General Motors says it will cut in half the number of engines and vehicle "architectures" -- platforms that underpin its vehicles. It used 30 platforms worldwide in 2010 and plans to cut that to about 14 by 2018.
The Target:
The goal is to boost GM's operational profit margins from middle-of-the pack to best-in-industry, CFO Dan Ammann said. He cited Morgan Stanley forecasts that GM will make 5% on its operations this year, while leaders such as Hyundai and BMW will make 10%.
The Best:
A simplified product-development process and fewer platforms also will improve speed-to-market and quality, Barra said.
In other encouraging news, it looks like the economy will make it easy on GM to negotiate acceptable terms but hard for the UAW to get their constituents to vote "yes". This is the key to the future of the D3.
I remember having one of those as a rental once. Couldn't believe they did that. I wonder where all the used Classics went? I've never seen one for sale.
When you look at the car lineup, including the upcoming Sonic and the new Malibu it's a pretty impressive set of offerings right up until you hit the flagship.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I think this classic will be the current Malibu. Not a bad car, had one for a week in Hawaii. I haven't seen the prior Classic rental in several years (but I haven't used Enterprise - just kidding!).
Ya know a couple of years ago I had to use Enterprise because they're local and easy with the insurance company. I got a Malibu - not a Classic a then current (last generation) Malibu. Unfortunately it smelled like someone had died in it and i had them switch it out and got a Kia Optima....
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
It was a great way to hinder recovering brand equity. I have seen a few of them on used car lots - often will say something like "Classic - FLEET" - a computer generated input I am sure.
I do wish they could update that car, and soon...if anything, so I can not have to risk getting one as a rental.
To respond to everyone's Impala posts, I notice that the same dynamics to which I referred earlier from Lutz's book are taking place here.
I suspect that the Impala is still bringing in money in some way or keeping it going resists losing money. I haven't researched which plants build the Impala. Are those plants that can't be easily rebuilt to build different models as needed? Are there still UAW rules about the workers who must be employed at those plants?
While the car is long in the tooth, I rode in one recently and would certainly consider it as a quick replacement for my leSabre for traveling if I didn't purchase a Cruze or Malibu. The car had a bench seat. It had good quality cloth seats. And it was very comfortable to enter and leave for someone my age. It was very quiet and performed well.
I suspect I would accept even a well-powered 4-cylinder version of one if I needed a replacement car quickly and didn't find the color and model of Cruze or Malibu on the lot and found an Impala in one of my colors I like and a model level that was well optioned without being the SS model with the large wheels and thin tires!
I checked a local dealer who had 10 used, primarily 2010 and 2008, and 13 news ones on the lot. I would consider those reasonable stock numbers considering the market where they are located.
I didn't see a single Impala with a Classic label. :sick:
Honestly, I only have two issues with the Impala. First and foremost, rear seat room. When I put the seat all the way back, you can't fit anyone other than kids in car seats or double-amputees behind me. That's not a problem with more average-height drivers, but it's something I tend to notice.
Secondly, I drove our government Impala about 6 months ago, and remembered it having some serious lag when you stomped on it. It only has the 3.5 V-6, but still, it has over 200 hp, so it shouldn't do that. When you needed to take off fast, if you stomped on it, there was a long pause (long enough to get you into an accident in the proper conditions), and then it finally kicked in and would throw you back into your seat.
I'm sure the 3.6/6-speed auto has fixed the acceleration lag problem. Only a total redesign would fix the back seat room problem. But, if I could pick up a used one cheap enough, I'd still be tempted. Since they have a split bench seat, the Impala is still, IMO, a decent 3-seater. But if you go to 4 people, you better put the dwarf of the bunch in the spot behind me!
I've rented Impalas a couple of times on vacation. They are fine. They are a little old as far as what goes into a car these days but they are quiet, peppy and roomy enough. I've been more excited about other cars but the Impala is fine. My only issue with it is that I think of it as the flagship car for GM. Maybe that's not so anymore. As we go moving to more economical cars maybe the Malibu or even the Cruze is taking that title.
