Fin- I pretty much agree. The Camry is appears to be a huge improvement. Add a solid mix of powertrain offerings, they will sell them as fast as they can make them.
The Accord is severely outdated a new model is needed ASAP. Considering how Honda has performed with their latest new models, it seems each redo is less impressive than the last.
Fusion seems to be selling very well. A new model will be out sometime in '12. So Ford has been impressively busy with upgraded product.
Malibu sales fell of a cliff last month. I don't know when they'll be changing over to the new model, but competition in that segment likely has never been stronger.
The funny thing about VW is I'm not big at all on the looks of the new Jetta, but for some reason I like how it looks on the Passat.
As for CEL's my sister learned a trick to fix those a long time ago when she worked for Enterprise. Put a sticker over it;) LOL
Nissan's 3.0 SOHC v6 was nearly bullet proof, but a bit shy on power for a minivan. To bad they didn't use the 3.0VQ back then. Nice driving van though.
We put 235K on our Villager. Nissan engine and tranny were definitely bulletproof. Too bad GM never really got a competitive minivan out there. Now that market has shrunk a bunch - everybody wants bouncy rides and doors that swing into those adjacent to them so that they won't have a 'soccer mom' stigma. :confuse:
The funny thing about VW is I'm not big at all on the looks of the new Jetta, but for some reason I like how it looks on the Passat.
I find myself really liking the new Passat as well. Although strangely, the car reminds me a bit of an Impala. Just, an Impala if it was done right, I guess!
The Accord is severely outdated a new model is needed ASAP. Considering how Honda has performed with their latest new models, it seems each redo is less impressive than the last.
Isn't the Nissan Altima overdue for a redesign, as well? I'm finding that the older I get, I start losing track of when the new models come out, but I think the current Altima dates back to 2007?
I don't believe anyone is building a car that is as attractive (IMO) as the Cruze Eco, that gets that kind of mileage. I mean, nobody.
Except Ford. Sorry, but I think the Focus looks better. And 2 MPG is less than $100 per 10k miles (Actually $52 assuming $4 per gallon gas), so I consider "that kind of mileage" as anything within 2 MPG in either direction.
The Focus also has a hatch. The Cruze, due to whatever GM might be using for logic, does not. In fact, there is NOTHING in between the Sonic and the Equinox for GM hatch-type vehicles, which is kind of a big hole since the Equinox is considered a midsize SUV. No CR-V competitor, no Matrix/Focus competitor...how long before that bites them?
Except Ford. Sorry, but I think the Focus looks better. And 2 MPG is less than $100 per 10k miles (Actually $52 assuming $4 per gallon gas), so I consider "that kind of mileage" as anything within 2 MPG in either direction.
I actually like the fact that the Cruze and the Focus aren't carbon copies of each other, although I think GM would be wise to offer that European hatchback version of it here in the States. At least though, it gives some variety. I appreciate the Fusion offering a hatch, and having a more youthful flair about it, but if forced to choose, I think I'd take the Cruze, because it feels roomier and more comfy inside. They're both rated as compacts, but they make me think of the old days,when you had the Detroit idea of a compact, which was a Nova, Valiant, Dart, etc, and then you had the Japanese or European idea of a compact, which was something aorund the size of a Datsun 510. Maybe not so extreme, but I can feel the difference.
Is the Equinox that much bigger than the CR-V these days? Last time I saw a CR-V at the auto show, it didn't seem so cute-ute anymore.
Oh, another thing that disappoints me a bit about the Cruze is that you have to get the Eco or the turbocharged model to get good fuel economy. If you just get a cheap base model, it's only rated 22/35 with the automatic. The highway figure's not bad, but nowadays most midsized 4-cyl cars are meeting, or even beating that city figure. It does better with the stick...25/36, although I doubt that is class- leading. But again, to be fair, the Cruze is on the upper end of the compact scale, so perhaps it does still find its niche.
I don't see anything wrong with the cruze. I'd pick the focus for the hatch and it's better performance and fun to drive aspect. That's probably why the focus is an automobile mag all star and on C&D 10 best and the Cruze is not.
