Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
I find it kind of interesting that, once upon a time, the most popular body style sold in America was the intermediate 2-door. Cars like, say, a '76 Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Malibu coupe, Cordoba, Torino coupe, etc. Most of those had published legroom measurements of around 32-33". Yet, it seemed like the only complaints you got about the back seat of those cars at the time was from Consumer Reports!
Of course, back then, people were more concerned with style than practicality. And you didn't have to worry about trying to wedge a child car seat back there.
I also remember Motortrend, Car and Driver, and other reviewers slamming the 2003-2007 Accord for having a tight back seat, compared to its peers. I don't think it affected the Accord's sales all that much, though.
'77 Cutlass Supreme coupe like I had. Darn comfortable.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I find my '76 LeMans coupe to be more comfortable than most modern cars...in the front seat, at least. Now, it's not without its faults. There's no side bolster contouring like in modern cars to hold you in place, the headrests are a joke, and the seatback doesn't recline. It's also not a split bench, so where the driver goes, so does the passenger.
But, on the plus side, it's very thickly padded, and gives me great lower back support. And with the power adjust, it can actually go back far enough, and at enough of an angle, that I can't reach the pedals!
The back seat is actually pretty comfortable, as far as padding and such goes. And as low-slung as the car is, my head doesn't hit the ceiling. Good foot-room under the front seat as well...something that a lot of modern cars lack. But, with the front seat back all the way, legroom is horrible. If I was to ride in the back of that car, and had someone short up front driving, it would be pretty comfortable though.
Those '76-77 Cutlass coupes, if you got the Brougham package with those loose-pillow striped velour seats, must have been supremely comfortable!
So much that they made the 2008-2012 bigger and the same trade rags complained it was too big.
Now the new 2013 Accord is going to be smaller again.
Oddly, I didn't find the 2008-2012 back seat as comfortable as the 2003-07. The biggest problem was that it had hard plastic on the back of the front seat, which dug into my knees.
How much smaller is the 2013 Accord supposed to be? Considering the Civic seems to have grown up a bit, I don't know that they could really make the Accord much smaller. At the same time though, they really couldn't make the Accord much bigger than it already is, because cars that size don't really sell in big volumes anymore.
I owned a 76 Cutlass with velour. The legroom was actually pretty good (don't know how they measured it back then?) and I was 6'3". The velour seats appear comfortable, but after about an hour and a half, the lack of lumbar support was very pronounced and they were uncomfortable for me. It was a nice looking car, but it wasn't very good with a lot of repairs even under warranty and very poor assembly workmanship (rattles, pieces of trim falling off, etc.). It seemed to me that this period in time was the beginning of GM starting to slip. The lady I ended up marrying had a 75 Malibu Classic back then. It was an even worse car mechanically (both V8's). We then got a 79 Monte Carlo and an 83 Olds Ciera - each was worst yet. In fact the problems and lack of parts at the dealers with the Ciera resulted in several Ford rental cars and we ended up moving over to them. They were better, but not great either honestly. Back in the 80's we had our first experience with a Japanese car - a Toyota Corolla rental car. Even though it was fairly small, I fit in it and we were both impressed at how much tighter it was built than the domestics we were driving then and how much standard equipment it came with compared to higher priced domestics. My point - Japan won by offering more for the money. Why didn't D3 do this recently when the tsunami offered them a fantastic opportunity? Short sighted, Wall Street focused stupidity in my book. D3 still doesn't seem to get it - the customer is the consumer, not the investor. The latter do best when the former are happy.
As for this Bush versus Obama stuff - they both had to do it at that particular point in the economy. The difference I think is that Bush wouldn't have bastardized the BK process and so the result may have actually ended up better for GM.
Looking at the seat in that brochure link I posted, I can see that happening. Those seats do look nice and thick, but somewhat flat. My '76 LeMans has a bit more curve to it, with the lower part hitting my lower back in just the right spot.
I would normally presume that most GM cars would've just had the same seats across the lineup, with different fabrics and patterns and such. However, I do remember one consumer rag back in the day testing a '76 and '77 LeMans coupe, and mentioning that the seats were better than the competition. Not just GM and Ford, but within GM as well. So, maybe the various divisions still had a bit of freedom in those days?
