The trend towards dubs has gotten silly. Tire prices are insane, a flat cost us $200 or so on a mainstream small crossover with 17"s. The last one we owned had 15"s.
On another topic - I was shocked that a Cruze needs $150 or $200 tires on it. Why can't GM (or other car makers) give us some practical 14" or 15" wheels and tires on the more economical vehicles?
I have a feeling that most modern cars would look horrible with 14-15" wheels on them nowadays. You'd think that wouldn't be the case, as back in the old days, even big cars often had 14" tires. But I've noticed that height is more of a factor than length when it comes to needing larger tires and wheels to "fill out" a car. Old cars that were long and low to the ground seemed to get by with smaller tires, and often look goofy when oversized tires are put on...makes 'em look like a giant Hotwheels toy.
But, I know where you're coming from. I remember not so long ago buying a set of four tires for my 2000 Intrepid for around $250, and it was another $50 to get them installed. So the idea of paying $150-200 per TIRE on a car like a Cruze just doesn't set right with me!
14". But, IMO at least, the wide whitewall helps make it look bigger than it is, since there's less black that's visible. But, the tires themselves, are huge. The bias-ply size is something like 8.50 x 14. I looked them up at Coker Tire, and they're 28.10" in diameter! The closest radial they recommend is a 225/75/R14, which is 27.62" in diameter. They also sell a 235/75/R14 which is 27.87" in diameter. I imagine to get to 28.10", you'd have to go with a 245/75/R14...if there is such a beast. And then, it might be too wide for the car.
As we race down to a second world globalized status, infrastructure will continue to decay and taller sidewalls will become necessity. I am pretty sure my current low profile ride will be my last - even out west where the climate is mild and roads take longer to fall apart, it can be really jarring.
Big wheels are all style, no substance. The average motorist who can barely manage a roundabout or parallel park will never see the theoretical performance gains from larger wider wheels.
Funny thing is I wonder if 16" rims with a little more sidewall would be better for DC's pothole-laden streets.
My Park Ave is going to need new tires soon. It has 225/60/R16 tires, and I'm wondering if going to something like a 225/65/R16 might give it a better ride?
My old Intrepid used those same tires, but it was also a tighter, sportier, and lighter car. I'm wondering if my Park Ave might be pushing the limit for its tire size?
Sadly they wait for a bridge to collapse before they rebuild it.
Took 3+ days to fix a simple 15" pothole on Canal Road. $4 gas (mostly taxes) and we get one step above gravel roads.
As far as the 65 series instead of 60 series tires, check for clearance. That's about 8% bigger than stock, and the industry standard is usually +/-3%.
Back to GM, I'm curious, what size tires come on the Cruze? I remember when some Chevy Metros had 12" rims! LOL
I think mine had 13"s. I saw tires advertised for $18 (not a joke).
I don't recall and probably I didn't understand how they came up with that particular height and design.
The Aztek looks good in certain colors, usually when it's all one color like the lady down the road who has a dark reddish brown Aztek.
I don't know how the Aztek drives, but I did drive a Rendezvous to take my son and his junk to OSU last fall. It drives like a Park Avenue as an interstate traveler. That was true loaded and empty on the way home. I was really surprised. No wonder our friend liked hers so well. She was disappointed when she couldn't buy another one when the lease ran out.
As for the Aztek design, there are Quest vans and the newer Odyssey van have a strange design to their profile. Aztek is not alone.
I do agree GM could have been better off bolder in their approach.
Back to GM, I'm curious, what size tires come on the Cruze? I remember when some Chevy Metros had 12" rims! LOL
I just checked on www.tirerack.com, and the oldest Metro they have a listing for is 1990. The tire they show is simply a 145SR-12. So, 145mm wide, 12" tire, but no mention of aspect ratio.
Actually, on something lightweight like a Metro/Sprint, I guess a 12-13" tire is all you really need. You don't want too much unsprung weight on a car like that.
