Something odd about your Park Ave only getting around 21.5 mpg. My 1988 Park Ave usually eked out about 29-31 MPG highway driving. My 1989 Cadillac Brougham averaged about 21.5 MPG the last trip I took a little over a week ago.
Something odd about your Park Ave only getting around 21.5 mpg.
Yeah, but remember that's my total average since I've gotten the car. So that includes highway trips where I've gotten upper 20's or even broken 30 on a rare occasion, but also my local driving, which can sometimes be as bad as 15 mpg in cold weather.
Local driving can kill your overall economy, quick. For instance, when I got home from my trip Sunday night, the trip computer registered something like 27.5 mpg average, although at that point it only had around 70-75 miles on it since I reset the computer. I let my roommate borrow the car yesterday. He put about 10 miles on it, local driving, and that sunk the overall average to 25.5. And just me starting it up this morning, and driving it the 3 miles to work (would've been 2.5, but I had to swing by the post office) has sunk the average to around 24.5.
So if a chinese company had purchased Buick in 2008, do you think they'd of done much differently than they are doing now? They could have stayed the course just like they are doing now, just under CHINA GM rather than Detroit GM
Good question.
I think they'd be dropping American suppliers left and right, and switching to Chinese clone-like production of all the same (or similar looking) parts.
There would have been a hemorrhage of jobs in the USA, and dips in quality. Eventually they'd figure it out and get quality back up to where it is now, but not before damaging the Buick name.
There would have been a hemorrhage of jobs in the USA, and dips in quality.
Dips? More like falling off a cliff!
As much as I used to joke about Korean "quality" in the '90s, it's stellar compared to the crap that the Chinese automakers are peddling. Between the vids I've seen of Chinese cars folding like an accordion in crash tests, to the cheapness of their parts (and looks IMO), they've got a LONG way to go.
Andy, smell your toes (I'll guarantee they smell like gasoline!!!!) Get your foot out of "the carb"!! My wife won't let me go 75 before she starts screaming like a banshee, so in the trips I've taken, I usually got 30-33 on the highway in mine. My uncle claimed to get 29 in his going 75-80.
I will admit that in town, that thing gets awful thirsty. My father complains he's getting 8 or 9. Problem is, he never goes more than 1 mile!!!
The Chinese can't properly forge a wrench and one would expect them to build something as complex as a car? Geeze, the metallurgy of the suspension components alone would frighten me.
I went out after work to meet some friends, and probably put another 18 miles on the Park Ave, going from work to home. So that took this tank of fuel from around 80 miles to around 98.
Average fuel economy registered 24.2 mpg when I started the car, but it didn't take long for it to drop, as the car had to get up to operating temperature.
I tried driving as gently as reasonably possible (as in, not holding up traffic so I don't get shot at :P ), although at one point I did gun it a bit to get through a yellow light. Anyway, by the time I got home, the trip computer was still registering around 23.6 mpg.
So, that's not too bad I guess, considering this was mostly local driving, no highway.
About a month and a half ago, I filled up in PA, and then again as soon as I got back, and on that tank managed to score something like 32.4 mpg! But, I think the fuel pump might have shut off early, because the next time I filled up, mostly local driving (plus, the automatic shutoff on the pump didn't work so I spilled some), fuel economy was something like 14.5 mpg! So, I'm guessing that I really didn't get anywhere near 32.4 coming home from that trip, but on the flip side, I really didn't guzzle to the tune of 14.5 on the next tank!
My 1996 Park Ave gets about 12-13mpg city and about 28-30 highway. The supercharger gives you the same acceleration as the V8 in a Crown Victoria - virtually the same figures, size, weight, and so on. But at V8 mpg if you rev it over about 2500 rpm.
Thankfully the supercharger turns off on the highway so that you get V6 mpg, which the Crown Victoria can't. IMO, it's a good compromise. Ford seems to have learned their lesson and now are doing the same thing with their ecoboost.
Also, according to the local dealer, it's fine to run 87 in it. You'll suffer with much worse acceleration and about 1mpg less, but nobody drives one of these like a racer anyways.
I'm not doing much worse in spite of lacking 4th gear. 9 of my last 10 tanks have been between 20 and 21 mpg in a '96 SC Riv. I try to keep it under 60 on the interstate. It turns 2300 revs at 58 mph after it goes into lockup in 3rd. I'd be interested to know what a DIC says for inst mpg at 60 mph in 3rd gear in a P.A. My Riv does not have DIC and that point would be the best I could ever hope for from the car. My guess would be 21-22 mpg.
