TTAC did an excellent article about GM's problems and raised an interesting point about bread and butter cars being the place GM is failing. The volume sellers need to succeed and make money. That would be the Cruze, Malibu, Equinox, and Traverse. NONE of these is a class leader...forget "the" class leader, they don't even come CLOSE to the leaders. Traverse and Equinox especially are not because they're trying to be too many things at once, and make too many compromises. They frankly cheaped out on Malibu, Cruze came here outdated and has been falling behind since (hello GM? DODGE gets more power out of a 1.4T than you do!).
Leading with the ATS, it being a niche vehicle, may give them a crown but won't give them profitability. They just lost their chance in the midsize family sedan category. That leaves three opportunities. Bring us a world class small SUV, midsize crossover, or compact car (more of which are coming with hatchback variants). They need to deliver on one of these three in the next two years.
So, rear-drive sedans is where Chrysler offers them...not front-drive. Hmmm. There isn't such a thing in Chevy sedans, where I shop.
Even though the power goes to different ends of the car, I'd consider the Chevy Impala and Dodge Charger to be in the same class. And for good measure, throw in the Ford Taurus and Toyota Avalon.
As for the Charger and its 8-speed automatic, it's extra-cost. a 5-speed is standard, with the 8-speed being a ~$1000 option on the base model. It may be standard on the nicer trim levels though. It's not offered with the Hemi, though.
As for the Impala though, one important question is...does the car NEED an 8+ speed transmission? Here's how the fuel economy ratings stack up... Impala 3.6/6-speed: 18/30 Charger 3.6/5-speed: 18/27 Charger 3.6/8-speed: 19/31 Taurus 3.5/6-speed (S6 ?): 18/27 Taurus 3.5/6-speed: 18/28 Avalon 3.5/6-speed (and there's that "S6" again): 19/28.
So, with regards to fuel economy at least, it seems to me that the Impala is already pretty competitive.
As for pricing, the MSRP of the Impala, Charger, and Taurus starts around $25.5-26K. The Avalon is more expensive, at $33K, so maybe it's not completely fair to throw it in this comparo. However, I'd imagine that it also comes much better equipped, so by the time you start throwing options on the other three, it wouldn't take much to get them to the Avalon's price point.
I'll be curious to see how the 2014 Impala changes things. As it stands, of the bunch I'd most likely go with the Charger. However, I do question the merit of the 8-speed, versus the 5-speed. I don't do enough highway driving to really get the benefit of the improved highway economy, and in local driving, 18 mpg versus 19 is negligible.
There's definitely a diminishing return as you keep adding transmission gears, as well. Back in the old days, when they started switching from 2-speed to 3-speed automatics, it gave a big boost to performance, and economy. When they started the migration from 3- to 4-speeds, there was a smaller, yet still noticeable improvement. It seems like Ford tended to focus on improved performance, as those overdrive 4-speeds allowed them to make the axle ratio a bit quicker, while GM tended to focus more on economy, keeping the axle ratio fairly tall.
Eventually though, I think it gets to the point that extra gears are meaningless, beyond giving you bragging rights.
CVT advantages... Less moving parts, simpler design, overall less costly to make, optimal power-band utilization.
CVT disadvantages... Unable to take the stresses created in high HP/high torque applications, not as efficient as fixed-gear setups at constant speeds.
Traditional auto advantages... Fixed gearing, giving better mpg at constant speed, can accept high HP/torque applications, more gears=better mpg and shifting smoothness.
Traditional auto disadvantages... More moving parts, more expensive to make and repair, more gears=higher costs to manufacture.
As EPA and mpg requirements continue to get more precise (stricter), automakers are going to latch onto ANYTHING that gives even a hint of better mpg and less pollution. That includes composite body panels, much more lightweight metals, increased disappearance of spare tires, etc.
IMO, very few drivers really car about how many gears their auto trans has, but they won't be the ones making the decision. It'll be the manufacturers...
When it comes to automatic versus CVT, most buyers of either are looking for results, and could care less about transmission type. They want smoothness, and they want good fuel economy, and that's the extent of it. People looking for sportiness will go looking for a DCT or a manual, or will pay attention to the design of the automatic to make sure it doesn't think for itself too much and it shifts crisply.
Outside of Caddy and the Vette, no one looking for a sporty car looks at GM anymore. They could put in a CVT with 8 programmed "gears" instead of 6 and probably get away with it. If they started making SS variants again (unlikely since they're actually making an SS MODEL now) they'd either better have a good 6 speed manual, license the SkyActiv automatic from Mazda, or source a good DCT from somewhere.
