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 see a convenient lack of context in your rebuttals. Let's take a look at what I wrote:
Malibu still ranked LAST in a recent comparo of midsized family sedans (even though it continues to improve, which shows you how BAD it was in the past)
I pointed out that the previous models were BAD because the even nerwer (and better) model placed last in a comparison. I don't see that the conclusion that a previous model was BAD is such an unreasonable conclusion, given those facts.
Also, you are conflating the fact that I sat in one at an auto show with the BAD comment. The auto show comment was in response to your statement (again wrong) that I had probably never sat in one. The two statements BAD and I sat in one were not related together in my comments, although you are trying to put the two different context comments together.
Really, why not let's just state opinions and appreciate that we all differ? Distortions really don't get us anywhere.
When it comes to incentives, I agree timing is everything. Particularly on Malibu currently as the new model is introduced. 2012's will be a great "value" and the cars remains one of the best GM has made starting in 2008. Not perfect but now it's real close to the competition. GM needs to go the extra step to beat them.
Then, incentives don't have to be so huge to move inventory.....the car will move by sheer desire. Just my opinion!
Regards,
OW
We're going to see some backpeddling from the admin on pretending to have interest in real cuts, such as proposed by the SuperCommittee, by the Republican who has made clear proposals for relative minor changees now, and the other committee whose results BO just ignored. The re-election is going to require some pretending. Whether the voters fall for that or not is unclear to me: they fell for Hope and Change and for Forward with its socialist roots. In all of this we're going to hear from all those who are upset about trivial amounts of money to help the auto industry of the US survive. So once again we're going to hear all about how Gm should have been allowed to fail, ad nauseum, and how foreign brands were wonderful. Now whether UAW should be allowed to keep part ownership ahead of bond owners is up for change in my book.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Some vehicles in rental fleets are already beaters at 15,000 miles. I know, because I've experienced it first hand. I've even returned cars and swapped them for the very same model and seen a night and day difference. Contrary to popular belief, many rental users don't much give a damn about how they treat a rental unit.
A rental experience can give you an accurate ergonomic experience, but I would never base my selection of a vehicle based upon how the actual rental drove, rattled, etc., nor would I ever purchase a rental. I've seen far too much abuse given to rentals for me personally to take a chance on one.
Ask any rental shop mechanic how responsible some renters can be.
As I have said before, 1 or 2 points on a graph don't make a trend. A single bad experience in a rental model hardly translates into a quality judgment call...
I think that is more solid evidence than taking a magazine article and making the flat statement that the car is BAD. Driving it is more 'seat time' than sitting in one at the auto show for *** sake. Guess what..the magazine drove one car too.
And again...he says nothing about the accolades of the previous car, but comes to a conclusion on it based on a test of the Eco-only version of the new car.
And also, the week after the Camry rental, I had a Malibu with 11K more miles. It was completely quiet...and hey, no lights on the instrument panel popping up either.
IMO, neither party is much interested in balancing the budget, but instead it's popular fodder being used to beat the other side. It makes for really good talking points, but neither side is willing to take the necessary steps that will be required to reduce the deficit, which must be a combination of spending cuts AND tax hikes.
We can neither tax ourselves out of a deficit, nor can we resolve the defict by simply cutting spending. We need specifically targeted spending cuts AND tax hikes.
Both options are political suicide for any politician actively attempting to implement any sort of balanced plan. When you are more concerned with your political career than doing what you were elected to do (make the tough decisions) you will never take any significant action to make any noticeable change. Only when/if politicians start getting the boot out of office for inaction will be begin to see any real change take place.
From where I sit, I don't see anything but tons of rhetoric being dished out...
Perhaps that's why Congress is held in such low esteem these days... As it should be...
Real leaders lead...
Fact is, the general public doesn't appear ready or willing at this point to accept the required pain to fix the problem, so it's going to be fixed by significantly higher inflation down the road. When, I can't say...
Any experience from a random rental is "contaminated", because you have absolutely no idea how the car has been treated up to that point.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't make any decision on buying a car from all the magazine articles combined. The real difference between the 2, however, is that the manufacturer has a chance to inspect the car before issuing it to a reviewer. Not so with any rental.
