I agree, but simply looking at the HP/weight ratio a 6 second 0-60 is not out of the question. A few sedans in the 3,400# range with 260-280 hp are producing those kind of numbers.
MT recently timed the new Camry V6 and Passat v6 under 6 seconds both had near 100 mph trap speeds and low 14 second qtr mile. The Camry is 3400lbs with 268hp and the Passat is 3500lbs with 280hp. So going by those numbers it's certainly possible.
Though, in the same test the Sonata which has a similar powertrain to the Sportage didn't fare so well as MT reported a 7 second 0-60. I've never seen a Optima SX or Sonata turbo turn a low 6 second 0-60 in the mags, so I doubt a Sportage can, unless Kia sent a "tuned" test car.
To be fair, the Sportage is smaller than the Equinox.
I falls between the two, but I think it's closer in size to the Kia Sorento.
Having said that, the small V6 in the Equinox is disappointing in both power and fuel efficiency, despite having DI. The 2.4l 4 banger would be my choice.
Kia needs to offer a manual trans with that turbo engine. I test drove a manual Sportage, but it's only offered on stripped, base models. My brother liked it, but could not get a moonroof and other options he wanted, so he went elsewhere.
One of my problems with the U.S. auto industry in general, is that I grew up in the 60's and 70's when U.S. made autos were much larger, more powerful, and overall much more desireable than the Japanese and for the most part - the European vehicles.
Along the way, we got lazy, or sold our technology, or whatever you want to attribute the situation to. I'm not going to go into the why's again - just a rathole. But the situation now is that the D3 is equal or close in quality, features, performance. The U.S. has squandered it's superiority. There really shouldn't be any neck-and-neck or catchup. The U.S. auto industry should clearly be superior, just like our military is. Just like the U.S. Dream Team basketball team was.
Mediocrity is not greatness! Collecting welfare is not self-sufficient success!
That's exactly it, those sedans can't do it, can't see why the SUV would unless it has some crazy gearing - and no other source seems to have similar numbers for that rig.
I don't know if that relates to questionable performance numbers, but yeah.
Collecting welfare and then turning it into something better isn't all bad - which is what Hyunkia has done...their history isn't exactly one of self-sufficiency either.
I think you misunderstand my point. Whether we have a lot of oil/gasoline or a little, my expectations were that the D3 should be a couple of generations ahead of foreign competition. The D3 were that much ahead in the 1960's. The competition improved quicker then the D3, and has reached parity or superiority in the models being made.
If the U.S. car companies advanced at the same rate as the competition they would have had a Prius-like vehicle 5-10 years ahead of Toyota, and then when Toyota matched that, the D3 already would have a Chevy Volt like vehicle out there.
If Hyundai is selling an Elantra with 40mpg, the Cruze should be at 45mpg. If Dubai is building a 2,000 ft skyscraper, we should have one @ 2,500 ft. When Ferrari was winning Le Mans each year in the early 1960's, Ford built the GT40.
The reason Ford built the GT40 was because Enzo Ferrari wouldn't sell his company to HFII back in the 1960s, so Ford built the GT40 as a sort of "I'll show you!" act.
I think you misunderstand my point. Whether we have a lot of oil/gasoline or a little, my expectations were that the D3 should be a couple of generations ahead of foreign competition. The D3 were that much ahead in the 1960's. The competition improved quicker then the D3, and has reached parity or superiority in the models being made.
If the U.S. car companies advanced at the same rate as the competition they would have had a Prius-like vehicle 5-10 years ahead of Toyota, and then when Toyota matched that, the D3 already would have a Chevy Volt like vehicle out there.
Well unfortunately the D3 got VERY complacent. And the UAW did not help one bit, as money that might have gone into product improvement instead went to pensions, job banks, and work rules that kept the D3 hostage. Add totally inept management (GM especially) and there you go.
D3 should be a couple of generations ahead of foreign competition
Easier said than done.
To get each car to the forefront requires some pretty hefty investment in R&D, and doesn't necessarily pay off in profits later.
Also, Japan had to build after WWII, but in a way had a fresh start, and were not saddled down with pension and health care costs like the D3 were.
Ironically Korea enjoys that same advantage over Japan today.
Tomorrow it might be China or India. Much to fintail's chagrin.
