I remember as a kid back in the the mid 60's that Dodge made a big deal of its RV's at the Chicago auto show for a couple of years. One year I believe GM also did in response.
I think Dodge actually gets credit for the concept of the mass-produced motorhome. I'm not sure exactly how they started, but I think the first year, 1963 or so, those motorhomes were simply called "Dodge", then "Travco by Dodge", and finally just "Travco".
Mopar pretty much owned the RV market, and had a very strong presence in the medium duty truck market, until the first gov't bailout. One condition of the gov't guaranteeing those loans was that Mopar had to drop all of their big block V-8's. That really wasn't a big deal in cars, since everybody else was doing it, but in trucks it left them woefully unprepared against Chevy 454's and Ford 460's, when they best they had to offer was a 360.
The last Mopar 440's were built in 1978, but with custom-built vehicles such as motorhomes and medium-duty trucks, often there's a long lag time from when the various components are purchased and assembled, to when the final product is brought to the market, so I think the final big-block Mopar RVs were around 1980. I think Travco started giving the option of being built on a Dodge frame and driveline or Chevy frame and driveline for a few years, but then was forced to go over to Chevy completely around 1981, until the brand was phased out around 1985.
Around the time of the bailout, the RV industry in general was in the toilet, but when it recovered, I think Ford, rather than Chevy, started to become the platform of choice. With the smaller Class-C motorhomes especially, Ford dominated, since their Econoline van chassis of the time could accommodate a big-block V-8, whereas the Chevy vans of the era had to make do with the smallblock 350, as the 454 wouldn't fit.
As for GM, I remember those FWD motorhomes of the 70's, the ones based on Toronado mechanicals. I still see them occasionally, and I swear they look futuristic even today.
There was another FWD motorhome based on Toro mechanicals that actually pre-dates the GMC. It was called Revcon, and dated back to 1968! And interestingly, while GM canceled their motorhome for '79, which was the year their big FWD coupes downsized and lost the bigger engines and beefy transmissions, the Revcon carried on. They merely took a Chevy 455 and designed their own FWD system, and continued production until 1989!
>Government Motors agreed to pay up to 35 million vehicle owners as
Gotta get the anti-GM speech set up right: That was the OLD GM in the class action suit. The NEW GM has no dibs on that class action suit--that's to whom you referred with the "government motors" label.
I won't go through the other companies which have had class action suits, but perhaps sludge, transmission problems, brake wear, AC compressors blowing up will refresh our minds. Some of those haven't been settlements but should be. Some of those customers who blindly bought based on past reputation are understanding now--the ENRON trend doesn't mean it continues.
Indeed, GM had troubles over the engineering of the 95-99 design of the upper intake manifold. I have never been convinced it was totally a flaw in DexCool that was the sole culprit: early DexCool used an antioxidant that was destroyed by bacteria in cooling systems that weren't sterilized by being driven long distances. Air (oxidation) was a problem if the coolant level dropped inside the pressured part of the system --that was the fault of the owner for not checking.
The design problems fit right in with Lutz's description of bean counters and the terrible hierarchy in GM by that time. Criticism of GM for not having a workable technique for finding and fixing things before they got the customer was deserved. Of course GM didn't have the luxury of releasing a car in other parts of the world for 3 years for beta testing and then release it here with a different name and have people think they came out with a totally new car and were really great at designing and engineering those "brand new" cars.
There's a lot to these stories. Carguys and Bean Counters was a really eye-opening book for me. It verified some things I already thought to be the case.
That's really a good idea if you want to get max life out of an engine.
The OLM in my Expedition usually is under 10% at 5k miles. I'm surprised it doesn't go longer considering it holds 7 qts. of oil. But I do more idling than most messing with the boat and waverunner on most weekends.
>>That's really a good idea if you want to get max life out of an engine.
I did them about a year apart. I put in a synthetic (Quaker State) and drove it 6000-7000, then did the test. Paid the extra to have the additive package test done.
Repeated that this spring with Pennzoil Platinum. Blackstone Labs, Ft. Wayne (a US company!), and I can go online, I believe and retrieve my past results. I think I saved the PDFs on my hard drive.
I chose the mileage at which to drain and catch a sample by the color of the oil on the dipstick when dropped onto a piece of white paper towel. When the color started getting more like standard oil at 3500-4500, I drained. I could have gone further. Best $35 I ever spent. I considered it one of my little gifts to myself because I never felt I needed to use oil testing. Oil testing was for those real car fans.
my 10 year older supercharged 3800 was trouble free until about 135k miles. It has 182500 now and is still the a/c and 0-60 king out of my 6 vehicles. Only gets 21 mpg combined on RUG but has no 4th gear. What mileage do you get from the GP?