I don't know if the market directly competes the Malibu with those others - the Malibu seems a notch smaller somehow, and the Impala is bigger and a fleet queen. GM doesn't seem to be a leader in that segment right now.
Altima is from MY 2007, so she's an old girl - Accord is only a year newer.
I don't mind the looks of the new Passat either, and a diesel is appealing - but I have to be leery.
I don't know if the market directly competes the Malibu with those others - the Malibu seems a notch smaller somehow, and the Impala is bigger and a fleet queen. GM doesn't seem to be a leader in that segment right now.
I wonder if GM is going to run into problems with the Cruze and Malibu overlapping each other? The Malibu is about as small as a car can get and still be classified as midsized, while the Cruze, which is marketed as a compact, is, marginally, classified as a midsize by the EPA.
The Cruze has 94 cubic feet of passenger volume and a 16 cubic foot trunk, while the Malibu has 95 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 16 cubic foot trunk. The EPA's definition of a midsized car is something like 110-119.9 cubic feet combined (which means a hatchback, which usually has a larger cargo volume, could get bumped to the next size class even if it has a smaller passenger volume).
I remember sitting in a Cruze at the GM show in Carlisle this past June, and noticing that I actually fit better in the back seat than I do in the Malibu. And, I fit better in the back of the Malibu than I do the Impala, so somehow GM managed to get it backwards! Now in fairness, the Malibu and Impala had front seats that went further back than the Cruze, so they felt better in that regard, but I still thought the Cruze was adequate.
You were looking at the butt, that's why. :shades:
I find the side profile better looking, as well as the Titanium front end (the rest are OK but the black surrounds make it look meaner somehow). The interior is nice too if you're into tech, but if you're into calm beige type interiors then it's not for you.
I think simple styling tends to stand the test of the time the best. The Focus reminds me of what Ford tried to do with the '97 Taurus..ugh.
Another example...at the time, I much-preferred the '73 Monte Carlo to the '72. In hindsight, I think the '72 has stood the test of time waaaaayyyyyy better than the '73.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I was behind a Focus hatch just today. God-honest, I thought, "Geeze, is that thing butt-ugly". But then I'm not 24 I guess.
I'm not either, but I like it as far as compacts go. FWIW, I like the Cruze too, but it's a bit conservative IMO. Though that is a recipe to sell a lot of cars.
I wonder why GM decided not to use an alum block and/or DI on the turbo 1.4? The Focus can match the Cruze Eco's 28 mpg city mileage while having 22 more HP with its DI 2.0.
So I guess you pick your poison. Can GM make a reliable turbo and/or will Ford's DI system create headaches? Both probably can create expensive issues down the road.
I think simple styling tends to stand the test of the time the best. The Focus reminds me of what Ford tried to do with the '97 Taurus..ugh.
No comparison IMO. The '97 Taurus was just plain horrible and similar to what GM did with the '04 Malibu, but worse as the Taurus was Ford's bread and butter sedan. I don't think anyone thought that car was good looking.
Also lately, Ford hasn't been letting designs languish for long. If the past is any predictor of the future, the Focus will be updated again before the Cruze.
Ford needs to keep swinging for the fences. Playing not to lose doesn't have the best track record either.
True, that was '96. Not only was it ugly inside and out, it didn't really have any strong points either.
Yeah, the '00 refresh was done pretty well. But Ford let it languish for 7 years until any brand equity it had was fully spent.
My dad bought a '00 Taurus SES with pretty much every option. It was a nice car in '00. But by '05 it was way outclassed.
Looks like Ford learned their lesson though. Doesn't seem like they're letting anything go 4 years w/o some type of update. The Fusion is being redone again, the Taurus is getting some upgrades already too. The Taurus/500 seems to be on a 2 year refresh cycle.
I wish they'd do something with the Expedition. It desperately needs updated with a 3.5 ecoboost and 5.0 V8 option. I've stopped wishing for a diesel. The EB would make me happy at this point.