Any how, the reason I brought up OPEC is that for the D3 to have any nostalgic sort of success we would have to see oil prices plummet, and that's not gonna happen any time soon.
The D3 have to let go the idea that you can Hemi or Boss or SS everything to solve whatever problem they have. Add power, then add weight, so then upgrade the brakes, then upgrade the suspension to hold all the extra mass, then....
Well, then the best American cars are heavy and expensive, while gas is near $4 a gallon.
OPEC knocked the D3 down, IMHO. They have not fully recovered since, and one big reason is they are trying to repeat the same successes they had when oil was (nearly) free.
I do like the idea that they should strive to be the best, but that doesn't mean stuffing a Hemi in a leaf blower.
Which BTW would be pretty darn cool. Just not a good business model.
Yes, agree. Thinking about it now, and living in New England, that kind of reminds me of what happened to the Red Sox this year - losing a 10 game lead in Sept. Too much chicken and beer in the clubroom.
So I again go back to - where is the U.S. superiority? Why do we allow a small country like Korea to meet or beat us? Why is GM at a level where it is a close competition with Hyundai? or why are Fiats better vehicles than the old Chryslers, and replacing them as Chryslers? You did a wonderful job of answering that, BTW.
With GM, I feel like if they were my kid coming home beaming that they got straight-C's in school. And if weren't for others in the class, who cheat more than they do, they could have gotten a few B's.
The reason Ford built the GT40 was because Enzo Ferrari wouldn't sell his company to HFII back in the 1960s, so Ford built the GT40 as a sort of "I'll show you!" act.
That's the way it should be. This country needs a Donald Trump type with some more brains. Or a George Patton. No more of this namby-pamby, help the world, and then we'll try and compete, while the populace sits around playing video-games, or on Twitter.
To give you an idea of how I feel about Comcast let me tell you an old tale. Many years ago I was writing checks and suddenly realized that I had come to check #666. Now this is not a check you send to just anyone so I skipped it and wrote several more and pondered for at least a coupel of weeks who to send it to. In the end Comcast was the winner.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I'm an IT guy, so naturally I measured our link speed, which improved by a factor of 3. :shades:
I don't think our internet has gone out even once.
Though I will say their DVR is just AWFUL, horrific. Net cost for us it just $8 more than a regular HD receiver would cost, but I really miss TiVo. Badly.
So get FIOS but consider a separate TiVo account instead of Verizon's DVR.
Then of course you can DVR all the car-themed shows, like Top Gear and Motorweek.
With GM, I feel like if they were my kid coming home beaming that they got straight-C's in school. And if weren't for others in the class, who cheat more than they do, they could have gotten a few B's.
This fits my impression as well. Management is the biggest problem. The recent article about GM's CEO was hopeful. Another negative is size. Large companies are much harder to keep excellent. But I do get the impression that Wagoner was happy to be "just ok". He felt successful if things didn't suck too much. Contrast that with Apple, a US company that is probably our best current example of a large company that has been excellent. Not to say they don't have flaws, or that Jobs wasn't negative as well. But there's no doubt that the very strong leadership makes a big difference. And none of the D3 had it. Mulally is the best example of recent good leadership. And people were discounting him originally because he wasn't from the car business!!
I wonder how much South Korea spends on military demands, aid given to ungrateful nations, wars on drugs, the bloated criminal justice system, the pharma cabal, subsidizing the home ownership industry, endless perks for the bottom and top of the income scale, benefits for illegal immigrants, and so on. Also how it values education, how many there have to worry about medical bankruptcy, and other ideals. If we want to examine how they did it, maybe we need to admit that some parts of our system are broken, and fix them. Too much chicken and beer everywhere :sick:
I'll put a Mr. Fusion in the fintail and have a hover conversion carried out before I drive something from Chindia. :shades:
I bet lovers of "underdogs" are rooting for concoctions from those shores, which have brought nothing to motordom, to be seen on our roads though :lemon:
Look at the Malibu. It won't be class-leading in 2012. That and the current products GM has is why it will take a few more years for GM to shake off the effects of C-11.
One thing that still is apparent id the bean-counter effect. I feel it is still holding things back quite a bit at GM. Thus the fact that while making profit, no leading vehicles are wowing the masses. The Cruze meets the competition but does not lead it. The Impala is a relic and will be upgraded to relic II status in 2012! The Malibu will meet the competition but not exceed it.
