rear legroom. Heck my Avalon was bigger inside than my Grandfather's 03 MGM. I love the bigger true full size cars, but I really think they are gone. The Avalon, Lucernce and DTS are about as big as you get. The S, LS and 7 are also fairly large but they are in no means affordable.
When my Genesis comes off lease next May , I think I am going to buy a Town Car (a low mileage 2010/11) and keep it for a long time. Unless somthing really changes there are few new cars that really do it for me anymore.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
True, the S, LS, and 7 are definitely not affordable. I think my DTS is about the ceiling of what I'd like to spend on a car and it is plenty luxurious enough for me. I don't even use half the features on it. They are merely cool things to show your friends when you first get the car and then remain unused.
The DTS is put away for the winter. I miss it, but the crappy winter weather and the salt would wreak havoc on the nice black finish. I'd shudder at the thought of running a snow brush across it! Swirl Mark Central! EEEEEK!!! :surprise:
That makes sense. I have similar tastes.
I'd shudder at the thought of running a snow brush across it! Swirl Mark Central! EEEEEK!!!
I don't blame you at all. Black cars take an absolute beating in the winter. If you can keep it off the road do it. They certainly don't spare the salt in Philly and South Jersey. This morning was a prime example of that.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
I do miss the Roadmaster, though. Excellent vehicle. But GM lost 2-3K on every one it made.
All of that said, the size classes have all dropped by one size due to more rounded roof lines and more sound deadening materials eating up interior space.
So tell us which cars are full of Chinese parts? The only significant Chinese parts I know about were the engines from the previous Equinox. :shades:
Mercury Grand Marquis
Now say the market for that basic vehicle was 50,000 / year, which might be close. GM spent $ to develop the basic parts, but then spent EXTRA $ to make 2 sets of parts that differentiated the Solstice from the Sky. They had different dash, different body pieces, badging, 2 sets of brochures and advertising for each. They spent many, many millions of $'s by creating 2 models from the same vehicle. Maybe the sales were split 30K for the Pontiac and 20K for the Sky. So when you take those many millions spent and you divide it by how many you sold, that is all extra cost you took on. So in the end you now have to price the average Solstice at $30K and the average Sky at $32K. But if you didn't spend those extra millions, you could now afford to offer the vehicle at $23K, $26K, and 29K, cutting the cost to the consumer by thousands of $'s.
And when you cut the cost of your vehicles (or any product), your sales are going to rise. The vehicle would then look that much more attractive to those who are out contemplating a Miata or Mustang convertible.
It's a fine strategy to differentiate when you're selling the same vehicle at 300K units and 250K units and can better absorb the extra millions in cost to do each model/brand. But when you're sales are low on these vehicles, you really can't justify spending $25M to sell 20K of a model, increasing the cost for that vehicle.
As you said some of the problem may be franchise laws of each state for the dealers. That is why I said the whole GM-system needed to be shutdown and rebooted, and all suppliers, dealers, and workers came in and signed new agreements to make an efficient 21st century operation.
Either that or you'll be gettign a diesel or hybrid. The days of an affordable Lucerne and similar vehicles being built, are numbered. In a decade or 2, you'll want to start shopping at the Barrett-Jackson auto auction, looking for custom restorations.
I used to make the similar argument a few years ago when 62vetteefp was here. He would respectfully argue that it didn't cost that much more to make a few more parts, and that the other divisions had different demographics and so the sales were greatly increased at fairly small cost.
Of course I didn't really believe it much, although I could see that there might be some truth to it. But of course the market did what it did and now GM has far fewer divisions (although still way too many IMHO).
A company like Apple has shown that you don't have to be the market share leader to be a profit leader. GM couldn't make any money even though they were the biggest. They should worry less about reduced sales, and more about profitability. And that of course means making better vehicles that command higher prices. It will be better for them, and the U.S., if they are smaller but more innovative and successful.
1975 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
That is one nice Caddy.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
As big as those cars were though, according to EPA measurements they're really not that huge inside. For instance, the EPA lists the 1978 Grand Marquis as having 108 cubic feet of passenger space, and 23 cubic feet of trunk space. The Ford LTD had 106 cubic feet for passengers and 23 cubic feet of trunk. A '78 Chrysler Newport/New Yorker 4-door only has 107 cubic feet of passenger space and 22 cubic feet of trunk.
My 2000 Park Ave actually has 111 cubic feet of passenger space, technically roomier than those 70's mastodons! Yet it doesn't feel nearly as big inside to me. I've tried sitting in the back of my Park Ave and my knees brush against the seatback, but I remember sitting in those mastodon Chryslers and having room to spare. Can't remember how the Ford and Mercurys were, though...been awhile since I've been in one of those. I think the difference is that those old cars were long and low, and inside they might have had good shoulder room and legroom, but they didn't have as much headroom inside as today's newer cars. That didn't always mean your head was more likely to hit the ceiling in those cars though, as the seats tended to sit lower as well.
