The '97-'03 Malibu...I agree....ick. There's not a single appealing thing to me about those cars. The best thing I could say was I think some of the colors, and wheels, got better-looking in the last couple years of the iteration.
My Chevy dealer has exactly one '13 Malibu now, a black one.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Juice, do you have any opinion of Criswell, one way or another? A few weeks ago when I was thinking about buying a Dodge Ram, Criswell was one of the dealers I got a quote from. Waldorf Dodge was the other.
I don't have any experience with either. Back in college, one of my friend's parents bought him a new '89 Cavalier Z-24 coupe from Criswell. It was pretty crapped out by around 90,000 miles, but I can't blame the dealer for that.
Good God, if Chevrolet could make something as nice as that '70, I wouldn't even need to look at a Cadillac or Buick!
In a way, I think that was GM's undoing. Going back to 1965, the big Chevies had sort of a youthful, sporty look to them, but not really what I'd call upscale pretentions. Even the Caprice, which came out that year in rapid response to Ford's LTD, still had sort of a youthful look about it. It was a nice car, but just looking at it, it was obvious that a Buick, Old, or Pontiac was a nicer car.
By 1970, the full-sized Chevies had really gone for a luxurious, upscale look. And by that time, it wasn't really so obvious anymore that a Buick, Olds, or Pontiac was supposed to be a step up.
GM was still able to make the whole 5-brand hierarchy work, but a few years later, it would start to falter as Pontiac took a hit in full-sized cars, from which it would never fully recover. And then as all the cars got downsized and more and more alike, the middle-priced market in general really got squeezed and thinned out.
Kinda luke warm. Mentions many of the concerns that uplanderguy did about the smallish back seat. They say just get a Cruze Eco or wait for the non e-Assist.
That looks EXACTLY like the one '13 Malibu my dealer has in stock.
I still like the previous car in profile better...as I've said before, the rear door looks long on the previous car and although I'm only 5'8", the car seems to me to have a lot of legroom in the back. The new one does not IMHO, although I've been told the dimensions aren't that different, which surprises me.
I do like the new car's taillights.
I don't go for the "TV screen" (as my teens call it) in the instrument panel. I like 'simple'. That said, I like the right half of the panel, and the door panels, better than in our '11 1LT.
I believe this car will be able to be bought for less than the competition, regardless of the sticker.
The writer's comment about the Sonata leaves out one salient point IMHO--I don't care if it stickers cheaper, I don't like the adolescent-boy-racer look of the Sonata!
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Cadillac's ATS is scheduled to hit dealer showrooms this summer, and General Motors has finally divulged pricing. Its smallest luxury sedan will start at $33,990 including destination(*), but that price will only snag you the entry-level model, powered by a 200-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder paired with a six-speed automatic. Stepping up to the turbocharged, 270-hp 2.0-liter will push the price up to $35,795, and bring all-wheel-drive and manual transmission options into play. The top-of-the-line ATS carries a $42,090 price tag and is powered by a version of the 3.6-liter V6 from the Cadillac CTS, rated at 320-hp and mated to an automatic tranny, with all-wheel-drive available.
While these prices are hard to evaluate without a full breakdown of standard equipment – which Cadillac promises in due time – we can compare them to two benchmarks, the all-new 2012 BMW 3 Series and the slightly larger CTS. While Caddy does undercut the base 3 Series price of $35,795, that entry-level ATS is down some 40 horsepower. The mid-priced ATS, the one with the turbo 2.0-liter, however, trumps the 328i's 240-hp engine by almost that much. With equivalent starting sticker prices, it only makes the inevitable head-to-head battle all that more interesting.
The CTS, however, starts at $36,810, which makes the top-level ATS seem spendy at first glance. Granted, the CTS is nearing the end of its life cycle, but clearly those looking for a more luxury-oriented, V6-powered sedan are going to have to closely study the standard equipment sheet to determine what justifies the $5,000-plus price premium for the smaller car.
GM really is not making much profit yet. So, all the fanfare on how good they are performing cloaks the real story. Might as well sell the shares at a loss, Mr. President.
