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
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Gee, news about bad Excels and S'Coupes are 'outdated', yet you still mention Vegas.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.