By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I think it looks great. The greenhouse reminds me a bit of the 300C, but the front and rear are totally Cadillac. RWD plus lighter and smaller than the CTS should bode well. I look forward to seeing these hit the streets.
Sonic RS: looks like an appearance package. Let's see a Sonic SS. You just know GM can get more than 138hp out of a 1.4l turbo. They need a pocket rocket of some sort, and the Spark is just too small to fill that role.
Tru-140S - is that thing a looker or what? Gorgeous!
Tru-130R - not as good looking, but the idea of sub-Camaro pricing on a RWD fun car is cool by itself.
Heck, I say use the 140's styling on the 130, and build it for real.
Encore - handsome mini-me Enclave. Shows you how well the Enclave was received when they're doing that even many years after it came out. I don't see the big deal in it being built in Korea - the Aveo was built there and was the best selling car in its segment for ages.
Encore has to be priced below the Q3/EX35, though. It's about that size, but 140hp, 1.4l engine? Range Rover can get away with a small engine in the Evoque but the output is around double.
Keep a lid on pricing, maybe mid $20s to start, and I think it will sell well.
Heck, the Juke sells well. This is a better looking premium Juke, so it should sell also.
Not to the point of posting a good comment. They are always followed by the griping and lambasting of anything new with there's always something better from another company. Or the car is JANG. Or there's a CU report about it. Or Car and DRiver didn't like it. Or tyota had it decades ago. Or it's receiving government support while the favorite car ov the poster, latent or over, is subsidized and have been subsidized by their respective government of the company origin. Or someone repeats a cynical comment about GM, the topic. Or a poster violates other rules about topic and respect in the membership agreement. Or they're denigrating other posters.
Why would anyone respond to two new Chevy cars mentioned?
I've thought about running up to see the NAIAS one day this year. It's been years since I've been to the show in person. But then I think, why bother. It's just another year for new stuff from GM (and others). The GM stuff will be junk, way behind the times, lacking in at least one feature which someone will determine must be true for any car of the ilk of the GM vehicle, or just not worth seeing because GM had a small, trivial amount of subsidy from the government. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nice post. Interesting points. :shades: :
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Why would anyone respond to two new Chevy cars mentioned?
Um, because this is a GM thread...
DC Auto Show comes later, Jan 27 IIRC. I'll be heading out for sure.
That would *really* weed out the Nissan fanboys.
Or at least the blind.
I've test driven a Juke with FWD and the manual transmission. Sort of a GTI-on-tippy-toes feel to it.
188HP vs. 138HP .. no contest.
Despite the, ahem, "interesting" looks of the Juke, I'd take it over the Encore. But, I'm skewed to more of a performance car next time around.
I cancelled my subscription exactly because of that. In fact I cancelled all of my car magazine subscriptions because I thought they were biased toward Asian/German makes. Strangely, recently all four magazines were again appearing in my mailbox. I did not pay for them and make sure I check my credit card bills every month to make sure nothing is being sneaked by.
CR today in fact sent a letter asking for a donation in exchange for some kind of raffle for a "CR recommened auto". I threw it where their magazine goes...in the trash.
By the way before throwing the new "Road and Track" magazine there I did happen to notice that not one article feature, or road test was about a domestic branded car
That's a good point, if XLU was remotely right, everyone would have been burned by GM as a CR subscriber, and therefore the subscriber base would never be buying GM cars, and therefore their would be no reliability reports.
Nonsense!
Ever heard of a relapse? Or the term falling off the wagon?
Wow, if you can consider BILLIONS (not millions) but BILLIONS trivial and small, then I need to be your new best friend!
I'd like a CTS-V for my birthday.
I'd forgotten about that fiasco.
I have to agree that is one of the most idiotic government intrusions into the free market I have ever witnessed. I remember driving by a Hyundai dealership seeing numerous late model Windstars, Durangos, Suburbans .etc, awaiting destruction. By law all those engines had to be destroyed. Boy that makes alot of sense. I would have loved to buy some of them for our business for what they were giving in rebates.