However, I think the way they measure legroom, it's a combination of the height of the seat, and how much fore-aft room there is in the back seat. So, a seat that sits low, but way back, could have the same measurement as a seat that's tall, but not as far back. And, in this case, the taller seat with less fore-aft room is going to feel more cramped.
I imagine the Accord won't go back to being the size of say a Gen 5 because Honda still tries to cover 2 classes with the one offering. As long as the Avalon, Azera, Maxima and Taurus are around, the Accord will be Hondas competitor.
Along with being a competitor to the Camry, Sonata, Altima and Fusion...
Honda hasn't released specs yet but everything I've read says it's shorter. As noted, it's not gen 5 shorter.
Bush signed it, people need to stop attributing it to his successor.
Except that his successor decided to give them even more money.
Not exactly the target demographic for this type of car...wonder where her gold chains and mullet are? :P
I'm always surprised when I hear people say this. Maybe 'tighter built', but I rented cars weekly back in the early '80's. I hated small Japanese cars then...buzzy engines, doors about half an inch thick, and bizarre-smelling vinyl and plastics inside. First cars I remember seeing where standard models just had bare steel wheels with no hubcaps. And in my memory, Japanese cars weren't less expensive. You could typically get a larger American car for less money.
It didn't matter to me if they were built like Sherman tanks and could withstand a direct hit by a 20 megaton warhead. They were way too small and way too weird and ugly for my tastes.
I remember adding a layer of foam under the seat bottom to perk it back up. The back of the seat fit me fine. But that doesn't mean someone else didn't need the lumbar support in a different place than I did. I am 5'7".
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You can deny what happened or rationalize it away, but regardless Detroit didn't pay attention to an important learning lesson here. When the ball was handed to them recently by the tsunami (and in the case of GM they were also given a huge cost relief by Uncle) instead of getting aggressive courting the customer opportunity, they just used it as an opportunity to raise their pricing. Now Japan is back and big surprise, they are once again moving up. Personally, while I supported the bailout, their behavior and foolishness blowing the opportunities handed to them on a silver platter last year makes me lose confidence in them and I find myself now reluctant to support any more tax monies to them... and remember, D3 probably has more Canadian and Mexican components and manufacturing than many of the Asian transplants. Sometimes I think Detroit is still asleep - I just don't understand it really. I also think the time is long past to put it all on the UAW. GM management appears to be the real problem and Ford seems to be following them right down the same road. As I've said before, Detroit needs to focus on the customer rather than the stockholder. If you execute the former well, the latter generally falls in place. I think most of us expected some less than stellar financial results initially as companies like GM turned themselves around, but these idiots seemed to play for Wall Street right out of the box. Result: GM stock doesn't look pretty and Ford isn't so great right now either. Remember, stock investors usually price based on future expectations, so this isn't a pretty story.
Mulally wasn't from the auto industry, but AFAIK he is an engineer, not a bean counter.
It was the mid 80's to early 90's where I began sampling cars like the Accord, CRX, MR2, Maxima, and Preludes etc and was impressed. Those cars were far better than the Escorts, Tempos, Taurus, Chevettes, Cavaliers, Beretta's, Celebrities, Calais, etc. that most of my friends and I suffered through.
The first Japanese car I ever drove was an '86 Maxima that one of my grandpa's friends bought. I drove it back to back with grandpa's '83 Delta 88 and I was blown away by how smooth and refined the Maxima was. Grandpa's Olds felt soft, sluggish, and cheap in comparison. Sure, it had a v8 and was much larger, but no question regarding which car I wanted to drive.
My grandpa always liked big GM sedans, but I've never liked them. I didn't like how they drove or how they looked inside and out. The one exception was my Grandpa's '87 Caprice Classic Brougham LS. That car has a presence I found attractive.
As a kid in the late 70's and 80's I just remember my friends and family have a lot of bad domestic cars. My other grandpa was a car salesman for a Ford dealer. His new demos often had issues.
My dad had a '79 Caprice wagon that was always in the shop, it had around 6k miles on it the first time it stalled out and left us stranded. His '73 Torino prior to the Caprice was completely rusted out and junk after 6 years and 50k miles, belching smoke and leaking oil.
People just didn't buy non-domestics for the heck of it. Most people I know who drive foreign makes started with domestics. My parents and in-laws included.
Now my dad did recently have major engine failure in his '09 Accord at 80k miles. It basically lost a cylinder. He didn't have an extended warranty and Honda stepped up, rebuilt the engine, gave him a brand new Civic Hybrid to drive for 2 weeks and only charged him $100. He was blown away. All of the problems he's had over the years with the Fords and Chevys and neither stepped up to fix issues out of warranty. Honda may have just made a lifetime customer out of him.
Somebody (not you) in this forum recently felt I was condescending for saying that if a person hadn't owned (as opposed to rented or test driven) cars from other makes then they couldn't really judge the competitive field very well.
I agree with your statement above, and I don't think you were condescending, either! :P
IIRC he has BS and Masters degree in aeronautical engineering. Hardly a bean counter.
Absolutely and a great observation. You either support GM (company) or support the workers (union). Obama leaned to the union. But it would have been better for the company to go the other way in BK.
One other factor is the protectionism of the D3 and the unions. In the early to mid '80s the Japanese vehicles became very popular as gas prices rose. Under pressure from the D3 lobbyists, Reagan and Congress pressured the Japanese auto makers who agreed to "voluntary" import quotas (limiting how many vehicles they would import into the US).
Well of course the law of unintended consequences took hold. The public STILL wanted those Japanese cars and demand outstripped supply. The public was paying over sticker price for those cars. And the Japanese makes reacted logically in 2 ways:
1 - If they had a fixed quota, then they should make more upscale vehicles to increase sales $$ and profit. So the Japanese makes went from making only economy cars to other segments formerly controlled by the D3. The Toyota Cressida is a good example.
2 - Since there was a voluntary quota for *imported* cars, the J makes started opening manufacturing plants in the US, first with Honda in Ohio, and then Toyota. And of course that started the ball rolling for transplant manufacturing - all non unionized.
So the protectionism of the D3 helped accelerate the competition to them. Instead of wanting to compete, they were scared and ran crying to Uncle. Just as they did in 2008, again.
In some respects, the Accord did seem "tighter". It didn't squeak or rattle as badly as my Malibu, and when you closed a door, it had a more solid sound. However, the Mailbu had frameless windows, whereas the Accord had frames, so that might have had something to do with it. And, somehow, the sheetmetal on the Accord seemed thicker. Although, that could simply be because every piece on that car was smaller, and had less distance to span, than it did on my Malibu.
The paint on that Accord seemed higher quality, as well. It actually seemed like it had a clear coat on it! Dunno if it did or not, but it definitely had seemed richer and deeper than my Malibu. It held up better too. It was still shiny, whereas my Malibu was pretty faded on the hood by the time it was around 7 years old, and the roof and decklid were pretty bad soon after.
However, the Malibu held up very well with regards to rust. I remember it getting its first little blossom in the rear quarter panel in the fall of '89, when it was about 9 1/2 years old. In contrast, that Accord was a rustbucket. It had rust blossoming out all over on it, bubbling up through the still-shiny paint. When it was new, the interior certainly probably seemed like a class act for this type of car. Velour seats, cloth and carpet on the door panels, lots of soft-touch plastic or padded vinyl covering. In contrast, my Malibu just had vinyl seats and the standard-fare door panels with vinyl uppers and plastic lowers, and no carpeting on the lower doors...you had to get a Malibu Classic if you wanted such fluffery.
But, fast forward to 1988, and that Accord's interior was coming apart. The soft-touch plastic was cracking, the padded vinyl falling apart, and the velour was rotting and coming apart. In contrast, my Malibu had the headliner come loose, three cracks in the dashboard, the shift indicator broke, with the needle eternally nestled in slightly to the left of "Park", and there was a tiny little rip in the vinyl on the passenger side door. Oh, and the carpet used to pull loose from the sill in the back seat footwell area, but it did that since it was new.
The Accord was on its second engine and transmission, and the a/c no longer worked. When the second transmission went out, around 90,000 miles, my friend's father junked it and got him an '86 T-Bird...one of those fancy models like Elan or Fila. My Malibu never had any engine or transmission problems (229 V-6, THM200 tranny), but around 85,000 miles, it did need new rear axles. That was in late 1987. Oh, and at some point, I remember Granddad putting on a new a/c compressor for me. He also put on a new starter, and an alternator. In February of 1989, the heater core needed to be replaced...about $225.