I did have a Classic which always seemed to be a previous generation Malibu. That was another story....
BTW - my daughter is absolutely in love with the Cruze her boyfriend bought. Next time he's around I'll have to sit in it and maybe go for a ride. It's as roomy as my 00 Accord and with a significantly bigger trunk.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
My current problem with GM is the continuing Impala. I can not understand the reasoning for NOT making massive changes now to this old/boring design.
4 of us had to travel in a rental to Illinois. a 6'2 driver and two others over 6'. In spite of having 10 inch thick seatbacks, we fit in the Impala fine. A Grand Marquis was taken once and also worked out good. What other GM car would have been as comfortable?
I wish the brand new Impala with 4 miles on it (seriously) that I rented in March would have had the 3.9 instead of the kind of low rent 3.5. I took it easy as I didn't want to abuse a new car, but performance wasn't exactly wonderful either way. Big and cheap for sure, but not a good image maker.
LOL, Nothing screams rent me like an Impala. IMO it wreaks of cheapness inside and out. Doesn't make it a bad car. It's just way outdated compared to the competition. The 3.6/6speed upgrade will be a huge improvement in the powertrain department, but I doubt it will help sales much. Though sales reps and other fleet drives will be happier.
I agree with Andre, rear seat leg room is lacking in the Impala. That doesn't mean I won't fit in the back seat, but I sure as hell don't want to.
I wonder how interior measurements are determined. The backseat of my wife's '11 taurus is plenty comfortable and I have plenty of room even with the front seat moved all the way back. Yet the dimensions show only .5 inch advantage in leg room in the Taurus yet it feels like 6". Though head room is slightly lacking. Inexcusable in car that's so damn big.
No question Ford's use of space in the Taurus is bad. How can a center console that is bigger than the one in my Expedition barely have enough room to hold a GPS unit. I can probably fit a case a of beer in the center console of the Expe.
Now the trunk in the Taurus is impressive. If you travel with people and or are a salesmen that must carry product, it's hard to beat the Taurus, the trunk is huge.
For all you folks who think GM's future is rosy, go out and get some GM stock now. It's now $24.47 share! Quite the reduction. As our former president said, one of the most patriotic things we can do in times of economic distress is buy some stock. So get out there support the U.S. and support GM! Why wouldn't you? You KNOW they've got a great future and are going to make tons of $$.
I sat behind a 6'4" driver and was fine in rear seat leg and knee and foot room in an Impala last month. Are you closer to 7'?
I'm 6'3". Whenever I drove an Impala, or any W-body, I'd always put the seat back as far as it would go. However, maybe some people, even if they're taller, might prefer to not sit back as far? Did this 6'4" driver have the seat all the way back?
To its credit, the Impala does have a lot of front seat travel. If I had to, I could drive it with the seat moved up a bit. It wouldn't be as comfortable for me, but I could tolerate it.
As far as Impalas not being cheap compared to a Malibu when I looked on the fitzmall site they were discounting Impalas by around $6K vs $2K on the Malibu which makes the Impala the cheaper car.
Again, they are OK enough but the market is telling you they don't want it anymore.
That dealer has 4 Impalas in stock and 9 Malibus. I don't know what one makes of taht wothout knowing how quickly they are turning over stock.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
hasn't Honda had transmission problems for two decades now?
They've been better 2004+, at least as good as the average van. The Dodge guys keep saying that but check the post count in the problems thread and it's clear misery wants company.
I do agree, though, about the general theory that no car is perfect.
clips just snap together to the rest of the car like a Lego set
Are GM cars in the same class (economy/compact) any different? I think plastic fasteners are par for the course. Perhaps you shop in a higher price segment and have not noticed.
My Escort had interior trim pieces falling off regularly, often I could not even figure out where to put them back!
To be honest, it didn't stop me from enjoying the car.
I wonder how interior measurements are determined. The backseat of my wife's '11 taurus is plenty comfortable and I have plenty of room even with the front seat moved all the way back. Yet the dimensions show only .5 inch advantage in leg room in the Taurus yet it feels like 6".