According to The Detroit News, General Motors continues to avoid paying its federal income taxes since the company exited bankruptcy. In 2008, the Treasury Department ruled that the automaker could use $18 billion in losses from "old" GM to offset any profits. That means from a tax perspective, GM still hasn't earned enough money to overcome its losses. The automaker has raked in more than $13 billion since 2009.
I think one exception is the full-size Pontiac line from, oh, '64-'68 I think. Sporty, fastback roofs even on the luxury models, but Buick/Olds level interior quality (especially on the Brougham) and instrument panels that I think are better than the most expensive Buicks or Oldsmobiles. I don't think I'd even have considered moving to Olds or Buick if I was a full-size Pontiac owner in those years. IMHO, Pontiac really had it all together in those years.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Say you have a $25,000 Subaru and a $25,000 Chevy. You can get the Subaru for $23k, since demand is strong now (true) and it doesn't have rebates on most models (also true).
Meanwhile you can get that left over Malibu I found the other day for $19k.
So let's say the Subaru has a 60% residual after 3 years, the Malibu just 50%.
But your cost is based on price paid, not MSRP, residual is based on MSRP.
In other words:
Malibu residual = 12.5k, so actual depreciation is 19k - 12.5k = $6500.
Subaru residual = 15k, so actual depreciation is 23k - 15k = $8000.
That's a pretty good real-world example of why residuals can be misleading, and we own a Subaru (wifey's car).
Having said that, if you want a popular model, then get it. And you also may not want an outgoing model that may seem old pretty soon.
But in terms of depreciation cost, the bargain car comes out ahead of the residual champ.
Even at just 45% the Malibu would depreciate less.
Yes, Chevy as a brand is 42.2 percent this year and Subaru is 51.9%. I'm sure you can get a great deal on a few cars that mitigate the difference in price but that doesn't hold true for all models of all brands.
KBB: Some brands have a reputation for high resale value. Some brands have high resale value because they have a reputation for high resale value. While this seems like faulty logic, quite the contrary is true. Residual value projections are based on, among other things, consumers’ perceptions of long-term vehicle value, so consumers’ feelings about residual value are a key component of strong residual value. But to win the Best Brand and Best Luxury Brand awards, auto manufacturers must not only maintain the reputation of their brands, but also offer great vehicles across their entire model lines and keep production well-matched to demand.
ALG Award winners are determined through careful study of the competition in each segment, historical vehicle performance and industry trends. Vehicle quality, production levels relative to demand, and pricing and marketing strategies remain the key factors that affect ALG's residual value forecasts.
GM values as a mainstream brand are lower than the competition:FACT. :shades:
As has been discussed here ad-nauseum, the words 'value' and 'worth' don't exclusively mean residual value.
Back to the new Malibu--I hope they offer an optional side molding. In the old days of wheel opening trim and rocker moldings, I liked the look of no mid-body horizontal molding, but these days, I think cars look bland and slab-sided without them, not to mention the lack of ding protection. They were optional on the previous iteration.
I guess because it's not emotionally charged, or worse yet, nobody could come up with anything really negative about the car (as I expect), but the only comment at all about the short video on the '14 Impala posted here, was that someone preferred the '70 model over the '65 used in the video. Seems to speak volumes about why people post here.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember some of the Olds 88 models from around '65-66 as having really nice interiors. Perhaps it was an optional trim package though, and not standard? I just remember them having fabric inserts that matched the seats covering most of the door panel, with a carpeting strip at the bottom and vinyl at the top, and it looked really classy for a car of that price level.
I also remember seeing a '67 Olds 88 convertible one year for sale at a small lot outside of the Carlisle, PA fairgrounds. I always get my Deltas and Delmonts and Dynamics mixed up (and so did Olds apparently, as they tended to flip their 88 prefixes around alot), so I can't remember which one it was. I thought it had a more upscale looking interior than my '67 Catalina. But it was uglier, IMO.
Considering that Buick was supposed to be a step above Olds, I don't think that was always reflected in their interiors.
Personally, I thought Pontiac started to lose it in '68. I didn't like that year's intermediates as much as I did the '64-67 models. And the big cars tried to ape the intermediate style, and I just don't think it worked that well. I thought the big Pontiacs did improve for '69, although I thought they started to lose it again in '70.