Only gets 21 mpg combined on RUG but has no 4th gear. What mileage do you get from the GP?
My wife would get 22-23 combined from her 07 GP (non-supercharged). She's currently getting 23-24 combined with her '11 Taurus. Not a bad improvement considering how much bigger and heavier the Taurus is and it has 60 more HP.
My wife would get 22-23 combined from her 07 GP (non-supercharged)
My average for my supercharged Park Ave has been 21.5 mpg in the 16,000 miles I've had it. I've gotten as bad as 15-16 mpg in the dead of winter, mostly local driving, short trips, having to let it warm up, etc, to as high as 31 mpg on one run that was almost pure highway, windows up, no a/c.
I wish it would do better in local driving, but I guess considering its weight, that's not too bad. It's great out on the highway if you keep it at a more or less constant speed, and don't accelerate too quickly, but around town, when the traffic lights start catching you, I guess getting all that weight moving again takes its toll.
My average for my supercharged Park Ave has been 21.5 mpg in the 16,000 miles I've had it. I've gotten as bad as 15-16 mpg in the dead of winter, mostly local driving, short trips, having to let it warm up, etc, to as high as 31 mpg on one run that was almost pure highway, windows up, no a/c.
My opinion is 21.5 is phenomenal for a car of that size and weight. The Taurus has an EPA rating of 28 hwy IIRC. The few highway trips I've taken it on haven't beat that number yet. But I tend to drive fast (75-80), I've only had one vehicle that could beat it's hwy EPA rating with any consistency and that was my Jetta diesel.
My current "commuter-box" car is a Park Avenue Ultra. Before that, it was a Crown Victoria.(no, not an ex-taxi or cop car - one of the 5% that were privately owned).
Both had the same wheelbase, same weight, same HP and torque figures, nearly identical options, and on and on. I've never driven two cars that were so close to each other in every way.
But the engine in the GM is far better as it works like a V8 when you need it to and then turns off the supercharger when you want to get decent mpg. Steering and handling was better on the Vic, though. But both handled city traffic without any issues at all. Best mpg was a bit over 28 with no AC and hypermilling it. The best I ever got out of the Crown Vic doing the same tricks was 23mpg. The Crown Vic averaged 16-17mpg vs the Park Avenue's 22-23.
Second best engine they ever made (after the new 3.6), but it's hard to find the supercharged engines as it was not a standard/base trim option.
Let's also keep in mind you can get a bare-bones Escape for mid teens, econobox prices. I bet the average price is only a little more than half what an Equinox goes for. I saw a 'nox at the Auto Show with a $39k sticker.
Escape is ripe for replacement, though. Let's see a Kuga-inspired replacement.
$1000 cash on 2012 Escape, or 0%, so you could buy one for $18k or so. Local newspapers have prices starting with $16 but then add freight and you may have to qualify for college grad rebates (the target buyer, to be fair).
No cash incentives on Equinox at all, 2.9% financing. You may be able to configure one for the base price, but dealers simply don't carry them.
The local dealer's cheapest 'nox is $23,306 no-haggle.
Then go look at incentives and rebates. That gets you to $16-17k or so for starters. Ford is near $3k average.
LOL, your assuming everyone who buys an Escape buys a bare bones model vs everyone buying a fully loaded Equinox?
No question the Escape will have a lower transaction price because of rebates and it's a few thousand cheaper to begin with. But I won't buy the average transaction price is 1/2 that of an Equinox (maybe if you include fleet sales.)
But here's what I did. I looked at new 2011 and 2012 listed new at dealers on autotrader. 21,591 Escapes with avg. price of $27,607 nationwide. 13,527 Nox's with avg. price of $27560. That's MSRP. As far as what actually sells and what actually is paid, I don't know.
Not that it matters. It goes back to why Chevy is selling more cars than Ford. Does the average Impala sell for 1/2 of that of the average Taurus? You can sticker a Taurus to over 45k, but I'd bet the average transaction price (minus fleet) is $30K tops, it's likely that it's in the high 20K range..
But I won't buy the average transaction price is 1/2 that of an Equinox (maybe if you include fleet sales.)
I believe I said "little more than half".
And of course I'm including fleet sales. There are tons of Escape rentals running around. I'm sure they're a money maker because they're cheap to buy yet they rent for well more than a compact car.