Speaking of the SS, WHERE does that exactly fit in with Chevy??? RWD performance sounds like it should be Caddy! Not to mention the fact that Chevy already has TWO RWD performance vehicles, the Camaro and the Corvette! WHERE does the SS fit in???? Or are they just having trouble selling Caprice PPVs and need a way to unload more?
Come to think of it, won't the SS and the Impala be competing in the full size category? Oops. :shades:
Do you really expect GM to accomplish all that in your lifetime
It took over 100 years for faxes to hit critical mass (invented in 1846 and were everywhere in the 80s and 90s, although not many of us fax anymore).
Computers (abacus, weaving looms) have been around forever although the Jacquard didn't arrive until 1801, Babbage in 1820.
At some point tech hits critical mass and become ubiquitous. Cars and computers are approaching that point, but Ford and Microsoft might beat GM there. OnStar is a bit like Apple when I want open Android stuff to play with (read cheap).
Imagine a narrow Italian street you want to negotiate; you drill down to the Italian Job option, jump your left wheels onto the sidewalk and boom, your rental is cruising down the block on the sidewalls in two wheel mode, all nicely controlled and balanced by some of the many car computers and sensors. Just need to work on the programming at this point.
Totally agree... The vast majority of car buyers are only looking for results. Not only do they not care about transmission operations (as long as its automatic), relatively few care about the nameplate, or origin of the manufaturing country.
Still, there has been some success with GM's Camaro, but your point is well made. Folks purchasing modern "sportscars" are looking for, more often than not, the latest and greatest gadgetry, bells and whistles, and frankly, I'd bet very few would respond initially with the answer GM when asked the question "Who makes the most technologically advanced cars in the world?"
GM reminds me of the fellow that can't quite bring himself to commit in a relationship. He wants to, but he can't make the final decision on who he wants as his wife, so he continuously plays the field.
The Camaro is a 2 door cruiser, a Caprice PPV with two less doors and half-size windows. It's too big and heavy to be sporty, and the Mustang trounces it. I'm glad the rental fleet buyers disagree with me, but that's not the entire marketplace you know.
Do your homework, bpizzuti. The Camaro outsells the Mustang, period, and reviewers are calling the ZL-1 superior over the later, more expensive Mustang Cobra that is just out.
I know that just kills some people here, though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Technically, that's true, but according to the first 7 months of 2012 sales figures (from Autodata) the Camaro leads by only 1%, which is, in essence a "dead heat"... Sales wise. In fact, Mustang passed the Camaro in sales for the month of July.
Dodge Challenger sales are 1/2 of Camaro or Mustang.
As for the reviews, this is another example of where I claim "foul". You can't only use reviews that support your position, and disregard the ones that don't.
IMO, the best review is the number of cars sold, as that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
So, from the perspective that matters the most (sales) the Camaro and Mustang are pretty much even. And, that's not a bad thing, since they are both American iron...
Come on busiris, be even-handed. Pouncing on my remarks, yet ignoring the poster's comment that "Mustang trounces Camaro'.
Sheesh.
If best-selling means 'best', the Ford Escort must have been the best car in its class then. There are hundreds of similar examples that could be used. Best-selling usually includes a healthy-dose of "low priced".
But using your 'best-selling' criteria, the fact that the Camaro and Mustang are even that close is surprising, as the Mustang has been facelifted since the Camaro came out. Add model year sales for Mustang and Camaro since the Camaro was introduced in 2009, and the margin of Camaro sales superiority is even larger...which is surprising since the convertible bodystyle in the Camaro line was absent for much of that time period.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
It would be interesting to know how many of Mustang vs. Camaro sales are fleet vs. bought by individuals. Since fleet sales are often used to dump lower sellers or handle production overcapacity, the individual buyers would actually determine the true popularity of a car. Does anybody have any figures in this area for these cars?
Absolutely correct. The new Malibu underscore exaclty the OLD GM disease.