Note to Ackerson: Get the bean-counters to loose a few so profits can accelerate! What a concept! over deliver!
I think part of GM's problem is knowing how to price and build to that price. Too many of their vehicles seem 10% or more over priced compared to the competition. For example, a Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot (low 40's loaded) vs. a GMC Acadia (very high 40's comparably equipped). I think some screwed up MBA type thinks its better to over price the GM vehicles and then throw incentives at it for promotion - basically, decades old thinking. In reality it hurts the vehicles in comparison up front and in perceived value after all of the incentives. Ford sometimes is also guilty of this, but maybe not quite as frequently.
When the Cold War ended, we should have left Korea completely. But our imperialist government likes to have bases all around the world to interfere as they wish. So we subsidize the Koreans year after year. Certainly this helps free up $ for the Koreans to support their educational system and industry.
And why we're still defending Europe thru NATO, or being guardian of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is certainly looking correct on foreign policy. Our foreign ploicy of the last few decades is kind of a replay of the endless Roman wars to secure their empire, that drained their power.
It's time to stop building other peoples' barns; get back to our farm, and get the hands motivated and work our fields. Everyone - our government, GM and the like, and individuals, should get their A-game on. We need major, major change in this country. We can't have executives who win (make tons of $) regardless of their performance; or like Corzine misplace a billion $. We need workers who everytime a company posts a profit, even after draining the coffers 2 years ago, want a bonus, or pension increases. And we need visionaries like in Apple, who's goal isn't just to be as good as, or make a similar product, as some foreign competitor.
I think many people are blase about GM. I checked their stock the oher day, and I believe it is was down 46% YTD! Anyone here buy the new GM stock yet? Everytime I ask - silence. At what price would you buy it?
Agree. I thought GM would do some major things differently after bankruptcy. But really they are running their business the same as before. I don't see why - since that didn't work so well. They still ahve the same type of marketing, dealer networks, union workforce, same type and size vehicles, same technologies, and same pricing strategies. They're a little smaller having shed a few divisions, but basically they are aligned the same way, doing the same things.
I don't have all the answers for GM, but they are paying guys millions, and all they come up with for ideas are - some mild redesigns? or to choose a new ad agency?
Great post - we should hang that on a wall. Especially this part:
And why we're still defending Europe thru NATO, or being guardian of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is certainly looking correct on foreign policy. Our foreign ploicy of the last few decades is kind of a replay of the endless Roman wars to secure their empire, that drained their power.
I think you missed the word "don't" in where it says "we don't need workers....
Agree. I thought GM would do some major things differently after bankruptcy.
I still think they should have changed their name. Even if it had the same initials - something like "The New GM" or "General Mobility" or something like that.
But our imperialist government likes to have bases all around the world to interfere as they wish
Early last century, US was completely isolated from the world. We believed if we did our own things well at home and did not offend anyone else, we should be OK. What happened after that? We were dragged into the WWII unprepared.
The big lesson learned from WWII after 80 million lives lost was, it's much easier to put off a small spark when it just starts than to wait until it becomes a huge inferno. Any bad guys like Hitler, would start to do some small things to test the world's reactions. If no one stops them, they would try bigger and bigger actions. The world turned their eyes away when Hitler re-entered the Rhine industrial area, occupied Austria, then Poland, until it reached the point of no return, France. Had the allies firmly rejected Hitler's request at each early step, there would have been no WWII.
Our worldwide present is what has prevented the WWIII and is what has maintained our dominance of US$ and our bargaining power with the Chinese factories. Like everything else, overdone is not good either. But there's no way we can stay in our border and be safe. What we should do is to have the countries under our protection pay for our cost, like what they did in the 1990 Gulf War.
If no one stops them, they would try bigger and bigger actions. The world turned their eyes away when Hitler re-entered the Rhine industrial area, occupied Austria, then Poland, until it reached the point of no return, France. Had the allies firmly rejected Hitler's request at each early step, there would have been no WWII.
I don't think so. What would have happened is that WWII would have started 6 or 7 years earlier, in a limited war, which would have grown. The Allies did not have the mobile forces necessary to invade Germany in the early to mid-30's, and while building such, Germany would have a fire-upped populace defending itself from French/German invasion. Once Hitler assumed power the war was inevitable.