I agree though, that the Bonneville Brougham was a really nice car. I'll see one every once in awhile at a classic car show. They really were upscale, with almost Cadillac-esque interior materials.
In '67 and '68, the Delmont 88 replaced the Dynamic 88, the Delta 88 remained the mid-priced full-size (think Buick Wildcat), and of course the Ninety-Eight was like the Electra.
I guess I mostly remembered '65 Olds dashes having a lot of black vinyl on them, when I remember the same year Pontiac Bonnevilles and Grand Prix having that glorious woodgrain and chrome trim and assist handles.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
After looking up my friends 2003 Accord EX-L and confirming that his kbb pp value was $14,060 with 61,000 miles on it as he had told me, I was suprised. Then he was suprised to find that my 2001 Silverado was worth $100 more, was 2 yrs older, and was nearly $2k less out the door when purchased new. The Honda dropped $1158 per year and the Chevy dropped $853 per year from otd prices paid. From MSRP, the drops were $1294 per year for the Accord and $1403 per year for the Chevy, but the Chevy MSRP was 15% higher initially. Any way you slice it though, neck and neck with the best will still draw criticism from OW.
As has been discussed here ad-nauseum, the words 'value' and 'worth' don't exclusively mean residual value.
Agreed. GM's retain less value and are worth less than the competition both at delivery and over years.
This based on past GM sales of older models/fleet factors, industry-leading incentives and predicted reliability. I agree the newer models are changing that FACT.
"Value" and "worth" have different meanings to different people. It would not be 'worth it' to me to drive a car that was more expensive to purchase and that looked worse, IMHO. I bring up the 'time value of money' we learned back in school yet again.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
After looking up my friends 2003 Accord EX-L and confirming that his kbb pp value was $14,060 with 61,000 miles on it as he had told me, I was suprised. Then he was suprised to find that my 2001 Silverado was worth $100 more, was 2 yrs older, and was nearly $2k less out the door when purchased new. The Honda dropped $1158 per year and the Chevy dropped $853 per year from otd prices paid. From MSRP, the drops were $1294 per year for the Accord and $1403 per year for the Chevy, but the Chevy MSRP was 15% higher initially. Any way you slice it though, neck and neck with the best will still draw criticism from OW.
Well I know which one I'd rather drive. I drove a friend's '04 Silverado over the weekend. Man, what a reminder on why I generally dislike GM vehicles. Sloppy steering, mushy brakes, and the fine smell of cheap GM plastic. I don't see how anyone can stand driving a GM truck of that vintage. I won't even bring up the rest of the interior. I almost had a PST event from my Suburban experience.
"Value" and "worth" have different meanings to different people. It would not be 'worth it' to me to drive a car that was more expensive to purchase and that looked worse, IMHO. I bring up the 'time value of money' we learned back in school yet again.
I can understand that. Currently, I don't want to spend more than I need to, and I don't want to drive something I particularly care about. Which is the biggest reason I haven't bought a new truck. No way would I want to treat a new $45K+ vehicle the way I treat my Expedition.
Trucks tend to have higher resale value than cars, for reasons which are somewhat nonsensical.
Being that I live in truck country, I understand why. Trucks tend to be tough and relatively easy to keep running. People tend to keep them a long time. I know several people that still drive pickups from the late 80's through the 90's. For as many trucks that sell per year, they don't exactly stack up on used car lots. Just try finding a used 3/4 ton truck.
On Autotrader, there are 8,084 2010-2011 Silverado 1500s listed vs. 10,616 Malibus. GM probably sold 2 times as many Silverados.
Even though many trucks are originally bought by those that use them much for for transportation than utility function, in the end, practically ALL trucks eventually end up being used as trucks, hauling crap, etc.
Passenger cars are quite different, as they aren't able to provide the utility function that only trucks can offer.
Even the most "beater" of a truck will bring $1500-2000 if it runs.
Except that Suburban probably retained better resale value than the Expedition.
No question, that's why I bought the Expedition used. It was far cheaper than any other full-size SUV on the used market (except for maybe a durango), and the ironic thing is I like it better overall than the Tahoe/Suburban. Particularly the Tahoe. The interior layout and packaging of the Expedition is far better. My back hasn't suffered dealing with overweight 3rd row seats since.
Honestly, the Expedition wasn't on my radar for a replacement for the Suburban. I really wanted a Nissan Armada or a GMC Denali. Used Armadas were to hard to find and were more money than I wanted to pay for a used model. Then I found several very low mile Denailis and I simply didn't like how they drove considering the price.
I stumbled on the Expedition on a Chevy/Cadillac dealer. The color scheme drew my attention, plus a low price on the window. I drove it for the hell of it, and was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it, other than being a bit short on power (compared to the denali), I liked how it drove and the fact it had a sizable tow capacity advantage. So it fit my needs better, plus being $20k cheaper sealed the deal.
I'd say reliability is a crap shoot with either. I know people that have good and bad luck with both. Neither have been perfect, but so far the Expedition has cost me thousands less in repairs up to 100k miles. We'll see how much longer it will stay fairly reliable.
Even the most "beater" of a truck will bring $1500-2000 if it runs.
True, if it's a 3/4 or 1 ton, you can likely double that, if it's a diesel, triple it. Lots of guys looking for that type of vehicle to make money working jobs where they need to haul stuff.
My BIL put his '06 RAM 3/4 ton diesel with 180k on craigs list for $10k and it sold in a day. A farmer showed up with cash. He didn't even drive it. He listened to it run and his only question was cash or check.
"I sat in a Malibu at an auto show, so I can say with absolute confidence that the '12 and earlier iteration is BAD" (capital letters his, not mine).
I sure hope you're not trying to quote anything I said, as that would be a total misrepresentation is that were the case.
I did post saying GM still has big issues, and one example was that the Malibu is not so good because it came in last among a set of competitors in a family car comparo. A certain poster then responded that I probably hadn't even sat in one (which was innacurate). So I confirmed that I HAD sat in one, at an auto show. I certainly never said the quote above, and I've read this entire forum since then, so perhaps I missed the other guy's post? :surprise:
"Most folks learn early-on that opinions are just that and are usually expressed as such, not as fact.
Misrepresentations are not facts - facts are the best way to rebut points of contention, if there really are any good facts to discuss.
No, I was just expressing my frustration that you had only sat in one, but had confidence to state (not express as an opinion) that the previous generation was (capital letters yours) BAD.
Real good basis there.
No comments on the other things I posted, you know...COTY, Consumer Guide Best Buy years in a row, CR 'recommended'--not bad for a BAD car.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
My big concern is buying a car with tires on it that can absorb a bump or pothole impact. I may have to buy a lesser model to get a talled sidewall these days; or buy a higher model and buy tires and rims that can actually be driven. I've long given up on getting a 55-45 bench front seat as in my leSabres.
That and tire replacement costs. I've been shopping for pickups and I simply don't want or need 19"+ sized rims on a pickup or full-size SUV. If I was buying a sports car or sedan, it would be different. But tires are expensive enough. The 17" Michelins MTX tires I bought 18 months ago were nearly $1k for 4 installed and that was the sale price.
Chevy as a brand is 42.2 percent this year and Subaru is 51.9%. I'm sure you can get a great deal on a few cars that mitigate the difference in price but that doesn't hold true for all models of all brands
It's easy to calculate.
Your residuals are lower so maybe that's for 4 years, either way, for a $25k MSRP, the residuals are:
Chevy: $10,550 Subaru: $12,975
What that means is your target should be a $2425 price advantage on the new Chevy in order to experience less depreciation.
That certainly will not happen on new models like the Malibu Eco, so buy the Subie.
But bargain hunters will beat that $2425 savings on a 2012 Malibu.
All other things being equal, of course.
We could run similar numbers for Cruze vs. Impreza, and it's likely the price advantage target would be smaller.
Keep in mind uplanderguy got a HUUUUGE discount on his Malibu so in the context of a conversation with him he's gonna win that comparison easily. :P
1) After spending trillions of dollars on bailouts and stimulus in the last few years, 2) the Fed lowering interest rates to 0%, and 3) the Federal Reserve devaluing our $ with their QE-programs, THIS economy is what it bought!
And, our government illegally gave rights to unions over bondholders in the GM bankruptcy proceedings.