I think part of the legroom measurement includes how high up from the floor the seat cushion is, and might even take into account if there's any foot room under the front seat.
Consumer Reports used to do a measurement called "fore/aft" seating room, where they set the front seat at 40 inches, or something like that, and then they'd simply measure the distance between the front seatback and some point at the back seat cushion. I think this figure actually gave a better idea of how roomy a back seat was than those legroom measurements that get published nowadays.
One day, out of curiosity, I took a tape measure to a few of my cars, and tried to get measure for front seat legroom. To measure, I put the seat where I was comfortable, and measured from the spot where the backrest and base cushion come together, at the center, to the bottom of the gas pedal.
I remember the measurements were something like: 1967 Catalina and 1968 Dart: ~42" 1979 New Yorker: ~44.5" 2000 Intrepid: ~45.5" 1976 LeMans: ~46"
I was surprised that the Catalina and Dart came up so short, and that the Intrepid came up so generous, because I always felt the Intrepid felt a bit tight. The older cars had a lot more room for your left foot, though, where the Intrepid had a dead pedal that was mounted too close for me, and got in the way.
But, if you look at front legroom measurements, most cars these days are around 41-43". The Intrepid's official measurement was 42.2", while the New Yorker was 42.3". A '76 Chevelle (should be identical to the LeMans) is 42.1" according to the sales brochure. But then, for a 1967 Catalina, they list front seat legroom at 42.6". So, I have no idea how they end up measuring front seat legroom, but definitely not the way I did it!
dit: Tig in '09, 'nox in '10. Still, 32mpg is still what I'd call pioneering.
I think 32 mpg is even more impressive, in light of the newer, lower fuel EPA numbers they use these days. I wonder if that 32 would have equated to something like 35-36 mpg under the old 1985-2007 standards?
I think 32 mpg is even more impressive, in light of the newer, lower fuel EPA numbers they use these days. I wonder if that 32 would have equated to something like 35-36 mpg under the old 1985-2007 standards?
My understanding is that no credible automotive source has been able to achieve 32 on the hwy with the Equinox. Makes for great advertising copy - "600 miles on a tank!" - but how disappointed will the general public be when they only get high 20's on the highway?
That's not to say I don't like the new and improved 'Nox - I like the way it looks and it has some nice features I wish my CX-7 had (read: power liftgate).
VW used the 2.0 FSI (direct injection) in the '05 Jetta/Golf/Passat. Along with a DSG transmission too. Back then, most GM cars had pushrods and 4 speed transmissions. Mazda's had DI for a while too.
VW was bleeding edge. GM was leading edge. Now that's flat out comical.
VW may not be the most reliable on the road, but they've incorporated technology faster than most domestics. What does GM have that can even come close to the technology in something like a Bugatti Veyron which is part of VW.
One thing that does surprise me somewhat is GM not using DI with the Cruze. I would like to compare Ford's 2.0 DI 4cyl to the GM 1.4 turbo. Most head to head comparisons result in better acceleration and FE with the Focus. Though I haven't seen a comparo of the eco model.
Here was a company that dragged along with dated OHV engines, iron blocks, carburetors, skipped on balance shafts to save a few pennies ... you name it.
Along comes a modern DI 4 banger with class leading EPA highway mpg, and it's from ... GM?
Not Toyota, not Honda. They're the ones lagging now.
6 speed auto, too, while the others lag behind with 4/5 ratios.
It's a shame the DI V6 doesn't have competitive output. It would be nice to see GM scale down the 3.6l for applications like the 'nox.
Along comes a modern DI 4 banger with class leading EPA highway mpg, and it's from ... GM?
Not Toyota, not Honda. They're the ones lagging now.
Agreed on Toy and Hon. I'm especially disappointed in Honda - their expertise has always been engines, but lately they've moved from a leader to a follower. They are really slipping to mediocrity.
DOHC, shoot, they went to the next level beyond that with the legendary (not in a good way) Quad-4, lol.