I wonder why GM decided not to use an alum block and/or DI on the turbo 1.4? The Focus can match the Cruze Eco's 28 mpg city mileage while having 22 more HP with its DI 2.0.
GM has always emphasized low-end torque in their engines. The more low-end torque the lower the RPMs for cruising, but that usually means sacrificing top-end horsepower. You'll arguably spend more time at cruising RPMs rather than turning at a 6000 RPM HP peak, particularly if the engine sounds ugly at that RPM, but some people prefer to have the higher HP figure and wind the engine up.
Personally, while I like low-end-torque, I tend to have a heavy foot when taking off, and I end up torque-steering the hell out of most GMs I drive. I also like to wind the engine out on the highway, I find it relieves stress. :shades:
I think the 3.8s and iffy transmissions existed during that time, so not only were they ugly, but often not very durable. Sadly for GM, I don't know how much better a period Lumina would have been, although I think there was a hot version with the GM 3.8 that wasn't bad.
My grandma has an 03 Taurus which now is way up to like 35K miles. It's OK as an appliance and has been dead reliable, but it was no leader when new.
It's a competitive market out there, maybe more now than ever, GM is going to have to keep on working hard.
Personally, while I like low-end-torque, I tend to have a heavy foot when taking off, and I end up torque-steering the hell out of most GMs I drive. I also like to wind the engine out on the highway, I find it relieves stress. :shades:
I like both, but it's hard to have it both ways. Ford's DI 2.0 has about the same torque output as the GM's 1.4 turbo. Yes, it comes at a higher rpm, but the proof is in the numbers where the Focus is quite a bit quicker. GM tends to use gearing that's too tall for my tastes.
If GM would have added DI to the turbo 4, they likely would have more HP and torque, and possibly better economy as DI allows for higher compression. But I guess costs have to be contained too. DI is not cheap, add a turbo into the mix and it is even more expensive.
I think the 3.8s and iffy transmissions existed during that time, so not only were they ugly, but often not very durable.
The Duratec 3.0 was used in the '96 model and the 3.8 was officially done in Taurus duty. I don't know if the trans was any better though.
Those 3.8's weren't very good. Though the vulcan 3.0 OHV v6 was very reliable. Granted it was dog slow. My wife had '03 Taurus with that engine it was agonizingly slow and crude. Not very fuel efficient either.
Simple can go too far, too. Remember that endless set of boring GM clone sedans, I think in the '90s? The Celebrity comes to mind. I think there might have been a Pontiac version - B2000 or something like that. Too forgettable to remember. Those were about as bland as bland could be, and not attractive, either.
I learn something every day. I know someone who had a ~98 Taurus with a slipping transmission, but by then it was 10 years old, so who knows what could have happened.
I've never driven my grandma's car, but the mechanical odometer amused me, kind of quaint in a 21st century car.
Celebrity/6000/Century/Ciera - all more or less the same car. Had a Ciera in my family, was a nice comfortable car, but I was a kid so my standards weren't too high, it never broke down anyway. That design was milked and strung along from 1982-96...took a lot of gall.
I am not aware of B-O-P versions of the Lumina. I mean, the Grand Prix, Regal, and Cutlass sedans didn't look like a '95 Lumina, anyway...not even remotely...unlike a Celebrity/6000/Century/Ciera or Taurus/Sable, anyway.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I learn something every day. I know someone who had a ~98 Taurus with a slipping transmission, but by then it was 10 years old, so who knows what could have happened.
Me too! Seems those era Ford transmissions felt like they slipped from the factory. My wife had 2 '03 models. Seemed to me, like they were programmed to shift too smooth, thus they always felt kind of weird between shifts.
My wife's new Taurus and my Expedition have ditched the analog/mechanical odometer for a digital display which looks it came from an early 80's hand held electronic game.
I don't mind the looks of the new Passat either, and a diesel is appealing - but I have to be leery.
I'd really like to have a manual diesel. We can debate the economy aspect, but I just really like turbodiesels and a manual trans. Certainly, when it comes to cars, not every buying decision is rational.