Our worldwide present is what has prevented the WWIII and is what has maintained our dominance of US$ and our bargaining power with the Chinese factories.
No our worldwide presence is to influence other non-nuclear nations, to do as we wish. In order for WW3 to start, large nations are involved, and those are nuclear. What stops WW3 is the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the form of bombers, land-based missiles, and submarine-launched missiles. Our nuclear weapons stop WW3, not 20K marines sitting in some country. Those marines and soldiers are there to put out "brush-fires". (I'm a former Air Force navigator)
Anyway, I'm all for withdrawing from Korea, the Taiwan area, and Japan. Let those countries fund their own defenses. Or at least they can pay us $50B/year to defend them. Then let's see if they have $ to subsidize their industry.
I don't state this as fact as I do not know for certain (wish more would use disclaimers like this!), but one thing I bet the Hyundai Sonata is class-leading in, is the new automobile introduced in the past year with the most recalls affecting a single automobile--four!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The Cruze absolutely, positively leads in MPG. Why is that not mentioned here?
The Cruze gets as high as 28/42 with a stick or 26/39 with an automatic, but unfortunately you have to spring for the Eco model to get it.
If you just get a base-level Cruze, the ratings are 22/35 with the automatic, or 25/36 with the stick. The LT/LTZ, with the turbocharged 1.4, does better at 26/38, regardless of whether it's a stick or automatic.
Meanwhile, the Honda Civic manages 28/39 with the base 1.8 4-cyl/5-speed automatic, and 28/36 with the 5-speed stick. The HF model manages 29/41, although I'm not sure a gain that small is really worth its price premium.
The EPA's not listing figures for the 2012 Corolla, for whatever reason, but the 2011 model was rated 26/34 with the automatic, 28/35 with the stick.
So, I think if you want a small car that's a bit uplevel, and want to pay the price, the Cruze competes quite well. But compared to entry-level, cheapo versions, it comes up a bit short.
However, one thing that tends to be forgotten, is that the Cruze is a bit big for a compact car. The EPA actually rates it as a midsize. I sat in one at the GM show in Carlisle this past summer, and it seemed noticeably more comfortable and roomier than something like a Corolla or Civic (can't comment on the 2012 Civic, as I haven't sat in one yet)
IMO, GM should try to play up that fact in advertising, kinda like how Dodge used to do with the Dart back in the day (Tired of Kiddie-Car Compacts? Go Dodge Dart!)
I guess what I meant is, no other car in its class gets 42 mpg EPA rating. None. Personally, I like the looks of the Eco model and ones I've seen weren't priced very much higher than LS models (although the difference could be manual in the Eco versus automatic in the LS). In my smaller cars, I always buy stick (have had four in a row). Somewhere along the way I read that some sound insulation is removed from the Cruze Eco, which I don't like though.
I didn't know Dodge advertised the Darts that way...smart though. I know Studebaker advertised that Larks had more headroom than Cadillac and as much rear-seat legroom as some full-size cars on the market (but then, the Lark did the '77 GM full-size thing by keeping their full-size car interior and shrinking the front and rear overhang).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I guess I'm just of a slightly old-fashioned mindset, that if I'm going to get a small car, I want something as cheap and economical as possible. And unfortunately, I'm not that good driving a stick, so I'd be sticking with an automatic. So I'd probably be comparing fairly basic models of the Civic, Corolla, Cruze, Focus, etc.
But, who knows? If I'm ever actually faced with the prospect of buying a small car, I'll probably look at the base models and go eewwww! And end up buying a nicer version! For instance, I've gotten kinda spoiled with having a sunroof, so that means if I want a Civic, I have to go up a few notches, and get the EX model. I wonder what the cheapest price is you could get a Cruze with a sunroof?
Here's an example of one of those Dodge Dart ads. They really were roomy for a compact car, and I remember one Consumer-something-or-other magazine (not Reports) saying that the Dart was really a midsize, but the only reason they marketed it as a compact was because it could usually claim the #1 spot in compact sales, but as a midsize it would only be #4 or so.
