One problem I've noticed with Hyundais is that it seems like they're pretty easy to total. I've known a few people who have had their Hyudais totaled, with what appeared to be very little damage. So, either they're still depreciating fast to where they're not worth fixing, or they're vulnerable to internal damage that's not obvious at a quick glance, or both?
Just recently, a friend of mine had his Sonata totaled when he rear-ended a truck. I forget the year and the mileage of the Sonata, but it was younger and lower mileage than my 2000 Intrepid when it got totaled, and the damage appeared much less, as well. I think it was around a 2003?
I guess time will tell, if the new ones prove themselves better in this regard. I have a friend who's Mom has a 2002 Sonata that she bought when it was about 1-2 years old, and it's been a good car for her.
I wouldn't be afraid to drive a Hyundai, but I just don't care for the style of the new Sonata. I kinda like the Kia Optima, though!
It has been said for decades that it is much more difficult to get a good paint job on fiberglass than steel. There are no fiberglass Hyndais. Incidentally, a base Vette can be had for about $50K. The paint job wouldn't be any different than on the $100K "examples" you posted. Still the best value in an all-out sports car.
Gee, news about bad Excels and S'Coupes are 'outdated', yet you still mention Vegas. Sheesh.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I have no problem with GM failing on their own and trying again on their own.
It's a little different when you have many lives in the balance and the corporation refuses to change the things that are immensely and obviously wrong until failure resulted.
I would purchase a Hyundai or Kia over GM....and a lot of people are doing the same....just like the Toyota and Honda customers did that drove GM's market share from the 50% - 20% today. :shades:
That is a very legitimate area, but unfortunately like economic impact it can also be very gray. I think if you asked 20 people what the lost opportunity cost was from GM you'd get 20 different answers ranging from your position of putting the money in the stock market (although I'm not sure the gov can actually do that) to worse opportunity cost not doing it because of increased unemployment ramifications. My real point is that I believe some of the political extremists and media are consciously overstating the actual cost impact from it.
Be honest...you REALLY don't want to defend the history of GM and calculate the cost with a pencil and calculator. You really believe it was wrong....right?
GM has made a lot of mistakes no doubt, but I truly believe Bush and Obama made their decisions on the potential macroeconomic fallout, not the microelectronic aspects of GM per se. Some are truly exaggerating the cost of the bailout. Don't really need a pencil and calculator; the federal budget is in the trillions which has more zeroes than the 64 Billion GM got (let alone the far lower number that will eventually result from GM payment of loans and interest and gov return on stock sales (if done smartly, the gov may actually turn a profit on this down the road). Uplanderguy's tax is probably somewhere around $15-18K based on his income and probable tax bracket - now that's many, many fewer zeroes. The cost impact on an average American citizen from the GM bailout is mathematically negligible, rather than the distortion of its impact by some of these extreme media pundits. You actually perceive there are major issues remaining at GM after the bailout that are brewing just under the corporate communications umbrella, right?
Not really. GM is a different company today than a decade ago with different management and leadership, as well as a much slimmer cost structure. Barring a significant double dip, it may actually be a smart value investment if you've got a few years.
You actually perceive there are major issues remaining at GM after the bailout that are brewing just under the corporate communications umbrella, right?
Not really. GM is a different company today than a decade ago with different management and leadership, as well as a much slimmer cost structure. Barring a significant double dip, it may actually be a smart value investment if you've got a few years.
OK, I respect your views, as always. But there is now a line in the sand. Let's agree to look at any signs that GM has old skeletons in the closet that come out for a peek at management decisions going forward, shall we?
Circlew this may get interesting. GM may actually be coming more of an overseas powerhouse than a domestic in a few years. The other day I actually heard some speculation that some hedge firms may try to buy out the gov investment. You may be right that there are some skeletons lurking about, but that may be true of Ford, Toyota and others as well. I don't see the new GM going BK, but I also don't think they will get another bailout these days if it happens because the macro economy is different than the first time. Now doesn't all of this make Hyundai/Kia look boring...
Interesting...if the investment becomes ZERO for the government, that is a HUGE plus. I'm sure the Corporate Communications will light up all over the WORLD on that one. It would shed the negativity I and others hold regarding the C-11 bailout. I agree skeletons exist at all the manufacturers, including Hyundai/Kia and FORD. Just remember, GM is the focus of skeletal remains since it received the most bailout cash and fell so far in the business world.
Now doesn't all of this make Hyundai/Kia look boring...
Well, sort of, I guess...just that they are some much more desirable to own!
The cost impact on an average American citizen from the GM bailout is mathematically negligible, rather than the distortion of its impact by some of these extreme media pundits.