I average about 21mpg. While the supercharger is nice, it really sucks down gas while it is running, so every time you feel it kick in, you're getting something like 5mpg for that instant. By contrast, my mother's LeSabre without the supercharger gets a consistent 24-26mpg combined with the same driving pattern. But 21mpg is worlds better than 16 out of a Crown Vic.
I'd be interested to know what a DIC says for inst mpg at 60 mph in 3rd gear in a P.A. My Riv does not have DIC and that point would be the best I could ever hope for from the car. My guess would be 21-22 mpg.
Well, you'd have to try to get an average over the course of a few miles, as the instantaneous readout could be anything between 99 mpg if you're coasting (even in 3rd), or single digits if you're accelerating, even at what seems like a gentle pace.
I have noticed though, that sometimes putting it into a lower gear manually won't change the instantaneous readout. For instance, going up a long grade in 4th, if I feel the car starting to lug a bit, I'll manually shift into 3rd, but keep the same amount of pressure on the pedal. The engine revs faster, and the car maintains its speed without seeming to strain as much, but the instantaneous readout stays the same.
I guess in a situation like this, it's going to take so much fuel to move a given weight up the hill at any given speed, no matter what gear you're in. So, you could do it at 2000 rpm, using more fuel per rev, or do it at 3000 rpm (or whatever 3rd gear would be) but use less fuel per rev.
However, on level ground or other situations where you don't need as much power, I guess the lower gear simply slows you down more so you can't coast as far, and that's where the fuel loss comes in.
However, on level ground or other situations where you don't need as much power, I guess the lower gear simply slows you down more so you can't coast as far, and that's where the fuel loss comes in.
I'm sure not having O/D makes a difference too. Any time the engine has to spin faster than it needs to it uses more fuel.
For some reason about a year ago my Expedition started going into o/d (6th gear) below 40mph, it used to always wait until 45 or so to lock the torque converter in 6th. At first I was irritated and was I was going to take it to the dealer for a reflash or whatever would be needed to fix it. I didn't like the sluggishness of driving 35-40 at 1k-1,200rpm. Well after a few weeks my average FE around town went up about 1 mpg so I've left it alone. That may not sound like much, but going from 12-13 to 14-15 in mixed driving that's not a an insignificant amount.
My O/D lockout switch locks out 5th & 6th which are both O/D gears. But driving 45-55 on a level road in 4th vs. 6th will cut my FE by several MPG. Say at 60mph 6th gear is around 1,500rpm, 4th gear at 60 is around 2,800 IIRC.
I forgot who wrote it, and I am paraphrasing, but they basically said the Japanese took 20 years, the Koreans took 10, and the Chinese will only need 5.
Overall industry gained more than that, so could have been better.
Chevy division did well, up 7.1%, though I hear they will idle Sonic production for 2 days. Volumes are well below what the Aveo used to do, but then again prices are a lot higher. Cruze is still red hot, up a whopping 183.2%. Malibu plummeted, perhaps due to the changeover? It did less than half the volume of Accord and Camry.
Buick was down 9.1% and Caddy down 12.3%. Benz and BMW did well in the luxury arena.
3833 Sonics is still pretty good. Aveo sold 6038 a year ago but you have to wonder if they ever made money. I bet Sonic's average transaction price is up a couple of grand.
I think most people feel that VW is a near premium car maker. Sort of like Buick. This coupled with the fact that the Jetta is cheaper and the Passat is bigger and cheaper mean that the sale will increase.
Speaking of Buick, I am wondering why more people aren't buying the Regal. I think for 25,000 that is a decent car for the price. Or is that too much and GM has priced it too high?
I think for 25,000 that is a decent car for the price. Or is that too much and GM has priced it too high?
I think the base powertrain is a let down. It's slow and it doesn't get impressive mileage in return.
I know many posters on this thread don't want to hear it, but the type of people the Regal is aimed at don't want a Buick. That might be changing but, it will take more time. Personally, I'd go to a VW dealership long before Buick.
I also don't have any strong loyalties because stuff happens and changes over time, all the time.
As much as things CAN change, more often than not, more things just don't ever change much. Inertia is at play here. Most things just always stay the same. People like the status quo.
It is hard to change the culture of a company. They get USED to doing things a certain way, and it is harder to change than to keep doing the same thing.
Of course, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition for insanity. I'd argue the executives of the Big 3 were INSANE for decades!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Really? I'd sooner stick red hot flaming barbecue pokers in my eyes than go near a VW dealer again! If my wife bought a VW, she would soon be served with divorce papers.
For me, the Regal is too small and too underpowered and that's my reason for not wanting one. A Lacrosse, however, is a serious contender for my next automotive purchase.