I wanted one of those 442 Calais when they came out, my neighbor had one. I was a kid at the time and my family and their family went out one night guys in his new Olds and the girls in my parents car. Man, that engine pulled like a crazy fool! Then about 30k or something it developed a severe oil leak and needed replacement. I remember when he brought home a brand new Acura Integra sedan maybe two years after he got the Olds.
Wow !! Exactly what I was looking for. Looking for increased year end incentives based on supply. Looks like they are pretty much on the norm. Factors will be when production of 2011 Lacrosse stops completely and 2012 are fully in production line and when the are put out on Dealer lots. The recent turn of events in the stock markets sould have a substantial effect on decisions to buy a new car or wait and see where this all ends up, there by possibly changing time frames to sell current inventory.
I seriously question the validity of those 0-60 times, since MT recently tested a Terrain SLT-1 AWD (4-cyl) against the CR-V EX-L 4WD (4-cyl). Their 0-60 times? Identical, at 9.2 seconds. The 45-65 passing time was won by the CR-V, by a measly 0.4 seconds, and the quarter mile time? Identical again (16.9 sec @ 81.9 mph for the Terrain, 16.9 sec @ 82.9 mph for the CR-V).
I'll gladly give up 1mpg or so to not drive a slug.
Unless your SUV has an SRT badge, or the words Cayenne Turbo written on it's tailgate, it's a slug.
Fuel Efficiency commercials are meaningless to me unless they contain information about power (HP) and torque (lb-ft). I don't care if a Snuze Eco gets 40 MPG without knowing the horsepower (which they fail to mention in the commercials), but I do know an Audi A3 TDI gets 40+ MPG and has 140 HP with 200+ lb/ft of torque (which they gladly mention in the commercials).
If an advertisement leaves out key information, I will tend to ignore it.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I don't give the edge in MPG unless it has correspondingly equal or better power ratings. Anyone can make an engine get 40 MPG! However, your 0-60 times might be measured in minutes unless it's a motorcycle!
:P
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
General Motors says it will cut in half the number of engines and vehicle "architectures" -- platforms that underpin its vehicles. It used 30 platforms worldwide in 2010 and plans to cut that to about 14 by 2018.
The Target:
The goal is to boost GM's operational profit margins from middle-of-the pack to best-in-industry, CFO Dan Ammann said. He cited Morgan Stanley forecasts that GM will make 5% on its operations this year, while leaders such as Hyundai and BMW will make 10%.
The Best:
A simplified product-development process and fewer platforms also will improve speed-to-market and quality, Barra said.
50% Cut in Platforms/Engines by 2018
In other encouraging news, it looks like the economy will make it easy on GM to negotiate acceptable terms but hard for the UAW to get their constituents to vote "yes". This is the key to the future of the D3.
Regards,
OW
I remember having one of those as a rental once. Couldn't believe they did that. I wonder where all the used Classics went? I've never seen one for sale.
When you look at the car lineup, including the upcoming Sonic and the new Malibu it's a pretty impressive set of offerings right up until you hit the flagship.
I think the '14 Impala is going to be FWD on a stretched Malibu chassis, but that Caprice you mention may come here as a '15.
I think this classic will be the current Malibu. Not a bad car, had one for a week in Hawaii. I haven't seen the prior Classic rental in several years (but I haven't used Enterprise - just kidding!).
I do wish they could update that car, and soon...if anything, so I can not have to risk getting one as a rental.
Thank you! I appreciate your saying that.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I suspect that the Impala is still bringing in money in some way or keeping it going resists losing money. I haven't researched which plants build the Impala. Are those plants that can't be easily rebuilt to build different models as needed? Are there still UAW rules about the workers who must be employed at those plants?
While the car is long in the tooth, I rode in one recently and would certainly consider it as a quick replacement for my leSabre for traveling if I didn't purchase a Cruze or Malibu. The car had a bench seat. It had good quality cloth seats. And it was very comfortable to enter and leave for someone my age. It was very quiet and performed well.