Check my math here:
$60B/300 million citizens = $200/citizen, or $800 for a family of 4.
Certainly nowhere near what the TARP cost, but NOT negligible for most families. And since 50% of families pay no income taxes, the others would average more like $2K/family.
An interesting "per capita" perspective and methodology. The problem though is that it assumes the net bailout cost stays at $60B and is funded totally through individual income taxes. I believe the ultimate net out of pocket for Uncle will be far, far less...if anything after it is all resolved. Regardless, individual income taxes are just part of government revenues. Business and corporations pay a much larger share than individuals. Then there are other revenue sources such as social security (individual and business share, the latter larger), excise taxes, fees, etc. As for individual income taxes, the wealthy pay a much greater bite than an average family which further reduces that average family's share of it all. Then again, all of this is further distorted by the fact that a chunk of the gov expenses are currently being funded by loans (federal deficit) rather than revenues.
The problem though is that it assumes the net bailout cost stays at $60B and is funded totally through individual income taxes. I believe the ultimate net out of pocket for Uncle will be far, far less...if anything after it is all resolved.
Fair comment. Of course AT THIS TIME that's a good number. I suspect GM will never pay the full amount back, although it may be a lot less. But to counter your other comments, I believe that individual income taxes ARE a majority of the federal intake vs. corporations. And we didn't include Chrysler, either.
Same here! I can't imagine any cars being more reliable or as much of a joy to own as our 2005 Buick LaCrosse, 2007 Cadillac DTS Performance, or 1989 Cadillac Brougham. Personal experience has shown me that GM is the best choice among automobiles.
At least that 1976 or whatever year Camaro is still here. Most Japanese cars of that vintage disappeared in a cloud of iron oxide dust over 25 years ago around here. From what I've seen, Chevrolets held up much better against rust than Fords. My Dad's 1972 LTD looked like mice ran through the body by 1981.
My investment in GM is a lot more than that per the three vehicles in my mostly GM fleet! Heck, I wouldn't care if my entire tax bill went to GM. Heck, two months of the war alone cost more than the GM bailout.
Yeah, the chick leaning against the car looks like some 30-something single mother from a marginal Lower Northeast Philly neighborhood waiting for the #18 bus.
So much so that if the government simply collected taxes on corporations and businesses in accordance to the existing law, there would be enough money to balance the budget, or close to it.
So much so that if the government simply collected taxes on corporations and businesses in accordance to the existing law, there would be enough money to balance the budget, or close to it.
IMHO the corporations are evading taxes LAWFULLY. Change the laws. It's not a collection issue.
Evading taxes by finding loopholes or moving profits offshore and cooking the books (like GE did) is clearly not following the intent of the law and they know it.
Agree Fords of that time win the "Rust-Bucket Standard of the World" marquee.
Here is the worst cars (according to Time Mag) for the period from 1960-1989.
Don't see all those Japanese cars you are talking about but GM is a regular on the list, particularly Chevy and Caddy! You can't erase history, even with a $60B bailout. :P
1960-1974
1961 Amphicar 1961 Corvair 1966 Peel Trident 1970 AMC Gremlin 1970 Triumph Stag 1971 Chrysler Imperial LeBaron Two-Door Hardtop 1971 Ford Pinto 1974 Jaguar XK-E V12 Series III
1975-1989
1975 Bricklin SV1 1975 Morgan Plus 8 Propane 1975 Triumph TR7 1975 Trabant 1976 Aston Martin Lagonda 1976 Chevy Chevette 1978 AMC Pacer 1980 Corvette 305 "California" 1980 Ferrari Mondial 8 1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4 1981 De Lorean DMC-12 1982 Cadillac Cimarron 1982 Camaro Iron Duke 1984 Maserati Biturbo 1985 Mosler Consulier GTP 1985 Yugo GV 1986 Lamborghini LM002
Wow, Time magazine as an arbiter of automobiles. Why would they pick "1961 Corvair", not '60 or '62? Can anyone explain the logic? I like talking logic, not 'touchy feely' stuff. Wouldn't 'worst' indicate 'least reliable' or 'most troubleprone'? There is no way an '82 Camaro Iron Duke would make that list. Where's the Honda Accord CVCC on that list? Now there's rust AND engine issues. Not fashionable to knock a Honda Accord though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, that list does seem pretty random. I especially love this one...
1971 Chrysler Imperial LeBaron Two-Door Hardtop
Geeze, could we get a little more specific there? Was the 4-door hardtop okay to buy? Were the nearly-identical '69-70 or '72-73 models acceptable, then?