The result of that was an increase in the cost of used cars for the lower economic segment as well as a decrease in and subsequent increase in cost of used car parts for the affected models.
These are car mags for enthusiasts. Not domestic only. Once the new ATS and xts are available, the mags will have articles on them. Same for the new fusion and updated Lincolns. The dart and Malibu etc.
Why doesn't GM bring back those kind of dealerships?That way you have a menue plan and know the price.
I agree. and I am a car enthusiast and have been since I was 13 years old many years ago.
I would much rather read an article about a car that I might actually be able to own rather than $200,000 exotic cars that I probably won't even see in person let alone own.
It's very difficult to sell a product with a "no haggle" policy when ALL of your competition negotiates price, even if the "no haggle" price is the lowest. It's a perception thing.
I remember when I bought my wife's Nissan Maxima. When I got done I felt so dirtyI had to take a shower. The worst car buying experience I ever had.
When I bought her Saturn, it was actually a pleasant experience and I actually had to inquire about the extended warranty because they hadn't
offered it while in the finance office,
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/auto_bailout.htm
From the link:
In December 2008, the three major U.S. auto industry companies --GM, Chrysler and Ford -- asked the government for a $34 billion bailout to avoid bankruptcy. The Big 3 stated that their demise would trigger 3 million layoffs within a year, plunging the economy further into recession.
In January 2009, the Obama Adminstration used $24.9 billion of the $700 billion bank bailout fund to rescue two of the Big 3 :
•$17.4 billion for General Motors and Chrysler.
•$6 billion for GMAC.
•$1.5 billion for Chrysler Financial.
The purpose of the loans was to provide operating cash for GM and Chrysler, and to keep making auto loans available for car buyers. Ford Credit planned to use funds from the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF),a government program for auto, student and other consumer loans.
Many opposed the bailout, saying U.S. automakers brought their near-bankruptcy on themselves by not retooling for an energy efficient era, reducing their competitiveness in the global market.
Auto Bailout Specifics
The auto bailout proposal from the Big 3 auto companies totaled $34 billion in government loans. In return, the companies promised to fast-track development of energy-efficient vehicles, and consolidate operations. GM and Ford agreed to streamline the number of brands they produced. They also won agreements from the UAW union to delay contributions to a health trust fund for retirees and reduce payments to laid-off workers. The three CEO's agreed to work for $1 a year and sell their corporate jets.
GM's Bailout
GM received $6 billion through GMAC, which became a bank holding company. GM asked for $18 billion in loans, of which $4 billion was needed to avoid bankruptcy before the end of 2008. In return, GM agreed to give the government warrants for common stock, preferred stock, and a promise to repay the loan in 2012, when it anticipates it will again break even. GM pledged to cut its debt by $30 billion by converting debt ownership for equity. It agreed that union health-care benefits would be paid to retirees in 2010. It promised to sell its Saab, Saturn and Hummer divisions, reducing the number of models for sale to 40. It would reduce employment from 96,000 to 45,000 by 2012. (Source: Bloomberg, Chrysler Financial to Get $1.5 Billion to Aid Car Sales, January 19, 2009)
Chrysler's Bailout
Chrysler's $1.5 billion EESA loan was made to a new financing corporation, Chrysler Financial, set up for the purpose. The interest rate for the loans was 1 point above LIBOR. In addition, Chrysler Financial promised to pay the government $75 million in notes and reduce executive bonuses by 40%. As a result, car buyers will get 0% financing for five years on some models.(Source: Washington Post, U.S. Expands Aid to Auto Industry, January 19, 2009)
Chrysler received $4 of the $7 billion bridge loan it originally requested. It also asked for $6 billion from the Energy Department to retool for more energy efficient vehicles. In return, Chrysler's owner Cerberus vowed to convert its debt to equity. Chrysler wanted the Big 3 to partner with the Federal government in a joint venture to develop alternative energy vehicles. Chrysler pledged to debut an electric vehicle in 2010, ramping up to 500,000 by 2013.