I suspect I would accept even a well-powered 4-cylinder version of one if I needed a replacement car quickly and didn't find the color and model of Cruze or Malibu on the lot and found an Impala in one of my colors I like and a model level that was well optioned without being the SS model with the large wheels and thin tires!
I checked a local dealer who had 10 used, primarily 2010 and 2008, and 13 news ones on the lot. I would consider those reasonable stock numbers considering the market where they are located.
I didn't see a single Impala with a Classic label. :sick:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Secondly, I drove our government Impala about 6 months ago, and remembered it having some serious lag when you stomped on it. It only has the 3.5 V-6, but still, it has over 200 hp, so it shouldn't do that. When you needed to take off fast, if you stomped on it, there was a long pause (long enough to get you into an accident in the proper conditions), and then it finally kicked in and would throw you back into your seat.
I'm sure the 3.6/6-speed auto has fixed the acceleration lag problem. Only a total redesign would fix the back seat room problem. But, if I could pick up a used one cheap enough, I'd still be tempted. Since they have a split bench seat, the Impala is still, IMO, a decent 3-seater. But if you go to 4 people, you better put the dwarf of the bunch in the spot behind me!
I did have a Classic which always seemed to be a previous generation Malibu. That was another story....
BTW - my daughter is absolutely in love with the Cruze her boyfriend bought. Next time he's around I'll have to sit in it and maybe go for a ride. It's as roomy as my 00 Accord and with a significantly bigger trunk.
4 of us had to travel in a rental to Illinois. a 6'2 driver and two others over 6'. In spite of having 10 inch thick seatbacks, we fit in the Impala fine. A Grand Marquis was taken once and also worked out good. What other GM car would have been as comfortable?
LOL, Nothing screams rent me like an Impala. IMO it wreaks of cheapness inside and out. Doesn't make it a bad car. It's just way outdated compared to the competition. The 3.6/6speed upgrade will be a huge improvement in the powertrain department, but I doubt it will help sales much. Though sales reps and other fleet drives will be happier.
I agree with Andre, rear seat leg room is lacking in the Impala. That doesn't mean I won't fit in the back seat, but I sure as hell don't want to.
I wonder how interior measurements are determined. The backseat of my wife's '11 taurus is plenty comfortable and I have plenty of room even with the front seat moved all the way back. Yet the dimensions show only .5 inch advantage in leg room in the Taurus yet it feels like 6". Though head room is slightly lacking. Inexcusable in car that's so damn big.
No question Ford's use of space in the Taurus is bad. How can a center console that is bigger than the one in my Expedition barely have enough room to hold a GPS unit. I can probably fit a case a of beer in the center console of the Expe.
Now the trunk in the Taurus is impressive. If you travel with people and or are a salesmen that must carry product, it's hard to beat the Taurus, the trunk is huge.
I'm 6'3". Whenever I drove an Impala, or any W-body, I'd always put the seat back as far as it would go. However, maybe some people, even if they're taller, might prefer to not sit back as far? Did this 6'4" driver have the seat all the way back?
To its credit, the Impala does have a lot of front seat travel. If I had to, I could drive it with the seat moved up a bit. It wouldn't be as comfortable for me, but I could tolerate it.
Again, they are OK enough but the market is telling you they don't want it anymore.
That dealer has 4 Impalas in stock and 9 Malibus. I don't know what one makes of taht wothout knowing how quickly they are turning over stock.
Test drove one once and both the wife and I liked the comfort in the front seats.
They've been better 2004+, at least as good as the average van. The Dodge guys keep saying that but check the post count in the problems thread and it's clear misery wants company.
I do agree, though, about the general theory that no car is perfect.
clips just snap together to the rest of the car like a Lego set
Are GM cars in the same class (economy/compact) any different? I think plastic fasteners are par for the course. Perhaps you shop in a higher price segment and have not noticed.
My Escort had interior trim pieces falling off regularly, often I could not even figure out where to put them back!
To be honest, it didn't stop me from enjoying the car.
JACKPOT!
http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA7497888.PDF
Save a copy before it's taken down...