Ford's sales slump, in comparison, is a reversal also.
I wouldn't say Ford is in a slump. Their sales are still increasing.
Last month Ford was up 13% vs 10% for GM. Ford is kicking butt in trucks. GM was flat and Ford was up 11.2%. Ford actually sold more trucks (all models) vs GM in June.
2.35M worldwide doesn't sound all that impressive to me. That would come out to 4.7M annually. Back in their heyday, just in the US, Chevy was often good for 2.5M+, and that's just in cars! Trucks could be another 1M+ in a good year.
But, those days are long gone, and I guess Chevy has much more presence in overseas markets than in the past, which has more than offset their decline in the US.
Chevy has some great cars finally. Need to bounce the Impala now. I can't for the life of me understand why the G-8 did not turn into the Impala.
Seems such an obvious mistake. Although the Impala still sells pretty well, imagine if it was transformed into the G-8 with AWD to boot. I would have shopped that piece, for sure.
I believe that is the most bland Chevy, let alone in the segment. At least it has a decent heart now. Agree it's now an ancient design. Who needs to get fired at Chevy? More bean-counters or top management? Someone needs to get the axe by keeping this car at it's present level. :mad:
It's about 5 years to late, though it will make a more interesting rental.
I wonder how well the Impala did with the 3.9 pushrod? I drove our fleet Impala a few months ago, which just has the 3.5, and it was pretty mediocre.
Every once in awhile, I'll entertain the idea of, a few years down the road, perhaps replacing my 2000 Park Ave with a used Lucerne, but new enough that it would have the 3.9 V-6 instead of the 3.8. I wonder if it would feel like a letdown though, compared to the supercharged Park Ave?
We've discussed this before, but one sort-of unique thing about the Impala (and Lucerne) is that it is still available with a bench seat and big, thick, center armrest. I'm hard-pressed to think of other cars that still have that availability. When we were shopping for a Chevy, we didn't even consider the Impala, only the Malibu and Equinox. I think the Equinox is "girly" (and expensive!), so I'm glad we got the Malibu LT!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yes, the Lucerne is much heavier and the engine is a base model 3.8/3.9, which lacks the low-end torque of the supercharger. Since the gearing is so sky-high tall, HP at high rpms is useless unless you rev it to death and slam it into gear (how they test 0-60 times, btw).
The vehicle that you want is a Lacrosse CXS. 3.6 VVT engine out of a CTS, similar suspension as the CTS, and it's been re-worked for low-end torque. It moves almost exactly like the supercharged 3.8 but with a lot less weight. Win-win overall.
We've discussed this before, but one sort-of unique thing about the Impala (and Lucerne) is that it is still available with a bench seat and big, thick, center armrest.
I'm not so sure the market really cares about that. It's a very niche feature. Sort of like the manual transmission these days.
I do think older folks like a bench seat and column shift. If I could find a car I'd like with one, I'd consider it as I don't think I've ever felt a console door that's as comfortable as a fold-down center armrest, and the lack of console gives an impression of roominess.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
you rev it to death and slam it into gear (how they test 0-60 times, btw).
I seriously doubt the mags are doing "neutral drops" to get 0-60 times. Besides most cars made over the past 4-5 years limit rpm in park or neutral. My 07 Expedition and wife's 11 Taurus both limit rpm to like 3k rpm in park and neutral. Wife's previous '07 GP was similar.
Some mags will brake torque in attempt to get the best possible launch.
Great news but we should add a caveat - GM eliminated several brands, so Chevy is picking up their slack.
You're making a broad assumption that Pontiac and Saturn buyers automatically migrated to Chevy.
Exactly. When GM filed for bankruptcy in June of 2009, I owned 3 Saturns. Now I have only one - the other two were traded in for a MINI and a Mazda. I never seriously considered a GM product in either case.
Research has shown that people who own Pontiacs and Saturns are defecting from GM in large numbers.
Nissan seems to have drawn the defectors I know. I'd personally go for a Mazda over a Nissan but in the case of a few of them, they went to a crossover and Mazda's CX-7 isn't efficient and the Tribute is just old.
Definitely Pontiac alienated their fan base, and Saturn owners are left searching for a good Chevy dealer as a replacement. LOL, one of my friends went in for a whirring power steering pump on his Vue and they told him he'd be better off just trading it in on an Equinox than to wait for the parts. :lemon:
The defectors tho, the only time these folks will drive a GM again will be from the rental counter...