GM’s foundation should be built on a bread-and-butter car. If your best-selling car isn’t what you depend on to pay the bills, you’re in trouble. GM spent a lot of time and money to make the new Cadillac ATS competitive with the BMW 3-series and paid for a lot of press to proclaim it a BMW-beater, but they forgot that it’s a niche car with far fewer sales than their mid-sized family car, the Malibu. They cheaped out on the redesign of the Malibu by using an readily available global platform, which made it more cramped than the rest of the competition and positioned it too near the Cruze for the price. Then they botched the launch by releasing it 6 months early to avoid the launches of the new Accord and Fusion. If it were truly a great redesign, then why were they worried about the competition? They knew they’d cheaped out. To make matter worse, they didn’t have the new powertrain ready yet, so they threw in their old hybrid powertrain that gets worse gas mileage than the competitor’s non-hybrid powertrains. To throw even more fuel on the fire, they still had 6 months worth of 2012 Malibus to get rid of, so they discounted them, cutting their margins and slowing the launch of the new Malibu. This is their bread-and-butter car! As an automaker you have to get the bread-and-butter car right. Then you have the free cash to blow on a Cadillac ATS.
Your reference also brings to light the points that all of the GM-Fans refuse to admit that the potential for future failure is high: Tout all you want, but their money-maker isn’t a money-maker, and the stuff that is making money isn’t making enough to keep them afloat. The execs at GM know this, so they’re doing everything they can to keep up appearances and cover the losses. Fleet sales and rental car sales are up, which sounds good, but is detrimental to the brand image. GM is also under a lawsuit for packing dealer lots with profitable pickups and counting them as sales before they’re sold. If the trucks don’t sell, GM will have to discount them, cutting the profits on another bread-and-butter vehicle. Which brings us to full-size trucks and SUVs. GM prides itself on being a leader in the full-size SUV market. in the pre-bankruptcy days, trucks and SUVs were a foundation of GM’s profitability. Then oil prices rose dramatically and crushed sales. Now the sales have returned and GM has once again built a leg of its foundation on the shifting sand of oil prices. Also, GM’s pickups are going through a redesign. If they botch the launch like they botched the Malibu it could spell disaster.
GM supporters also like to talk about how well GM is doing in China. GM is gaining market share in China, but not by selling American-market cars. Most of the market share there comes from a three-way venture, SAIC-GM-Wuling, making vehicles in China for the local market. The Chinese market is under heavy pressure right now, and although they hold a significant market share, they’re selling at a thin margin, and the American market cars that are selling are, again, niche vehicles.
Time will tell. The stock price reflects the future.
I'm going to show my ignorance here by saying this, but are there many fleets that want a lot of cars like the Mustang and Camaro? Malibus, Altimas, Camrys, etc. of course, with lots of Chrysler and Hunkia minivans, too, but I don't know about models like the Camaro and Mustang...
I honestly have no idea, but when I travel through airports and rental car lots, I can't remember seeing a single Camaro or Challenger, although I have seen a few Mustangs.
All major rental companies seem to carry both Camaro and Mustang. Even the big V8 versions. I suspect the Mustang actually sells more to fleets, simply because it is likely easier to drive due to visibility and ergonomics.
I wouldn't consider a Malibu Eco, but whose competing sedan in non-hybrid version gets better EPA MPG ratings? I can think of some close, but not any that are better.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Beat me to it... If its a newer Altima, you have the options of a CVT, CVT, or a CVT.
There once was a time in which a 6-speed manual was offered, but I think that option was discontinued 2-3 years ago. I know it was available in 2008 models.
I got upgraded to one in Seattle about 5 years ago. Base model, fire engine red. Stomped good on the Interstate but all in all, I'd rather been upgraded to a Dodge Caravan.
I got upgraded to one in Seattle about 5 years ago. Base model, fire engine red. Stomped good on the Interstate but all in all, I'd rather been upgraded to a Dodge Caravan.
5 years ago wasn't the Camaro non-existant and the Mustang a pile of trash. I had a rental less than 5 years ago, (it was a 2008 or 2009 Model V6 Mustang).
It was junk, all noise, no go (acceleration). I think a Civic could have smoked it. Oh yeah, it had a poor fitting fuel cap panel (the sheet metal panel portion). Talk about huge gap tolerances at Ford at the time!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well, they had a chance to change, and it looked like they might be doing so. But then that ingrained and entrenched corporate culture induced a u-turn...
Interesting that the article you posted seems really hung up on legroom in the Malibu, as legroom is something I tend to harp on. However, I think they're making too big of a deal out of it. If the market decides that the Malibu is too cramped inside, there are things that GM can do to correct that, rather than wait five years for a redesign.
Firstly, they could redesign the front seats. Make them thinner, hollow out the seatbacks, or whatever. Making them thinner might reduced the comfort for front seat occupants, so they might have to put some money into better materials/design.
Also, punching out the wheelbase a couple inches is NOT a big deal, like the article seems to imply. You simply do it all in the rear door area. That means you have to add a couple inches to the roof, a couple inches to the floorpan, rocker panels, and exhaust pipe.