Ford's Bailout Proposal
Ford requested a $9 billion line-of-credit from the government, and a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. Ford pledged to accelerate development of both hybrid and battery-powered vehicles, retool plants to increase production of smaller cars, close dealerships, and sell Volvo. Ford is in better shape than GM or Chrysler because it had already mortgaged its assets in 2006 to raise $24.5 billion. Although Ford didn't need, and didn't receive any funds, it also didn't want its competition to get the upper hand thanks to the government bailout.
Congressional Plan
Congress first explored whether a planned bankruptcy reorganization was the best alternative for the companies, but realized that would take too long to implement. Congress was divided on whether to use the $700 billion EESA funds, instead of the $25 billion available from an Energy Department energy-efficient loan program.
Why the Bailout Was Needed
In December 2008, auto sales had dropped 37% compared to a year earlier. This was 400,000 fewer vehicles, or the equivalent of two factories' annual output. GM and Chrysler had the worst decline, while Ford's loss was about the same as industry leaders Honda and Toyota.
However, many in Congress accused the auto-makers of not operating competitively for years. The companies delayed making alternative energy vehicles, instead reaping profits from sales of SUV's and Hummers. When sales declined in 2006, they launched 0% financing plans to lure buyers. Union members were paid $70 per hour, on average, while new hires made $26 per hour. GM had twice as many brands as needed, and twice as many dealerships, thanks to state franchise regulations. For them, the bailout was needed to restore the U.S. auto industry to global competitiveness. (Source: WSJ.com, Big Three Seek $34 Billion Aid, December 3, 2008; Bloomberg, UAW Offers Cuts, December 3, 2008; The Economist, Back AgainDecember 3, 2008))
The Impact of the Big 3 Automakers on the U.S. Economy
At the time of the bailout, the auto industry contributed 3.6%, or $500 billion, to total U.S. GDP output. A 30% decline in auto sales translated directly into a 1% decrease in economic output. The auto industry also employed 850,000 workers in manufacturing, and 1.8 million workers in auto dealerships. Therefore, a decline in output resulted in direct job losses, as well as auto-industry related losses. (Source: BLS, Auto Industry Employment)
These figures included foreign-owned as well as the Big 3 auto makers. At the time of the bailout, many analysts felt that Chrysler would go bankrupt, even with a bailout, and Ford didn't really need it. Therefore, the main impact from the bailout was to save jobs at GM. However, the economic slowdown caused GM to slash its employment and production, whether it received a bailout or not. Furthermore, once the recession was over, Toyota and Honda would continue to increase their U.S. factories, providing jobs for U.S. auto workers
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bush_to_bail_out_big_3/
Bush to Bail Out Big 3
James Joyner · Friday, December 19, 2008 · 12 Comments
After hedging bets with talk about “controlled bankruptcy,” the Bush administration has decided to give the Big 3 loan guarantees that could not pass the Senate.
The White House has decided to come to the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler by providing them with $17.4 billion in low-interest loans to keep them afloat, ABC News has learned. The money for the loans will come from the Troubled Asset Relief Program fund, signed into law this fall to bail out the financial industry. The president will provide $13.4 billion in short-term financing in December and January and plans to make another $4 billion available in February, provided it can reach into the second half of the $700 billion TARP fund to do so.
[...]
Bush and other administration officials publicly worried in recent days about the need to avoid an uncontrolled bankruptcy by the two car companies. “This is a difficult time for a free-market person,” Bush said Thursday. “Under ordinary circumstances, failed entities, failing entities should be allowed to fail. I have concluded these are not ordinary circumstances, for a lot of reasons We got to the point where if a major institution were to fail, there is great likelihood that there’d be a ripple effect throughout the world, and the average person would be really hurt.”