Believe it or not, Mopar was still putting 13" tires as standard equipment on the Dart and Valiant as recently as 1969! I think Ford and GM had moved to standard 14" tires by then on the competing Nova and Falcon (and Maverick, which came out as a very early 1970). That sounds horrible for a car that size, but they really weren't that heavy. A base 6-cyl hardtop Dart was around 2710 lb I believe, and even my old V-8 had a base weight of only around 2895. Heck, I think a Chevy Cruze is around 3100 lb these days!
My 67 Mercedes weighed 3000lbs and had 13 inch tires.
Now, mind you, they were extremely tall tires. Something like 185/80/13 would be about right by today's measurements. It of course rode like it was driving on air. Just superb. The tires were rated for about 4000-4500lbs total max weight as well, so it's not an issue of handling or reliability either. It's simply that they are choosing tires that are vastly larger than is required for aesthetics and then we have to pay the price.
My fintail has those same tires/wheels, of course. The car is styled so you don't even notice unless you look - the wheel openings are proportioned right. Very smooth, excellent highway ride, and back in the late 90s when it last got tires, I could get a set of new mid-grade Les Schwab specials for not much more than $200 inclusive, installed. One OEM 18" E55 tire costs more than that today. The next set it receives won't be so cheap, but the size alone makes them economical in any grade.
The Quest maybe but no Ody outdoes the Aztek in the ugly stick department. I will, however, agree that uncladded Azteks looked FAR better than the ones with all the ugly plastic. Even the Element looks better without plastic.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Why on earth would they do the rear 1/3 of the vehicle that way? It looks like it belongs to a different car.
Although not egregious by any means, the '07 and later Focus made me think they dropped the decklid from a different car onto them. They had these tiny wraparound taillights that always looked like they should have extended onto the decklid, but they didn't. IMHO, of course.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Why on earth would they do the rear 1/3 of the vehicle that way? It looks like it belongs to a different car.
Yeah, the beltline on that new Odyssey bugs me, too. It makes me think of the tailfins on the 1960 Dodge Matador and Polara, and how they ended well ahead of the back of the car, only less graceful.
To set the 2011 Odyssey apart, they kink the line that separates its lower body from the glass "greenhouse." Occurring just behind the sliding side doors, the kink creates what its designers call a "lightning bolt beltline." More than just a visual flourish, they say the kink also enlarges the rear side glass and improves outward visibility for passengers in Odyssey's third-row seat.
Yeah, I really can't see that little bit of a dip providing any sort of visibility for the back seat passengers, unless they're little kids who can barely see over the window sill to begin with. And most likely it won't give any better rearward vision for the driver either, since the roof pillars are probably huge, and I'd imagine the back seats would block visibility as well.
I think they would've been better off just dropping the beltline a bit for the first 2/3 of the van, and raising it a bit at the rear window, so that it lines up properly.
Another thing this reminds me a bit of is GM's big 70's RWD coupes, once they did away with the hardtop styling and went with opera windows. The bottom of the opera window was higher up than the window sill of the door, so it made the cars look awkward at the B-pillar area.
I agree, Andre. The worst offenders were the '74-76 Impala Custom Coupe and Caprice Coupe. Very awkward. I did prefer not having a small quarter window like the B-O-P big cars did though. We had a '74 Impala Sport Coupe...still a true hardtop. Never saw many though. Saw a ton of the Custom Coupes though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Honda kept coming up with excuses for the styling, but go look at one - then compare to a Kia Sedona minivan - the Kia has literally twice as much glass. The difference is rather shocking.
(cue OW with the victory dance...)
So the claim that is "enlarges the rear glass" is nonsense.
I heard another claim from Honda that is added interior space, but check out the specs. It's an inch wider outside than the Sienna, yet interior 2nd and 3rd row width is about an inch smaller. So they somehow lost 2" to squeeze in all that ugly.
They missed on form and function. Consumer Reports scored it lower than the outgoing model.
