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
GM = 950,414
That reminds me. I watched "Tora! Tora! Tora!" for the first time last night. Great movie...particularly effects, for a 1970 movie. I remember my Dad watching it on TV when I was a teen and not interested (duh).
Some other interesting data about employment, from July 2012:
Detroit Three vs. Japanese Three: 181,000 to 67,000
Source:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2012/07/american-made-index-which-automakers-- - affect-the-most-us-workers.html
Ah, I hear it now! "They employ more Americans?! They're bloated! They need to be more efficient like the Japanese guys!".
That's just poor packing;)
The trunk of my wife's Taurus is big like 18-20 cubic feet, but it's not easy to use. I about kill my back trying to place or reach something that's at the back of the trunk. Plus the opening isn't very big, so large items aren't easy to get in.
Despite her having a full-size car with large trunk, we always take the Expedition when shopping, it's so much easier to load and unload. Plus almost anything will easily fit.
But more than anything, I've grown accustom to how much easier the Expedition is to use vs. the Taurus. Easier to get in and out of, more comfortable etc. So we just naturally prefer to take it.
"The new Malibu, with more fatboy room than ever! Designed in America by Americans!" :shades:
Admittedly I could use a little more hip room myself but I still need legroom, I'm a 6 footer.
We'll have to see what the emergency redesign does. The one for the new Civic wasn't much more than skin deep, it's harder to do a full redsign on short notice than it is to do a re-skin.
That has zero influence on the vehicles I drive and in the scheme of things doesn't mean as much as it appears. Isn't there nearly 3 million jobs directly related to the US auto industry and they are employed by Detroit and the transplants.
If the Japanese 3 were to close shop in the US, far more than 67k jobs would be affected.
If a business is unsustainable, then high employment is just temporary.
Found my Chevy mailer that just came this morning.
In the handout:
2012 Silverado LT 4WD Ext. Cab "All Star Edition": 0% for 60 mos. plus $1K trade-in allowance when you trade in an eligible vehicle, plus $1K bonus cash, or $5,500 customer cash, $1,500 All-Star Edition Option Package Discount (I'd think this would be right on the window sticker, though), $1K Bonush Cash plus $1K trade-in allowance when you trade in an eligible vehicle--"TOTAL $9,000 when you trade in an eligible vehicle".
2012 Tahoe--0% for 72 mos. plus $1K bonus cash, or $3K cash allowance.
2012 Traverse--0% for 72 mos. or $2K customer cash.
2013 Malibu--2.9% for 60 mos.
No mention of any other 2013 models at all, except the Malibu.
It says the new Malibu has 100 cu. ft. interior room vs. 97.7 in the '12. It isn't in the rear seat legroom; I can tell that by looking.
Not a good sign when there's incentives on the hood for the model year that has just recently begun. Even worse sign when it's a newly redesigned model. Was that all trims, or maybe they're trying to get rid of some of the excess Ecos?
Once again, looking at the world from a one-dimensional viewpoint.
High employment is a good thing ONLY if the items or services being provided are in demand and are selling well.
High employment at a horse-buggy manufacturing plant probably isn't a very good thing, especially since few use buggies for transportation needs now.
AT&T could restart a factory manufacturing dial-type telephones, and hire 100K workers to staff it, but I don't know anyone that would consider that a "good" idea.
One can't simply look at one side of an equation and determine if it makes sense or not... Well, that is, unless you're a politician...
There was an airbag-equipped 1974 Olds Delta 88 4-door hardtop that was used in Smokey and the Bandit. It was dressed up as a police car, and toward the end, right after the Snowman crashes his rig through the two '67 Fords, a '77 LeMans hits one of the Fords and then the Delta smashes into the LeMans.
The Olds only received minor damage, and the airbags didn't deploy. I heard that, several years later, it was used in a crash test, mainly to see how well the airbag performed.
Also, a few years back, I remember seeing an online pic of an Olds 98 equipped with airbags, that was crashed into a barrier. IIRC, it was red. Dunno if it was NHTSA that crashed it, though. Also dunno how the car did in the test, but the airbags did go off, and the way the car folded up, it actually appeared to do quite well. The front clip of the car buckled and folded up, much like a unit-body car, and the passenger cabin didn't get much damage.