I'm also surprised that the Vega and 1980 Citation didn't make that list. Or the RWD Caddies with the aluminum 4.1 V-8?
Now, I'll say a 1982 Camaro with the Iron Duke probably sucked in its own right, mainly in being a letdown. Sporty, good looking car that was slow as molasses, shodily built, crude, unrefined, unreliable, and so forth. But, I'm sure I could think of worse cars than that!
That's because Time magazine didn't compile a list of the worst appliances from 1960-89. Maytag, Whirlpool, Kenmore, Speed Queen, Hotpoint, etc. were kicking Toyota, Datsun, and Honda's butt at the time.
Yeah, and why that specific year model and body style? The 1969-73 Imperial was so solidly built, they banned them from demolition derbies years later. It would demolish the other contestant's cars and keep on going an going and going.
Time Magazine - the arbiter of all things automotive. I guess I should consult "Cat Fancy" magazine when deciding what the best rifles and shotguns are.
No disrespect intended, but anyone who trots out one of those "Worst Car" lists, of which there have been many over the years, including magazines that have nothing to do with cars (one listed the "1958 Ford Edsel", duh), can't be much of a real car buff. Those lists are so totally subjective, always have been, always will--but I'd have to have one actually put together by a staffer at an auto magazine (not 'Time') to make me even read it and say, "Hmmm...".
The '71 Imperial is probably the biggest joke on this list--not that the car is bad, but that it has no place being on such a list. And I'm not a Mopar guy.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yeah, and why that specific year model and body style? The 1969-73 Imperial was so solidly built, they banned them from demolition derbies years later. It would demolish the other contestant's cars and keep on going an going and going.
Actually, that was the '60-66 Imperials. The '57-59 were beefy enough in their own right, but in '60, Chrysler converted everything else in their fleet to unit-body (in fact, they coined the term "UniBody"), they applied some of those strengthening techniques to the body-on-frame Imperial. So it sort of became doubled-up, a unit-bodied car with a full-length frame slipped underneath.
There's something about a '64-66 Imperial that I just love. It's definitely my favorite Imperial. As a kid I always heard about the mysterious "Le Baron" model, but all I ever saw were the "Crown" model.
I do remember one at a Demo Derby I was at in the late '70's.
To this day when I see one, I'm reminded of (1) Mr. Drysdale of 'The Beverly Hillbillies' and (2) 'The Green Hornet'.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Well, the author apparently knew at least something about cars, perhaps far less than yourself.
TIME and Dan Neil, Pulitzer Prize-winning automotive critic and syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, look at the greatest lemons of the automotive industry
I respect your opinion and designating the "Worst Cars" is subjective but GM made some of the worst as did Ford and Chrysler.
Vega, Citation, Pinto, Chevette, Aztek, Cimmaron, EV-1 are all on my list.
There's something about a '64-66 Imperial that I just love. It's definitely my favorite Imperial.
I like 'em, too. By that time, I think former Ford stylist Elwood Engle pretty much exorcised all of Virgil Exner's excesses out of that style. And while it wasn't quite the classic that the '61 Lincolns had been, it was still pretty nice.
Years ago, I remember reading an article in a Mopar buff rag, where they took a '64 or so Imperial and tried to remove as much of the car as possible, to see how much the reduced weight would improve performance. They were inspired when a GM rag did this with a '71 Cadillac.
Evidently, the Cadillac was a breeze to do, because it was so flimsy in comparison (to be fair, just about anything in '71 was flimsier, so this isn't a slam against GM) that it was easy to take apart, cut through sheetmetal, etc. But with the Imperial, the staff was constantly breaking their tools, hurting themselves, and getting frustrated trying to pull the thing apart. And at one point, I think they even started a fire when something got too hot, but I don't remember the details on that one.
I think my favorite Imperial is the '60. It just has a nice, sturdy look to it, tough yet luxurious at the same time.
I have to agree, some of the cars on that list are ridiculous. I'd like to see their nominations individually defended by anyone who observes old cars.
Well, to be fair, I'll start off with the GM cars that make my worst list:
Cadillac HT4100 4.1 Litre V-8: Just an all-out dog of an engine. 1982 was the worst year. It would get to where I wanted to go faster by walking.
Cadillac Diesel: An even bigger dog than the HT4100. Zero-to-sixty can be measured with a calendar. Sounds like a city bus. Hard to find fuel in the city. Delay in ignition to allow glow plugs to warm. Weak bottom end on engine due to hasty conversion from a gasoline unit.
Cadillac Cimmaron: A Cavalier masquerading as a Caddy? 'Nuff said.