GM (and Ford, and Chrysler) used to do this kind of stuff all the time to differentiate their cars.
But, the article does make a good point, about how the Malibu should have been a class leader from the get-go. And, how VW's CEO was a car man from the get-go, whereas GM's guy is pretty much a bean-counting newbie.
Ford's CEO was a bean counting newbie, but Ford seems to be doing quite well.
And I'm thinking extending a wheelbase is not as simple as it used to be. I doubt they'll be able to until the car is redesigned. And who thought it was a bright idea to bring out the SHORTEST wheelbase "midsize" sedan with the LEAST legroom?
And I'm thinking extending a wheelbase is not as simple as it used to be. I doubt they'll be able to until the car is redesigned.
Yeah, that could very well be. The last time I remember someone coming up with a different wheelbase fairly quickly was when Ford offered an extended wb Town Car. IIRC, the wheelbase was punched out about 4 inches. They put it all at the B-pillar area, so they didn't even have to change the window glass in the back doors. The B-pillar itself was thicker, and the sheetmetal part of the back door extended forward below it. Ford also offered a long-wheelbase Crown Vic for taxi service, but in this case, I think they left the B-pillar alone, and made the window glass longer.
There are other tricks to increasing back seat legroom, but they might be a bit more complicated. For instance, the old Intrepid, 300M, and Concorde/LHS were all on the same 113" wheelbase, yet the Concorde/LHS had about 2 more inches of legroom in back. To accomplish this, I think they merely pushed the back seat further back, so that means there might have been more intrusion of the rear wheel wells. And, they had to reconfigure the back part of the passenger cabin, to maintain headroom.
Going further back, the late 80's LeSabre and Electra/Park ave were both on the same 110.8" wheelbase, yet the Electra had more legroom in back. In this case though, the Electra came first. When the LeSabre came out, its C-pillar/rear window was slanted a bit, and less formal, so I think they merely moved the back seat up a bit, which gave more trunk space, but less (though still adequate) legroom. However, in this case, they started off with plenty of legroom, so they had some to lose.
And who thought it was a bright idea to bring out the SHORTEST wheelbase "midsize" sedan with the LEAST legroom?
Yeah, dumb idea there. I haven't sat in a Malibu yet to see how I'd fit. I am curious. I wouldn't have a problem with the car having the least legroom, provided it was still adequate. But, for as much as I'm hearing about lack of legroom in this cars, I'm thinking it's really a serious shortcoming.
It was a mistake to rush the Malibu to market when the new 2.5 and 2.0 turbo powertrains weren't ready. It seems the only thing GM accomplished by rushing it to market is negative press. Which is the last thing GM needs with the flood of new and updated models coming out from Ford, Nissan, and Honda etc.
With the new Impala coming out, the Malibu may very well go back to rentabu status.
Love to see the pres eat his word as um.......they FAILED a second time!!!
I just hope we dont give these clowns anymore of our money, I (and I'm sure nobody) wasnt asked if my tax dollars should go to bailing em out the first time, the answer would have been "HECK NO"
Others will gladly supply vehicles if GM cant, wait they cant, thats why they keep losing market share year after year after year.......
What are the demographics of use by the buyers for the Malibu. If we bought one, 99% of the time it would have 1 or 2 people in it. Rare would be the use of the rear seat.
Would they be people who typically have children for whom the compact legroom in rear wouldn't matter?
I suspect the Malibu legroom is more a campaign mantra for some people than it is a real problem for sales.
I suspect the Malibu legroom is more a campaign mantra for some people than it is a real problem for sales.
Then there will be others that argue that if the back seat will be rarely used, why not go for a cheaper, slightly more fuel efficient Cruze?
If you read any sort of magazine review or even an online chat room, the new Malibu consistantly gets called out for it's tight back seat area. And in the chat rooms, there are plenty of people who will mirror that criticism when making comparisons to other cars in its class.
After all, that is why it is called the "family car" segment
Maybe this is GM's way of pushing more sales into the Equinox and Traverse? Only thing I can think of.
I think both of those have more rear legroom than the Malibu, don't they? Saw a Captiva in the parking lot this morning, THAT looks like it does too. Also looks like something I would consider purchasing. Must be why GM refuses to sell them to anyone but fleets...
Note he even says "My administration worked closely with the automakers" then goes on to say he obtained bi-partisan support for his bill which he signed.