It does have the best 8th seat, though, and competitors have made mistakes with their vans as well. I'm a van owner and today, to be totally honest, I would shop CPO 2010 models, which were better.
Where's GM's new Uplander to take advantage of this? They bailed just when the imports hiccuped.
Edit to add image of Kia's double-sized window for 3rd row:
One of Putz's rants claimed that the minivan segment was a dying breed and people were favoring crossovers instead...
Ya, he was a genius :sick: But anyways, hence the (4) Lamda clones which IIRC, were supposed to underpin the next generation vans like the Uplander. I believe it was a combination of Government Motors (General Motors back then) making more money on the crossovers and they just didn't have the resouces (or the ability) to build a successful competitor.
In todays dollars that would be $12,858 So 14495 not so bad for a sonic. Just save up 3500 on your GM card buying groceries, gas, eating out, and car insurance. That knocks the Sonic down to $10,500 with a little negotiating. that's 20% less than a '98 Neon. Too bad gas isn't at '98 prices....89 cents.
compare to a Kia Sedona minivan - the Kia has literally twice as much glass. The difference is rather shocking
Oh c'mon - have you driven a Sedona? Cramped and mediocre to poor quality ratings. I think it drives like crap. Why would you recommend this vehicle to anyone? Hyundai/Kia is coming out with better designed new products and you want to recommend something that takes customers back to the old Korean crap - I don't get it? I cringe if I see a Sedona in a rental car lot and pray it isn't on my contract!
As for minivans, I don't think there is a decent looker out there any more. Honda is all mucked up. Sienna looks decent on the outside, but step inside and its interior makes my Camry interior look like a 56 Buick (and you know the Camry interior ain't a looker!). The Sienna is just that plain chintzy. Mopars look like hearses. Maybe its a plan to get people to stop buying minivans???
GM gained market share over Toyota to regain the Top Sales spot, BUT...
It would be a mistake to count the company out. Toyota's slowing global sales have pushed it back into the No. 2. worldwide sales position behind perennial leader GM (GM). But GM's advantage is tiny based on unit sales.
Toyota's U.S. market share for the first five months of the year was 13.3% down from 15.2% in the same period in 2010. In May, thanks to earthquake-related inventory shortages, that figure fell to 10.2%, behind struggling U.S. car company Chrysler. Not so long ago, there was a time when Toyota's share was 18%, and it often beat Ford (F) in monthly American sales.
Toyota seems to have benefited from brand equity, a repository of positive reactions to the brand built up over decades of producing high-quality cars and offering good customers service. This has almost certainly been aided by the fact that a number of the defects that caused recalls were actually due to human error and not mechanical trouble with its vehicles.
Toyota still has one of the strongest balance sheets among worldwide manufacturers, so it can afford to ramp up marketing programs in the U.S. It can also afford to give customers incentives to lure them back to dealerships. Its Prius, Camry and Corolla remain among the best-selling vehicles in the country, and its Highlander and 4Runner remain among the best-selling SUVs.
Back in the 1970s, Toyota's market share in the U.S. was negligible, but the company's ability to supply what the nation's consumers desired made it the second-largest car company in the country by the early 2000s. It still has one of the strongest dealership networks in the U.S. Once manufacturing recovers, Toyota will have all the pieces in place for a comeback.
I know your comment was funny, but I never saw how people who are mad about the bailout feel that buying from a company that has far-less invested in our country, balances the pendulum.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I agree, or that crying about "government motors" etc can be countered with buying from those who have received just as much or more aid from their own respective homelands. There's some hypocrisy at play.
Nations that want to keep some kind of industrial relevance and manufacturing base in this race to the bottom globalized world will help their industries. It's that simple.
I know your comment was funny, but I never saw how people who are mad about the bailout feel that buying from a company that has far-less invested in our country, balances the pendulum.
I just see a problem when "the best" ceases to be as important as other factors. Nice to talk about investment here, but when the other company is a dinosaur struggling to stay relevant, do you support that, or do you reward the companies that are making relevant products?