Chevrolet Vega: Several things wrong here: extreme susceptibility to rust, lack of cast iron sleeves in aluminum block leaves cylinders extremely susceptible to porousity. Labor troubles at Lordstown plant.
Comments
Just recently, a friend of mine had his Sonata totaled when he rear-ended a truck. I forget the year and the mileage of the Sonata, but it was younger and lower mileage than my 2000 Intrepid when it got totaled, and the damage appeared much less, as well. I think it was around a 2003?
I guess time will tell, if the new ones prove themselves better in this regard. I have a friend who's Mom has a 2002 Sonata that she bought when it was about 1-2 years old, and it's been a good car for her.
I wouldn't be afraid to drive a Hyundai, but I just don't care for the style of the new Sonata. I kinda like the Kia Optima, though!
1967-2002 R.I.P. Then Asia Killed GM and MAGIC! The Camaro is reborn in 2009. Only in America.
Regards,
OW
Gee, news about bad Excels and S'Coupes are 'outdated', yet you still mention Vegas. Sheesh.
What import is marketed against the current Camaro? I'm having a hard time coming up with one.
Regards,
OW
It's a little different when you have many lives in the balance and the corporation refuses to change the things that are immensely and obviously wrong until failure resulted.
Regards,
OW
Well, OW has declared it, so all discussion can end now.
I would purchase a Hyundai or Kia over GM....and a lot of people are doing the same....just like the Toyota and Honda customers did that drove GM's market share from the 50% - 20% today. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
JK, of course!
Regards,
OW
Oh, Vegas! As in Las Vegas!!!
Lol, seriously, I have never mentioned them. I was only about 5yo when they were around.
Ok, I'll go with that. Perhaps I made the wrong comparison. Was the XLR plastic? How about the Kappas (Solstice/Sky)?
Just as bad.
That is a very legitimate area, but unfortunately like economic impact it can also be very gray. I think if you asked 20 people what the lost opportunity cost was from GM you'd get 20 different answers ranging from your position of putting the money in the stock market (although I'm not sure the gov can actually do that) to worse opportunity cost not doing it because of increased unemployment ramifications. My real point is that I believe some of the political extremists and media are consciously overstating the actual cost impact from it.
GM has made a lot of mistakes no doubt, but I truly believe Bush and Obama made their decisions on the potential macroeconomic fallout, not the microelectronic aspects of GM per se. Some are truly exaggerating the cost of the bailout. Don't really need a pencil and calculator; the federal budget is in the trillions which has more zeroes than the 64 Billion GM got (let alone the far lower number that will eventually result from GM payment of loans and interest and gov return on stock sales (if done smartly, the gov may actually turn a profit on this down the road). Uplanderguy's tax is probably somewhere around $15-18K based on his income and probable tax bracket - now that's many, many fewer zeroes. The cost impact on an average American citizen from the GM bailout is mathematically negligible, rather than the distortion of its impact by some of these extreme media pundits.
You actually perceive there are major issues remaining at GM after the bailout that are brewing just under the corporate communications umbrella, right?
Not really. GM is a different company today than a decade ago with different management and leadership, as well as a much slimmer cost structure. Barring a significant double dip, it may actually be a smart value investment if you've got a few years.
Not really. GM is a different company today than a decade ago with different management and leadership, as well as a much slimmer cost structure. Barring a significant double dip, it may actually be a smart value investment if you've got a few years.
OK, I respect your views, as always. But there is now a line in the sand. Let's agree to look at any signs that GM has old skeletons in the closet that come out for a peek at management decisions going forward, shall we?
Regards,
OW
Now doesn't all of this make Hyundai/Kia look boring...
Well, sort of, I guess...just that they are some much more desirable to own!
Not me talking, just the marketplace!
Regards,
OW
Check my math here:
$60B/300 million citizens = $200/citizen, or $800 for a family of 4.
Certainly nowhere near what the TARP cost, but NOT negligible for most families. And since 50% of families pay no income taxes, the others would average more like $2K/family.
Nice picture. Or are you talking about the car? :P
Fair comment. Of course AT THIS TIME that's a good number. I suspect GM will never pay the full amount back, although it may be a lot less. But to counter your other comments, I believe that individual income taxes ARE a majority of the federal intake vs. corporations. And we didn't include Chrysler, either.
Well, if GE was a typical corporation you'd certainly be right!
What are the federal government’s sources of revenue?
No changes, no increases. Just enforce the law.
IMHO the corporations are evading taxes LAWFULLY. Change the laws. It's not a collection issue.
Here is the worst cars (according to Time Mag) for the period from 1960-1989.