And who thought it was a bright idea to bring out the SHORTEST wheelbase "midsize" sedan with the LEAST legroom
Despite a life threatening experience and new management, I think the Malibu reflects unfortunately that GM is still too internalized. They probably shrunk the Malibu because the Impala was coming out, despite the competition models out there. On top of this, D3 (not just GM) insists on charging above market prices for a lot of new models. I don't think a lot of buyers are going to pay more for D3 than a comparable Asian model. D3 needed to re-establish market and product credibility and excellence before jacking up prices. Instead they've jumped into over pricing and we all know that will lead to excessive discounting once the new models have been out a bit likely burning the early buyers. GM and C aren't likely to get another gov intervention and Ford isn't likely to be able to re-leverage everything if things go south in the marketplace or economy again. At a minimum I'm disappointed, but probably "dumbfounded" is a better word!
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how one views the situation, both political parties had major input in the bailout. Thats just the way it is.
"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphaned child".
There will be some, but noone can say how many, that will buy GM based on brand preference or perceived patriotism, regardless what the product looks like. Others will do the same with other brands, with each thinking he/she made the "intelligent" choice, and in their case, it may well be such.
There's a lot of segment competition in the Malibu-range, and a lot of it quite good. It's going to be difficult to compete there, even with the best product.
Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the reference to Steve Jobs in the linked article and his management style...
Comments
Now we come back to reality, right?
Regards,
OW
We do. SO far, GM doesn't. :shades:
TTAC did an excellent article about GM's problems and raised an interesting point about bread and butter cars being the place GM is failing. The volume sellers need to succeed and make money. That would be the Cruze, Malibu, Equinox, and Traverse. NONE of these is a class leader...forget "the" class leader, they don't even come CLOSE to the leaders. Traverse and Equinox especially are not because they're trying to be too many things at once, and make too many compromises. They frankly cheaped out on Malibu, Cruze came here outdated and has been falling behind since (hello GM? DODGE gets more power out of a 1.4T than you do!).
Leading with the ATS, it being a niche vehicle, may give them a crown but won't give them profitability. They just lost their chance in the midsize family sedan category. That leaves three opportunities. Bring us a world class small SUV, midsize crossover, or compact car (more of which are coming with hatchback variants). They need to deliver on one of these three in the next two years.
Even though the power goes to different ends of the car, I'd consider the Chevy Impala and Dodge Charger to be in the same class. And for good measure, throw in the Ford Taurus and Toyota Avalon.
As for the Charger and its 8-speed automatic, it's extra-cost. a 5-speed is standard, with the 8-speed being a ~$1000 option on the base model. It may be standard on the nicer trim levels though. It's not offered with the Hemi, though.
As for the Impala though, one important question is...does the car NEED an 8+ speed transmission? Here's how the fuel economy ratings stack up...
Impala 3.6/6-speed: 18/30
Charger 3.6/5-speed: 18/27
Charger 3.6/8-speed: 19/31
Taurus 3.5/6-speed (S6 ?): 18/27
Taurus 3.5/6-speed: 18/28
Avalon 3.5/6-speed (and there's that "S6" again): 19/28.
So, with regards to fuel economy at least, it seems to me that the Impala is already pretty competitive.
As for pricing, the MSRP of the Impala, Charger, and Taurus starts around $25.5-26K. The Avalon is more expensive, at $33K, so maybe it's not completely fair to throw it in this comparo. However, I'd imagine that it also comes much better equipped, so by the time you start throwing options on the other three, it wouldn't take much to get them to the Avalon's price point.
I'll be curious to see how the 2014 Impala changes things. As it stands, of the bunch I'd most likely go with the Charger. However, I do question the merit of the 8-speed, versus the 5-speed. I don't do enough highway driving to really get the benefit of the improved highway economy, and in local driving, 18 mpg versus 19 is negligible.
There's definitely a diminishing return as you keep adding transmission gears, as well. Back in the old days, when they started switching from 2-speed to 3-speed automatics, it gave a big boost to performance, and economy. When they started the migration from 3- to 4-speeds, there was a smaller, yet still noticeable improvement. It seems like Ford tended to focus on improved performance, as those overdrive 4-speeds allowed them to make the axle ratio a bit quicker, while GM tended to focus more on economy, keeping the axle ratio fairly tall.
Eventually though, I think it gets to the point that extra gears are meaningless, beyond giving you bragging rights.
CVT disadvantages... Unable to take the stresses created in high HP/high torque applications, not as efficient as fixed-gear setups at constant speeds.
