I think the 500 Lemko was referring to might have been the name of the top model - Coronet 500 rather than engine.
Yeah, it was. We were just joking about how sometimes people would think the number on the side of the car corresponded to engine size. Chrysler started doing that in 1962, when what had been the Dart Seneca, Pioneer, and Phoenix became the Dart, Dart 330, and Dart 440.
When the proper compact Dart came out for 1963, it came in stripper 170, mid-level 270, or sporty GT series. The bigger Dodges were badged as the 330, 440, Polara, or Polara 500 while the true full-sized one was either the 880 or Custom 880.
I think the confusion often arises because some of those numbers actually did correspond to engine sizes. For instance, the Dart 170 came with a 170 CID slant six standard. But, so did the 270 and GT. And for 1964, there was a 273 V-8, which was close to "270".
As for "330", there was a Mopar 330, but it was pretty obscure. It was the 330.4 CID Desoto Hemi of 1956. There was a Chrysler 331 Hemi/Poly engine though, that had been much more widespread, but it was history by the time the 330/440/500 designations on their cars came out. But, in 1966, the 440 Wedge came out. And there was a Coronet 440 trim level.
As for extended warranties, my uncle got one on his '97 Silverado, and lucked out because he had to have the transmission replaced around 70,000 miles or so. My Dad also bought one on his used '03 Regal. I think it was $995, and didn't seem like a bad deal. I don't think he ever had to use it, but he also doesn't drive a lot. I know he's well past the time limit on that warranty, but I think the car only has about 60,000 miles on it.
One of my kids recently bought a new AWD Toyota Highlander and got a 7/100 bumper to bumper warranty extension for something like $1200. Some may argue that's because their reliability rankings are better than CR and the like. But I think it may be more of a marketing move. If they get you into one of those and something goes wrong, nothing out of your pocket at that time and a loaner - means you don't get near as upset about it right? I think Detroit is still too controlled by finance weenies who don't think long term.
Well, you kind of have the same opinion that I have.
If you're a true GM "believer", you can always find an excuse that makes some sort of sense to you to justify what you believe... Of course, the same goes for any make and fan.
At the end of the day, GM has roughly a 6 month unsold supply of Malibus on hand. Now, one can make of that whatever they like, but the truth is that the perceived value I posted about earlier isn't there... For whatever reason.
With a product glut like that, it's a safe bet (and I mean LV odds here) that its not going to be long before GM starts ratcheting up the incentives on the Malibu.
If I think the extended warranty is reasonably priced with respect to the cost of the item, I'll spring for it. And in this case, I thought it was.
Of course, if you're buying a $1000 TV and the extended warranty is only $29.00, most would probably perceive that as a reasonable risk/reward (read:value). I know I probably would.
OTOH, on the same TV and an extended warranty of a couple of years at anything over 10% of the purchase price, I'd have to give it some thought.
The thing about electronics nowadays is that, for the most part they become obsolete before they fail.
Yep, and I still don't personally get as excited about all of it as some. But, my point is that if GM management wants to move on from the bailout, having uncle quickly cash out at a big loss isn't really going to change public perception any more than the gov holding an equity stake. I think it's wishful thinking on their part. I think an approach something like I suggested is a better way to accomplish it and improve your reputation while not short term killing your finances.
You know, I think everyone's perception of GM is pretty much set by now, so the government selling its shares at a loss/profit/break even really doesn't matter much anymore.
My gut feeling is that if one felt the bailout was unjustified in the beginning, it wouldn't make any difference in their opinion if the government made a 1000% profit. Same goes for the other side of the aisle... If the government simply wrote off the entire debt, it's still justified.
In events such as this, I think opinions get set pretty quickly, and aren't subject to much re-evaluation over the course of a lifetime.
Can an Optima be bought (actual purchase price, not sticker) for the price of a Malibu?
I know transaction prices too low is a no-no here, but as a consumer...it's a good thing for me.
For you, there isn't much difference between perceived value and cheap price. In fact, they're about the same. And, I mean no disrespect when I state that. I've mentioned my BIL here before, stating how even though he has a substantial income, he still drives worn out cars. In his viewpoint, price is equal to value. The cheaper the price, the better the value. Being stranded on the side of the road in the middle of the night means little to him.
Getting back to the Malibu, it would appear that, based on its lower sales figures and excessive inventory levels, most would-be purchasers don't perceive the Malibu to be the value that they perceive its competitors to be...for whatever reason.
With a product glut like that, it's a safe bet (and I mean LV odds here) that its not going to be long before GM starts ratcheting up the incentives on the Malibu.
They are idling the plant for a few weeks. But yeah, as long as GM continues to produce more product than the market is willing to buy at the current price, the only options are to lower the price or an/or cut production. Seems GM has issues with the latter, so incentives are likely.
That is for the 2 bottom-level trim on both. Are you saying that the 2013 'Bu will be sub-$21K with incentives leaving the Optima over priced?