Remeber, 50-60 days is normal. If they have a lot more than that, incentives may soon grow (may, no guarantees, natch).
If supply is below 50 days, and there are incentives now, I'd hurry and buy because they're unlikely to increase and could even be eliminated.
Good luck shopping. Should be bargains now on Lucerne, STS, Escalade, and the bigger trucks. Equinox, Cruze, Acadia are all hot.
A few models may be out of production, so there are cases when low supply may mean supply was cut off (Aveo? perhaps).
Even then, the VW is a turbo DI, while the Chevy is naturally aspirated, and built for FE.
Edit: Tig in '09, 'nox in '10. Still, 32mpg is still what I'd call pioneering.
I think part of the legroom measurement includes how high up from the floor the seat cushion is, and might even take into account if there's any foot room under the front seat.
Consumer Reports used to do a measurement called "fore/aft" seating room, where they set the front seat at 40 inches, or something like that, and then they'd simply measure the distance between the front seatback and some point at the back seat cushion. I think this figure actually gave a better idea of how roomy a back seat was than those legroom measurements that get published nowadays.
One day, out of curiosity, I took a tape measure to a few of my cars, and tried to get measure for front seat legroom. To measure, I put the seat where I was comfortable, and measured from the spot where the backrest and base cushion come together, at the center, to the bottom of the gas pedal.
I remember the measurements were something like:
1967 Catalina and 1968 Dart: ~42"
1979 New Yorker: ~44.5"
2000 Intrepid: ~45.5"
1976 LeMans: ~46"
I was surprised that the Catalina and Dart came up so short, and that the Intrepid came up so generous, because I always felt the Intrepid felt a bit tight. The older cars had a lot more room for your left foot, though, where the Intrepid had a dead pedal that was mounted too close for me, and got in the way.
But, if you look at front legroom measurements, most cars these days are around 41-43". The Intrepid's official measurement was 42.2", while the New Yorker was 42.3". A '76 Chevelle (should be identical to the LeMans) is 42.1" according to the sales brochure. But then, for a 1967 Catalina, they list front seat legroom at 42.6". So, I have no idea how they end up measuring front seat legroom, but definitely not the way I did it!
I think 32 mpg is even more impressive, in light of the newer, lower fuel EPA numbers they use these days. I wonder if that 32 would have equated to something like 35-36 mpg under the old 1985-2007 standards?
My understanding is that no credible automotive source has been able to achieve 32 on the hwy with the Equinox. Makes for great advertising copy - "600 miles on a tank!" - but how disappointed will the general public be when they only get high 20's on the highway?
That's not to say I don't like the new and improved 'Nox - I like the way it looks and it has some nice features I wish my CX-7 had (read: power liftgate).
Seems like GM figured out the secrets on how to ace the EPA tests, though.
GM did it at $23 grand. Interior volume probably 3 times as big as that Audi's.
The early VW engines had carbon build-up issues, so perhaps not even an engine to brag about.
VW was bleeding edge. GM was leading edge.
When did GM first get DOHC engines? Seems to me they were a couple of decades late.
They may be catching up, but GM has rarely been leading edge in anything.
VW was bleeding edge. GM was leading edge.
Now that's flat out comical.
VW may not be the most reliable on the road, but they've incorporated technology faster than most domestics. What does GM have that can even come close to the technology in something like a Bugatti Veyron which is part of VW.
One thing that does surprise me somewhat is GM not using DI with the Cruze. I would like to compare Ford's 2.0 DI 4cyl to the GM 1.4 turbo. Most head to head comparisons result in better acceleration and FE with the Focus. Though I haven't seen a comparo of the eco model.
Here was a company that dragged along with dated OHV engines, iron blocks, carburetors, skipped on balance shafts to save a few pennies ... you name it.
Along comes a modern DI 4 banger with class leading EPA highway mpg, and it's from ... GM?
Not Toyota, not Honda. They're the ones lagging now.
6 speed auto, too, while the others lag behind with 4/5 ratios.
It's a shame the DI V6 doesn't have competitive output. It would be nice to see GM scale down the 3.6l for applications like the 'nox.
