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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
The difference being that Porsche and BMW (and Mazda by the way) make actual sporty Sport Utility Vehicles. I have no doubt the same company that designed the Corvette COULD produce a valid competitor to the X3 or Cayenne or CX-5. But they haven't bothered.
The part about having to turn a profit never enters their minds. I think SUVs pretty much "saved" Porsche and didn't hurt BMW's bottom line either.
I guess GM, not having an identity, doesn't have that problem. Though one of those Corvette-SUVs would have been handy to put in Cadillac instead of tarted-up Chevy trucks.
The Odyssey was significantly ahead of the Pontiac Aztek on every level of comparison, all attributes. The ultimate proof was the marketplace. The Aztek was around for a couple-few years. The Odyssey continues to be a market leader in the mini-van segment in design, engineering and value.
I have owned some very decent American cars in the past - Mustang GT, Pontiac Trans Am, Pontiac Grand Prix. The Pontiac division of GM deserved to go out of business for the offerings they had in the last few decades of their existence. The G8 was too little, too late to change the fate of Pontiac.
On Odyssey, the model that I own is very well designed and engineered. It redefined mini-van back in 1999-2000. GM was an utter failure in mini-vans and abandoned that market segment. GM's ludicrous offerings in mini-vans included the dust buster and coke bottle vans to name a couple.
That kind of thinking in the home office will sink your sales.
I think the Rendezvous was going for the sliding door hating crowd while the Aztek was intended to appeal to the softroaders and car campers (lots of people expressed interested in the tent package).
Maybe I can interest you in a Lamborghini LM002?
Wow. I'm speechless.
Nah, I'd say the Cube works because the Aztek laid all that groundwork over a decade ago, and softened our tastes, so that we're more tolerant to oddball designs. :P
Plus, it helps that the Cube is small. It's hard to style a small vehicle to look good, anyway. Lemko once said it's like trying to tailor a dwarf! Well, okay, Bill Mitchell said it first...
Actually, I sort of liken the Cube to the old Honda Element, which a lot of people used to compare to the Aztek and say it was unfair that Pontiac would take all the flak and Honda (almost) got a free pass. I always thought that, while they were both ugly, the Element's ugliness was mainly in the details. Mainly, in the grille area, and the way they seemingly threw the cladding on at random. The basic shape wasn't too jarring though. And in later years, they improved the front-end and removed the cladding, and it helped tremendously.
With the Aztek, I thought it was ugly not only in the details, but even the basic shape. It sat up too high, and the beltline was too tall, and I didn't like the way the rear end sloped off. No amount of detail shuffling could fix the basic shape.
But, some serious customizing could...
http://www.bestautophoto.com/images/pontiac-aztek-4wd-01.jpg
http://www.pontiacpedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/lifted_pontiac_aztek.jpg
I don't like the looks of the Cube myself, especially the non symetrical rear window, but for a city car, or someone who wants to haul a bunch of stuff on a small budget, they are great.
They did.
I think SUVs pretty much "saved" Porsche
That was short-term, they got POWNED by VW probably due to the cost of all those Cayenne repairs. :P
Porsche used to do just sports cars with air cooled boxer engines at a nice profit, now they sell VW based SUVs with V6s and V8s. Sacreligious.
No kidding...
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/04/20/lamborghini-urus-suv-storms-out-early/
Actually they are opposites.
Aztek started with a minivan platform and removed some of the utility (3rd row). The dump truck roof line removed function.
Cube is much bigger than other vehicles that share it's platform. It's a box, but the shape at least adds function.
If you really think about it, the Juke is Nissan's Aztek.
They should have put that powertrain in the Cube instead.
Those 2 photos show about $100,000 worth of disguising the Aztek, and they're still far from attractive.
The most appealing GM rig to me is an older generation Suburban or a Sonic hatch.
The Aztek looked extremely awkward with its high beltline and narrow windows. Yet, those are the norm today. The Aztek also had what I refer to as the "1961 DeSoto effect" where they have different grilles up front, neither one having anything to do with the other. In the Aztek's case, it almost looks like two car front-ends got stuck together. Since then, I've noticed that trend on a lot of other cars. The Honda CRV was a particularly notable offender, although they've improved it considerably for 2013.
Element added incremental sales to Honda for years and years, in fact the CR-V became the best selling SUV only after the Element came out. No cannibalization.