Awhile back, I figured out that if you multiply front seat legroom x shoulder room x headroom, do the same for the back seat, add both together, and then divide by 1728 (to convert from cubic inches to cubic feet), the number comes out very close to the published specs.
I tried that with the 2013 and 2012 Malibu and came out with 100.35 and 97.42, respectively. According to Chevy's website, the 2013 has 100.3 cubic feet, while the 2012 has 98 according to cars.com. Fueleconomy.com lists both at 95 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 16 cubic foot trunk, so that tells me that they just screwed up and accidentally published the 2012 figures for 2013. They do list the 2013 Regal at 98 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 13 cubic foot trunk.
The 2013 gets most of its boost from shoulder room...57.5" up front and 57.1 in the rear, compared to 55.9 and 53.9 for the 2012 model. Legroom doesn't suffer much, in theory. The 2013 has 36.9", while the 2012 has 37.6". The 2013 also lost a smidge up front, at 42.1 versus 42.2".
However, the big question in my mind continues to be how, exactly do they arrive at these legroom measurements? I've found that that there's often little rhyme or reason to them, with regards to how well I fit.
Just from knowing what the published specs are on some of the cars I've had over the years, if I was to assign an arbitrary legroom number, I'd rate the 2008-2012 at around 35" and the 2013 around 31-32". I think my '76 LeMans coupe is rated 32.9" in the back seat, while my '68 Dart was only 32" Yet, I could fit in the back of either of those better than I could the 2013 Malibu.
I think my old Intrepid was about 38.3" in back, while my Park Ave might be around 40"? In the Intrepid my knees wouldn't touch the seatback, but they do in the Park Ave. However, the Park Ave has a higher seating position, which will inflate the legroom number.
My '67 Catalina convertible is only rated 33.9" in the back seat, yet I fit just fine.
Yes, my friend who bought his '13 Escape probably a couple months ago, mentioned that he got a rebate, but it was a small one...I'm thinking it was $500.
D3=181,000
ToyHondNisHunKia=74,300
CARS Sold YTD Nov2012
D3 = 1,472,508
ToyHonNisHyunKia =3,344,554
That's what happens when your head remains in the clouds at D3 management and UAW.
Regards,
OW
Some makes do very well with forced induction and turbocharging, but overall, since a turbocharger adds additional parts, that means there are additional parts to fail, relative to a normally aspirated engine.
To me, it all boils down to the risk/reward factor. It the implementation is done well, and has a good track record, and it buys me great mpg and extra HP/performance, I'm all in.
A turbo just so I can say I have turbo power? No, thanks...
As for the smell, with the new urea injection systems, the current crop of diesels are surprisingly quiet and don't smell nearly as bad as those made a few years ago.
Why not? People turned V6 badges into something to be coveted. No matter how inefficient or crappy or terrible said V6 might be, it was turned into an object of desire. You could put a 1.5L V6 into an car and so long as it had a badge, it'd be desirable over the more powerful, more efficient, less expensive 2.0L I4 that came standard with the car.
The same could be done with turbo, if done properly. Ford strikes me as doing it properly, they are building an entire ethos around the "EcoBoost" badge: both power AND efficiency. GM should be looking to do something similar.
VW - 1.8L turbo
Dodge: 1.4L turbo
Chevy: 1.4L turbo, 2.0L turbo
Hyundai: 1.6L turbo (twin scroll no less), 2.0L turbo
Subaru: 2.0L turbo, 2.5L turbo, 2.5L STI turbo
Nissan: 1.6L turbo
Ford: 1.0L EcoBoost, 1.6L EcoBoost, 2.0L EcoBoost, 3.5L EcoBoost V6.
Toyota is proving to be a little behind the times (again) but they're heavily invested in hybrid tech. Honda and Mazda are employing DI and Atkinson cycles to boost efficiency instead (EarthDreams and SkyActiv...one tagline sucks and the other one is Mazda's heh). I think Mazda is phasing out their turbo gasoline engines.
Anyway, turbos are a lightweight way to add efficiency, and therefore power, without a corresponding increase in displacement, and thereby size and weight. It also has the advantage of extracting more energy per unit of fuel instead of simply burning a larger quantity of fuel to get more power. They also a lot more flexibility when it comes to engine design, particularly when it comes to power and torque curves. So Ford is being pretty smart: I bet they end up in F150s after they run in passenger cars for a while.