One good thing about diesel VW's is if you don't like it, they have great resale value;)
I am not aware of B-O-P versions of the Lumina. I mean, the Grand Prix, Regal, and Cutlass sedans didn't look like a '95 Lumina, anyway...not even remotely...unlike a Celebrity/6000/Century/Ciera or Taurus/Sable, anyway.
They were all versions of the GM10 and later W-body, but at least by that time, GM was doing a much better job differentiating the cars. One thing that always bugged me though, is how out-of-phase GM was with those cars when it came to redesigning them. They wouldn't re-do the whole lineup at once, but rather pick and choose.
For instance, the Lumina debuted for 1990, at the same time as the 4-door versions of the Regal, Cutlass Supreme, and Grand Prix hit the streets, so for awhile they were all on even footing.
But then for 1995, the Lumina was updated, and much-improved, while the B-O-P cars stuck it out with the old style. Then for 1997, the Grand Prix and Regal were updated, and the Century name was also moved over to the W-body. The Olds Intrigue wasn't ready yet, and wouldn't be released until 1998, so Olds held onto the Cutlass Supreme through 1997.
1997 was a bit of an odd year, with the Cutlass still being based on the first iteration of that platform, while the Lumina was starting its third year on the newer platform, and the Grand Prix and Century/Regal just starting their first year.
Then, for 2000, the Impala came out as a replacement for the Lumina, although I think the Lumina did stick it out another year or two as fleet-only. The Intrigue was canceled along with Oldsmobile, and then the Grand Prix was updated for '04, the Buick for '05, when it became LaCrosse, and the Impala for '06.
Oh, and the Celebrity et al were pretty bad when it came to cookie cutter cars, but I'll give them some credit, at least, for trying to differentiate them. They all had different dashboards, taillights, grilles, sheetmetal creases were different, and so was the C-pillar area. If the grille on your Celebrity got smashed, you couldn't just go to the junkyard and get the grille off of a Century or 6000 and screw it on. But, if you broke the grille on your fox-based LTD, or Dodge 600, a Marquis grille or Plymouth Caravelle grille would fit right in there.
I like diesels, I like the feeling of the mechanical connection. I don't mind the fuel price, the economy more than makes up for it, and I am used to premium fuel anyway. Problem is most diesels I want that are actually sold in this devolving market are unaffordable to me.
And the resale value is extreme, go price a used Jetta or Golf TDi. I wonder if GM diesels will be so crazy.
Lumina and counterparts eventually replaced the Celebrity, starting in 1990. Like Andre mentions, these ones were much more differentiated, and were better more substantial cars. I suspect GM took some flack for the cookie cutter designs, although the Century and Ciera did soldier on until 1996, apparently with enough demand from rental fleets and cheapskate octogenarians.
And the resale value is extreme, go price a used Jetta or Golf TDi. I wonder if GM diesels will be so crazy.
I know. I sold my '00 Jetta tdi after one year and 35k miles for 2k less than I paid for it after being listed for 2 days. I put it on autotrader and had people contacting for a month from all over the country.
I too wish we had more diesel options here. Like you mentioned, I enjoy the mechanical connection and power delivery of a diesel. Plus you can drive the hell out of them and FE doesn't drop of like it does in a gasser.
I'm very curious on how the market will respond to a diesel cruze. Domestic diesel trucks have great resale, but that is a completely different market.
An old coworker of mine had an 04.5 Jetta TDi (extra chrome), moderate equipment, cost like 22K new, I think. Drove it for 4 years, 60K miles. Put it up for sale for 17K I think, had about 10 responses in the first day, and it was gone in a week at full price. Mind you this was back during the 08 gas price spike, but still - and the car had all of the usual VW annoyances.
MB Bluetecs tend to have higher resale over their gas counterparts too, while costing more or less the same. I think you'd have to be dumb not to choose it over a normal 6cyl car.
When is the diesel Cruze coming? GM should work on diesels or get some Opel units and put them in everything from the Spark to the Impala or replacement. They could profit from this niche.