Indeed, that's why CR buys one off a lot .vs. taking a prepared car from a manufacturer. Whether or not that process actually works is up for some debate, but in theory it would seem to be the most accurate way of getting an honest sample for evaluation.
Personally, I like the reviews in which cars are tested by several drivers and then each driver states his/her opinion on what they like, and what they don't.
Example:
Ergonomic needs for a 5'2" driver are much different than those for one 6'2". If both drivers feel comfortable in the car, it's a good sign that most drivers would, tpo.
There is an island with regulation curb height that separates the general parking lot from the drive thru window, and while I was sitting in the car, some dude flies thru the parking lot in a newish pretty dark emerald red Cruze, cornered hard to get into the drive thru lane and completely hopped over the island with both right side tires. When the front tire exited the island, the body slammed down on top of the curb with a crash.
I thought the driver was an idiot to do that to their car, and then I noticed the car rental sticker on the back of the car.
You KNOW the driver reported that incident when he returned the car...right!
Would anyone say that car would give the next renter a truly accurate experience of a new Cruze automobile?
Only if the potential buyer wants to see how well a Cruze takes curbed islands at 10-15 mph...
http://www.camaroz28.com/forums/2010-2011-2012-camaro-news-sightings-pictures-mu- ltimedia-61/2012-camaro-zl1-mark-up-850042/
That's a far cry from the "rebates" on them that were posted about erroneously here a few months back.
Totally agree and both candidates for president seem to be slick political con artists with no real integrity either. I get a kick out of the labeling too. Whether you agree or not with the GM rescue, if saving a critical industry to your economy is "socialism", then pretty much every country on the globe is a bunch of Commies (-:
If the Caddie ATS convertible existed when I bought my 328 convertible I would have given it the very same analysis. If it came out on top, it's what I would be driving. I considered every hardtop drop top when I bought it, including the Sebring. The Sebring was cheap looking interior-wise, and the Lexus had rear-vision impediments, as examples why I chose against them. I really liked the sports seating feel in the 328, and because I have lower back issues, seating comfort is vital to me.
I purchased a 2002 S10 pickup new, even though I had a miserable experience with a S10 Blazer in the 1980's, and I bought it over every other brand becasue it topped the list in the things that mattered to me. That hardly would seem to make me anti-Big-3 or foreign pro. I traded it for a Toyota Tacoma in 2009. I didn't want a full size pickup, and the Ranger was at least 1, if not 2 generations out of date. The GM Colorado interior was, let me say, disappointing... Far too much mediocre-fitting plastic for my taste. The Tacoma came in about $1K less than the comparable Nissan, for the same equipment.
I am encouraging my wife to take a hard look at the Volt when she trades in 1-2 years. For her needs, if the Volt really is the car it's claimed to be, it would be ideal for her.
As far as your experience, I disagree with your conclusion. A flawed basis for a conclusion is a flawed basis for a conclusion. That's not to say both can't be factored into a decision, but either one, independently seems worthless to me.
Did you notice the next poster stated there were no markups at the Sterling Hts, MI dealership?
I thought the next few postings gave a pretty good analysis of the situation. Like they said, there will always be some dealerships willing to take advantage of those that "gotta have it NOW!".
Years ago, the local Toyota dealer would add $1k or more as "dealer prep" costs, then negotiate it away,in an attempt to make the buyer feel he was getting a good deal. I always thought he should open up a "Mr. Check Casher" business next door, because both practices seem a bit seedy to me.
I also remember the local Chrysler dealer adding $2K to the list price of PT Cruisers when they debuted.
That didn't last long.
It doesn't surprise me that any new, limited production vehicle may have dealers charging premiums at the beginning. I always felt that a dealer that did such things was showing his "true" colors as to how he cared about repeat customers.
Dealers that do add such exorbitant premiums really end up hurting the brand by excessive gouging. Inwould think that, is this case, GM probably isn't too thrilled with the dealer...