Nissan seems to have drawn the defectors I know. I'd personally go for a Mazda over a Nissan but in the case of a few of them, they went to a crossover and Mazda's CX-7 isn't efficient and the Tribute is just old.
Interesting you'd mention that. If I was to go for an import brand, I have a feeling Nissan would be my first choice, and I also have to confess that, for some reason, I'm starting to like the Mazda 6 more and more. I'm more of a Mopar guy than a GM guy, though, and if I was going to buy a brand-new car, my first choice, fuel prices be damned, would be a Charger! :P
If I were to defect to a foreign brand, (as likely as the Pope getting married) it would probably be to Mercedes-Benz. That E-Class is looking pretty nice these days.
As far as that Charger - go for it! Get the SRT8 with the 6.1 litre Hemi! :shades: You can always borrow Unc's Corolla for fuel efficiency! :P
I always liked the looks of the Lucerne, as long it was the model that got you the chrome molding at the bottom of the decklid. I can't stand the rear of the car without that molding!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
If the whole dexcool debacle was any indication...
Government Motors agreed to pay up to 35 million vehicle owners as much as $800 for engine and cooling system failures linked to its “Dex-Cool” system
I think Dodge actually gets credit for the concept of the mass-produced motorhome. I'm not sure exactly how they started, but I think the first year, 1963 or so, those motorhomes were simply called "Dodge", then "Travco by Dodge", and finally just "Travco".
Mopar pretty much owned the RV market, and had a very strong presence in the medium duty truck market, until the first gov't bailout. One condition of the gov't guaranteeing those loans was that Mopar had to drop all of their big block V-8's. That really wasn't a big deal in cars, since everybody else was doing it, but in trucks it left them woefully unprepared against Chevy 454's and Ford 460's, when they best they had to offer was a 360.
The last Mopar 440's were built in 1978, but with custom-built vehicles such as motorhomes and medium-duty trucks, often there's a long lag time from when the various components are purchased and assembled, to when the final product is brought to the market, so I think the final big-block Mopar RVs were around 1980. I think Travco started giving the option of being built on a Dodge frame and driveline or Chevy frame and driveline for a few years, but then was forced to go over to Chevy completely around 1981, until the brand was phased out around 1985.
Around the time of the bailout, the RV industry in general was in the toilet, but when it recovered, I think Ford, rather than Chevy, started to become the platform of choice. With the smaller Class-C motorhomes especially, Ford dominated, since their Econoline van chassis of the time could accommodate a big-block V-8, whereas the Chevy vans of the era had to make do with the smallblock 350, as the 454 wouldn't fit.
As for GM, I remember those FWD motorhomes of the 70's, the ones based on Toronado mechanicals. I still see them occasionally, and I swear they look futuristic even today.
There was another FWD motorhome based on Toro mechanicals that actually pre-dates the GMC. It was called Revcon, and dated back to 1968! And interestingly, while GM canceled their motorhome for '79, which was the year their big FWD coupes downsized and lost the bigger engines and beefy transmissions, the Revcon carried on. They merely took a Chevy 455 and designed their own FWD system, and continued production until 1989!
Gotta get the anti-GM speech set up right: That was the OLD GM in the class action suit. The NEW GM has no dibs on that class action suit--that's to whom you referred with the "government motors" label.
I won't go through the other companies which have had class action suits, but perhaps sludge, transmission problems, brake wear, AC compressors blowing up will refresh our minds. Some of those haven't been settlements but should be. Some of those customers who blindly bought based on past reputation are understanding now--the ENRON trend doesn't mean it continues.
Indeed, GM had troubles over the engineering of the 95-99 design of the upper intake manifold. I have never been convinced it was totally a flaw in DexCool that was the sole culprit: early DexCool used an antioxidant that was destroyed by bacteria in cooling systems that weren't sterilized by being driven long distances. Air (oxidation) was a problem if the coolant level dropped inside the pressured part of the system --that was the fault of the owner for not checking.
The design problems fit right in with Lutz's description of bean counters and the terrible hierarchy in GM by that time. Criticism of GM for not having a workable technique for finding and fixing things before they got the customer was deserved. Of course GM didn't have the luxury of releasing a car in other parts of the world for 3 years for beta testing and then release it here with a different name and have people think they came out with a totally new car and were really great at designing and engineering those "brand new" cars.
There's a lot to these stories. Carguys and Bean Counters was a really eye-opening book for me. It verified some things I already thought to be the case.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's really a good idea if you want to get max life out of an engine.