Really? I'd sooner stick red hot flaming barbecue pokers in my eyes than go near a VW dealer
Dead serious. I owned a '00 Jetta GLS TDI at the same time my grandpa had is '00 P/A. Physical size aside I thought the Jetta was the nicer car. Much better fit-n-finish and much better interior design and materials. Sure if I was going to chose one to ride in the back seat, it would be the Park Ave. But to get behind the wheel of no way. I hated how it drove with it's sloppy soft suspension and Novocain numb steering. Now I realize some people prefer it that way.
I'd buy another VW in a new york second if I liked the car enough. My Jetta was one of the most rewarding vehicles I've owned.
Plus I'm looking at Buick through the eyes of those I know in their 30s to 40. None of them aspire to own a Buick. The Enclave would be the most likely contender. My sister ended up with my grandpa's P/A and she drove it for 3 years. She drives a Honda Pilot now. She still talks about how much she hated that P/A. Being a POC didn't help either. Nothing electrical worked right when she was done with it. Sad for an 8 year old supposedly premium vehicle at the time. That vehicle was basically as bad as my '00 Suburban.
For me, the Regal is too small and too underpowered and that's my reason for not wanting one. A Lacrosse, however, is a serious contender for my next automotive purchase.
That's my point. The traditional Buick buyer doesn't want a car a like the Regal. The person who does want that type of car isn't looking for Buick to provide it. They look at Buick the same way you look at VW.
I agree on the LaCrosse. It's a nice, good looking car. I'd go or something a bit more performance oriented like a hemi charger, or 300C. I really like the 300 for some reason.
So, the Buick buyer bucks the trend toward smaller cars with better gas milage?
I too like the new 300C but I gotta get AWD which means that the car is going to cost a fortune. I don't like it that much. I am 40 and I like Hondas, VW Subarus and Acuras. My wife would kill me if I bought a Chrysler or Buick product.
I too like the new 300C but I gotta get AWD which means that the car is going to cost a fortune. I don't like it that much.
I think I could get by with RWD and a set of winter tires. I really don't want the added weight, complexity, and cost of AWD. But I agree, an AWD 300C starts to get pricey.
My wife would kill me if I bought a Chrysler or Buick product.
My wife could really care less. If I told her I was buying a Buick she'd just tease by saying something like "jesus, your 40, not 80"
Now my mom flat out told my dad when he was looking at new cars a few years ago that if he bought a Buick, she didn't want to be seen in it. He ended up with an Accord EX-L v6.
My wife could really care less. If I told her I was buying a Buick she'd just tease by saying something like "jesus, your 40, not 80"
Now my mom flat out told my dad when he was looking at new cars a few years ago that if he bought a Buick, she didn't want to be seen in it. He ended up with an Accord EX-L v6.
IMO that's the biggest problem with Buick. They've had that "old people's car" mantra for years, and with Pontiac and Saturn gone, most buyers don't want to believe that Buick is going for a younger crowd with the Regal and Verano, to try and keep those previous GM buyers.
It'll take time, but they have lowered their average buyer age with the introduction of the Regal. They also ditched the Lucerne, which doesn't hurt either.
IMO that's the biggest problem with Buick. They've had that "old people's car" mantra for years, and with Pontiac and Saturn gone, most buyers don't want to believe that Buick is going for a younger crowd with the Regal and Verano, to try and keep those previous GM buyers.
It'll take time, but they have lowered their average buyer age with the introduction of the Regal. They also ditched the Lucerne, which doesn't hurt either.
I agree. The Regal is the one Buick I would consider. Not that there is anything wrong with the LaCrosse or Enclave. I have zero interest in the Verano.
My first two cars were Buicks - a 1968 Buick Special Deluxe that ran for 24 years and a 1979 Buick Park Avenue that would've probably ran just as long or more if I hadn't crashed it. I was much younger than my 30s or 40s at that time. Fast forward, I had a 1988 Buick Park Avenue until recently and my wife still has the 2005 Buick LaCrosse she purchased new when she was 37. All have been extremely reliable vehicles and neither I nor my wife have any problem with Buick's driving dynamics.
I have seen the VW CC sedan and that's got to be the nicest-looking VW of all time, but my lust for that car is tempered by the experiences of VWs past. For example, my then-girlfriend's new 1994 Jetta that seemed to be broken every other Thursday, the expensive parts, the even more expensive repairs, and the surly service advisors. When she didn't go to the dealer, she was forever asking me to diagnose one malady after another.
A friend of mine bought a new 2000 Jetta that was plagued with so many transmission and electrical glitches that he traded it for a loss for a 2001 Saturn of all things.
Another friend showed me his new 2006 Jetta GLI, which was really nice, but then again, my memories of girlfriend's '94 and my buddy's '00 came rushing back to lure me away from the VW siren song that would leave me financially dashed against the jagged rocks .
I lost 4th gear when I still had a 50 mile each way commute and was averaging over 27 mpg. With no 4th gear, I've never got better than 21, but rarely worse than 20 mpg. Most of the 600 extra rpms to do a steady 60 mph go to waste. That 600 rpm increase puts out higher HP. There are limits to how much the computer will lean out the mixture. That's why they added O/D. Gone are the benefits of drafting.
A friend had a Passat but it spent so much time in the shop that I thought she had purchased the Ford Five Hundred she drove as a loaner that whole time.
She put more miles on the Ford than she did on her own VW.
She's driving an Odyssey now. You could not give her a VW.
I will say, though, there are just as many VW owners with positive experiences. It's a polarizing car, love/hate.
I will say, though, there are just as many VW owners with positive experiences. It's a polarizing car, love/hate.
For some reason, I've found myself more and more attracted to VW's latest offerings. First, the new Jetta, and now the latest Passat. There's just something about the lines I find pleasing, although at a quick glance, the Passat reminds me a bit of the Impala.
Dunno if I'd be seduced enough into buying one, though.
I told myself (and others) I was no longer going to post on this particular forum for a couple (IMHO) solid reasons, but I have to laugh when I read how most folks are so hung up on image/perception of a brand. I tend to thumb my nose at that kind of stuff--probably why I drive a Studebaker as a hobby car and bought a new Caprice Classic when I was 35 and my wife was 28! Never owned anything new except a Chevy, but have driven them all.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm so-so on the new Jetta, but I do like the new Passat. The latest comparo I read between the new Camry v6, Sonata turbo, and v6 Passat was impressive. The Passat won. Man it's quick, something like 5.7 0-60.
There have been many VW's in my family over the past 10 years and none of them have been overly problematic.
I know they aren't the most reliable vehicles on the road overall, but they are above average in most other areas that I value more than just being reliable.
Sales flatten, Incentives high, inventory increases. That equals market share drop? Investors do not like it.
In a note to investors, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said GM's "negative surprise" on October sales volume "is a gentle dose of reality that GM must give back some of the share it had borrowed from competitors."
Through September, GM had gained one percentage point of U.S. market share, to 20 percent from 19 percent, while Japanese rivals struggled to overcome production shortages stemming from the March earthquake. Toyota's share slid 2.7 points to 12.5 percent. Honda's share dropped 1.6 points to 9.0 percent.
Japanese automakers offered larger incentives in October than they had a year earlier, according to data compiled by TrueCar.com. Nissan's incentive spending rose 15 percent, while Honda's was up 18 percent and Toyota's rose 13 percent. GM's incentive spending rose 3 percent.
Then, inventory increases....
GM also saw inventories rise during the quarter, from 558,157 units at the end of September to 592,151 on Oct. 31. That boosted its supply from 67 days to 82, the automaker said.
Jonas said that the higher inventory levels "may rehash questions about production schedule risk and incentives."
Finally, that incentives stayed high at GM is the indication the competition will eat some of the GM share going forward.
The average per-vehicle incentive last month was $2,669, up $16 or 1 percent from September and $116 or 5 percent from a year earlier, according to TrueCar.com.
Automakers hardest hit by production cuts after the March 11 Japan earthquake and tsunami boosted October incentives as they started to restock. Honda spent $2,380 last month, up 18 percent from a year ago. Toyota boosted spending 13 percent to $2,387. Nissan was up 15 percent to $2,917.
By contrast, Detroit 3 incentive spending was relatively flat, up 2 percent to $2,817 at Ford and 2 percent to $3,182 at GM, while Chrysler spiffs declined 3 percent to $3,303, TrueCar.com said. Hyundai-Kia spent $1,300 in October, off 23 percent.
Still many miles before GM falls asleep like they did for over 30 years, wouldn't you say? For the moment, I'll bet they are scrambling to launch the cars that are due soon even faster. At the end of the day, there are only so many pick-up trucks necessary in the market. They remain far behind in cars, as usual.
I have to laugh when I read how most folks are so hung up on image/perception of a brand.
Why? A Buick has never driven like a BMW or vice versa. Some prefer the how a Buick drives and some prefer the BWM. If no one cared about perception/image Cadillac and Buick would be pointless. A Chevy would be good enough for everyone.
My grandpa always bought big GM sedans (Delta 88, Caprice Classic Brougham LS, Roadmaster, and a few Park Aves and I personally put thousands of miles on most of them. My first car was a '75 Buick Regal that my grandpa gave to me in '87. Personally I wouldn't give a dollar for any of them. Not my type of car, I was glad to have the regal as it was free. It has nothing to do with image or perception, it has far more to do with dynamics. I don't really care for big, slow, lumbering sedans. The only thing my regal did well was drink gas, and have lots of room for my female classmates;) Though I will say my grandpa's 87 Caprice was my favorite of all the cars.
Sticking a VW emblem on a Buick won't make me like the car any more. The car itself isn't what I want. That doesn't make it a bad car. Just not one that appeals to me.
I have some interest in the Regal GS. That is the type of car I like. Good handling, braking, decent looks, manual trans etc. I'm a bit disappointed in the acceleration numbers, but it is a car I'd definitely test drive. I wouldn't avoid it just because it's a Buick, but I would have to like it better than everything else I compared it to.
I've never just blindly gone to brand X to buy a vehicle. Ex. My list of cars from 92 have been Mercury Tracer, Dodge Neon, Ford Contour SVT, VW Jetta, Nissan Pathfinder, Chevy Suburban, and now Ford Expedition. I've liked most of them except or the Suburban. That doesn't include my wife's cars, just mine. She's had more GM vehicles which I pretty much tried to avoid driving.
Considering GM's cleaned up balance sheet, they won't be in trouble for a long time.
I think GM is really hurting with trucks right now. Ford is all over GM in the 1/2 ton powertrain department. The ram is nipping at GM too with their great looks. The new GM trucks can't get here soon enough. Looks like GM is putting lots of money on the hood of their trucks.
Sales flatten, Incentives high, inventory increases. That equals market share drop? Investors do not like it.
What ever happened to all the talk of the US Govt selling their shares? Seems to have gone by the wayside (due to lower share prices?). Serious question - what happened?
What do you guys think about GM's decision to drop the v6 option from the 2013 Malibu?
The Camry, Chrysler 200, Accord and Passat offer a V6. I don't know if the Fusion will keep a v6 when it's redone in 2013. My guess is it will along with an ecoboost 4cyl option.
Granted I know v6 sales are only 1/4 or so of family sedan sales, will potential buyers care?
IMO, it will depend on the mileage and performance of the 4cyl powertrains. If like in the Regal, the 4cyl is slow and gets little to no better mileage than a v6 Camry, they may have a problem.
Comments
Yeah, but remember that's my total average since I've gotten the car. So that includes highway trips where I've gotten upper 20's or even broken 30 on a rare occasion, but also my local driving, which can sometimes be as bad as 15 mpg in cold weather.
Local driving can kill your overall economy, quick. For instance, when I got home from my trip Sunday night, the trip computer registered something like 27.5 mpg average, although at that point it only had around 70-75 miles on it since I reset the computer. I let my roommate borrow the car yesterday. He put about 10 miles on it, local driving, and that sunk the overall average to 25.5. And just me starting it up this morning, and driving it the 3 miles to work (would've been 2.5, but I had to swing by the post office) has sunk the average to around 24.5.
Good question.
I think they'd be dropping American suppliers left and right, and switching to Chinese clone-like production of all the same (or similar looking) parts.
There would have been a hemorrhage of jobs in the USA, and dips in quality. Eventually they'd figure it out and get quality back up to where it is now, but not before damaging the Buick name.
Dips? More like falling off a cliff!
As much as I used to joke about Korean "quality" in the '90s, it's stellar compared to the crap that the Chinese automakers are peddling. Between the vids I've seen of Chinese cars folding like an accordion in crash tests, to the cheapness of their parts (and looks IMO), they've got a LONG way to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbe5ILICT4M
The crumple zone is basically the dummy's face.
I'll still keep my Lacrosse.
I will admit that in town, that thing gets awful thirsty. My father complains he's getting 8 or 9. Problem is, he never goes more than 1 mile!!!
Average fuel economy registered 24.2 mpg when I started the car, but it didn't take long for it to drop, as the car had to get up to operating temperature.
I tried driving as gently as reasonably possible (as in, not holding up traffic so I don't get shot at :P ), although at one point I did gun it a bit to get through a yellow light. Anyway, by the time I got home, the trip computer was still registering around 23.6 mpg.
So, that's not too bad I guess, considering this was mostly local driving, no highway.
About a month and a half ago, I filled up in PA, and then again as soon as I got back, and on that tank managed to score something like 32.4 mpg! But, I think the fuel pump might have shut off early, because the next time I filled up, mostly local driving (plus, the automatic shutoff on the pump didn't work so I spilled some), fuel economy was something like 14.5 mpg! So, I'm guessing that I really didn't get anywhere near 32.4 coming home from that trip, but on the flip side, I really didn't guzzle to the tune of 14.5 on the next tank!
Thankfully the supercharger turns off on the highway so that you get V6 mpg, which the Crown Victoria can't. IMO, it's a good compromise. Ford seems to have learned their lesson and now are doing the same thing with their ecoboost.
Also, according to the local dealer, it's fine to run 87 in it. You'll suffer with much worse acceleration and about 1mpg less, but nobody drives one of these like a racer anyways.
Well, you'd have to try to get an average over the course of a few miles, as the instantaneous readout could be anything between 99 mpg if you're coasting (even in 3rd), or single digits if you're accelerating, even at what seems like a gentle pace.
I have noticed though, that sometimes putting it into a lower gear manually won't change the instantaneous readout. For instance, going up a long grade in 4th, if I feel the car starting to lug a bit, I'll manually shift into 3rd, but keep the same amount of pressure on the pedal. The engine revs faster, and the car maintains its speed without seeming to strain as much, but the instantaneous readout stays the same.
I guess in a situation like this, it's going to take so much fuel to move a given weight up the hill at any given speed, no matter what gear you're in. So, you could do it at 2000 rpm, using more fuel per rev, or do it at 3000 rpm (or whatever 3rd gear would be) but use less fuel per rev.
However, on level ground or other situations where you don't need as much power, I guess the lower gear simply slows you down more so you can't coast as far, and that's where the fuel loss comes in.
I'm sure not having O/D makes a difference too. Any time the engine has to spin faster than it needs to it uses more fuel.
For some reason about a year ago my Expedition started going into o/d (6th gear) below 40mph, it used to always wait until 45 or so to lock the torque converter in 6th. At first I was irritated and was I was going to take it to the dealer for a reflash or whatever would be needed to fix it. I didn't like the sluggishness of driving 35-40 at 1k-1,200rpm. Well after a few weeks my average FE around town went up about 1 mpg so I've left it alone. That may not sound like much, but going from 12-13 to 14-15 in mixed driving that's not a an insignificant amount.
My O/D lockout switch locks out 5th & 6th which are both O/D gears. But driving 45-55 on a level road in 4th vs. 6th will cut my FE by several MPG. Say at 60mph 6th gear is around 1,500rpm, 4th gear at 60 is around 2,800 IIRC.
They are getting better, though.
I forgot who wrote it, and I am paraphrasing, but they basically said the Japanese took 20 years, the Koreans took 10, and the Chinese will only need 5.
Overall industry gained more than that, so could have been better.
Chevy division did well, up 7.1%, though I hear they will idle Sonic production for 2 days. Volumes are well below what the Aveo used to do, but then again prices are a lot higher. Cruze is still red hot, up a whopping 183.2%. Malibu plummeted, perhaps due to the changeover? It did less than half the volume of Accord and Camry.
Buick was down 9.1% and Caddy down 12.3%. Benz and BMW did well in the luxury arena.
No confirmation but it sounds like the Thai flooding may have got them.
Chevrolet Suspends Production Of Fastest-Selling Model (AutoObserver)
I'm shocked at how well VW is doing, up 39%. Wow. I see Jettas everywhere.
F150 had another impressive month. It's ahead of the Silverado/Sierra combo YTD. RAM had a good month too.
3833 Sonics is still pretty good. Aveo sold 6038 a year ago but you have to wonder if they ever made money. I bet Sonic's average transaction price is up a couple of grand.
Still, you'd think a new Civic would have pulled ahead. Corolla is still using an ancient 4EAT.
Prices are a lot lower than they used to be, though.
It's the opposite of the Aveo->Sonic effect.
Speaking of Buick, I am wondering why more people aren't buying the Regal. I think for 25,000 that is a decent car for the price. Or is that too much and GM has priced it too high?
I think the base powertrain is a let down. It's slow and it doesn't get impressive mileage in return.
I know many posters on this thread don't want to hear it, but the type of people the Regal is aimed at don't want a Buick. That might be changing but, it will take more time. Personally, I'd go to a VW dealership long before Buick.
As much as things CAN change, more often than not, more things just don't ever change much. Inertia is at play here. Most things just always stay the same. People like the status quo.
It is hard to change the culture of a company. They get USED to doing things a certain way, and it is harder to change than to keep doing the same thing.
Of course, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition for insanity. I'd argue the executives of the Big 3 were INSANE for decades!
For me, the Regal is too small and too underpowered and that's my reason for not wanting one. A Lacrosse, however, is a serious contender for my next automotive purchase.
Dead serious. I owned a '00 Jetta GLS TDI at the same time my grandpa had is '00 P/A. Physical size aside I thought the Jetta was the nicer car. Much better fit-n-finish and much better interior design and materials. Sure if I was going to chose one to ride in the back seat, it would be the Park Ave. But to get behind the wheel of no way. I hated how it drove with it's sloppy soft suspension and Novocain numb steering. Now I realize some people prefer it that way.
I'd buy another VW in a new york second if I liked the car enough. My Jetta was one of the most rewarding vehicles I've owned.
Plus I'm looking at Buick through the eyes of those I know in their 30s to 40. None of them aspire to own a Buick. The Enclave would be the most likely contender. My sister ended up with my grandpa's P/A and she drove it for 3 years. She drives a Honda Pilot now. She still talks about how much she hated that P/A. Being a POC didn't help either. Nothing electrical worked right when she was done with it. Sad for an 8 year old supposedly premium vehicle at the time. That vehicle was basically as bad as my '00 Suburban.
For me, the Regal is too small and too underpowered and that's my reason for not wanting one. A Lacrosse, however, is a serious contender for my next automotive purchase.
That's my point. The traditional Buick buyer doesn't want a car a like the Regal. The person who does want that type of car isn't looking for Buick to provide it. They look at Buick the same way you look at VW.
I agree on the LaCrosse. It's a nice, good looking car. I'd go or something a bit more performance oriented like a hemi charger, or 300C. I really like the 300 for some reason.
I too like the new 300C but I gotta get AWD which means that the car is going to cost a fortune. I don't like it that much. I am 40 and I like Hondas, VW Subarus and Acuras. My wife would kill me if I bought a Chrysler or Buick product.
I think I could get by with RWD and a set of winter tires. I really don't want the added weight, complexity, and cost of AWD. But I agree, an AWD 300C starts to get pricey.
My wife would kill me if I bought a Chrysler or Buick product.
My wife could really care less. If I told her I was buying a Buick she'd just tease by saying something like "jesus, your 40, not 80"
Now my mom flat out told my dad when he was looking at new cars a few years ago that if he bought a Buick, she didn't want to be seen in it. He ended up with an Accord EX-L v6.
I'll bet they were dumped into fleet/rental car duty, and they still probably are, to get rid of 'em from inventory.
Now my mom flat out told my dad when he was looking at new cars a few years ago that if he bought a Buick, she didn't want to be seen in it. He ended up with an Accord EX-L v6.
IMO that's the biggest problem with Buick. They've had that "old people's car" mantra for years, and with Pontiac and Saturn gone, most buyers don't want to believe that Buick is going for a younger crowd with the Regal and Verano, to try and keep those previous GM buyers.
It'll take time, but they have lowered their average buyer age with the introduction of the Regal. They also ditched the Lucerne, which doesn't hurt either.
And that was just a couple day rental experience.
It'll take time, but they have lowered their average buyer age with the introduction of the Regal. They also ditched the Lucerne, which doesn't hurt either.
I agree. The Regal is the one Buick I would consider. Not that there is anything wrong with the LaCrosse or Enclave. I have zero interest in the Verano.
I have seen the VW CC sedan and that's got to be the nicest-looking VW of all time, but my lust for that car is tempered by the experiences of VWs past. For example, my then-girlfriend's new 1994 Jetta that seemed to be broken every other Thursday, the expensive parts, the even more expensive repairs, and the surly service advisors. When she didn't go to the dealer, she was forever asking me to diagnose one malady after another.
A friend of mine bought a new 2000 Jetta that was plagued with so many transmission and electrical glitches that he traded it for a loss for a 2001 Saturn of all things.
Another friend showed me his new 2006 Jetta GLI, which was really nice, but then again, my memories of girlfriend's '94 and my buddy's '00 came rushing back to lure me away from the VW siren song that would leave me financially dashed against the jagged rocks .
She put more miles on the Ford than she did on her own VW.
She's driving an Odyssey now. You could not give her a VW.
I will say, though, there are just as many VW owners with positive experiences. It's a polarizing car, love/hate.
For some reason, I've found myself more and more attracted to VW's latest offerings. First, the new Jetta, and now the latest Passat. There's just something about the lines I find pleasing, although at a quick glance, the Passat reminds me a bit of the Impala.
Dunno if I'd be seduced enough into buying one, though.
There have been many VW's in my family over the past 10 years and none of them have been overly problematic.
I know they aren't the most reliable vehicles on the road overall, but they are above average in most other areas that I value more than just being reliable.
In a note to investors, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said GM's "negative surprise" on October sales volume "is a gentle dose of reality that GM must give back some of the share it had borrowed from competitors."