I know Comcast invests a lot more in this country than Netflix, too, but I'd still like to cut my cable bill.
Now they struggle to reinvent themselves. Still a huge struggle at the moment.
Don't you think you need to give them some time before pronouncing them dead? Automobiles are a long cycle, capital intensive business. GM just recently seems to have gotten itself stabilized. Some of its newer product shows promise. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that Hyundai and Kia were the losers on the rental car lot. It took a decade or so, but today they are becoming a very different company and product. I think you have to give GM another 5 years before making a final decision. They should be motivated because I doubt there will be another bailout if they fail. Americans tend to forgive and forget over time, so I think Ford may actually become the more vulnerable one down the road. They are differentiating themselves with high tech like Synch. But not all buyers like being confused when they rent or test drive new cars. Also, touch panel controls and glass cockpits haven't been all that durable in the past. I think they are taking a gamble. As for Chrysler, they are going to have to show these product updates are more than lipstick on a pig. Over the next 5 years, Japan Inc. may be the one impacted the most if they don't get their act back together fast.
I think you have to give GM another 5 years before making a final decision.
Very good point, and true. But of course they were supposed to be turning around when Lutz joined, and that was like, a decade ago. And they HAVE been improving. Just not the kind of really obvious quick improvements like Hyundai. And given the 30 year track record, you understand the skepticism of many of us.
But make no mistake, the reason I (and others, probably including circleW (!)), WANT GM to be successful. Which is why we are on this forum badgering them. We WANT GM to be reacting like we see Hyundai! And while they are making progress, they need to move faster! So after 10 years of Lutz, the wonder guy, and a BK, and a bailout, then it's only 5 more years! You get my point.
I actually think Lutz had more impact at Chrysler than GM. But yeah, GM needs to get moving and I think that may actually happen based on the current CEO's track record. I don't think he's a sit still kind of guy.
Completely and whole hertedly agree. That's the reason we post on this forum. We want GM to succeed. The report card shows they have a.....LONGGGGG WAYYYYYY to go.
Can you all take 5 more years of my posts?????
We'll see. This time around, for all 3 of my auto purchases since 2008, GM is OUT! They need to step it up BIG TIME to prove they are the best. Today, they are not.
I was in Missouri this week visiting some friends. I saw my first Volt driving down a highway in Southern Missouri of all Places. I was heading north on SR 13 traveling from Table Rock lake to visit my sister in Kansas City. In the span of an hour, out in the middle of no where. I saw a Volt, a Nissan GTR, and a late model 911 Turbo. All 3 vehicles stood out in the land of lifted diesel pickups.
I am a Ford fan, but the Sonic has me looking at Chevrolet. I am usually up on the latest but I just heard about this car about 2 days ago. I goggled the Sonic and there is actually information and reviews out on the net. I really like the styling of the sedan version. I am going to be down sizing in the next year or so. I was pretty much settling on a Ford Focus. I want small, cheap to keep, and good on gas. Yet, I want style, safety, and options. Best of all this small car is made in the USA!!
Comments
I have a feeling that most modern cars would look horrible with 14-15" wheels on them nowadays. You'd think that wouldn't be the case, as back in the old days, even big cars often had 14" tires. But I've noticed that height is more of a factor than length when it comes to needing larger tires and wheels to "fill out" a car. Old cars that were long and low to the ground seemed to get by with smaller tires, and often look goofy when oversized tires are put on...makes 'em look like a giant Hotwheels toy.
But, I know where you're coming from. I remember not so long ago buying a set of four tires for my 2000 Intrepid for around $250, and it was another $50 to get them installed. So the idea of paying $150-200 per TIRE on a car like a Cruze just doesn't set right with me!
14". But, IMO at least, the wide whitewall helps make it look bigger than it is, since there's less black that's visible. But, the tires themselves, are huge. The bias-ply size is something like 8.50 x 14. I looked them up at Coker Tire, and they're 28.10" in diameter! The closest radial they recommend is a 225/75/R14, which is 27.62" in diameter. They also sell a 235/75/R14 which is 27.87" in diameter. I imagine to get to 28.10", you'd have to go with a 245/75/R14...if there is such a beast. And then, it might be too wide for the car.
They design such huge wheel arches.
My Miata has what I feel are too-big 17" rims, yet the massive wheel arches make them look small, and there's still too much fender gap.
Funny thing is I wonder if 16" rims with a little more sidewall would be better for DC's pothole-laden streets.
Big wheels are all style, no substance. The average motorist who can barely manage a roundabout or parallel park will never see the theoretical performance gains from larger wider wheels.
My Park Ave is going to need new tires soon. It has 225/60/R16 tires, and I'm wondering if going to something like a 225/65/R16 might give it a better ride?
My old Intrepid used those same tires, but it was also a tighter, sportier, and lighter car. I'm wondering if my Park Ave might be pushing the limit for its tire size?
A Consumer Report 'recommended' rating, 112 inch wheelbase, made in the 'States, available for around $20K in 1LT form. Man, that's a bad thing
Took 3+ days to fix a simple 15" pothole on Canal Road. $4 gas (mostly taxes) and we get one step above gravel roads.
As far as the 65 series instead of 60 series tires, check for clearance. That's about 8% bigger than stock, and the industry standard is usually +/-3%.
Back to GM, I'm curious, what size tires come on the Cruze? I remember when some Chevy Metros had 12" rims! LOL
I think mine had 13"s. I saw tires advertised for $18 (not a joke).
16, 17, and 18 inch. 60 profile and 55 in one case IIRC, and 45 profile on the 18.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Aztek looks good in certain colors, usually when it's all one color like the lady down the road who has a dark reddish brown Aztek.
I don't know how the Aztek drives, but I did drive a Rendezvous to take my son and his junk to OSU last fall. It drives like a Park Avenue as an interstate traveler. That was true loaded and empty on the way home. I was really surprised. No wonder our friend liked hers so well. She was disappointed when she couldn't buy another one when the lease ran out.
As for the Aztek design, there are Quest vans and the newer Odyssey van have a strange design to their profile. Aztek is not alone.
I do agree GM could have been better off bolder in their approach.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I just checked on www.tirerack.com, and the oldest Metro they have a listing for is 1990. The tire they show is simply a 145SR-12. So, 145mm wide, 12" tire, but no mention of aspect ratio.
Actually, on something lightweight like a Metro/Sprint, I guess a 12-13" tire is all you really need. You don't want too much unsprung weight on a car like that.
Believe it or not, Mopar was still putting 13" tires as standard equipment on the Dart and Valiant as recently as 1969! I think Ford and GM had moved to standard 14" tires by then on the competing Nova and Falcon (and Maverick, which came out as a very early 1970). That sounds horrible for a car that size, but they really weren't that heavy. A base 6-cyl hardtop Dart was around 2710 lb I believe, and even my old V-8 had a base weight of only around 2895. Heck, I think a Chevy Cruze is around 3100 lb these days!
Now, mind you, they were extremely tall tires. Something like 185/80/13 would be about right by today's measurements. It of course rode like it was driving on air. Just superb. The tires were rated for about 4000-4500lbs total max weight as well, so it's not an issue of handling or reliability either. It's simply that they are choosing tires that are vastly larger than is required for aesthetics and then we have to pay the price.
But the Aztek is old news. They don't make them nomore.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Rendezvous and Aztek; never was sure what they wanted to be. Over-inflated wagons with hatches on steroids?
At least when you saw a Dustbuster Trans Sport, you still knew immediately it was a minivan.
Although not egregious by any means, the '07 and later Focus made me think they dropped the decklid from a different car onto them. They had these tiny wraparound taillights that always looked like they should have extended onto the decklid, but they didn't. IMHO, of course.