With home heating fuel prices helping drive the price of diesel up, there's a 70 cent differential around here. Regular gas is as low as $3.36, but diesel has been $4.07 for a couple of months. Turns off a lot of prospective buyers, and the times when diesel is cheaper than regular are few and far between. I think I saw that for a week or so once last summer. Usually it's 10 to 20 cents higher than premium.
Last I read, the diesel cruze won't arrive until '13. So it will be a while, unless it gets axed by then.
I must have been lucky with my Jetta tdi. Granted I only had it for a year, but the only issue I had with it was a flimsy cup holder. Sold it due to my wife getting a company car and the fact we were outgrowing the Jetta.
I also have a Ford product if that makes you feel any better - a Mercury Grand Marquis LS. After Ford dumped the Panther platform, they have absolutely nothing to offer me. If Ford expects Lincoln to go anywhere, they've got to bring back the Town Car albeit on a much more updated platform, (not that I had a problem with the old one). All they've got now is a lineup of anonymous, anemic V-6 sedans and clones of Ford SUVs and crossovers. Heck, even Chrysler still offers a very nice RWD V-8 car in the 300.
"We're getting a lot of interest, we're just not getting a lot of buyers," says William Willis, a Chevy dealer in Smyrna, Del. Mr. Willis says he has sold two Volts since the fall and has two on his lot. "Customers come in, they are wowed by the display, the quick acceleration. It's just going to take a while for the American public to accept the price."
GM is really going to have to do something drastic if they expect to sell 45K Volts next year:
All they've got now is a lineup of anonymous, anemic V-6 sedans
I don't see Cadillac wowing anyone with their v6 sedans either.
Looks like Lincoln will be ahead of Cadillac in the powertrain department (sans CTS-V which certainly isn't mainstream). Lincoln is at least offering the ecoboost v6 in a few models that is far from anemic. The ecoboost MKS will easilly show it's tail lights to any Cadillac that doesn't have a V on it. Granted it's just a Taurus with a nicer interior, and I don't know if that says much.
No question about the 300C. If I were to buy a domestic sedan, that would be on the top of my list.
GM is saying that it's not a warranty claim but a design defect, and that's why they are fighting the suit.
That doesn't say much. Seems most prebankruptcy GM vehicles had design defects;)
Seriously, this seems like a strange ordeal. If I understand this correctly, the issue is premature tire way due to faulty axle spindles? So the warranty won't cover the tires and/or fix the spindles? Or are these cars out of the 3/36k warranty and the 100k powertrain warranty that's suppose to be so great won't cover the problem?
I know Ford doesn't stand behind their numerous design defects either, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Nothing like taking one item and blanket-applying it as such: "GM doesn't honor it's pre-bankruptcy warranties".
If the Impalas were within the original 3 year/36K mile warranty, Steve, they'd have been covered....today even. They're not warrantying the cars, when they are out-of-warranty.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
The Accord is severely outdated a new model is needed ASAP. Considering how Honda has performed with their latest new models, it seems each redo is less impressive than the last.
Fusion seems to be selling very well. A new model will be out sometime in '12. So Ford has been impressively busy with upgraded product.
Malibu sales fell of a cliff last month. I don't know when they'll be changing over to the new model, but competition in that segment likely has never been stronger.
The funny thing about VW is I'm not big at all on the looks of the new Jetta, but for some reason I like how it looks on the Passat.
As for CEL's my sister learned a trick to fix those a long time ago when she worked for Enterprise. Put a sticker over it;) LOL
We put 235K on our Villager. Nissan engine and tranny were definitely bulletproof. Too bad GM never really got a competitive minivan out there. Now that market has shrunk a bunch - everybody wants bouncy rides and doors that swing into those adjacent to them so that they won't have a 'soccer mom' stigma. :confuse:
I find myself really liking the new Passat as well. Although strangely, the car reminds me a bit of an Impala. Just, an Impala if it was done right, I guess!
The Accord is severely outdated a new model is needed ASAP. Considering how Honda has performed with their latest new models, it seems each redo is less impressive than the last.
Isn't the Nissan Altima overdue for a redesign, as well? I'm finding that the older I get, I start losing track of when the new models come out, but I think the current Altima dates back to 2007?