Traditional auto advantages... Fixed gearing, giving better mpg at constant speed, can accept high HP/torque applications, more gears=better mpg and shifting smoothness.
Traditional auto disadvantages... More moving parts, more expensive to make and repair, more gears=higher costs to manufacture.
As EPA and mpg requirements continue to get more precise (stricter), automakers are going to latch onto ANYTHING that gives even a hint of better mpg and less pollution. That includes composite body panels, much more lightweight metals, increased disappearance of spare tires, etc.
IMO, very few drivers really car about how many gears their auto trans has, but they won't be the ones making the decision. It'll be the manufacturers...
Outside of Caddy and the Vette, no one looking for a sporty car looks at GM anymore. They could put in a CVT with 8 programmed "gears" instead of 6 and probably get away with it. If they started making SS variants again (unlikely since they're actually making an SS MODEL now) they'd either better have a good 6 speed manual, license the SkyActiv automatic from Mazda, or source a good DCT from somewhere.
Speaking of the SS, WHERE does that exactly fit in with Chevy??? RWD performance sounds like it should be Caddy! Not to mention the fact that Chevy already has TWO RWD performance vehicles, the Camaro and the Corvette! WHERE does the SS fit in???? Or are they just having trouble selling Caprice PPVs and need a way to unload more?
Come to think of it, won't the SS and the Impala be competing in the full size category? Oops. :shades:
It took over 100 years for faxes to hit critical mass (invented in 1846 and were everywhere in the 80s and 90s, although not many of us fax anymore).
Computers (abacus, weaving looms) have been around forever although the Jacquard didn't arrive until 1801, Babbage in 1820.
At some point tech hits critical mass and become ubiquitous. Cars and computers are approaching that point, but Ford and Microsoft might beat GM there. OnStar is a bit like Apple when I want open Android stuff to play with (read cheap).
Imagine a narrow Italian street you want to negotiate; you drill down to the Italian Job option, jump your left wheels onto the sidewalk and boom, your rental is cruising down the block on the sidewalls in two wheel mode, all nicely controlled and balanced by some of the many car computers and sensors. Just need to work on the programming at this point.
Still, there has been some success with GM's Camaro, but your point is well made. Folks purchasing modern "sportscars" are looking for, more often than not, the latest and greatest gadgetry, bells and whistles, and frankly, I'd bet very few would respond initially with the answer GM when asked the question "Who makes the most technologically advanced cars in the world?"
GM reminds me of the fellow that can't quite bring himself to commit in a relationship. He wants to, but he can't make the final decision on who he wants as his wife, so he continuously plays the field.
As I stated earlier, pick a market and OWN it.
Both the marketplace and the reviewers disagree with you here. Camaro.
I know that just kills some people here, though.
Technically, that's true, but according to the first 7 months of 2012 sales figures (from Autodata) the Camaro leads by only 1%, which is, in essence a "dead heat"... Sales wise. In fact, Mustang passed the Camaro in sales for the month of July.
Dodge Challenger sales are 1/2 of Camaro or Mustang.
As for the reviews, this is another example of where I claim "foul". You can't only use reviews that support your position, and disregard the ones that don't.
IMO, the best review is the number of cars sold, as that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.
So, from the perspective that matters the most (sales) the Camaro and Mustang are pretty much even. And, that's not a bad thing, since they are both American iron...
Sheesh.
If best-selling means 'best', the Ford Escort must have been the best car in its class then. There are hundreds of similar examples that could be used. Best-selling usually includes a healthy-dose of "low priced".
But using your 'best-selling' criteria, the fact that the Camaro and Mustang are even that close is surprising, as the Mustang has been facelifted since the Camaro came out. Add model year sales for Mustang and Camaro since the Camaro was introduced in 2009, and the margin of Camaro sales superiority is even larger...which is surprising since the convertible bodystyle in the Camaro line was absent for much of that time period.
Chill out, dude. I didn't "pounce" on anything. All I stated happened to be the facts...
Which is more important, do you think, to Ford and GM... Getting better reviews in magazines, or selling the most units?
The answer seems fairly obvious...
I don't interpret his statement to be just about sales.
As is so often the case here, it's opinion stated flatly as fact.
Does that, to YOU, indicate I think one is tremendously outselling the other?
In your own word(s).... Sheeesh!!!
Opinion stated as fact? Widespread on a car forum?
Yep, you sure got that right!