Don't see all those Japanese cars you are talking about but GM is a regular on the list, particularly Chevy and Caddy! You can't erase history, even with a $60B bailout. :P
1960-1974
1961 Amphicar
1961 Corvair
1966 Peel Trident
1970 AMC Gremlin
1970 Triumph Stag
1971 Chrysler Imperial LeBaron Two-Door Hardtop
1971 Ford Pinto
1974 Jaguar XK-E V12 Series III
1975-1989
1975 Bricklin SV1
1975 Morgan Plus 8 Propane
1975 Triumph TR7
1975 Trabant
1976 Aston Martin Lagonda
1976 Chevy Chevette
1978 AMC Pacer
1980 Corvette 305 "California"
1980 Ferrari Mondial 8
1981 Cadillac Fleetwood V-8-6-4
1981 De Lorean DMC-12
1982 Cadillac Cimarron
1982 Camaro Iron Duke
1984 Maserati Biturbo
1985 Mosler Consulier GTP
1985 Yugo GV
1986 Lamborghini LM002
Regards,
OW
Everyone is happy with that, right? :confuse:
Well, you know my view. GM is DEAD until the tax money is repaid afaic.
To each his own!
Regards,
OW
1971 Chrysler Imperial LeBaron Two-Door Hardtop
Geeze, could we get a little more specific there? Was the 4-door hardtop okay to buy? Were the nearly-identical '69-70 or '72-73 models acceptable, then?
I'm also surprised that the Vega and 1980 Citation didn't make that list. Or the RWD Caddies with the aluminum 4.1 V-8?
Now, I'll say a 1982 Camaro with the Iron Duke probably sucked in its own right, mainly in being a letdown. Sporty, good looking car that was slow as molasses, shodily built, crude, unrefined, unreliable, and so forth. But, I'm sure I could think of worse cars than that!
They made some good ones too. Yours!
Regards,
OW
The '71 Imperial is probably the biggest joke on this list--not that the car is bad, but that it has no place being on such a list. And I'm not a Mopar guy.
Actually, that was the '60-66 Imperials. The '57-59 were beefy enough in their own right, but in '60, Chrysler converted everything else in their fleet to unit-body (in fact, they coined the term "UniBody"), they applied some of those strengthening techniques to the body-on-frame Imperial. So it sort of became doubled-up, a unit-bodied car with a full-length frame slipped underneath.
I do remember one at a Demo Derby I was at in the late '70's.
To this day when I see one, I'm reminded of (1) Mr. Drysdale of 'The Beverly Hillbillies' and (2) 'The Green Hornet'.
TIME and Dan Neil, Pulitzer Prize-winning automotive critic and syndicated columnist for the Los Angeles Times, look at the greatest lemons of the automotive industry
I respect your opinion and designating the "Worst Cars" is subjective but GM made some of the worst as did Ford and Chrysler.
Vega, Citation, Pinto, Chevette, Aztek, Cimmaron, EV-1 are all on my list.
Regards,
OW
I like 'em, too. By that time, I think former Ford stylist Elwood Engle pretty much exorcised all of Virgil Exner's excesses out of that style. And while it wasn't quite the classic that the '61 Lincolns had been, it was still pretty nice.
Years ago, I remember reading an article in a Mopar buff rag, where they took a '64 or so Imperial and tried to remove as much of the car as possible, to see how much the reduced weight would improve performance. They were inspired when a GM rag did this with a '71 Cadillac.
Evidently, the Cadillac was a breeze to do, because it was so flimsy in comparison (to be fair, just about anything in '71 was flimsier, so this isn't a slam against GM) that it was easy to take apart, cut through sheetmetal, etc. But with the Imperial, the staff was constantly breaking their tools, hurting themselves, and getting frustrated trying to pull the thing apart. And at one point, I think they even started a fire when something got too hot, but I don't remember the details on that one.
I think my favorite Imperial is the '60. It just has a nice, sturdy look to it, tough yet luxurious at the same time.
Cadillac HT4100 4.1 Litre V-8: Just an all-out dog of an engine. 1982 was the worst year. It would get to where I wanted to go faster by walking.
Cadillac Diesel: An even bigger dog than the HT4100. Zero-to-sixty can be measured with a calendar. Sounds like a city bus. Hard to find fuel in the city. Delay in ignition to allow glow plugs to warm. Weak bottom end on engine due to hasty conversion from a gasoline unit.
Cadillac Cimmaron: A Cavalier masquerading as a Caddy? 'Nuff said.
Chevrolet Vega: Several things wrong here: extreme susceptibility to rust, lack of cast iron sleeves in aluminum block leaves cylinders extremely susceptible to porousity. Labor troubles at Lordstown plant.