GM was dumb to claim they started the box trend with the Aztek because the Aztek was *not* a box. The roof dropped and reduced space. All those boxes added space to a compact platform.
Ignoring styling completely, the Aztek offered less boxiness/utility than the AWD TranSport minivan it was based on.
I don't see how you can group the Aztek together with those other boxy cars, no matter the styling.
I get what you're saying, but I dunno. It desensitized people to ugliness, perhaps.
But the original xB was successful because it had more room inside than you expected, with HUGE windows and a 360 degree view. The new one fails because it moved away from those 2 things.
The current leader in the "Box" segment is the Kia Soul, by a wide margin. Again, it offers big time space on a tiny foot print, so it's a hit.
The Aztek was more or less the opposite. Huge foot print, but only 2 rows, compromised cargo due to the caved in roof in the back.
I hate when people try to use junk math to calculate overall costs on the number of units sold so far, yet it still happens:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079035_how-much-money-is-gm-losing-on-every- -chevy-volt
Excerpt from Reuters: GM could be losing as much as $49,000 on every Volt it makes
factor in the Volt's total development and tooling costs to date, divided among the 21,500 Volts sold to date
Gimme a break.
Lutz' comeback:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/-
Some folks will recall the junk science article "Cradle to Grave" that criticized the Prius in a similar manner, later restated. Let's see a follow up with the full 4 million sold as of now, LOL.
And let's see a follow-up article after, say, 5 years of Volt sales and add in Ampera and Holden and Cadillac ELR sales while you're at it. :mad:
Anyone?
Last I checked, and have seen on the road, the 911 and other Porsche sports cars are doing just fine.
If it takes making SUV's, and the HUGE profits that go with em to get people into your dealers, at least here in the US, thats what you sell. BMW and Mercedes sell SUV's also.
Kinda like the Jetta VI.....bigger, cheaper, but sales are up, so thats what sells, thats what they give us.
The Aztek just looked ugly. And wouldn't have been able to back it up, just back up. :shades:
What huge profits? Porsche fared poorly and had to be acquired by VW.
They were profitable with small volumes and their consulting business. Greed made them increase fixed costs and the rest is history.
Let me rephrase that, let's say Pontiac made the Pontiac Widget instead, a gorgeous vehicle instead of the Aztek, but with the same mechanicals.
OK, we're talking about a heavy minivan platform, Versacrap AWD system, inefficient and not particularly powerful pushrod engine. 2 rows of seats at a time when people wanted 3. Not any lighter than the bigger vans it was based on. 4000 lbs with a humble suspension and just 6.7" clearance.
It still would have flopped, even if it looked great. It was uncompetitive even if you wore blinders.
Fast forward to today, look at the Equinox. DI in both engines, good power and great mpg, roomiest in its class, and they can barely keep up with demand.
Plus it looks great.
I did like the boxy original xB, the Soul, even the Cube. Function over form. It's like they were designed around a big box sitting in the cargo hold. That's useful.
Astro vans are still beloved in Tokyo.
From Esquire.
The most marketable (note I didn't say merit-based) award is Motor Trend's, so let's see who they pick.
They were profitable with small volumes and their consulting business. Greed made them increase fixed costs and the rest is history.
Juice - you've got it all wrong.
Porsche started investing in VW because it was Porsche's largest business partner. It wanted to protect their biggest supplier from corporate raiders - remember back in 2005 VW wasn't exactly in a great position. In 2008 they announced they did want to buy all of VW. Porsche began to buy options to purchase more VW stock and those options increased in value - to the point that Porsche made more from selling their options than they did making cars.
Once Porsche reached 75% ownership, it triggers a domination and transfer request of the shareholders that would give Porsche access to the $11 billion that VW had. In late 2008 the financial markets crashed and Porsche could no longer get loans to continue buying stock and had loans called in. Merkel got the financial community to back VW instead of Porsche and the latter collapsed leading the the takeover of Porsche by VW.
Greed is what caused Porsche to have difficulties but it had nothing to do with selling SUV's. In reality, the Cayenne helped Porsche increase sales and profits in their most important markets - North America and the Middle East.
Not necessarily. Look at the Buick Rendezvous. It didn't set the world on fire with its sales, but it sold somewhat respectably.
In fact, the Rendezvous was sold in 2006-2007, while the Aztek was dropped after 2005.
The Rendezvous also got improved engines in later years...the 3.5 and then the 3.6. And even the minivans they were based on graduated to the 3.5, so that's something that could easily have been applied to the Aztek.