If interest rates were to go up 4, 5 points, the U.S. then would have to spend hundreds of billions more just to service the debt of $16 Trillion. A calamity is awaiting and those in power in DC just diddle. They are not serious about fixing the entitlement mess, have not passed a budget in 3 years and this recklessness caused a downgrade last year in the U.S. credit rating. Greece is a preview of where we are headed if things don't change in DC.
I don't think you can single out just BMW on the leased car issue, but I do agree there is, and has always been, and will always be a population segment that wants to live beyond its means, "keeping up with the Jones"...
Living close t o the BMW plant in sc, there is no shortage of these folks, and many of the local BMW's are leased...but, so are many of the MB's, along with other high-line cars.
BMW really has, in a way, designed its sales process to be "lease friendly", leasing many new cars to those that want a continuous warranty and a relatively new car 100% of the time, then selling those cars coming off leases to buyers that like "certified" used vehicles (whatever "certified" happens to mean to the individual appears to vary widely). So, all in all, it's a unique way of selling expensive cars in a way that, at least to buyers, seems to suit their buying styles and desires.
Personally, I buy cars for the long term, and have never leased a vehicle. I might consider leasing an more "exotic" vehicle, like an M series or a Porsche, even a Corvette, but leases on cars such as those are far more difficult to come by... For good reason.
Sometimes subsidized leases can actually make more sense than buying too, if you are just going to sell when it is paid off anyway. Some highline leases especially in the E-class/5er territory barely seem to match depreciation.
Certainly, if you can expense the vehicle as a business write-off, leasing make a lot of sense. And as you stated, if the goal is to trade often, leases can be advantageous.
Comments
"First U.S.- Built Kia Optima Rolls Off Georgia Plant Assembly Line"
...
My Chevy dealer has exactly one '13 Malibu now, a black one.
I don't have any experience with either. Back in college, one of my friend's parents bought him a new '89 Cavalier Z-24 coupe from Criswell. It was pretty crapped out by around 90,000 miles, but I can't blame the dealer for that.
They seemed friendly, no pressure at all. Had brochures and stuff but I didn't take any (I look online).
In a way, I think that was GM's undoing. Going back to 1965, the big Chevies had sort of a youthful, sporty look to them, but not really what I'd call upscale pretentions. Even the Caprice, which came out that year in rapid response to Ford's LTD, still had sort of a youthful look about it. It was a nice car, but just looking at it, it was obvious that a Buick, Old, or Pontiac was a nicer car.
By 1970, the full-sized Chevies had really gone for a luxurious, upscale look. And by that time, it wasn't really so obvious anymore that a Buick, Olds, or Pontiac was supposed to be a step up.
GM was still able to make the whole 5-brand hierarchy work, but a few years later, it would start to falter as Pontiac took a hit in full-sized cars, from which it would never fully recover. And then as all the cars got downsized and more and more alike, the middle-priced market in general really got squeezed and thinned out.
Kinda luke warm. Mentions many of the concerns that uplanderguy did about the smallish back seat. They say just get a Cruze Eco or wait for the non e-Assist.
I still like the previous car in profile better...as I've said before, the rear door looks long on the previous car and although I'm only 5'8", the car seems to me to have a lot of legroom in the back. The new one does not IMHO, although I've been told the dimensions aren't that different, which surprises me.
I do like the new car's taillights.
I don't go for the "TV screen" (as my teens call it) in the instrument panel. I like 'simple'. That said, I like the right half of the panel, and the door panels, better than in our '11 1LT.
I believe this car will be able to be bought for less than the competition, regardless of the sticker.
The writer's comment about the Sonata leaves out one salient point IMHO--I don't care if it stickers cheaper, I don't like the adolescent-boy-racer look of the Sonata!
Cadillac's ATS is scheduled to hit dealer showrooms this summer, and General Motors has finally divulged pricing. Its smallest luxury sedan will start at $33,990 including destination(*), but that price will only snag you the entry-level model, powered by a 200-horsepower 2.5-liter four-cylinder paired with a six-speed automatic. Stepping up to the turbocharged, 270-hp 2.0-liter will push the price up to $35,795, and bring all-wheel-drive and manual transmission options into play. The top-of-the-line ATS carries a $42,090 price tag and is powered by a version of the 3.6-liter V6 from the Cadillac CTS, rated at 320-hp and mated to an automatic tranny, with all-wheel-drive available.