I don't believe anyone is building a car that is as attractive (IMO) as the Cruze Eco, that gets that kind of mileage. I mean, nobody.
Except Ford. Sorry, but I think the Focus looks better. And 2 MPG is less than $100 per 10k miles (Actually $52 assuming $4 per gallon gas), so I consider "that kind of mileage" as anything within 2 MPG in either direction.
The Focus also has a hatch. The Cruze, due to whatever GM might be using for logic, does not. In fact, there is NOTHING in between the Sonic and the Equinox for GM hatch-type vehicles, which is kind of a big hole since the Equinox is considered a midsize SUV. No CR-V competitor, no Matrix/Focus competitor...how long before that bites them?
I actually like the fact that the Cruze and the Focus aren't carbon copies of each other, although I think GM would be wise to offer that European hatchback version of it here in the States. At least though, it gives some variety. I appreciate the Fusion offering a hatch, and having a more youthful flair about it, but if forced to choose, I think I'd take the Cruze, because it feels roomier and more comfy inside. They're both rated as compacts, but they make me think of the old days,when you had the Detroit idea of a compact, which was a Nova, Valiant, Dart, etc, and then you had the Japanese or European idea of a compact, which was something aorund the size of a Datsun 510. Maybe not so extreme, but I can feel the difference.
Is the Equinox that much bigger than the CR-V these days? Last time I saw a CR-V at the auto show, it didn't seem so cute-ute anymore.
Oh, another thing that disappoints me a bit about the Cruze is that you have to get the Eco or the turbocharged model to get good fuel economy. If you just get a cheap base model, it's only rated 22/35 with the automatic. The highway figure's not bad, but nowadays most midsized 4-cyl cars are meeting, or even beating that city figure. It does better with the stick...25/36, although I doubt that is class- leading. But again, to be fair, the Cruze is on the upper end of the compact scale, so perhaps it does still find its niche.
Altima is from MY 2007, so she's an old girl - Accord is only a year newer.
I don't mind the looks of the new Passat either, and a diesel is appealing - but I have to be leery.
OK, according to you, Game Over. Talk about naivety!
Ford Focus blows away the Cruze style. Elantra as well.
There is 2 right off the bat. YMMV.
Regards,
OW
I wonder if GM is going to run into problems with the Cruze and Malibu overlapping each other? The Malibu is about as small as a car can get and still be classified as midsized, while the Cruze, which is marketed as a compact, is, marginally, classified as a midsize by the EPA.
The Cruze has 94 cubic feet of passenger volume and a 16 cubic foot trunk, while the Malibu has 95 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 16 cubic foot trunk. The EPA's definition of a midsized car is something like 110-119.9 cubic feet combined (which means a hatchback, which usually has a larger cargo volume, could get bumped to the next size class even if it has a smaller passenger volume).
I remember sitting in a Cruze at the GM show in Carlisle this past June, and noticing that I actually fit better in the back seat than I do in the Malibu. And, I fit better in the back of the Malibu than I do the Impala, so somehow GM managed to get it backwards! Now in fairness, the Malibu and Impala had front seats that went further back than the Cruze, so they felt better in that regard, but I still thought the Cruze was adequate.
I find the side profile better looking, as well as the Titanium front end (the rest are OK but the black surrounds make it look meaner somehow). The interior is nice too if you're into tech, but if you're into calm beige type interiors then it's not for you.
Another example...at the time, I much-preferred the '73 Monte Carlo to the '72. In hindsight, I think the '72 has stood the test of time waaaaayyyyyy better than the '73.
I'm not either, but I like it as far as compacts go. FWIW, I like the Cruze too, but it's a bit conservative IMO. Though that is a recipe to sell a lot of cars.
I wonder why GM decided not to use an alum block and/or DI on the turbo 1.4? The Focus can match the Cruze Eco's 28 mpg city mileage while having 22 more HP with its DI 2.0.
So I guess you pick your poison. Can GM make a reliable turbo and/or will Ford's DI system create headaches? Both probably can create expensive issues down the road.