VW may not be the most reliable on the road, but they've incorporated technology faster than most domestics
If I defined bleeding edge, that's pretty much what I'd write, perhaps with the 2nd sentence before the 1st.
Bleeding edge means incorporating technology faster, but not in the most reliable fashion.
Well to be fair GM did have some DOHC engines in the 80's. But GM did seem to take for ever to fully change over to FI.
Not Toyota, not Honda. They're the ones lagging now.
Agreed on Toy and Hon. I'm especially disappointed in Honda - their expertise has always been engines, but lately they've moved from a leader to a follower. They are really slipping to mediocrity.
Not Toyota, not Honda. They're the ones lagging now.
6 speed auto, too, while the others lag behind with 4/5 ratios.
Well I looked up in CU comparing a CRV to 'Nox both AWD 4cyl
Overall both returned 21mpg along with 4cyl Escape
150 mile trip Nox 27 CRV 26mpg Escape 26mpg Tiguan 25mpg
Acceleration 'Nox 0-60 10.7 45-65 7.3 QTR mile 18
CRV 0-60 9.1 45-65 5.7 QTR mile 17
Escape 0-60 10 45-65 6.4 QTR mile 17.5
Tiguan 0-60 8.6 45-65 5.4 QTR mile 16.7
I'll gladly give up 1mpg or so to not drive a slug.
I wanted one of those 442 Calais when they came out, my neighbor had one. I was a kid at the time and my family and their family went out one night guys in his new Olds and the girls in my parents car. Man, that engine pulled like a crazy fool! Then about 30k or something it developed a severe oil leak and needed replacement. I remember when he brought home a brand new Acura Integra sedan maybe two years after he got the Olds.
Btw, he still has the 'Teg. :shades:
Exactly what I was looking for.
Looking for increased year end incentives based on supply. Looks like they are pretty much on the norm. Factors will be when production of 2011 Lacrosse stops completely and 2012 are fully in production line and when the are put out on Dealer lots.
The recent turn of events in the stock markets sould have a substantial effect on decisions to buy a new car or wait and see where this all ends up, there by possibly changing time frames to sell current inventory.
CRV 0-60 9.1
I seriously question the validity of those 0-60 times, since MT recently tested a Terrain SLT-1 AWD (4-cyl) against the CR-V EX-L 4WD (4-cyl). Their 0-60 times? Identical, at 9.2 seconds. The 45-65 passing time was won by the CR-V, by a measly 0.4 seconds, and the quarter mile time? Identical again (16.9 sec @ 81.9 mph for the Terrain, 16.9 sec @ 82.9 mph for the CR-V).
I'll gladly give up 1mpg or so to not drive a slug.
Unless your SUV has an SRT badge, or the words Cayenne Turbo written on it's tailgate, it's a slug.
If an advertisement leaves out key information, I will tend to ignore it.
Exactly! My daughter's CR-V was purchased for exactly that fact! Reliable and slug-worthy!
Funny thing is, the CR-V with one notch up tire TW handles pretty impressive for a slug-mobile! :shades:
Regards,
OW
How come?? They tell you the horsepower but fail to mention that they are very close to Lincoln in the Luxury Auto Club!
BMW, Audi and Merc RULE! They might not be the Standard like Caddy but I'm sure their customers know better! Ya think??
Regards,
OW
Bentley
Ferrari
Lambo
Royce
Bugatti
Mercedes
lol, Cadillac
I just heard that commercial on the radio for the first time today. Let's see, where is Caddy sold?
US - yes
Canada - I think so?
Mexico?
South America?
Asia?
Australia?
Europe?
Seems like a typical GM wild stretch to call them the standard of the world! Really now. :surprise:
Another topic, how long did it take GM to make 6 speed autos? Sure the 4 did the job, but the competition moved on while GM stood still.
:P
And judging by reviews so far, the Veloster is on pace to be another Equus failure.
Kia/Hyundai should stick to what they are good at..... selling cheap cars to people who cannot afford a real vehicles like a GM :shades: