Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Look at that grille and snout! Are Toyota designers blind, or just very drunk?
Here is the interior of the Venza
Now, the Chevy
See? Junky!
Regards,
OW
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
ACtually, I would take the Acadia, or Traverse or Outlook over my 2008 Odyssey
any day of the week. But only on the more expensive models do you get
materials and workmanship worth a [non-permissible content removed]. I don't want my tax dollars bailing out
companies who have done a poor job, let them restructure and start over. the UAW
has run this company into the ground with their demands. start by idling plants
wtih no one buying GM junk, cutting salaries, and eliminate lifetime medical benefits.
Its no wonder GM is in the toilet, their prices were over inflated to begin with just to provide healthcare benefits to workers.
OMG how old were you in 1976?
350 was the dog. The 455 had just been discontinued in 1977 and the 403 took its place.
http://www.oldride.com/library/1977_oldsmobile_cutlass.html
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1973-1977-oldsmobile-intermediates5.htm
Regards,
OW
What's with the Venza interior trim jog around the gearshift? Who designs these things? The Chevy is pretty hideous, the outside far worse than the inside.
In fact, hideous is exactly the perception after all value judgments are made in any practical buying decision considering the US products. Whether in aesthetics or fear of costly repairs or gas guzzling hell.
The Venza isn't perfect but at least it won't fall apart. That's what has kept sales relatively higher for T, H, H,S and S. THe bottom line is after reading the pretty good review, they will sell a lot of these "whatever" category wagons.
Actually, to think about it, GM and Toyota should talk...
Regards,
OW
Even among its GM peers, the Cutlass Supreme was probably the best. The Monte Carlo's 305, 350, and 400 smallblock were kinda junky compared to the Olds 350/403. The Grand Prix 350/400 were okay, but didn't take well to emissions controls, which could make them cranky, and let's not bring up the Pontiac 301! I think the Regal from that era was decent, but I just prefer the Cutlass, and judging from sales, most buyers back then did, too.
That '91-96 era Park Ave was one of GM's better efforts from that timeframe. I remember C&D or MT giving it good press when it first came out. The tagline was "America fights back...with a BUICK?!" They liked the car overall, and said its styling was faintly Jaguaresque.
The 70's is a decade that was generally reviled, but I think GM actually made some of the better cars of that timeframe. Now sure, a Vega or Chevette was crap, but so was a Rabbit, Accord, or Corolla back then. They weren't crap compared to a Chevette or Vega, but in the overall scheme ofthings, they were still crap! :P
I'll admit that I do have a preference for some Mopars of that era. For instance, I'd tend to prefer the Dart/Valiant to the Nova, and I'd prefer something like a '79 Newport to a '79 LeSabre. I think Chrysler did compacts a bit better than GM back then, although when the Aspen/Volare came out it leveled the playing field somewhat.
The Newport also gave you some nice little details like extra gauges standard (temp, amps, oil pressure). I don't think extra gauges were even offered on the LeSabre, although they were on the Delta, Catalina/Bonneville, and Chevies. Oh, and windows that rolled down about 3/4 of the way in back, versus about half-way for the LeSabre. :P The LeSabre had better fit and finish, and was less likely to have trim parts fall off, but the Newport was more solid underneath, being based on the '71-79 intermediates rather than a whole new lightweight design, so the Newport would probably win in a demolition derby, if that's a priority for you.
350 was the dog. The 455 had just been discontinued in 1977 and the 403 took its place.
Actually, the Olds 350 was pretty good in these cars. With a 4-bbl, I think it had 170 hp in most years, but the Olds 350 adapted very well to the emissions controls of the time, so it tended to perform better than, say, a Pontiac, Buick, or Chevy 350, even if they were rated at the same 170 hp.
I knew a girl who had a '78 or '79 Olds 98 with a 403, and that sucker felt pretty strong. It was rated at 185 hp, but I'll say it made the most of what it had! I'm sure it would do a bit better in a '77 Cutlass, which was a bit lighter.
I have a '76 LeMans with a Pontiac 350-4bbl, and it'll do 0-60 in around 11 seconds. I imagine that Olds 350 was a bit quicker in the sister Cutlass. The 403 might have gotten it down to just under 10 seconds, and the 455, which only had around 200 hp by 1976, maybe around 9? They tended to put really tall gearing in these cars, so that held them back. Even when the engines wanted to rev, the rear ends just wouldn't let them.
The small engines in these cars were horrible, though! The Olds 260 V-8, which had 100-110 hp, was good for 0-60 in about 21 seconds in a '77 Cutlass! The Buick 231 V-6 would have been at least as bad. When they downsized for 1978, these small engines worked better with the cars, but were still nothing to write home about. I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme with a 231 V-6, and 0-60 came up in around 14 seconds. Better than 21+ for sure, but still a dog by today's standards!
That's what they said about the Lexus RX, and you can see how well it has done. Reputation counts for a lot.
As for the UAW, is it really their wages or is it their restrictive work rules and union contracts that pay them most of their salary while they are laid off? I'm not sure they are overpaid for the physically hard work they do as much as they incur too much overhead. Regardless, Detroit's failures are due to management making dumb decisions on labor contracts, products, vendors and engineering quality tradeoffs. The workers are victims just like the customers. Now the taxpayers will be too.
If that makes customers keep coming back for their transportation needs in today's reality, the business model is strong.
If it doesn't and costs exceed profits, the business model is doomed. So here we are with a domestic industry that is broken but a long time coming. This just didn't happen in the last year when gasoline spiked. Now, we bail them out?
Regards,
OW
The difference now is the taxpayers were once customers but now will just foot the bill to add $$$ to a failing industry. Hopefully, if the metrics are set correctly the downsizing, restructuring and return to profitability will be swift. That means somehow, the opportunity that is on hand will eventually get the customers to come back. The reality is the workers are always victims from failed management.
Bailout or bankruptcy, things need to move fast. Use the money to lift the costs of pensions and benefit costs immediately. Discontinue failed products. Rebuild in a structure that supports efficiency, development and customer satisfaction in today's market. Make one good product not 4 clones of the same one! Oh, and USE PREMIUM PARTS!!!!
Regards,
OW
Well, take a look at the chart. The whole business model is reflected in market share erosion over time. This should not be a surprise to anyone on the earth.
Regards,
OW
Ford has been turning things around for a few years, although they are further behind than GM in incorporating globalization in their design and marketing processes.
They have a 223-day supply of the MKZ, their newest Lincoln product (?), right now - I'm guessing it's a long road back for Lincoln, if it EVER makes it back. Ford is still struggling, it is just a little ahead of GM in terms of the amount of money it has left in the bank.
If you have to pick one domestic automaker to preserve, which I think is probably the best idea by far if there HAS to be a bailout, then GM with its largest market share, it's most advanced work on plug-in hybrids, and it's best incorporation of global product for the North American market, would be the one to choose.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Let's see, my family and I have purchased American cars for years. That makes me a customer, correct? Well, their current products are not desirable and have not been selling to support their business model. Any questions?
In case you haven't noticed, the others do it better. Do you think I stay up at night praying they fail? They do just fine on their own!
Regards,
OW
In spite of their "progress" I think you do pray they fail.
Oh come on, Lemko. You write like someone twice your age! With your logic, GM shouldn't have been allowed to sell in Europe, South America, or of late, China. It works both ways you know.
I agree with one thing though, the Amercian "ecosystem" (domestic automakers) couldn't handle it, but they have no one to blame but their own poor management decisions over the last 30+ years.
With the logic of the past 60 years of American history...we bail out parasitic nations and greedy cowardly banks, why not misguided automakers?
350 was the dog. The 455 had just been discontinued in 1977 and the 403 took its place.
The 350 was the large engine option for a standard model Cutlass Supreme. If my father had had a 442 or a Hurst Edition, I would have mentioned it. It still was a great car, though, having a ton of torque and virtually no smog equipment.(78+ was when it started to go downhill)
Or you could just keep your '89 Caddy Fleetwood forever.
Really? So in '76, the only way to get a 455 in a Cutlass was to specify either a 442 or Hurst, or maybe a wagon? That's kind of a bummer, even though the 350 was a good engine. With my '76 Grand LeMans, the 400 was actually standard, although a 350 was a credit option. And someone must have thought that was a good idea at the time, because that's what mine ended up with.
-Rocky
I think the big three still pay for the past but the union structure is really hurting them, it's something they were fixing slowly. That said, when you get a perfect storm of crazy gas spikes followed by a massive credit crunch, housing collapse and now a recession, people should not assume that the big 3 "make crap" or should be closed up. The storm was not their making and the consequences of their failure are massive and far beyond what most people realize.
Anyway, I hate corporate welfare but this is THE crisis of our lifetime. These companies need a lifeline and I think they must get it. It's important for America to have it's own auto industry and Americans should support it in every way. Just my opinion, I am Canadian and so I am not being "patriotic", it's my outside view from north of the 49th.
Nice opinion considering it is not your tax dollars that will bail them out.
Yes, the malibu is a nice car but it's a little too late. This is the car that should have been built back in 1997. 25-30 market share? It used to be much higher. So declining sales is a symbol of strength in your mind?
Gm was heading down this road before this so called "perfect storm". GM has have not reported a profit since 2004. Why do you think they squeezed the UAW so much on the last negotiations? Ask GM what happened to their electric car? GM made a gamble that Americans would buy more SUVs and pickups. They sent their better cars overseas to better penetrate those markets. We were stuck with the Grand AM, Grand Prix, L-Series, Ion, malibu Classic, Impala, Cavalier, G6, etc. And you have to ask why people think GM doesn't make car that people want? These cars are prime rental cars.
I oppose the federal government bailing out the big 3. The main reason is they have made bad decisions over the years that have led them to this point. GM in particular has too many brands to support. Badge engineering has cost them Buick, Pontiac and Saturn. You can probably add Saab as well. Again, their better cars are over in Europe and not here in NA. Why? They knew they could count on enough Americans buying their products based on blind loyalty. If they made products like the current Malibu over the past decade, they would not be in this situation and the foreign carmakers would never have had a chance in this country.
I intend to keep my 1989 Cadillac Brougham forever. My idea of the perfect car would be all of today's performance, reliability, quality, and technology in a car that looks like my '89 Brougham.
The American consumer is to blame as much as the corporations. 50 years ago I got a portable radio for Christmas. It was made in Japan. It was smaller than anything made in the USA. This loss of market share did not happen over night. We have all watched it evolve and went along with it. The bottom line for the Big 3 is they have themselves so tied up with contracts that they cannot be competitive. The only chance I see for survival is bankruptcy. Reorganization from the top to the bottom. The Dealers and the UAW will not like it anymore than the dead weight at the top of the management ladder. GM does not have the money to throw at the dealers like they did with Oldsmobile. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay off some fat cat car dealership for loss of GMC or Buick or Pontiac.
Did anyone really think that wages and benefits would just keep getting better for the UAW, while the competition was paying less? The competition is expanding in this country and taking the market share from the Big 3. One American's loss could be another one's gain. Take early retirement from GM and go build VWs in TN. Just don't mention you were a UAW member.
Strongly agree.
A few posts back someone mentioned asking Canada to chip in on any bailout/help. Add Mexico and any other country that builds American branded vehicles and ships to U.S. Obama/Pelosi could buy into that. Add to that any country that has substantial suppliers of car parts used in American branded vehicles sold in the U.S.
To what extent or percent do hourly and management GM personnel pay toward their health care? What about retirees - what percent do they pay?
Probably hundreds or thousands of U.S. companies have been cutting back on their contribution to health care premiums for workers and retirees. Is GM still paying more percent of premium than most companies? Understand when active hourly have iron-clad contract on health care premiums, but what about retirees? Has GM been cutting back on percent they pay for retirees? Most other companies are doing this.
I've watched as the clothing industry has slowly moved away from the Carolinas, the original American industrial city, Paterson (where I was born) deteriorate to the point where if it weren't the county seat maybe no in would make any money at all. When i was a kid a trip to Paterson was special. Now you avoid it at all costs.
I just don't know if it's too late. A stock analyst this morning valued a share of GM at $0.
From today's news:
General Motors will likely fall below its minimum cash needs of $11 billion to $14 billion in the first quarter of 2009 if the troubled automaker does not receive additional funding, said an analyst at Barclays Capital.
GM stock plunged more than 24 percent in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Barclays' analyst Brian Johnson downgraded GM to "underweight" from "equal weight." Deutsche Bank also cut GM to "sell" from "hold," and saw an equity value of $0 for the stock, according to a report on theflyonthewall.com.
"While further government assistance would decrease the likelihood of a GM bankruptcy, we believe any government assistance would likely significantly dilute GM's equity," Barclays' Johnson wrote in a note to clients.
Johnson cut his price target on the stock to $1 from $4.
On Friday, GM and Ford said their rate of cash burn had accelerated. The two burned through a combined $14.6 billion in cash in the face of deepening global downturn.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20081110/ANA02/311109930/1142/emailblast02&Profi- le=1142
(registration link)
Will there be enough time for Obama to get into the White House and get the money to GM before it quits operations? I know some hope so. Me, I still say the only viable long-term future for GM involves them declaring bankruptcy ASAP.
(And I am writing my congressional rep to tell her that if she votes to bail out Chrysler, she will not get my vote next time around).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm 200% behind bailing out GM and Ford *if* there are strong protection measures in place to keep them from off shoring everything with that money.
Salaried retirees pay 100% of health care. I believe starting in '10 hourly pays for health care including retirees.
We are on a HSA plan where we pay the first $5600 of medical bills and then go on some copay until we hit a max of $10,600 or so. No monthly payments.
For a PPO with deductables you pay $200 a month. Max yearly payment is $3000.
McGuinty said the Ontario automakers and associated industries employ around 400,000 people and represent 5 percent of Canada's gross domestic product."
Canada premiers ask Ottawa for autos, credit help
If only the Big 3 felt the same way towards the U.S. worker (!), I would agree with you. But the Big 3 have NOT cared about keeping industry here in the U.S. or the work here. They are the ones who outsourced many of their parts and assembly plants to Mexico and (lesser for savings) Canada. They didn't care about shuttering things here if they could save a buck and not get the UAW too upset.
I also want you to consider that if we give them the $ in 2009, and they operate the same way they do today, do you not think they'll need more $ later??
They have been restructuring, and supposedly going to have the cars that turn things around; for the last 30 years. I see companies that are getting smaller and smaller and still have large pensions and health care to pay for, which means higher prices, less profit and back around to lower sales ...
Shouldn't the U.S. public (or at least Congress) see a viable turnaround plan before shoveling $ at them?