The OLM in my Expedition usually is under 10% at 5k miles. I'm surprised it doesn't go longer considering it holds 7 qts. of oil. But I do more idling than most messing with the boat and waverunner on most weekends.
>>That's really a good idea if you want to get max life out of an engine.
I did them about a year apart. I put in a synthetic (Quaker State) and drove it 6000-7000, then did the test. Paid the extra to have the additive package test done.
Repeated that this spring with Pennzoil Platinum. Blackstone Labs, Ft. Wayne (a US company!), and I can go online, I believe and retrieve my past results. I think I saved the PDFs on my hard drive.
I chose the mileage at which to drain and catch a sample by the color of the oil on the dipstick when dropped onto a piece of white paper towel. When the color started getting more like standard oil at 3500-4500, I drained. I could have gone further. Best $35 I ever spent. I considered it one of my little gifts to myself because I never felt I needed to use oil testing. Oil testing was for those real car fans.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
My wife would get 22-23 combined from her 07 GP (non-supercharged). She's currently getting 23-24 combined with her '11 Taurus. Not a bad improvement considering how much bigger and heavier the Taurus is and it has 60 more HP.
My average for my supercharged Park Ave has been 21.5 mpg in the 16,000 miles I've had it. I've gotten as bad as 15-16 mpg in the dead of winter, mostly local driving, short trips, having to let it warm up, etc, to as high as 31 mpg on one run that was almost pure highway, windows up, no a/c.
I wish it would do better in local driving, but I guess considering its weight, that's not too bad. It's great out on the highway if you keep it at a more or less constant speed, and don't accelerate too quickly, but around town, when the traffic lights start catching you, I guess getting all that weight moving again takes its toll.
My opinion is 21.5 is phenomenal for a car of that size and weight. The Taurus has an EPA rating of 28 hwy IIRC. The few highway trips I've taken it on haven't beat that number yet. But I tend to drive fast (75-80), I've only had one vehicle that could beat it's hwy EPA rating with any consistency and that was my Jetta diesel.
Both had the same wheelbase, same weight, same HP and torque figures, nearly identical options, and on and on. I've never driven two cars that were so close to each other in every way.
But the engine in the GM is far better as it works like a V8 when you need it to and then turns off the supercharger when you want to get decent mpg. Steering and handling was better on the Vic, though. But both handled city traffic without any issues at all. Best mpg was a bit over 28 with no AC and hypermilling it. The best I ever got out of the Crown Vic doing the same tricks was 23mpg. The Crown Vic averaged 16-17mpg vs the Park Avenue's 22-23.
Second best engine they ever made (after the new 3.6), but it's hard to find the supercharged engines as it was not a standard/base trim option.
Let's also keep in mind you can get a bare-bones Escape for mid teens, econobox prices. I bet the average price is only a little more than half what an Equinox goes for. I saw a 'nox at the Auto Show with a $39k sticker.
Escape is ripe for replacement, though. Let's see a Kuga-inspired replacement.
Really? With a starting MSRP of $21k vs. the Equinox's 22,900 base brice.
I bet the average price is only a little more than half what an Equinox goes for
I'll take that bet.
If you check off every option on an Escape and it will sticker over $35k.
Anyway, my original point was fleet sales. I'd bet the Escape has a higher percent fleet.
Then go look at incentives and rebates. That gets you to $16-17k or so for starters. Ford is near $3k average.
Equinox is in high demand so I imagine incentives are small.
Tell you what, I brought it up, so I'll go look...
No cash incentives on Equinox at all, 2.9% financing. You may be able to configure one for the base price, but dealers simply don't carry them.
The local dealer's cheapest 'nox is $23,306 no-haggle.
LOL, your assuming everyone who buys an Escape buys a bare bones model vs everyone buying a fully loaded Equinox?
No question the Escape will have a lower transaction price because of rebates and it's a few thousand cheaper to begin with. But I won't buy the average transaction price is 1/2 that of an Equinox (maybe if you include fleet sales.)
But here's what I did. I looked at new 2011 and 2012 listed new at dealers on autotrader. 21,591 Escapes with avg. price of $27,607 nationwide. 13,527 Nox's with avg. price of $27560. That's MSRP. As far as what actually sells and what actually is paid, I don't know.
Not that it matters. It goes back to why Chevy is selling more cars than Ford. Does the average Impala sell for 1/2 of that of the average Taurus? You can sticker a Taurus to over 45k, but I'd bet the average transaction price (minus fleet) is $30K tops, it's likely that it's in the high 20K range..