And, if you add, say, an inch of headroom to any given car, that will increase the interior volume more than adding an inch of shoulder room. But, it may not make the car feel any bigger inside, unless your head happened to be already be touching the ceiling.
Also, with those older cars, you didn't always have as much intrusion from wheel wells, transmission/dashboard humps, dashboards, etc. Those are things that can make a car feel more cramped, but won't necessarily affect interior volume the way the EPA calculates it.
I agree with 62vettefp if it's a few parts. However I think we both know that it's more than a few parts! The problem with having 2 models instead of 1 isn't just the extra drawings, and the extra tooling that the suppliers need to setup; it's the xtra testing, the extra orders that Purchasing needs to place, more part #'s to be inventoried and safety stocked, and because there are usually minimum orders for parts, it is likely that when production of the Solstice and Sky were stopped that there were extra parts leftover not just from 1 model but now from 2.
A company like Apple has shown that you don't have to be the market share leader to be a profit leader.
A company like Apple also runs stores where you can meet someone worth $50 or $50M. GM is not selling Rolls Royces, Mercedes, or Ferraris that have some real brand prestige, where you expect something special.
And that of course means making better vehicles that command higher prices.
That is the only thing I really disagree with your post. If anything this economy is shrinking the pool of new carbuyers. There's a disconnect right now with vehicles getting more loaded and more expensive, with people really getting hit with inflation; I'm not sure how the F eds can miss the energy, health insurance, and food increases! If I were GM I would concentrate on how to make exciting, unique vehicles in the $15K range, and sell to the many millions who want a new vehicle but can't afford the average $25K+. VW is selling a Jetta for around $15K. GM should be targetting that, and beating that vehicle soundly in performance, cost, and mpg. If the Cruze is that competitor, GM needed to come in around $13K with a business-plan to sell about 400K units to minimize the fixed costs of the design and the factory.
A company like Apple also runs stores where you can meet someone worth $50 or $50M. GM is not selling Rolls Royces, Mercedes, or Ferraris that have some real brand prestige, where you expect something special.
Well Apple was getting a premium for the Mac long BEFORE Apple had dedicated stores. Of course Apple's approach to stores was revolutionary, as many other makers (Dell, Compaq) had tried and failed. Most people thought Apple was a joke when they tried to do stores. Of course now nobody is laughing.
Just goes to show you that GM could be a lot more innovative. There is more than the vehicle itself. They could have company demo facilities, and then you order on the internet and it is delivered to your home from some central storage location in a couple of days. Of course the franchises probably preclude that, along with the numerous (still) brands. If they could have really done a longer BK then they might have killed off some of the dealer franchises and the UAW. As it is, I wonder if they did enough to be successful. Or will they do well until the next recession, then their soft underbelly could become vulnerable again?
That is the only thing I really disagree with your post. If anything this economy is shrinking the pool of new carbuyers. There's a disconnect right now with vehicles getting more loaded and more expensive, with people really getting hit with inflation; I'm not sure how the F eds can miss the energy, health insurance, and food increases! If I were GM I would concentrate on how to make exciting, unique vehicles in the $15K range, and sell to the many millions who want a new vehicle but can't afford the average $25K+. VW is selling a Jetta for around $15K. GM should be targetting that, and beating that vehicle soundly in performance, cost, and mpg. If the Cruze is that competitor, GM needed to come in around $13K with a business-plan to sell about 400K units to minimize the fixed costs of the design and the factory.
I agree with you in principle, but perhaps what I should have said was "...vehicles that command higher prices for the class of vehicle." I agree an exciting $15K vehicle would be good. But perhaps it is very entry level (city commuter car?), but not cheap. GM has done cheap so well over the years (especially in the entry and midsized cars) that they need to change that market impression. So as you can get a Cruze with a 4 cyl for $28K, but boy it is REALLY high quality and nice inside. Sure it is expensive, but you know and see you are paying for high quality.
Sort of like an Apple product. GM should exceed the quality of competitors in the same class. If it is a bit more expensive, that's ok, as the vehicle will be more profitable. The alternative is the low rent vehicles. We can see how well Chrysler did with big, cheap, unrefined cars. Nobody wants them as their own personal vehicles unless they are desperate. And even then they'd rather buy a used Honda.
And that is about where you are for the Lambda trio; 250,000 units selling for probably $40,000 on average. Now, add another 30,000 Escalades at $65,000 (and remember, although there is none available, a 5.3 V8 will fit in the engine compartment---Escalade only???) tell me they'd be foolish not to add it to the lineup.
The Thetas (SRX, etc) have sold over 250,000 as well, and there are 3 of them.