Consumer Reports, in their test of a '68 Impala 4-door sedan, with a 307 V-8, noted that the '68 Dart sedan they had tested, with a 225 slant six, had more front and rear legroom than the Impala. And was quicker from 0-60 as well (although it's not really fair to compare a compact with a 3-speed automatic to a heavier full-sizer with just a 2-speed).
I can vouch for the legroom, up front at least. The '68 Dart hardtop I had definitely had more legroom up front than my '67 Catalina convertible, or the '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop I used to own. And the only reason my '76 LeMans coupe has more, is because it has a power seat that can adjust into some pretty extreme positions.
I think some screwed up MBA type thinks its better to over price the GM vehicles and then throw incentives at it for promotion - basically, decades old thinking. In reality it hurts the vehicles in comparison up front and in perceived value after all of the incentives
I'm with you on that 100%.
I always thought the Saturn sales model was good. Value pricing, with no haggling. Come in lower than competitors, then stick to your guns and hold off on incentives.
It worked for Scion, but the catch is those are low volume niche cars, with short product cycles. It would be tougher to implement at GM.
I think a lot of times the UAW had so much power they could not cut production, so their only choice was the add incentives to sell more and keep the factories chugging along.
And we need visionaries like in Apple, who's goal isn't just to be as good as, or make a similar product, as some foreign competitor.
We do, but keep in mind everything they sell is made in China, pretty much.
To build the best product in each segment and then build it in the USA might just be cost prohibitive. Sad, but true.
We need to level the playing field by requiring that imported cars be built in plants with the same levels of human rights, else just tax them at a much higher rate.
Comments
Now I don't want to hear any whining about any numbers put out there by the Detroit Three.
Who can forget the Top Gear episode where they tossed it in the ocean, set it on fire, and then finally blew up a building...and it still started?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoOkMccPZo
I agree, but simply looking at the HP/weight ratio a 6 second 0-60 is not out of the question. A few sedans in the 3,400# range with 260-280 hp are producing those kind of numbers.
MT recently timed the new Camry V6 and Passat v6 under 6 seconds both had near 100 mph trap speeds and low 14 second qtr mile. The Camry is 3400lbs with 268hp and the Passat is 3500lbs with 280hp. So going by those numbers it's certainly possible.
Though, in the same test the Sonata which has a similar powertrain to the Sportage didn't fare so well as MT reported a 7 second 0-60. I've never seen a Optima SX or Sonata turbo turn a low 6 second 0-60 in the mags, so I doubt a Sportage can, unless Kia sent a "tuned" test car.
I falls between the two, but I think it's closer in size to the Kia Sorento.
Having said that, the small V6 in the Equinox is disappointing in both power and fuel efficiency, despite having DI. The 2.4l 4 banger would be my choice.
Kia needs to offer a manual trans with that turbo engine. I test drove a manual Sportage, but it's only offered on stripped, base models. My brother liked it, but could not get a moonroof and other options he wanted, so he went elsewhere.
Along the way, we got lazy, or sold our technology, or whatever you want to attribute the situation to. I'm not going to go into the why's again - just a rathole. But the situation now is that the D3 is equal or close in quality, features, performance. The U.S. has squandered it's superiority. There really shouldn't be any neck-and-neck or catchup. The U.S. auto industry should clearly be superior, just like our military is. Just like the U.S. Dream Team basketball team was.
Mediocrity is not greatness! Collecting welfare is not self-sufficient success!
Today they have to meet CAFE.
Consumers are demanding fuel efficiency, just look how well 35-40mpg club is selling.
Collecting welfare and then turning it into something better isn't all bad - which is what Hyunkia has done...their history isn't exactly one of self-sufficiency either.
Hyundai is proof that a bail out can indeed work for all parties.
I think you misunderstand my point. Whether we have a lot of oil/gasoline or a little, my expectations were that the D3 should be a couple of generations ahead of foreign competition. The D3 were that much ahead in the 1960's. The competition improved quicker then the D3, and has reached parity or superiority in the models being made.
If the U.S. car companies advanced at the same rate as the competition they would have had a Prius-like vehicle 5-10 years ahead of Toyota, and then when Toyota matched that, the D3 already would have a Chevy Volt like vehicle out there.