No comparison IMO. The '97 Taurus was just plain horrible and similar to what GM did with the '04 Malibu, but worse as the Taurus was Ford's bread and butter sedan. I don't think anyone thought that car was good looking.
Also lately, Ford hasn't been letting designs languish for long. If the past is any predictor of the future, the Focus will be updated again before the Cruze.
Ford needs to keep swinging for the fences. Playing not to lose doesn't have the best track record either.
Yeah, the '00 refresh was done pretty well. But Ford let it languish for 7 years until any brand equity it had was fully spent.
My dad bought a '00 Taurus SES with pretty much every option. It was a nice car in '00. But by '05 it was way outclassed.
Looks like Ford learned their lesson though. Doesn't seem like they're letting anything go 4 years w/o some type of update. The Fusion is being redone again, the Taurus is getting some upgrades already too. The Taurus/500 seems to be on a 2 year refresh cycle.
I wish they'd do something with the Expedition. It desperately needs updated with a 3.5 ecoboost and 5.0 V8 option. I've stopped wishing for a diesel. The EB would make me happy at this point.
GM has always emphasized low-end torque in their engines. The more low-end torque the lower the RPMs for cruising, but that usually means sacrificing top-end horsepower. You'll arguably spend more time at cruising RPMs rather than turning at a 6000 RPM HP peak, particularly if the engine sounds ugly at that RPM, but some people prefer to have the higher HP figure and wind the engine up.
Personally, while I like low-end-torque, I tend to have a heavy foot when taking off, and I end up torque-steering the hell out of most GMs I drive. I also like to wind the engine out on the highway, I find it relieves stress. :shades:
My grandma has an 03 Taurus which now is way up to like 35K miles. It's OK as an appliance and has been dead reliable, but it was no leader when new.
It's a competitive market out there, maybe more now than ever, GM is going to have to keep on working hard.
I like both, but it's hard to have it both ways. Ford's DI 2.0 has about the same torque output as the GM's 1.4 turbo. Yes, it comes at a higher rpm, but the proof is in the numbers where the Focus is quite a bit quicker. GM tends to use gearing that's too tall for my tastes.
If GM would have added DI to the turbo 4, they likely would have more HP and torque, and possibly better economy as DI allows for higher compression. But I guess costs have to be contained too. DI is not cheap, add a turbo into the mix and it is even more expensive.
The Duratec 3.0 was used in the '96 model and the 3.8 was officially done in Taurus duty. I don't know if the trans was any better though.
Those 3.8's weren't very good. Though the vulcan 3.0 OHV v6 was very reliable. Granted it was dog slow. My wife had '03 Taurus with that engine it was agonizingly slow and crude. Not very fuel efficient either.
I've never driven my grandma's car, but the mechanical odometer amused me, kind of quaint in a 21st century car.
Wasn't the Lumina also a clone of another set of bland sedans? Seems like that was the case.
Me too! Seems those era Ford transmissions felt like they slipped from the factory. My wife had 2 '03 models. Seemed to me, like they were programmed to shift too smooth, thus they always felt kind of weird between shifts.
My wife's new Taurus and my Expedition have ditched the analog/mechanical odometer for a digital display which looks it came from an early 80's hand held electronic game.
I'd really like to have a manual diesel. We can debate the economy aspect, but I just really like turbodiesels and a manual trans. Certainly, when it comes to cars, not every buying decision is rational.
One good thing about diesel VW's is if you don't like it, they have great resale value;)
They were all versions of the GM10 and later W-body, but at least by that time, GM was doing a much better job differentiating the cars. One thing that always bugged me though, is how out-of-phase GM was with those cars when it came to redesigning them. They wouldn't re-do the whole lineup at once, but rather pick and choose.
For instance, the Lumina debuted for 1990, at the same time as the 4-door versions of the Regal, Cutlass Supreme, and Grand Prix hit the streets, so for awhile they were all on even footing.
But then for 1995, the Lumina was updated, and much-improved, while the B-O-P cars stuck it out with the old style. Then for 1997, the Grand Prix and Regal were updated, and the Century name was also moved over to the W-body. The Olds Intrigue wasn't ready yet, and wouldn't be released until 1998, so Olds held onto the Cutlass Supreme through 1997.