My local Ford dealer has 7 Escapes on the lot. The cheapest has an MSRP of $25890.
I believe I said "little more than half".
And of course I'm including fleet sales. There are tons of Escape rentals running around. I'm sure they're a money maker because they're cheap to buy yet they rent for well more than a compact car.
Seems like they're discounting pretty deep:
http://www.koonsfallschurchford.com/index.htm
Ironically right next to it, the discount for the Fusion is smaller than what Chevy's putting on the hood of the Malibu.
Here's their GM shop:
http://www.koonschevybuickgmc.com/index.htm
Malibu, as expected, plus Traverse.
I wouldn't say Ford is in a slump. Their sales are still increasing.
Last month Ford was up 13% vs 10% for GM. Ford is kicking butt in trucks. GM was flat and Ford was up 11.2%. Ford actually sold more trucks (all models) vs GM in June.
YTD Ford is up 12.2% GM is up like 17% overall.
http://search.autonews.com/v/42998028/chevy-sales-milestone-7-20-11.htm?q=chevro- let+sales+record
We should compare total GM sales vs. last year, which are still good, I believe.
I think so too. The numbers I posted were just for US sales and the D3 are all showing gains YOY.
But, those days are long gone, and I guess Chevy has much more presence in overseas markets than in the past, which has more than offset their decline in the US.
Expect more fragmentation as the Koreans continue to grow and makes from China and India grow as well.
That's for sure. Hyundai has been doing very well lately.
Seems such an obvious mistake. Although the Impala still sells pretty well, imagine if it was transformed into the G-8 with AWD to boot. I would have shopped that piece, for sure.
Regards,
OW
They did put in the 3.6l finally. 18/30 mpg and over 300hp, but with FWD hang on tight else the torque steer will put you in a ditch.
The design seem 100 years old, though:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/20/revised-2012-chevrolet-impala-to-net-30-mpg-o- n-highway/
Regards,
OW
It's about 5 years to late, though it will make a more interesting rental.
I wonder how well the Impala did with the 3.9 pushrod? I drove our fleet Impala a few months ago, which just has the 3.5, and it was pretty mediocre.
Every once in awhile, I'll entertain the idea of, a few years down the road, perhaps replacing my 2000 Park Ave with a used Lucerne, but new enough that it would have the 3.9 V-6 instead of the 3.8. I wonder if it would feel like a letdown though, compared to the supercharged Park Ave?
You're making a broad assumption that Pontiac and Saturn buyers automatically migrated to Chevy.
The vehicle that you want is a Lacrosse CXS. 3.6 VVT engine out of a CTS, similar suspension as the CTS, and it's been re-worked for low-end torque. It moves almost exactly like the supercharged 3.8 but with a lot less weight. Win-win overall.
I'm not so sure the market really cares about that. It's a very niche feature. Sort of like the manual transmission these days.
I seriously doubt the mags are doing "neutral drops" to get 0-60 times. Besides most cars made over the past 4-5 years limit rpm in park or neutral. My 07 Expedition and wife's 11 Taurus both limit rpm to like 3k rpm in park and neutral. Wife's previous '07 GP was similar.
Some mags will brake torque in attempt to get the best possible launch.
You're making a broad assumption that Pontiac and Saturn buyers automatically migrated to Chevy.
Exactly. When GM filed for bankruptcy in June of 2009, I owned 3 Saturns. Now I have only one - the other two were traded in for a MINI and a Mazda. I never seriously considered a GM product in either case.
Research has shown that people who own Pontiacs and Saturns are defecting from GM in large numbers.
Definitely Pontiac alienated their fan base, and Saturn owners are left searching for a good Chevy dealer as a replacement. LOL, one of my friends went in for a whirring power steering pump on his Vue and they told him he'd be better off just trading it in on an Equinox than to wait for the parts. :lemon:
The defectors tho, the only time these folks will drive a GM again will be from the rental counter...
Interesting you'd mention that. If I was to go for an import brand, I have a feeling Nissan would be my first choice, and I also have to confess that, for some reason, I'm starting to like the Mazda 6 more and more. I'm more of a Mopar guy than a GM guy, though, and if I was going to buy a brand-new car, my first choice, fuel prices be damned, would be a Charger! :P
As far as that Charger - go for it! Get the SRT8 with the 6.1 litre Hemi! :shades: You can always borrow Unc's Corolla for fuel efficiency! :P
Can't argue there.
I'm not big on the Charger, but I do like the 300. That's probably my favorite domestic sedan currently. Granted I haven't driven or even sat in one.