If Hyundai is selling an Elantra with 40mpg, the Cruze should be at 45mpg. If Dubai is building a 2,000 ft skyscraper, we should have one @ 2,500 ft. When Ferrari was winning Le Mans each year in the early 1960's, Ford built the GT40.
If the U.S. car companies advanced at the same rate as the competition they would have had a Prius-like vehicle 5-10 years ahead of Toyota, and then when Toyota matched that, the D3 already would have a Chevy Volt like vehicle out there.
Well unfortunately the D3 got VERY complacent. And the UAW did not help one bit, as money that might have gone into product improvement instead went to pensions, job banks, and work rules that kept the D3 hostage. Add totally inept management (GM especially) and there you go.
Easier said than done.
To get each car to the forefront requires some pretty hefty investment in R&D, and doesn't necessarily pay off in profits later.
Also, Japan had to build after WWII, but in a way had a fresh start, and were not saddled down with pension and health care costs like the D3 were.
Ironically Korea enjoys that same advantage over Japan today.
Tomorrow it might be China or India. Much to fintail's chagrin.
Any how, the reason I brought up OPEC is that for the D3 to have any nostalgic sort of success we would have to see oil prices plummet, and that's not gonna happen any time soon.
The D3 have to let go the idea that you can Hemi or Boss or SS everything to solve whatever problem they have. Add power, then add weight, so then upgrade the brakes, then upgrade the suspension to hold all the extra mass, then....
Well, then the best American cars are heavy and expensive, while gas is near $4 a gallon.
OPEC knocked the D3 down, IMHO. They have not fully recovered since, and one big reason is they are trying to repeat the same successes they had when oil was (nearly) free.
I do like the idea that they should strive to be the best, but that doesn't mean stuffing a Hemi in a leaf blower.
Which BTW would be pretty darn cool. Just not a good business model.
So I again go back to - where is the U.S. superiority? Why do we allow a small country like Korea to meet or beat us? Why is GM at a level where it is a close competition with Hyundai? or why are Fiats better vehicles than the old Chryslers, and replacing them as Chryslers? You did a wonderful job of answering that, BTW.
With GM, I feel like if they were my kid coming home beaming that they got straight-C's in school. And if weren't for others in the class, who cheat more than they do, they could have gotten a few B's.
That's the way it should be. This country needs a Donald Trump type with some more brains. Or a George Patton. No more of this namby-pamby, help the world, and then we'll try and compete, while the populace sits around playing video-games, or on Twitter.
Who can forget the Top Gear episode where they tossed it in the ocean, set it on fire, and then finally blew up a building...and it still started?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhoOkMccPZo
Wow. That's right up there with the 200 year old Volkswagen in Sleeper....
When and where do they air Top Gear anyway?
If we had FIOS here I'd switch in an instant.
To give you an idea of how I feel about Comcast let me tell you an old tale. Many years ago I was writing checks and suddenly realized that I had come to check #666. Now this is not a check you send to just anyone so I skipped it and wrote several more and pondered for at least a coupel of weeks who to send it to. In the end Comcast was the winner.
I'm an IT guy, so naturally I measured our link speed, which improved by a factor of 3. :shades:
I don't think our internet has gone out even once.
Though I will say their DVR is just AWFUL, horrific. Net cost for us it just $8 more than a regular HD receiver would cost, but I really miss TiVo. Badly.
So get FIOS but consider a separate TiVo account instead of Verizon's DVR.
Then of course you can DVR all the car-themed shows, like Top Gear and Motorweek.
Motorweek is on MPT or PBS, but not it's also on Velocity. In fact either my DVR is screwing up again, or it moved to a new channel.
This fits my impression as well. Management is the biggest problem. The recent article about GM's CEO was hopeful. Another negative is size. Large companies are much harder to keep excellent. But I do get the impression that Wagoner was happy to be "just ok". He felt successful if things didn't suck too much. Contrast that with Apple, a US company that is probably our best current example of a large company that has been excellent. Not to say they don't have flaws, or that Jobs wasn't negative as well. But there's no doubt that the very strong leadership makes a big difference. And none of the D3 had it. Mulally is the best example of recent good leadership. And people were discounting him originally because he wasn't from the car business!!