While these prices are hard to evaluate without a full breakdown of standard equipment – which Cadillac promises in due time – we can compare them to two benchmarks, the all-new 2012 BMW 3 Series and the slightly larger CTS. While Caddy does undercut the base 3 Series price of $35,795, that entry-level ATS is down some 40 horsepower. The mid-priced ATS, the one with the turbo 2.0-liter, however, trumps the 328i's 240-hp engine by almost that much. With equivalent starting sticker prices, it only makes the inevitable head-to-head battle all that more interesting.
The CTS, however, starts at $36,810, which makes the top-level ATS seem spendy at first glance. Granted, the CTS is nearing the end of its life cycle, but clearly those looking for a more luxury-oriented, V6-powered sedan are going to have to closely study the standard equipment sheet to determine what justifies the $5,000-plus price premium for the smaller car.
Priced high, afaic. Nothing new for GM.
Regards,
OW
But as we know, in reality, they'll be discounted more than those others.
Of course, that's bad for consumers (LOL).
According to The Detroit News, General Motors continues to avoid paying its federal income taxes since the company exited bankruptcy. In 2008, the Treasury Department ruled that the automaker could use $18 billion in losses from "old" GM to offset any profits. That means from a tax perspective, GM still hasn't earned enough money to overcome its losses. The automaker has raked in more than $13 billion since 2009.
Legal loophole allows GM to avoid paying federal taxes... still
Go Kia! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Of course, that's why GM's are worth less than their competition...because they are.
It's a fool's game!
Regards,
OW
Most folks learn early-on that opinions are just that and are usually expressed as such, not as fact.
I think one exception is the full-size Pontiac line from, oh, '64-'68 I think. Sporty, fastback roofs even on the luxury models, but Buick/Olds level interior quality (especially on the Brougham) and instrument panels that I think are better than the most expensive Buicks or Oldsmobiles. I don't think I'd even have considered moving to Olds or Buick if I was a full-size Pontiac owner in those years. IMHO, Pontiac really had it all together in those years.
OK, I assume you need to look at this again. Fact: GM's are worth less.
Look Ma, No GM.
Mainstream Brand Residual Value Rankings:
1. SUBARU
2. HONDA
3. HYUNDAI
4. MAZDA
5. TOYOTA
6. NISSAN
7. KIA
8. VOLKSWAGEN
Regards,
OW
Say you have a $25,000 Subaru and a $25,000 Chevy. You can get the Subaru for $23k, since demand is strong now (true) and it doesn't have rebates on most models (also true).
Meanwhile you can get that left over Malibu I found the other day for $19k.
So let's say the Subaru has a 60% residual after 3 years, the Malibu just 50%.
But your cost is based on price paid, not MSRP, residual is based on MSRP.
In other words:
Malibu residual = 12.5k, so actual depreciation is 19k - 12.5k = $6500.
Subaru residual = 15k, so actual depreciation is 23k - 15k = $8000.
That's a pretty good real-world example of why residuals can be misleading, and we own a Subaru (wifey's car).
Having said that, if you want a popular model, then get it. And you also may not want an outgoing model that may seem old pretty soon.
But in terms of depreciation cost, the bargain car comes out ahead of the residual champ.
Even at just 45% the Malibu would depreciate less.
KBB:
Some brands have a reputation for high resale value. Some brands have high resale value because they have a reputation for high resale value. While this seems like faulty logic, quite the contrary is true. Residual value projections are based on, among other things, consumers’ perceptions of long-term vehicle value, so consumers’ feelings about residual value are a key component of strong residual value. But to win the Best Brand and Best Luxury Brand awards, auto manufacturers must not only maintain the reputation of their brands, but also offer great vehicles across their entire model lines and keep production well-matched to demand.
ALG
Award winners are determined through careful study of the competition in each segment, historical vehicle performance and industry trends. Vehicle quality, production levels relative to demand, and pricing and marketing strategies remain the key factors that affect ALG's residual value forecasts.