1997 was a bit of an odd year, with the Cutlass still being based on the first iteration of that platform, while the Lumina was starting its third year on the newer platform, and the Grand Prix and Century/Regal just starting their first year.
Then, for 2000, the Impala came out as a replacement for the Lumina, although I think the Lumina did stick it out another year or two as fleet-only. The Intrigue was canceled along with Oldsmobile, and then the Grand Prix was updated for '04, the Buick for '05, when it became LaCrosse, and the Impala for '06.
Oh, and the Celebrity et al were pretty bad when it came to cookie cutter cars, but I'll give them some credit, at least, for trying to differentiate them. They all had different dashboards, taillights, grilles, sheetmetal creases were different, and so was the C-pillar area. If the grille on your Celebrity got smashed, you couldn't just go to the junkyard and get the grille off of a Century or 6000 and screw it on. But, if you broke the grille on your fox-based LTD, or Dodge 600, a Marquis grille or Plymouth Caravelle grille would fit right in there.
Good God, man, you're going to need to become familiar with this alphabet!
The naysayers actually love the GM products or they wouldn't be posting here. It's a psychological need.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And the resale value is extreme, go price a used Jetta or Golf TDi. I wonder if GM diesels will be so crazy.
I know. I sold my '00 Jetta tdi after one year and 35k miles for 2k less than I paid for it after being listed for 2 days. I put it on autotrader and had people contacting for a month from all over the country.
I too wish we had more diesel options here. Like you mentioned, I enjoy the mechanical connection and power delivery of a diesel. Plus you can drive the hell out of them and FE doesn't drop of like it does in a gasser.
I'm very curious on how the market will respond to a diesel cruze. Domestic diesel trucks have great resale, but that is a completely different market.
MB Bluetecs tend to have higher resale over their gas counterparts too, while costing more or less the same. I think you'd have to be dumb not to choose it over a normal 6cyl car.
When is the diesel Cruze coming? GM should work on diesels or get some Opel units and put them in everything from the Spark to the Impala or replacement. They could profit from this niche.
Lots more over in the What Would It Take for YOU to buy a diesel car? thread.
I must have been lucky with my Jetta tdi. Granted I only had it for a year, but the only issue I had with it was a flimsy cup holder. Sold it due to my wife getting a company car and the fact we were outgrowing the Jetta.
Regards,
OW
It's only about ME!
Regards,
OW
GM is really going to have to do something drastic if they expect to sell 45K Volts next year:
link title
Let's remember something - GM doesn't honor their own warranty, pre-bailout. The true warranty length is "Until Next Bankruptcy".
Not a bragging point.
Where on earth did you get that idea? I had warranty work done on 2005 and 2008 GM products after the bankruptcy.
I don't see Cadillac wowing anyone with their v6 sedans either.
Looks like Lincoln will be ahead of Cadillac in the powertrain department (sans CTS-V which certainly isn't mainstream). Lincoln is at least offering the ecoboost v6 in a few models that is far from anemic. The ecoboost MKS will easilly show it's tail lights to any Cadillac that doesn't have a V on it. Granted it's just a Taurus with a nicer interior, and I don't know if that says much.
No question about the 300C. If I were to buy a domestic sedan, that would be on the top of my list.
GM is saying that it's not a warranty claim but a design defect, and that's why they are fighting the suit.
That doesn't say much. Seems most prebankruptcy GM vehicles had design defects;)
Seriously, this seems like a strange ordeal. If I understand this correctly, the issue is premature tire way due to faulty axle spindles? So the warranty won't cover the tires and/or fix the spindles? Or are these cars out of the 3/36k warranty and the 100k powertrain warranty that's suppose to be so great won't cover the problem?
I know Ford doesn't stand behind their numerous design defects either, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
If the Impalas were within the original 3 year/36K mile warranty, Steve, they'd have been covered....today even. They're not warrantying the cars, when they are out-of-warranty.