Yeah, the beltline on that new Odyssey bugs me, too. It makes me think of the tailfins on the 1960 Dodge Matador and Polara, and how they ended well ahead of the back of the car, only less graceful.
Honda odyssey
To set the 2011 Odyssey apart, they kink the line that separates its lower body from the glass "greenhouse." Occurring just behind the sliding side doors, the kink creates what its designers call a "lightning bolt beltline." More than just a visual flourish, they say the kink also enlarges the rear side glass and improves outward visibility for passengers in Odyssey's third-row seat.
Yeah, I really can't see that little bit of a dip providing any sort of visibility for the back seat passengers, unless they're little kids who can barely see over the window sill to begin with. And most likely it won't give any better rearward vision for the driver either, since the roof pillars are probably huge, and I'd imagine the back seats would block visibility as well.
I think they would've been better off just dropping the beltline a bit for the first 2/3 of the van, and raising it a bit at the rear window, so that it lines up properly.
Another thing this reminds me a bit of is GM's big 70's RWD coupes, once they did away with the hardtop styling and went with opera windows. The bottom of the opera window was higher up than the window sill of the door, so it made the cars look awkward at the B-pillar area.
Wow, I remember when the Corvette upgraded to 17"s.
18"s seem like a bit much in unsprung weight. 16" for mainstream is fine, then 17" for the sportier models.
I mean, seriously, 18" rims supported by a twist beam? Who are they kidding?
Any how, GM is just responding to a market who doesn't know any better.
Still, the Enclave is so much better few will remember it. It is more expensive, but deservedly so.
Agree on the new Oddity and the previous Quest. The new one is bolt upright but not as strange.
Sadly GM abandoned the minivan segment entirely, so nothing to take advantage of Honda's styling miscues.
(cue OW with the victory dance...)
So the claim that is "enlarges the rear glass" is nonsense.
I heard another claim from Honda that is added interior space, but check out the specs. It's an inch wider outside than the Sienna, yet interior 2nd and 3rd row width is about an inch smaller. So they somehow lost 2" to squeeze in all that ugly.
They missed on form and function. Consumer Reports scored it lower than the outgoing model.
It does have the best 8th seat, though, and competitors have made mistakes with their vans as well. I'm a van owner and today, to be totally honest, I would shop CPO 2010 models, which were better.
Where's GM's new Uplander to take advantage of this? They bailed just when the imports hiccuped.
Edit to add image of Kia's double-sized window for 3rd row:
I remember the Aveo being $9995 or something like that.
I'm sure that's no A/C and doesn't include freight, but they were pretty bold in pricing the Sonic.
Ya, he was a genius :sick: But anyways, hence the (4) Lamda clones which IIRC, were supposed to underpin the next generation vans like the Uplander. I believe it was a combination of Government Motors (General Motors back then) making more money on the crossovers and they just didn't have the resouces (or the ability) to build a successful competitor.
Ford ain't bringing their small Focus 7 seater here.
It's even got cladding on the roof!
Tone it down a lot and I'd say I like it.
So 14495 not so bad for a sonic. Just save up 3500 on your GM card buying groceries, gas, eating out, and car insurance. That knocks the Sonic down to $10,500 with a little negotiating. that's 20% less than a '98 Neon. Too bad gas isn't at '98 prices....89 cents.
Oh c'mon - have you driven a Sedona? Cramped and mediocre to poor quality ratings. I think it drives like crap. Why would you recommend this vehicle to anyone? Hyundai/Kia is coming out with better designed new products and you want to recommend something that takes customers back to the old Korean crap - I don't get it? I cringe if I see a Sedona in a rental car lot and pray it isn't on my contract!
As for minivans, I don't think there is a decent looker out there any more. Honda is all mucked up. Sienna looks decent on the outside, but step inside and its interior makes my Camry interior look like a 56 Buick (and you know the Camry interior ain't a looker!). The Sienna is just that plain chintzy. Mopars look like hearses. Maybe its a plan to get people to stop buying minivans???