GM values as a mainstream brand are lower than the competition:FACT. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Back to the new Malibu--I hope they offer an optional side molding. In the old days of wheel opening trim and rocker moldings, I liked the look of no mid-body horizontal molding, but these days, I think cars look bland and slab-sided without them, not to mention the lack of ding protection. They were optional on the previous iteration.
I guess because it's not emotionally charged, or worse yet, nobody could come up with anything really negative about the car (as I expect), but the only comment at all about the short video on the '14 Impala posted here, was that someone preferred the '70 model over the '65 used in the video. Seems to speak volumes about why people post here.
I also remember seeing a '67 Olds 88 convertible one year for sale at a small lot outside of the Carlisle, PA fairgrounds. I always get my Deltas and Delmonts and Dynamics mixed up (and so did Olds apparently, as they tended to flip their 88 prefixes around alot), so I can't remember which one it was. I thought it had a more upscale looking interior than my '67 Catalina. But it was uglier, IMO.
Considering that Buick was supposed to be a step above Olds, I don't think that was always reflected in their interiors.
Personally, I thought Pontiac started to lose it in '68. I didn't like that year's intermediates as much as I did the '64-67 models. And the big cars tried to ape the intermediate style, and I just don't think it worked that well. I thought the big Pontiacs did improve for '69, although I thought they started to lose it again in '70.
I agree though, that the Bonneville Brougham was a really nice car. I'll see one every once in awhile at a classic car show. They really were upscale, with almost Cadillac-esque interior materials.
I guess I mostly remembered '65 Olds dashes having a lot of black vinyl on them, when I remember the same year Pontiac Bonnevilles and Grand Prix having that glorious woodgrain and chrome trim and assist handles.
Nicely done example. Thanks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I like the fast depreciators, they make good late model used buys.
In the first case, the sales were hurt because of second and third-rate quality and huge volumes of fleet sales and incentives.
Now, they are reversing that strategy and the consumers, programmed like Pavlov's dog, are not buying in.
Double-edged sword that cuts either way.
Regards,
OW
Agreed. GM's retain less value and are worth less than the competition both at delivery and over years.
This based on past GM sales of older models/fleet factors, industry-leading incentives and predicted reliability. I agree the newer models are changing that FACT.
Regards,
OW
Well I know which one I'd rather drive. I drove a friend's '04 Silverado over the weekend. Man, what a reminder on why I generally dislike GM vehicles. Sloppy steering, mushy brakes, and the fine smell of cheap GM plastic. I don't see how anyone can stand driving a GM truck of that vintage. I won't even bring up the rest of the interior. I almost had a PST event from my Suburban experience.
I can understand that. Currently, I don't want to spend more than I need to, and I don't want to drive something I particularly care about. Which is the biggest reason I haven't bought a new truck. No way would I want to treat a new $45K+ vehicle the way I treat my Expedition.
Being that I live in truck country, I understand why. Trucks tend to be tough and relatively easy to keep running. People tend to keep them a long time. I know several people that still drive pickups from the late 80's through the 90's. For as many trucks that sell per year, they don't exactly stack up on used car lots. Just try finding a used 3/4 ton truck.
On Autotrader, there are 8,084 2010-2011 Silverado 1500s listed vs. 10,616 Malibus. GM probably sold 2 times as many Silverados.
Passenger cars are quite different, as they aren't able to provide the utility function that only trucks can offer.
Even the most "beater" of a truck will bring $1500-2000 if it runs.
No question, that's why I bought the Expedition used. It was far cheaper than any other full-size SUV on the used market (except for maybe a durango), and the ironic thing is I like it better overall than the Tahoe/Suburban. Particularly the Tahoe. The interior layout and packaging of the Expedition is far better. My back hasn't suffered dealing with overweight 3rd row seats since.
Honestly, the Expedition wasn't on my radar for a replacement for the Suburban. I really wanted a Nissan Armada or a GMC Denali. Used Armadas were to hard to find and were more money than I wanted to pay for a used model. Then I found several very low mile Denailis and I simply didn't like how they drove considering the price.