I bet lovers of "underdogs" are rooting for concoctions from those shores, which have brought nothing to motordom, to be seen on our roads though :lemon:
One thing that still is apparent id the bean-counter effect. I feel it is still holding things back quite a bit at GM. Thus the fact that while making profit, no leading vehicles are wowing the masses. The Cruze meets the competition but does not lead it. The Impala is a relic and will be upgraded to relic II status in 2012! The Malibu will meet the competition but not exceed it.
Note to Ackerson: Get the bean-counters to loose a few so profits can accelerate! What a concept! over deliver!
Regards,
OW
And why we're still defending Europe thru NATO, or being guardian of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is certainly looking correct on foreign policy. Our foreign ploicy of the last few decades is kind of a replay of the endless Roman wars to secure their empire, that drained their power.
It's time to stop building other peoples' barns; get back to our farm, and get the hands motivated and work our fields. Everyone - our government, GM and the like, and individuals, should get their A-game on. We need major, major change in this country. We can't have executives who win (make tons of $) regardless of their performance; or like Corzine misplace a billion $. We need workers who everytime a company posts a profit, even after draining the coffers 2 years ago, want a bonus, or pension increases. And we need visionaries like in Apple, who's goal isn't just to be as good as, or make a similar product, as some foreign competitor.
I think many people are blase about GM. I checked their stock the oher day, and I believe it is was down 46% YTD! Anyone here buy the new GM stock yet? Everytime I ask - silence. At what price would you buy it?
I don't have all the answers for GM, but they are paying guys millions, and all they come up with for ideas are - some mild redesigns? or to choose a new ad agency?
And why we're still defending Europe thru NATO, or being guardian of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Ron Paul is certainly looking correct on foreign policy. Our foreign ploicy of the last few decades is kind of a replay of the endless Roman wars to secure their empire, that drained their power.
I think you missed the word "don't" in where it says "we don't need workers....
I still think they should have changed their name. Even if it had the same initials - something like "The New GM" or "General Mobility" or something like that.
Early last century, US was completely isolated from the world. We believed if we did our own things well at home and did not offend anyone else, we should be OK. What happened after that? We were dragged into the WWII unprepared.
The big lesson learned from WWII after 80 million lives lost was, it's much easier to put off a small spark when it just starts than to wait until it becomes a huge inferno. Any bad guys like Hitler, would start to do some small things to test the world's reactions. If no one stops them, they would try bigger and bigger actions. The world turned their eyes away when Hitler re-entered the Rhine industrial area, occupied Austria, then Poland, until it reached the point of no return, France. Had the allies firmly rejected Hitler's request at each early step, there would have been no WWII.
Our worldwide present is what has prevented the WWIII and is what has maintained our dominance of US$ and our bargaining power with the Chinese factories. Like everything else, overdone is not good either. But there's no way we can stay in our border and be safe. What we should do is to have the countries under our protection pay for our cost, like what they did in the 1990 Gulf War.
The Cruze absolutely, positively leads in MPG. Why is that not mentioned here?
I don't think so. What would have happened is that WWII would have started 6 or 7 years earlier, in a limited war, which would have grown. The Allies did not have the mobile forces necessary to invade Germany in the early to mid-30's, and while building such, Germany would have a fire-upped populace defending itself from French/German invasion. Once Hitler assumed power the war was inevitable.
Our worldwide present is what has prevented the WWIII and is what has maintained our dominance of US$ and our bargaining power with the Chinese factories.
No our worldwide presence is to influence other non-nuclear nations, to do as we wish. In order for WW3 to start, large nations are involved, and those are nuclear. What stops WW3 is the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the form of bombers, land-based missiles, and submarine-launched missiles. Our nuclear weapons stop WW3, not 20K marines sitting in some country. Those marines and soldiers are there to put out "brush-fires". (I'm a former Air Force navigator)
Anyway, I'm all for withdrawing from Korea, the Taiwan area, and Japan. Let those countries fund their own defenses. Or at least they can pay us $50B/year to defend them. Then let's see if they have $ to subsidize their industry.
The Cruze gets as high as 28/42 with a stick or 26/39 with an automatic, but unfortunately you have to spring for the Eco model to get it.
If you just get a base-level Cruze, the ratings are 22/35 with the automatic, or 25/36 with the stick. The LT/LTZ, with the turbocharged 1.4, does better at 26/38, regardless of whether it's a stick or automatic.