You can say with a straight face that sitting in a car is the same as having driven one for even a week?
New item for 'most inane posts' list.
I tell my kids, it's OK to admit things...it doesn't mean one is weak.
Let's just agree to disagree. I'm not using adjectives like "dopey" or "laughable" or "inane". Perhaps my argument is lost on you, and your argument is lost on me.
That gives me a flashback to my paternal grandmother. She was only about 5'2", and I'm 6'3". Back in 1989, I bought a 1969 Dodge Dart GT hardtop. Grandmom wanted to sit in it and see how it felt. They had once owned a 1975 Dodge Dart Swinger hardtop, and I guess she was feeling nostalgic.
Well, the car fit me perfectly...better in fact than many modern cars. But, Grandmom could barely see over the dash. She looked out through that little space between the top of the dash and the steering wheel. Kinda scary, to think that once upon a time, she drove something like this on a regular basis! :surprise:
I am kinda curious to try out the 2013 Malibu. I know rear seat legroom is supposedly shorter, but I've seen it quoted as something like 36.9", which isn't exactly cramped. But, legroom is a combination of seat height and the fore-aft distance, so two cars could have the same published figure, but one could fit me better than the other, if the seat is lower, but the fore-aft distance is greater.
My old Dart only had something like 32.9" of rear seat legroom, yet I could fit in the back. However, I cheated a little. It had bucket seats, and there was enough room between the seat and the door that I could straddle the front seat a bit. But, when that one got wrecked, I bought a '68 that had a bench seat, which I couldn't straddle if I was sitting in the back, but even it didn't feel *that* cramped.
To me, the truly inane posts are opinions posted as absolute fact, and absolute untruths posted as absolute fact. There are plenty of those here.
Fact: GM went bankrupt. GM makes less profit per vehicle led by higher than avg. rebates and fleet sales. GM is behind the competition because of the decades long slide into C-11 and the suspension of development programs. GM has far lower residual values than the industry average. GM is government owned. GM pays extremely low taxes at the moment. GM is LOOSING market share in the USA.
Regards,
OW
Last I heard, they still sell more cars than anyone. Obviously, the've had issues, but with more players and the 'open playing field' since, that in itself would also contribute to the loss of market share.
Number One, and "...behind the competition". That's the kind of thing I was talking about here.
Another poster mentioned the "Munchausen Syndrome" on this board. I'd call it "Stockholm Syndrome". It sure seems, repeatedly, that people are hoping for GM's downfall. That is absolutely, positively astonishing to me. Time to look ahead, not back.
I think you keep missing the reason why. People in general, and I believe Americans in general like the playing fields to be fair. Now if the U.S. government is going to enact a law that says "all businesses and enterprises will be backed by the U.S. Treasury", then I guess I wouldn't have such a problem with bailouts.
The fact is throughout the history of the world - over thousands of years, businesses and industries have come and gone. Entire countries and empires have come and gone. Those that have been fat, lazy, or stupid have failed. They pay the consequences for their decisions and actions, or lack of action. The U.S. government is bailing out a few companies or industries, at the ethical and moral hazard of - playing favorites; not treating people equally.
If GE, Microsoft, Ford, Bank of America, AIG, Exxon-Mobil or any other company is failing - that's their problem. As thousands of years of history has shown, they'll be replaced and the world goes go. If there's demand for vehicles produiced in the U.S. then some other company or financial institution will step up and become a part of the Big 3.
I didn't mean to start off a political debate. My thinking was related to how GM and the past small amount of funds used to save the company will be used as fodder in the political debates. Personally, I'm very tired of hearing about GM got money therefore everything is bad (because no other foreign company is not being/has never been subsidized by their government--grin) about GM. It's tired and worn out for me. AND I'm not talking about anyone specific here in this discussion. There's another discussion on aid to car companies and one for UAW talk where the bashing goes on, and that's the topic there.