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told a business forum in New York Thursday night it was too risky to simply let the automakers fail. “When you look at the size of this industry and look at all those that it touches in terms of suppliers and dealers& it would seem to be an imprudent risk to take,” he said.
[...]
Treasury Secretary Paulson will administer the plan until Jan. 20, at which point there will be another “presidential designee” to oversee the loans under the new administration. If the companies cannot prove they are financially “viable” by March 31, the loans will be recalled and the money returned to the Treasury. The White House is also calling for no dividends for stockholders until the money is paid back, and stipulating that the government can block transactions over $100 million.
The facts that this is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people, was killed in the legislature, and that the TARP funds were allocated for an entirely different purpose were apparently not major factors in this decision.
Perhaps that just means that the HHR doesn't start falling apart until after the first 25,000 miles. :P
So now it's about "domestic branding"? So a Mexican or Canadian or Korean GM is ok, but an Ohio Honda or Alabama Mercedes are not?
I guess it's the branding that's important, and which execs are highly paid, rather than the line workers.
This is the same tired, old argument that keeps getting rehashed. Believe it or not, not all domestic brands are built in Mexico or Canada and not all imports are made in the U.S.
And personally, GM's have been built in Canada for decades, not just since NAFTA. While not as good as building in the U.S. obviously, I think Canada is less egregious than Mexico or Korea, for what I think are obvious reasons, despite what you'll reply with. My late-model Chevys have been built in Ohio and Kansas.
There are other areas in the U.S. to build than the deep south, BTW. And before someone starts mentioning the stereotypes of northern auto workers, should I mention the stereotypes of southern Americans and their many sins that happened during my lifetime, not just 150 years ago?
Why not mention the exceptional deal that came out of the GM BK; that GM doesn't have to pay federal income taxes - oh on their first $45B in profit?
What you posted is nothing but a bunch of propaganda to justify the "legal" robbery of the average U.S. citizen. The bailouts were about protecting the interests of the unions, and the wealthy. The story you are told that GM could not have been broken-up and sold, with no long-term loss to the U.S. economy, is rubbish. Large companies and industries have come and gone throughout the history of the world. If Boeing or GE were to fail tomorrow, and layoff all it's employees, the economy would not come to a crash. Other large companies would buy the assets, intellectual property would be exchanged, economically-viable plants would reopen under new owners in many cases, competitors would run overtime and expand their shifts, and there would be no net loss.
I ask this in all honesty...do you really believe that kind of thing is the reason for the years-variance in reliability in the magazine? I'd like to ask other posters what they think of your response to that issue.
I've bought and owned 4 new GM vehicles, but own 0 now. Why? Because I try and judge what is the best value (features and quality at that time, vs. cost) at that time. GM does not offer that now, if you judge MSRP.
I kind of figured that if you were living in Eastern Europe, you would have been telling us how the local Soviet-era vehicles were just as good as anything else. :P Don't get mad, I'll send you a bottle of maple-syrup - my neighbor makes it and it is the "best" in the world (and he needs a job BTW).
Maybe it's my from-a-small-town mentality, but I think taking care of those around you if you can and it works for you, is a good thing. But then I always feel a square-mile is a square-mile wherever you live, but if you have to share it with fewer people, you'll like them better and be happier. I think small-town-life breeds a 'take care of your neighbor' mentality more than living in the city, and I've lived in both. I like knowing most of the people that go to your church, for instance. But believe me, I face others who just look at me with a perplexed look when I mention those things!
You mentioned the analogy of your local high-school football team. Maybe they're not the best....but here, they'd get rooted against! That is a bizarre thought to me.
Wow, identical type of exaggeration complained about here by GM bashers when someone refers to a Honda as "perfect", in sarcasm.