Meanwhile, the Honda Civic manages 28/39 with the base 1.8 4-cyl/5-speed automatic, and 28/36 with the 5-speed stick. The HF model manages 29/41, although I'm not sure a gain that small is really worth its price premium.
The EPA's not listing figures for the 2012 Corolla, for whatever reason, but the 2011 model was rated 26/34 with the automatic, 28/35 with the stick.
So, I think if you want a small car that's a bit uplevel, and want to pay the price, the Cruze competes quite well. But compared to entry-level, cheapo versions, it comes up a bit short.
However, one thing that tends to be forgotten, is that the Cruze is a bit big for a compact car. The EPA actually rates it as a midsize. I sat in one at the GM show in Carlisle this past summer, and it seemed noticeably more comfortable and roomier than something like a Corolla or Civic (can't comment on the 2012 Civic, as I haven't sat in one yet)
IMO, GM should try to play up that fact in advertising, kinda like how Dodge used to do with the Dart back in the day (Tired of Kiddie-Car Compacts? Go Dodge Dart!)
I didn't know Dodge advertised the Darts that way...smart though. I know Studebaker advertised that Larks had more headroom than Cadillac and as much rear-seat legroom as some full-size cars on the market (but then, the Lark did the '77 GM full-size thing by keeping their full-size car interior and shrinking the front and rear overhang).
But, who knows? If I'm ever actually faced with the prospect of buying a small car, I'll probably look at the base models and go eewwww! And end up buying a nicer version! For instance, I've gotten kinda spoiled with having a sunroof, so that means if I want a Civic, I have to go up a few notches, and get the EX model. I wonder what the cheapest price is you could get a Cruze with a sunroof?
Here's an example of one of those Dodge Dart ads. They really were roomy for a compact car, and I remember one Consumer-something-or-other magazine (not Reports) saying that the Dart was really a midsize, but the only reason they marketed it as a compact was because it could usually claim the #1 spot in compact sales, but as a midsize it would only be #4 or so.
Consumer Reports, in their test of a '68 Impala 4-door sedan, with a 307 V-8, noted that the '68 Dart sedan they had tested, with a 225 slant six, had more front and rear legroom than the Impala. And was quicker from 0-60 as well (although it's not really fair to compare a compact with a 3-speed automatic to a heavier full-sizer with just a 2-speed).
I can vouch for the legroom, up front at least. The '68 Dart hardtop I had definitely had more legroom up front than my '67 Catalina convertible, or the '69 Bonneville 4-door hardtop I used to own. And the only reason my '76 LeMans coupe has more, is because it has a power seat that can adjust into some pretty extreme positions.
I'm with you on that 100%.
I always thought the Saturn sales model was good. Value pricing, with no haggling. Come in lower than competitors, then stick to your guns and hold off on incentives.
It worked for Scion, but the catch is those are low volume niche cars, with short product cycles. It would be tougher to implement at GM.
I think a lot of times the UAW had so much power they could not cut production, so their only choice was the add incentives to sell more and keep the factories chugging along.
We do, but keep in mind everything they sell is made in China, pretty much.
To build the best product in each segment and then build it in the USA might just be cost prohibitive. Sad, but true.
We need to level the playing field by requiring that imported cars be built in plants with the same levels of human rights, else just tax them at a much higher rate.
That may just be the first time I've ever agreed with you.
Kudos. :shades:
The Eco model does, but what % of production are Eco models? I'd be curious to see that.
Remember, CAFE is a weighted average. If they sell 10% Eco and 90% other models, then it's not really the leader.
I say make the 1.4T standard and then offer a diesel option, then it would be the clear leader. :shades:
Depends on what you mean by its class.
Here's the problem: you gotta pay $19,245 to get that 42mpg.
Or pay $18,350 for an Insight and get 44mpg highway. City mpg crushes the Cruze.
So it's not the leader in that price class, even though it's roomier than the Insight. The Honda has its own set of issues, of course.
Prius C should arrive soon and might end up competing in that same price class, too.
Make the 1.4T the standard engine! Or leave the 1.8l for fleet sales only.
That may just be the first time I've ever agreed with you.
Kudos.
That makes two of us. Or three.....
Then again, they put the Charger name on a sedan and it worked.