Through September, GM had gained one percentage point of U.S. market share, to 20 percent from 19 percent, while Japanese rivals struggled to overcome production shortages stemming from the March earthquake. Toyota's share slid 2.7 points to 12.5 percent. Honda's share dropped 1.6 points to 9.0 percent.
Japanese automakers offered larger incentives in October than they had a year earlier, according to data compiled by TrueCar.com. Nissan's incentive spending rose 15 percent, while Honda's was up 18 percent and Toyota's rose 13 percent. GM's incentive spending rose 3 percent.
Then, inventory increases....
GM also saw inventories rise during the quarter, from 558,157 units at the end of September to 592,151 on Oct. 31. That boosted its supply from 67 days to 82, the automaker said.
Jonas said that the higher inventory levels "may rehash questions about production schedule risk and incentives."
Finally, that incentives stayed high at GM is the indication the competition will eat some of the GM share going forward.
The average per-vehicle incentive last month was $2,669, up $16 or 1 percent from September and $116 or 5 percent from a year earlier, according to TrueCar.com.
Automakers hardest hit by production cuts after the March 11 Japan earthquake and tsunami boosted October incentives as they started to restock. Honda spent $2,380 last month, up 18 percent from a year ago. Toyota boosted spending 13 percent to $2,387. Nissan was up 15 percent to $2,917.
By contrast, Detroit 3 incentive spending was relatively flat, up 2 percent to $2,817 at Ford and 2 percent to $3,182 at GM, while Chrysler spiffs declined 3 percent to $3,303, TrueCar.com said. Hyundai-Kia spent $1,300 in October, off 23 percent.
Still many miles before GM falls asleep like they did for over 30 years, wouldn't you say? For the moment, I'll bet they are scrambling to launch the cars that are due soon even faster. At the end of the day, there are only so many pick-up trucks necessary in the market. They remain far behind in cars, as usual.
Regards,
OW
Why? A Buick has never driven like a BMW or vice versa. Some prefer the how a Buick drives and some prefer the BWM. If no one cared about perception/image Cadillac and Buick would be pointless. A Chevy would be good enough for everyone.
My grandpa always bought big GM sedans (Delta 88, Caprice Classic Brougham LS, Roadmaster, and a few Park Aves and I personally put thousands of miles on most of them. My first car was a '75 Buick Regal that my grandpa gave to me in '87. Personally I wouldn't give a dollar for any of them. Not my type of car, I was glad to have the regal as it was free. It has nothing to do with image or perception, it has far more to do with dynamics. I don't really care for big, slow, lumbering sedans. The only thing my regal did well was drink gas, and have lots of room for my female classmates;) Though I will say my grandpa's 87 Caprice was my favorite of all the cars.
Sticking a VW emblem on a Buick won't make me like the car any more. The car itself isn't what I want. That doesn't make it a bad car. Just not one that appeals to me.
I have some interest in the Regal GS. That is the type of car I like. Good handling, braking, decent looks, manual trans etc. I'm a bit disappointed in the acceleration numbers, but it is a car I'd definitely test drive. I wouldn't avoid it just because it's a Buick, but I would have to like it better than everything else I compared it to.
I've never just blindly gone to brand X to buy a vehicle. Ex. My list of cars from 92 have been Mercury Tracer, Dodge Neon, Ford Contour SVT, VW Jetta, Nissan Pathfinder, Chevy Suburban, and now Ford Expedition. I've liked most of them except or the Suburban. That doesn't include my wife's cars, just mine. She's had more GM vehicles which I pretty much tried to avoid driving.
I own an '11 Malibu, and I agree with that last assessment.
All in the name of competition (sigh).
I think GM is really hurting with trucks right now. Ford is all over GM in the 1/2 ton powertrain department. The ram is nipping at GM too with their great looks. The new GM trucks can't get here soon enough. Looks like GM is putting lots of money on the hood of their trucks.
The problem is that this is how people behave. So any company that wants sales needs to consider it.
I'm sure we all wish there were behaviors that people didn't do. Such is the human condition, warts and all.
What ever happened to all the talk of the US Govt selling their shares? Seems to have gone by the wayside (due to lower share prices?). Serious question - what happened?
The dealeship experience will probably turn you off!
The Camry, Chrysler 200, Accord and Passat offer a V6. I don't know if the Fusion will keep a v6 when it's redone in 2013. My guess is it will along with an ecoboost 4cyl option.
Granted I know v6 sales are only 1/4 or so of family sedan sales, will potential buyers care?
IMO, it will depend on the mileage and performance of the 4cyl powertrains. If like in the Regal, the 4cyl is slow and gets little to no better mileage than a v6 Camry, they may have a problem.