For some here, the glass always has to be half empty while they drive their choice of car. The comments have to be negative about the topic brand; should anything positive appear, it has to be tearing down the positive.
I notice few posts are really about the topic of the forum title.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Frankly, I sorta thought $34 billion was not "small change", which is why I included the comment in my post from an earlier poster.
Secondly, my second post on the topic was made to clearly point out that the bailouts weren't due to the actions of one party, but BOTH political parties.
Dems or reps, different labels.... Same behavior.
Whether the bailouts are good or bad has yet to be determined, although I fully agree with the idea of "too big to fail" is about as lame as it gets, regardless if we are talking manufacturers or financial institutions.
The Encore will make 140hp, I know, little difference, but...
Torque is much closer. 148 to 177. They're in the same ball park.
I give Nissan credit for taking risks, but the Juke is just way too "out there" for me, I'd take the Encore or the bus.
Wasn't it Chrysler that had people drinking during their lunch hour at some factory? Searching...
Yep:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/14/chrysler-employees-caught-drinking-smoking-du- - ring-lunch-break/
That's a mighty big bottle.
hiccup!
I have the last 6 Buying Guides from CR in front of me, 4 of them have domestic cars on the cover, only 2 have import brand cars.
Well, 3 to 3 if you consider the Fusion a Mexican car.
Either that, or that boy moonlights as a jockey! :P
The division should have become the way all sales reps were trained.
That they liked the HHR and gave it the benefit of the doubt on those good years proves they're not biased.
Same for the Vega when new. They gave Chevy the benefit of the doubt. When people started getting burned, that changed.
Your examples inadvertently show CR as being objective and fair.
4 of the last 6 covers on the Buying Guides show domestic cars, maybe they're pro-domestic biased?
Why did they go after Suzuki, Isuzu, and Lexus for tall SUVs, but not Ford (twice - Explorer and Escape)?
They put a giant Do Not Buy stamp on the Lexus GX, but the Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 "hopped and skidded" in their tests, yet they didn't do the same to Jeep. They gave Jeep access to their skid pad and waited until Chrysler issued a recall to the stability control system, then proceeded the recommend the Grand Cherokee.
Lexus never got that red carpet treatment, and by the way, the fix? SAME! Recalibrated stability control systems.
So, biased? Maybe pro-domestic. Or maybe they get falsely accused of that so often that once in a while they pick on the imports.
I ask this in all honesty...do you really believe that kind of thing is the reason for the years-variance in reliability in the magazine?
Yes, but it is only 1 of many reasons.. Maybe one of a hundred.
I have seen videos of UAW workers drinking during a "break" or during "lunch." It isn't far fetched.
Other reasons could be that the bean counters changed a part one year, realized the mistake the next, and made a correction.
There's a million possible reasons reliability could differ from one year to the next.
What they all add up to is :lemon:
Remember, the first year is a v1.0, so no surprise it's lower.
The other years are all the same except one, and it's not like the rating went from solid black dot to red dot and back.
It move ONE out of five categories, very close actually, from half black dot, to white dot.
Not exactly a huge sway in either direction.
Looking at the details ratings, the drop was due to electrical issues, something easily explained by the introduction of new stereo or media options as running changes.
I doubt it was drinking UAW workers.
I much prefer to have given small change to GM/C/F to survive in the US than having given huge amounts of bailouts for highly paid folk in the financial industry who get bonuses more than many people earn in a lifetime. I just read that Solyndra folk wanted to give bonuses after the gift of half a billion to total loss to the taxpayers. Amazing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
OK, but we're talking about the HHR.
Found the big change, per AOL Autos:
For 2008, a higher performance, turbocharged Chevrolet HHR SS model debuts. The LS and LT models carry over from 2007 with minimal changes.
http://autos.aol.com/cars-Chevrolet-HHR-2008/overview/
So basically the reliability score was (slightly) lower for v1.0, and then again a couple of years later when an entirely new powertrain arrived in the SS model. v1.0 of the SS.