But the company is doing as much as fast as they can afford to bring out newer, better cars. Yet the media that some use to evaluate vehicles still doesn't give them a fair comparison, partly because of history and partly because of the preferences for sporty, criminally-driven vehicles which a Cruze LS may not fit the model for. :grin
Nobody commented on my plea for a return to real evaluations by people who drove cars like a common driver would use the vehicle, e.g., like Uplander renting one for a week might learn its warts based on his useage pattern and his body type and his driving mannerisms. Tom Cahill was one. I recall an article in our local newsrag (Dayton Daily Nothing) Wheels section where the "evaluator" drove a Park Avenue. They used about half the column inches for text compared to their usual length and then filled it with a list of RECALLS on the Park Avenue.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The dumping has gone on since the 70s. KEeping the Yen lower than par against the dollars also has essentially aided the dumping process through the years for the Japanese and Chinese (and Koreans?). Pushing the dollar lower by spending excessively and buying our own treasury bills/bonds with freshly minted dollar bills helps lower the dollar and raise the cost of the foreign imports. That's when they get more interested in producing the vehicles here. I just hear the toyota company is going to build more engines in Georgetown instead of importing. They are actually going to use the part timers they have to fill those jobs. What a novel concept.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What? Here's the upside. 2008+ Malibu - Excellent improvement. 2008+ CTS - Ditto. Cruze - Ditto.
They are on the right track just far behind where a successful company would be if it had been managed properly in the first place.
Regards,
OW
Number one in sales, agreed. Behind in a whole heck of a lot of metrics.
Pay attention!
It sure seems, repeatedly, that people are hoping for GM's downfall. That is absolutely, positively astonishing to me. Time to look ahead, not back.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Remember it...so GM can move ahead properly. :shades:
Regards,
OW
What kind of syndrome is that?? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
Let's ask a simple question: When does blaming something else for taking responsibility to determine your own fate ever work?
Regards,
OW
To me, criminally driven vehicles get in everyone's way and are usually Buicks!!
JK, JK. I couldn't resist!
Agree GM is doing as much as they can. At least you infer they are still behind. Kudos!
Regards,
OW
Level playing field.
Honestly, your reasoning abilities seem clouded at times.
Incidentally, there are three ZL-1's on eBay right now with bids. One is bid to $58K with six days left in the auction; one is bid to $60K with two hours left on the auction, and one is bid to $63K with 40 mins. left on the auction. So much for those that snickered here that GM had rebates on them to sell (false).
Still, I would say you've seen your share of abused rentals, judging from your comment.
How reliable would you say an opinion of a car line would be based upon a single car rental?
Clouded judgment indeed.
You see only what you wish to see. Go back and review the conversations between Steve and me from last Sunday and then tell me I'm not objectively looking at both sides.
If I am the MSNBC, then does that make you the Fox News of the forum???
What a riot!
Pardon me while I go cruising in my dream-mobile.
Keep looking, and you may actually find out the answer....
Actually GE has been propped up by the US government--their financial division received money and by eliminating light bulbs with filaments from being sold so GE's fluorescent division can sell those. Ford has received monies for "green" car development, IIRC. Bank of America--does that need explainging?, etc.
But more importantly, foreign car makers have been helped by their governments so they could damage our companies and establish the markets for themselves.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
All this negativity has me totally drained. I'm taking a break from this forum. Any guys who like to snicker and get the last word in, now's your chance to respond without a response!
I don't think any country aids it's industry to intentionally damage other companies, but to assist their own enterprises.
And, every country does it.
Whats new for us, however, is we seem to have formed a different opinion as to what free trade actually means. We have governing entities that turn a blind eye to many instances, but respond heavy handed in cases where plenty of lobbying (read: $$$$$) are dealt out to political groups/politicians.
If there is any logic to how decisions are arrived at in determining "fairness and equity" in trading with nations with low-cost labor/manufacturing cost, it has certainly escaped me.
You should be a politician. Answer the question.
When does blaming something else for taking responsibility to determine your own fate ever work?
Market forces change and good companies adjust. GM "turned a completely blind eye" (or 2 or 3) to staying ahead of the competition by making crap products....and then did not meet the challenges of rising energy costs even after the 1974 embargo.
Regards,
OW