My 2011 Malibu was somewhere between $3,500 and $4,000 off sticker, IIRC, before my $1,500 in GM card rebate. Not at the end of the model year. And that was no hard-as-nails negotiation. Can you do that with a Kia? I ask because I don't know.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Is every other model of car bragged up on this GM forum something that GM competes with directly? If the good can be posted, the bad should be too. Balance, remember.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Well, you were bringing it up as GM competition. But apparently that's only the manufacturer, not the car, and EVERY car manufacturer competes with GM. So that's kind of a stretch.
My 2011 Malibu was somewhere between $3,500 and $4,000 off sticker, IIRC, before my $1,500 in GM card rebate. Not at the end of the model year. And that was no hard-as-nails negotiation. Can you do that with a Kia? I ask because I don't know.
You continue to fail to realize that being able to get a car for so much less than MSRP is NOT a good thing for that manufacturer: it means they priced it wrong, and it really should be stickered at $3000 less. A car actually selling for MSRP is a good thing, because the manufacturer has correctly determined what the market will pay for the car.
Think about this: how many Chevy vehicles would you willingly pay sticker for? People buy Hyundais at sticker, as well as Hondas and Subarus.
If people pay sticker...good for them, but frankly to me, most new cars (and I include Hondas and Hyundais as I've driven both) are 'appliances' to me. I want value...now. When I want panache and a distinct driving experience, I'd rather spend on an old (hobby) car. I realize I'm not the average car guy in that respect.
As a consumer...best price=best deal for me. I'm not an officer of a car company. I know a lot of folks here like to think they're smarter than them.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
So you're unwilling to pay MSRP for a Chevy vehicle?
I haven't paid MSRP on a new Chevy since I've been buying them--first one in January '81. And only two out of 13 were bought from dealer stock--one was ordered by me, and the others all came from other dealers' inventories, as I was very specific about what I wanted (no second choices acceptable to me). Sometimes, they went as far as Indianapolis to get my car, when we live in NE OH. (That was my Cobalt XFE, and the dealer there only had it eight days.)
In fact, my wife wanted an Equinox when we ended up buying the Malibu. They weren't dealing at all on them. For some reason, that's a turn-off to me--in that it's a very popular vehicle ('me too! me too!'). No disrespect to anyone who owns one or wants one, but again, that's a turn-off to me.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I'm pretty sure my black 1957 Cadillac Fleetwood or my wife's blue 1955 Buick Special would still be holding up admirably!
I'm sure they would have! GM's had the best bodies then I think.
The Stude dealer from my hometown always gets me a NAPA classic-car calendar every year. The new one has a silver '58 Eldorado Biarritz convertible in it. Made me think of you.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I haven't paid MSRP on a new Chevy since I've been buying them--first one in January '81
I don't think anyone buying a mainstream vehicle regardless of make has paid MSRP in a while.
My inlaws were able to negotiate several thousand off their '05 Camry XLS V6, my dad got his '09 Accord EX-L v6 for invoice price.
Something like a Camaro ZL-1, Mustang GT500, and the Boss 302 (since it won't be around much longer) probably command MSRP prices or more. But nobody is going to pay MSRP on a vehicle on the top 20 sales list I'd bet.
GM and Peugeot are dancing again. Peugeot is getting "bailed out" by France to the tune of a 7 billion-euro financial guarantee on new bonds. Might not pass muster with the EU after VW and Fiat complain though.
I'm sure they would have! GM's had the best bodies then I think.
I've heard that the quality of the '55-56 Buicks, and possibly some of the earlier ones, wasn't so hot. Part of the problem is that they were wildly popular, so GM had to build them as fast as they could to keep up with demand. Demand for the '57 Buicks cooled off considerably, and I've heard part of the reason was the iffy build quality of the earlier models.
Of course, there were other factors no doubt. For one thing, 1957 was a cooling off period in general, as record sales in 1955-56 probably "pulled forward" a lot of sales. Also, for being an all-new car, the '57 Buicks (and Oldsmobile and Cadillac) didn't look all that radically different from the year before. And finally, there was increased pressure from the all-new Mopar products, as Buick had to compete not only with Chrysler and DeSoto, but even Dodge, as the high-volume Special was priced close to the upper level Dodges.
Still, I see '55-56 Buicks pretty regularly at car shows, and they do have a sturdy, solid, quality look about them. So I wonder how overblown the whole "slipping quality" thing really was? And, FWIW, quality slipped on the '55-56 Chrysler products as well, although they were still quality cars compared to the '57-58 models.
I don't know much about Ford from that era, but I suspect that they were pretty solid cars. They had to be, as the 1949-51 models had issues...mainly rust as I recall. So they probably improved them considerably for 1952-54. And then, the '55-56 really wasn't an all-new car, but rather a very heavy facelift. Ford's big quality nosedive came in 1957.
"An analysis of one hood showed the latch assembly had no evidence of welds for the secondary latch, suggesting the latch assembly missed the weld station at the latch plate supplier."
Yes but the point here is that not even #1 GM fan uplanderguy is willing to pay GM's MSRP for a Chevy. Which REALLY tells you their MSRP (and therefore their market analysis and cost determination) has no basis in reality.