2nd year they worked out the kinks, in both cases.
Easily explained, and not due to bias.
I think their crystal ball worked fine on that one.
Motor Trend was notorious for bad picks.
I bet in my dad's days they had hard liquor.
Now no alcohol at all. And I'm on K Street, no fair....
I'd go with CR on the Omni/Horizon. It was kind of a penalty box car.
That doesn't mean they are the same. Many head units looks the same anymore, but there are differences, usually in the form of more speakers and more wattage.
Looks like a cruze has two stereo options. A standard cd unit and a premium option. I'd bet the head units look similar enough that it would be hard to tell them apart.
The Omni GLH turbos were cool. I remember waiting for the bus as a kid and my neighbor across the street had an all black GLH. It sounded cool with it's deep exhaust and loud turbo whine.
I'd guess the GLH would qualify as an interesting penalty box;)
I just remember driving both a VW Rabbit and an Omni. They looked almost alike but the VW sure drove better! That said, the Rabbit was the worst car I ever owned. Fun to drive when it worked but that wasn't nearly often enough.
Meanwhile, yeah, you can't tell too much from the look of a stereo on a car. My Solara and my wife's Camry both have JBL stereos that are an upgrade from the standard stereo but if they didn't put the tiny JBL logo on it you couldn't see the difference from the base unit.
Well, CR got their panties in a knot because their driver Skippy panicked and messed himself when the back brakes on their test Hor/Omni locked up prematurely. Guess they assumed that if one car would do it, they all would, although if it was an Accord, they probably would've just chalked it up to sample error.
Actually, given the criteria MT used back then for COTY, the Omni/Horizon made perfect sense. First off, the car had to be all-new, or at least substantially new. Secondly, it had to be domestic. Well, for 1978, IIRC, that would narrow it down to the Omni/Horizon, Fairmont/Zephyr, and Malibu et al.
The Malibu & company didn't win, partly because they were just more of the same, but in a way, less so. Essentially, what GM did to the big car market with the Caprice/Impala, they repeated for 1978 with the Malibu, but with less successful results. While the Caprice/Impala turned the big car market on its ear, and was head and shoulders above the competition, the Malibu sort of split the difference between intermediate and compact. It did a lot of things well, but came up short in other categories, and just wasn't head-and-shoulders above the rest, in the way that its big brother was.
Ditto the Fairmont/Zephyr. They did help advance the domestic compact, and with an ohc 4-cyl and rack and pinion steering, were probably the most modern domestic compacts at the time. But they were still RWD, weren't a clear-cut king-of-the-compacts, and with the blurring of the compact and midsized markets, they had more competition than ever before.
In contrast, look at a 1978 Horizon, and then look at anything else that the domestics were offering in small cars back then. We had the Pinto, Chevette, Gremlin (might have been the Spirit by that time), and the Monza and other derivatives of the Vega. It was FWD and had very modern packaging for the time, and could be trimmed out pretty nicely. And it had 4 doors, which was something of a novelty among subcompact domestics back then. The Chevette was the only other small domestic that offered a 4-door, and they didn't get around to offering that until 1978. Ford wouldn't get around to it until the 1981 Escort.
FWIW, most Japanese small cars back then were still RWD, as well. Honda was an FWD pioneer, but I believe all the Toyotas were still RWD in '78, and I think the only Datsun offering FWD was the F10.
Now, the Omni/Horizon had their troubles, including reliability and such, but remarkably, the car held on through 1990, continued to sell fairly well. And, despite being 12 years old by then, really didn't seem all that dated. Any competing car from 1978 would have screamed disco by 1990, but the Omni/Horizon really didn't look all that out of place.
Problem with Motortrend's picks is that they're not trying to pick the most popular car for their COTY award. Or the most reliable, fastest, etc. They're trying to pick whatever new car seems the most significant to the automotive market, at that point in time.