GM’s foundation should be built on a bread-and-butter car. If your best-selling car isn’t what you depend on to pay the bills, you’re in trouble. GM spent a lot of time and money to make the new Cadillac ATS competitive with the BMW 3-series and paid for a lot of press to proclaim it a BMW-beater, but they forgot that it’s a niche car with far fewer sales than their mid-sized family car, the Malibu. They cheaped out on the redesign of the Malibu by using an readily available global platform, which made it more cramped than the rest of the competition and positioned it too near the Cruze for the price. Then they botched the launch by releasing it 6 months early to avoid the launches of the new Accord and Fusion. If it were truly a great redesign, then why were they worried about the competition? They knew they’d cheaped out. To make matter worse, they didn’t have the new powertrain ready yet, so they threw in their old hybrid powertrain that gets worse gas mileage than the competitor’s non-hybrid powertrains. To throw even more fuel on the fire, they still had 6 months worth of 2012 Malibus to get rid of, so they discounted them, cutting their margins and slowing the launch of the new Malibu. This is their bread-and-butter car! As an automaker you have to get the bread-and-butter car right. Then you have the free cash to blow on a Cadillac ATS.
Your reference also brings to light the points that all of the GM-Fans refuse to admit that the potential for future failure is high:
Tout all you want, but their money-maker isn’t a money-maker, and the stuff that is making money isn’t making enough to keep them afloat. The execs at GM know this, so they’re doing everything they can to keep up appearances and cover the losses. Fleet sales and rental car sales are up, which sounds good, but is detrimental to the brand image. GM is also under a lawsuit for packing dealer lots with profitable pickups and counting them as sales before they’re sold. If the trucks don’t sell, GM will have to discount them, cutting the profits on another bread-and-butter vehicle.
Which brings us to full-size trucks and SUVs. GM prides itself on being a leader in the full-size SUV market. in the pre-bankruptcy days, trucks and SUVs were a foundation of GM’s profitability. Then oil prices rose dramatically and crushed sales. Now the sales have returned and GM has once again built a leg of its foundation on the shifting sand of oil prices. Also, GM’s pickups are going through a redesign. If they botch the launch like they botched the Malibu it could spell disaster.
GM supporters also like to talk about how well GM is doing in China. GM is gaining market share in China, but not by selling American-market cars. Most of the market share there comes from a three-way venture, SAIC-GM-Wuling, making vehicles in China for the local market. The Chinese market is under heavy pressure right now, and although they hold a significant market share, they’re selling at a thin margin, and the American market cars that are selling are, again, niche vehicles.
Time will tell. The stock price reflects the future.
Regards,
OW
I honestly have no idea, but when I travel through airports and rental car lots, I can't remember seeing a single Camaro or Challenger, although I have seen a few Mustangs.
Not many, but a few...
Thanx!
Ur-turn: GM Not Going Bankrupt – For Now
Regards,
OW
There once was a time in which a 6-speed manual was offered, but I think that option was discontinued 2-3 years ago. I know it was available in 2008 models.
I may try to find a Camaro and Mustang rental and get each one for a day, just to say I've driven both of them... Could be fun...
Since I'm retired, it'll give me something to do...
5 years ago wasn't the Camaro non-existant and the Mustang a pile of trash. I had a rental less than 5 years ago, (it was a 2008 or 2009 Model V6 Mustang).
It was junk, all noise, no go (acceleration). I think a Civic could have smoked it. Oh yeah, it had a poor fitting fuel cap panel (the sheet metal panel portion). Talk about huge gap tolerances at Ford at the time!
General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again
Been saying it since pre-C-11: The disease is not benign, rather, spreading fast. :lemon:
Regards,
OW
Firstly, they could redesign the front seats. Make them thinner, hollow out the seatbacks, or whatever. Making them thinner might reduced the comfort for front seat occupants, so they might have to put some money into better materials/design.
Also, punching out the wheelbase a couple inches is NOT a big deal, like the article seems to imply. You simply do it all in the rear door area. That means you have to add a couple inches to the roof, a couple inches to the floorpan, rocker panels, and exhaust pipe.
GM (and Ford, and Chrysler) used to do this kind of stuff all the time to differentiate their cars.
But, the article does make a good point, about how the Malibu should have been a class leader from the get-go. And, how VW's CEO was a car man from the get-go, whereas GM's guy is pretty much a bean-counting newbie.
And I'm thinking extending a wheelbase is not as simple as it used to be. I doubt they'll be able to until the car is redesigned. And who thought it was a bright idea to bring out the SHORTEST wheelbase "midsize" sedan with the LEAST legroom?