In the fall of 1989, I found a '69 Dart GT for $1100 and bought it, and at the end of the year, took the Malibu off the road, with about 100,000 miles on it. Sold it about 9 months later, and in the summer of '91, I ran into the owner. She said it had about 115,000 miles on it, was running fine, and they loved it. And, that was the last I ever saw of it.
So, that's my tale of two cars from the malaise era. Obviously, only a sample of one, so YMMV. Sometimes, I wish I could have afforded to keep both cars back then. I would've liked to have seen just how long that Malibu would have lasted.
Except that his successor wouldn't have been able to do that had Bush not started the bailout bonanzas. GM would have long since ceased to exist and Obama would have had to invest the money in something useful and worthwhile instead.
I find it highly predictable behaviour. We've been here before, Chrysler got a bailout in the 70's and again in the 00's.
GM, Ford, and Chrysler were around for a long time and never showed any significant improvment or desire to compete. Why was 2008 any different.
I was always opposed to any bailouts and think we should have cut the cord prior to investing billions and billions of dollars. I find the last few years to be highly predictable and expected.
We know Chrysler is dead, long live Fiat USA, etc etc, we'll see how that works. But I'm still trying to figure out GM's strength, where they excel, other than fleets and used cars. That's not invalid, mind you, but if that's the market they want, they might want to just focus on it and give up the farce of failing to fill consumer requirements.
That's been my experience with Honda too. Ditto the Detriot big 3 never stepping up, It's an entirely different culture and expectation.
At Dodge it was "parts just break down!" (and they were thinking deep inside, it's a chance to make some money on replacement parts off of you, and keep afloat and in businsess).
At Honda it was embarrassment and "We are sorry, this shouldn't have happened." They had a complete new transmission overnighted to San Diego and while dropping the car off on Monday morning at the dealership, I got it back Wednesday Evening that same week! Now that's fast service! They paid for the 3 day rental, they paid for the out of warranty repair, and oh by the way, I was told I was covered until 100K miles in case this new one ever has an issue. Complete 180 from Dodge.
Audi has sent me 2 letters covering 4 different parts until 7 years or 120,000 miles. I've used it for one of the parts thus far. Got a check for nearly $700 just the other day. That check is likely going to help purchase my next Audi (I consider HOnda but they don't make anything I want anymore).
Still, I've heard of serveral customer service horror stories (stemming from needing customer service due to junk cars) that too closely resemble one another between all of the Big 3; as if they all came from the same family and DNA. Ford is the overachiever in the family.
That'll be easy: GM bad, everyone else good. Posters know how to run auto company as Monday morning quarterbacks; GM doesn't.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Then why have so many had problems with Honda's transmissions (surprise surprise) in their Odysseys and just get a token adjustment on the extemely high (dealer) price for repair/replacement with the same problematic transmission. I'd think Honda would have just given them a new van or at least a new transmission?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wrote that for your benefit. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There's an ample supply of that on this forum.
What's needed is some more money to let GM build some new plants for jobs in this country and come out with more products to compete against the uneven currency valuations and the government subsidies in other source countries from which many of our imports originate, in ownership or in manufacturing.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And when they still lose money, they can focus on engineering and management.
For GM's sake, I hope the Chinese economy has a very soft landing and that their middle class grows by leaps and bounds.
You want them to have more money? Feel free to buy up as much of their stocks and bonds as you can afford. But I'm not putting any of my money into it, I generally prefer GOOD investments.
Seems a bit insensitive to the American public/taxpayer/financier to ask/demand more $$$ to invest in additional domestically-located production facilities.
And without a significant breakthrough in union relations, what would those additional domestic facilities bring to the table? Just more of the same.
All that's going on now is the continued "kicking of the can down the road". The only real thing of any substance that has happened is we have replaced the old, rusty, beat up can with a shiny new can, so we can keep kicking it down the road some more.
Don't we want GM to survive? We need more investment in the US whether in robotics or in manned factories.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Not as long as they spell "succeed" like they are, with brand new cars that aren't even as good as the cars they replaced or the cars the competition is about to replace. A company like that doesn't deserve to succeed.
GM Makes Bad Bet With PSA, May Have To Write Down Investment