I stumbled on the Expedition on a Chevy/Cadillac dealer. The color scheme drew my attention, plus a low price on the window. I drove it for the hell of it, and was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked it, other than being a bit short on power (compared to the denali), I liked how it drove and the fact it had a sizable tow capacity advantage. So it fit my needs better, plus being $20k cheaper sealed the deal.
I'd say reliability is a crap shoot with either. I know people that have good and bad luck with both. Neither have been perfect, but so far the Expedition has cost me thousands less in repairs up to 100k miles. We'll see how much longer it will stay fairly reliable.
True, if it's a 3/4 or 1 ton, you can likely double that, if it's a diesel, triple it. Lots of guys looking for that type of vehicle to make money working jobs where they need to haul stuff.
My BIL put his '06 RAM 3/4 ton diesel with 180k on craigs list for $10k and it sold in a day. A farmer showed up with cash. He didn't even drive it. He listened to it run and his only question was cash or check.
I sure hope you're not trying to quote anything I said, as that would be a total misrepresentation is that were the case.
I did post saying GM still has big issues, and one example was that the Malibu is not so good because it came in last among a set of competitors in a family car comparo. A certain poster then responded that I probably hadn't even sat in one (which was innacurate). So I confirmed that I HAD sat in one, at an auto show. I certainly never said the quote above, and I've read this entire forum since then, so perhaps I missed the other guy's post? :surprise:
"Most folks learn early-on that opinions are just that and are usually expressed as such, not as fact.
Misrepresentations are not facts - facts are the best way to rebut points of contention, if there really are any good facts to discuss.
Real good basis there.
No comments on the other things I posted, you know...COTY, Consumer Guide Best Buy years in a row, CR 'recommended'--not bad for a BAD car.
That and tire replacement costs. I've been shopping for pickups and I simply don't want or need 19"+ sized rims on a pickup or full-size SUV. If I was buying a sports car or sedan, it would be different. But tires are expensive enough. The 17" Michelins MTX tires I bought 18 months ago were nearly $1k for 4 installed and that was the sale price.
It's easy to calculate.
Your residuals are lower so maybe that's for 4 years, either way, for a $25k MSRP, the residuals are:
Chevy: $10,550
Subaru: $12,975
What that means is your target should be a $2425 price advantage on the new Chevy in order to experience less depreciation.
That certainly will not happen on new models like the Malibu Eco, so buy the Subie.
But bargain hunters will beat that $2425 savings on a 2012 Malibu.
All other things being equal, of course.
We could run similar numbers for Cruze vs. Impreza, and it's likely the price advantage target would be smaller.
Keep in mind uplanderguy got a HUUUUGE discount on his Malibu so in the context of a conversation with him he's gonna win that comparison easily. :P
Compare to a Ridgeline or a Tundra, instead.
And, our government illegally gave rights to unions over bondholders in the GM bankruptcy proceedings.
If interest rates were to go up 4, 5 points, the U.S. then would have to spend hundreds of billions more just to service the debt of $16 Trillion. A calamity is awaiting and those in power in DC just diddle. They are not serious about fixing the entitlement mess, have not passed a budget in 3 years and this recklessness caused a downgrade last year in the U.S. credit rating. Greece is a preview of where we are headed if things don't change in DC.
Living close t o the BMW plant in sc, there is no shortage of these folks, and many of the local BMW's are leased...but, so are many of the MB's, along with other high-line cars.
BMW really has, in a way, designed its sales process to be "lease friendly", leasing many new cars to those that want a continuous warranty and a relatively new car 100% of the time, then selling those cars coming off leases to buyers that like "certified" used vehicles (whatever "certified" happens to mean to the individual appears to vary widely). So, all in all, it's a unique way of selling expensive cars in a way that, at least to buyers, seems to suit their buying styles and desires.
Personally, I buy cars for the long term, and have never leased a vehicle. I might consider leasing an more "exotic" vehicle, like an M series or a Porsche, even a Corvette, but leases on cars such as those are far more difficult to come by... For good reason.
I know ULG got great prices for his cars. You get what you pay for, right?
Regards,
OW
Not necessarily, though.
Timing is everything.
Rebates will jump up from one day to the next.
Time it right and you get more than you pay for. Time it wrong and ... well, sorry.
Find the right subsidy, time it right, and you can get a bargain.
Every situation is unique...