It would be a mistake to count the company out. Toyota's slowing global sales have pushed it back into the No. 2. worldwide sales position behind perennial leader GM (GM). But GM's advantage is tiny based on unit sales.
Toyota's U.S. market share for the first five months of the year was 13.3% down from 15.2% in the same period in 2010. In May, thanks to earthquake-related inventory shortages, that figure fell to 10.2%, behind struggling U.S. car company Chrysler. Not so long ago, there was a time when Toyota's share was 18%, and it often beat Ford (F) in monthly American sales.
Toyota seems to have benefited from brand equity, a repository of positive reactions to the brand built up over decades of producing high-quality cars and offering good customers service. This has almost certainly been aided by the fact that a number of the defects that caused recalls were actually due to human error and not mechanical trouble with its vehicles.
Toyota still has one of the strongest balance sheets among worldwide manufacturers, so it can afford to ramp up marketing programs in the U.S. It can also afford to give customers incentives to lure them back to dealerships. Its Prius, Camry and Corolla remain among the best-selling vehicles in the country, and its Highlander and 4Runner remain among the best-selling SUVs.
Back in the 1970s, Toyota's market share in the U.S. was negligible, but the company's ability to supply what the nation's consumers desired made it the second-largest car company in the country by the early 2000s. It still has one of the strongest dealership networks in the U.S. Once manufacturing recovers, Toyota will have all the pieces in place for a comeback.
Comeback Kid
Now Hyundai/Kia seem to be offering what the nation's consumers desire!
Regards,
OW
...cars made by companies that receive gigantic bailouts and endless federally provided perks? Oh, wait...
Nations that want to keep some kind of industrial relevance and manufacturing base in this race to the bottom globalized world will help their industries. It's that simple.
I just see a problem when "the best" ceases to be as important as other factors. Nice to talk about investment here, but when the other company is a dinosaur struggling to stay relevant, do you support that, or do you reward the companies that are making relevant products?
I know Comcast invests a lot more in this country than Netflix, too, but I'd still like to cut my cable bill.
Regards,
OW
Now they struggle to reinvent themselves. Still a huge struggle at the moment.
Regards,
OW
Now they struggle to reinvent themselves. Still a huge struggle at the moment.
Don't you think you need to give them some time before pronouncing them dead? Automobiles are a long cycle, capital intensive business. GM just recently seems to have gotten itself stabilized. Some of its newer product shows promise. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that Hyundai and Kia were the losers on the rental car lot. It took a decade or so, but today they are becoming a very different company and product. I think you have to give GM another 5 years before making a final decision. They should be motivated because I doubt there will be another bailout if they fail. Americans tend to forgive and forget over time, so I think Ford may actually become the more vulnerable one down the road. They are differentiating themselves with high tech like Synch. But not all buyers like being confused when they rent or test drive new cars. Also, touch panel controls and glass cockpits haven't been all that durable in the past. I think they are taking a gamble. As for Chrysler, they are going to have to show these product updates are more than lipstick on a pig. Over the next 5 years, Japan Inc. may be the one impacted the most if they don't get their act back together fast.
Very good point, and true. But of course they were supposed to be turning around when Lutz joined, and that was like, a decade ago. And they HAVE been improving. Just not the kind of really obvious quick improvements like Hyundai. And given the 30 year track record, you understand the skepticism of many of us.
But make no mistake, the reason I (and others, probably including circleW (!)), WANT GM to be successful. Which is why we are on this forum badgering them. We WANT GM to be reacting like we see Hyundai! And while they are making progress, they need to move faster! So after 10 years of Lutz, the wonder guy, and a BK, and a bailout, then it's only 5 more years! You get my point.
Can you all take 5 more years of my posts?????
We'll see. This time around, for all 3 of my auto purchases since 2008, GM is OUT! They need to step it up BIG TIME to prove they are the best. Today, they are not.
Regards,
OW
I think even the naysayers here would have to agree this is a positive thing. I mean, come on.