Yeah, that could very well be. The last time I remember someone coming up with a different wheelbase fairly quickly was when Ford offered an extended wb Town Car. IIRC, the wheelbase was punched out about 4 inches. They put it all at the B-pillar area, so they didn't even have to change the window glass in the back doors. The B-pillar itself was thicker, and the sheetmetal part of the back door extended forward below it. Ford also offered a long-wheelbase Crown Vic for taxi service, but in this case, I think they left the B-pillar alone, and made the window glass longer.
There are other tricks to increasing back seat legroom, but they might be a bit more complicated. For instance, the old Intrepid, 300M, and Concorde/LHS were all on the same 113" wheelbase, yet the Concorde/LHS had about 2 more inches of legroom in back. To accomplish this, I think they merely pushed the back seat further back, so that means there might have been more intrusion of the rear wheel wells. And, they had to reconfigure the back part of the passenger cabin, to maintain headroom.
Going further back, the late 80's LeSabre and Electra/Park ave were both on the same 110.8" wheelbase, yet the Electra had more legroom in back. In this case though, the Electra came first. When the LeSabre came out, its C-pillar/rear window was slanted a bit, and less formal, so I think they merely moved the back seat up a bit, which gave more trunk space, but less (though still adequate) legroom. However, in this case, they started off with plenty of legroom, so they had some to lose.
And who thought it was a bright idea to bring out the SHORTEST wheelbase "midsize" sedan with the LEAST legroom?
Yeah, dumb idea there. I haven't sat in a Malibu yet to see how I'd fit. I am curious. I wouldn't have a problem with the car having the least legroom, provided it was still adequate. But, for as much as I'm hearing about lack of legroom in this cars, I'm thinking it's really a serious shortcoming.
With the new Impala coming out, the Malibu may very well go back to rentabu status.
Love to see the pres eat his word as um.......they FAILED a second time!!!
I just hope we dont give these clowns anymore of our money, I (and I'm sure nobody) wasnt asked if my tax dollars should go to bailing em out the first time, the answer would have been "HECK NO"
Others will gladly supply vehicles if GM cant, wait they cant, thats why they keep losing market share year after year after year.......
Would they be people who typically have children for whom the compact legroom in rear wouldn't matter?
I suspect the Malibu legroom is more a campaign mantra for some people than it is a real problem for sales.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Then there will be others that argue that if the back seat will be rarely used, why not go for a cheaper, slightly more fuel efficient Cruze?
If you read any sort of magazine review or even an online chat room, the new Malibu consistantly gets called out for it's tight back seat area. And in the chat rooms, there are plenty of people who will mirror that criticism when making comparisons to other cars in its class.
After all, that is why it is called the "family car" segment
I think both of those have more rear legroom than the Malibu, don't they? Saw a Captiva in the parking lot this morning, THAT looks like it does too. Also looks like something I would consider purchasing. Must be why GM refuses to sell them to anyone but fleets...
Same ones that the other competition targets.
Guess New GM is on the same ego trip from the Old GM, you know, the one that goes "they always know better than the customer" trip? :P
Regards,
OW
Bush signed the auto bailout, let's not forget:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5kRVfmMoE
Note he even says "My administration worked closely with the automakers" then goes on to say he obtained bi-partisan support for his bill which he signed.
BTW I was in favor.
Despite a life threatening experience and new management, I think the Malibu reflects unfortunately that GM is still too internalized. They probably shrunk the Malibu because the Impala was coming out, despite the competition models out there. On top of this, D3 (not just GM) insists on charging above market prices for a lot of new models. I don't think a lot of buyers are going to pay more for D3 than a comparable Asian model. D3 needed to re-establish market and product credibility and excellence before jacking up prices. Instead they've jumped into over pricing and we all know that will lead to excessive discounting once the new models have been out a bit likely burning the early buyers. GM and C aren't likely to get another gov intervention and Ford isn't likely to be able to re-leverage everything if things go south in the marketplace or economy again. At a minimum I'm disappointed, but probably "dumbfounded" is a better word!
Do they actually own one or a GM product? If not, they're just hypothesizing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphaned child".
There will be some, but noone can say how many, that will buy GM based on brand preference or perceived patriotism, regardless what the product looks like. Others will do the same with other brands, with each thinking he/she made the "intelligent" choice, and in their case, it may well be such.
There's a lot of segment competition in the Malibu-range, and a lot of it quite good. It's going to be difficult to compete there, even with the best product.
Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the reference to Steve Jobs in the linked article and his management style...