The Rendezvous also offered a third row seat.
So, the Aztek definitely could have evolved over time and improved. It probably would have, except for the introduction of the Equinox-based Torrent, which essentially took over its role.
Look at brand equity...
In Y2K, if someone came up to you and said, "I got a Porsche!". Your response was COOL CAN IT SEE IT CAN I DRIVE IT YOU LUCKY DUCK!
Today, same person says the same thing, you have to ask, "Which one?"
That's what I mean by selling their soul.
Ask them to send it to my house, please. :shades:
Bingo, which is the main reason it survived.
The 3500 engine was tweaked for, what was it, 200hp or so? Much more than the Aztek made do with. And that thing was a PIG - over 2 tons.
The RDV was no lightweight but with 3 rows and a different target demographic that mattered less.
The Enclave was so solid that it immediately made the RDV a distant memory.
Clearly both are cases that show that GM learned important lessons, and made their successors far more competitive.
...and if that's what they had to do to still have a soul today, then it's fine by me.
Yeah, something like that. I think the 3.4 in the Aztek made something like 180-185 hp. I think some versions of the 3.5 went as high as 210-220 hp.
One of my friends test drove a 2006 Equinox with the 3.4. I didn't think it was half bad, actually. I'd heard so much crap about it I was expecting it to be a total piece. So, maybe I went into it with such a low expectation that I was pleasantly surprised?
I'm sure the Equinox was a bit lighter than an Aztek, though.
The more modern 3500 was made here.
So the previous 'nox was getting leftovers. Literally.
Those were dark days...
Oh, this was the old Equinox...something that, while I liked it at the time, I'm not that fond of it today. Now that I think of it, I remember driving one back in 2005 at a GM test drive event. I absolutely HATED the electric steering and the suspension was really numb. It wallowed like a pig in the turns and just felt unwieldy in general. I also took out a Suburban, and, monster that it was, I swear it almost felt like a sportscar in comparison.
That might make sense though, as GM usually does their big vehicles pretty well, but when it comes to their smaller ones, often they end up feeling bigger and bulkier than they really are. Almost as if they're trying to engineer a big-car feel into them. As a passenger though, when I went along with my buddy for a test drive, I liked it.
The new Equinox seems leaps and bounds ahead of it. Nice rig, although Crossovers aren't really my thing. Although who knows? Maybe one day years from now I might end up with one, and then wonder how I ever got along without one? :P
Still, I don't think they'd buy another one, as my father in law has said that it just does not feel at all stable, planted, or "solid" going down the highways/interstates.
I think he's nearing retirement age here soon, I know he'd love a Camaro SS, Corvette, or Nissan 370Z. The funny thing is he wouldn't even drive any of them the way they were meant to be driven; so maybe for that kinda guy, the Camaro SS is a good choice. Since I like to drive fast, that one would be my 3rd choice of the 3.
If that's what they're trying to do then fine, but they're going to have to acknowledge that the market for that is shrinking. Us younger folks tend to prefer lighter, smaller, more nimble cars, versus those with fond memories of 60s and 70s two-ton iron. :shades:
For example...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-dont-young-americans-buy- -cars/255001/
Those two models are competing with mass transit and bicycles.
Honestly, I don't like it either...as much as I like bigger cars. I just don't like a car that feels bigger than it really is. I remember years ago, my grandmother's cousin wanted me to take her '89 Coupe DeVille for a spin, because it was shifting funny. I swear, this thing felt so vague, ponderous, and bulky, it made me wonder why GM went through the trouble to downsize them, if they were going to still make them feel this way.
I think my 2000 Park Ave has a bit of this trait, as well. I think it's 206.8" long, and is on a 113.8" wheelbase, but it feels bulkier than that. I swear my '79 New Yorker, all 221.3 inches of it, feels more nimble. And somehow, I swear the New Yorker is easier to park.
I've never driven an HHR or Cobalt, but I've heard people complain about them feeling bigger and more ponderous than they really are. On the plus side though, I've heard it also gives them a nicer highway ride and quieter cabin. I wonder how the Cruze stacks up?
Frankly I want something that feels SMALLER than my Elantra Touring. The Cruze IS smaller (slightly), but FEELS bigger.
Tell him to get a V6 Mustang or Camaro, one of the ones with the stickers packages.
Only thing he'd miss is the sound, but he'll save thousands.