Not including luxury brands like Buick, Cadillac and Mercedes because it just makes things too complicated and because we're apparently allowed to disqualify things we disagree with by decree. :P
Anyway, GM could come up with a nice marketing tagline (maybe call it EcoSport to go with RallySport and SuperSport) and go with the turbos.
I was basing my comments on gasoline powered engines.
New Fusion recall. I don't believe it's been posted here yet.
Regarding the specific issue you addressed, it doesn't seem that serious. Still, these recalls are starting to mount up.
How many can they sustain before irreparable damage is done to the brand?
They probably should have dumped Lincoln instead of Mercury though. Lincoln just has too Buick an image and Ford needs to be chasing BMW and Caddy.
...and they promoted the guy in charge, Fields, to Mulally's heir apparent. Only in America!
Ever hear the term you "can't beat a dead horse?"
How much damage can you do to a damaged brand. ??? Yes, Ford didn't take the bailouts, but they are a BIG 3 company and therefore just as guilty by association. The only difference is they were more active in fixing their problems sooner than at GM or Chrysler both of which basically stuck their heads in the sand until Uncle Sam came to the rescue. Make no mistake, Ford has had reliability issues nearly on par with Chrysler and GM in the past.
I see Ford as a resusitated heart victim that is on life support and maybe they've recovered and are out of the hospital, but I wouldn't want to be the insurance company selling them life insurance right now.
The difference is that the 67,000 working for the Japanese 3 are earning their paychecks while the 181,000 for the Detroit Three are leeches to society and taxpayers; worse even, than those that commit fraud to receive undue welfare and/or unemployment benefits.
I think more Americans would agree with Busiris before agreeing with you. Remember, well over 50% of Americans were against bailing out the D3.
It was just a Cou de Gra that made that happen.
Maybe if it doesn't sell better than the hatch they'll correct the mistake later on.
Amazing.
Creating full employment within a country isn't that difficult to do.
What IS difficult to do is to create full employment that is self sustaining.
Pre WWII Germany eliminated high unemployment by creating government based jobs. The Autobahn is a great example, since at the time, there weren't nearly enough cars in Germany to justify such a highly developed road system.
We could largely do away with high unemployment in the US if we elected to, say, mandate the usage of Volt-type automobiles, and along with that, mandate the creation of solar-powered home charging systems.
Add in the creation of a couple of hundred Solyndra-style government funded companies to make and install these soar panel networks, along with the necessary supporting mechanisms required, and now... Everyone has a job.
Problem is, it isn't self-supporting.
From my viewpoint, I'm hesitant to tie the bailouts to such a process... Yet.
I think it's very possible that GM can regain a profitable status not requiring government support, but its certainly got a ways to go. Not only does GM have to maintain manufacturing a competitive and viable product, but it has to deal with its long-term obligations still on the horizon.
Just as important, GM needs to get its stock price up to the point the government can recoup its investment. If it can't succeed in doing that, the bailout stigma will hang around GM's neck like a dead albatross for years to come.
It's all Preston Tucker's fault. He wanted to design a 9 liter engine.
They were losing not millions but BILLIONS a month. Not per year, but per month!
In order to lose that much money, you have to be a tremendous failure at the top, the bottom, and the middle.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/gm-to-debut-new-full-size-trucks-thursd- - ay/
And in an interesting ironic twist ESPN just showed the Tundra commercial where they tow the Space Shuttle. :shades:
Next someone will say the US Interstates were designed to accommodate aircraft landings. :shades:
In other German news, GM's Opel to end car production at German plant (Detroit News)
Yes, that claim has been made by some for decades.
Problem with the claim is simple... It isn't true.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/interstatemyths.htm#question5
Same as the claim that Hitler built the autobahns for military transport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_autobahns
That would be the same millitary that planned to use trains and aircraft for transport, right? :shades:
Eisenhower built the Interstates in order to make automobiles more useful and therefore increase sales. If they hadn't been built we just might have ended up with a more viable rail system. And fewer of these straight, boring roads (give me twisties any day).
One has to remember that, even under Eisenhower's administration, auto transportation was not the first choice of long distance travel. Train transportation was far more prevalent nationwide then than it is today. And, air travel was growing rapidly at the same time.
Moving a battalion of tanks is far better suited to train transport than truck transport over long distances.
Anyone got any GM news they want to talk about?