Since paying sticker price hasn't been reality in the thirty-two years I've been buying multiple Chevys...that's the logical reason I wouldn't do it now.
bpizzuti, I think if you were a little older, you'd be more aware that no one ever paid sticker prices, for decades, unless you were a totally uneducated buyer (and I'm sure they were out there).
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Notice the camry wheel folding crosswise and moving the steering column away from in front of driver so the airbag misses. You're not safe if you drive this.
I think old-timers do. There's actually a '13 model. If you want a column shifter and bench seat, there's no other place to go. They added the 300 hp 3.6 V6 as standard equipment in '12, and it's a nice engine. Someone on this forum said they got 30 mpg on a trip with one.
I believe the all-new '14 model starts coming off the line in the spring.
But if that video is accurate (and I have no reason to not think so), that crash test in the year 2012 is rather scary, even though crashworthiness is not the first thing I'm looking for in a car. I guess like everything else, one expects Toyota to be 'top of the game'.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I think everyone's perception of GM is pretty much set by now, so the government selling its shares at a loss/profit/break even really doesn't matter much anymore.
I hear what you are saying. OTOH, Chrysler wasn't really hurt after it's initial bailout loans in the 80's and they seem to be doing alright now too as evidenced by them consistently having better sales gains than GM and Ford. I suppose time will tell.
Malibu and Sonata didn't do a whole lot better. Seems for some reason we're just seeing more recalls and issues in general. Maybe too much profit squeeze these days?
I noticed my local dealer got a load of new Impalas in the other week. I was thinking it might be some kind of punishment - probably not easy to move those around here. Nice new engine, but otherwise it looks like a 2006 car.
The crash tests are shocking, but maybe not surprising. It seems cars are engineered to pass specific tests - this is a new test that nobody had worked for. I'd wager in a year or two, results around the board will be better.
I hear what you are saying. OTOH, Chrysler wasn't really hurt after it's initial bailout loans in the 80's and they seem to be doing alright now too as evidenced by them consistently having better sales gains than GM and Ford. I suppose time will tell.
Remember who the head PR guy was back in the 80's during Chrysler's first dance, which was not so much a bailout as loan guarantees, which, in my mind, is a huge difference. Co-signing a car loan for your BIL is significantly different that buying him a car. Brother Lee was an excellent front man, and his challenge to "if you can find a better car, buy it" showed a level of confidence in his product. Speaking directly to the public in commercials also helped.
On Chrysler's second dance, they found a sugar-daddy in Fiat, which helped them out from the financial viewpoint. I would think a lot of folks might see that as a positive development, in that Chrysler was at least appearing in an attempt to get off the government's life support system. Folks generally prefer those who try to help themselves get better over those just waiting for assistance...
One of our local internet dealer groups, www.fitzmall.com, is showing as having five 2013 Impalas. MSRP ranging from $28,210 to $29,945, but internet priced at $23,330 to $24,883. They're all LT models, so at least they're not bottom of the barrel. And three of them have sunroofs.
Still, even at those internet prices, with close to $5,000 off MSRP, I don't find any of them particularly compelling.
>I noticed my local dealer got a load of new Impalas in the other week.
Do you actually cruise the Chevrolet store to check on their stock? I have trouble picturing your being interested in their models and latest offerings. Of course I might be wrong.
I don't think anyone buying a mainstream vehicle regardless of make has paid MSRP in a while.
I would agree. Unless the buyer is a complete novice, I can't imagine anyone paying list price for an automobile, much less above sticker price, unless its a highly sought-after limited collector, super-whatzit, less than a handful made edition.
I remember when the PT Cruiser first came out, and a local Chrysler dealer had a several hundred dollar markup/surcharge on them.
That didn't last very long, and because of that, I never considered purchasing any vehicle from him afterwards. Around the time the bailouts rolled around, the dealership folded and the local Dodge dealership acquired the Chrysler sales functions.
Maybe, maybe not... At least, from the perspective of moving ahead instead of backtracking...
From the link...
Some manufacturers, such as Ford (F.N), General Motors (GM.N) and Peugeot (PEUP.PA), have chosen to shut plants.
Fiat, which owns U.S. car maker Chrysler, and Germany's Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE), have opted instead to increase investment and the Italian company intends to launch 15 new models over the next four years.
It's on my jogging route. I go up a street that has Mopar/Ford/Chevy/Caddy/Volvo (and adjacent to Lexus) and a couple used car lots. I've never pulled into the Chevy lot to look at the cars, even their used cars are just too normal for me.
An argument can be made that Fiat wouldn't be in a position to do anything without the cash flow that Chrysler has generated.
The company does seem to have fared better than GM. Not sure about better on the bottom line but that's the perception. Paying off the bailout loans last year helped too.
Seems like something smart money would buy at a couple years old. Even at 24K nicely equipped, that value is going to plunge in the next 18 months.
All of the ones I have seen look like nicer models - probably LTs too. But many rental Impalas are also well equipped, I have seen many with leather and roof.
Comments
Yeah, it was. We were just joking about how sometimes people would think the number on the side of the car corresponded to engine size. Chrysler started doing that in 1962, when what had been the Dart Seneca, Pioneer, and Phoenix became the Dart, Dart 330, and Dart 440.
When the proper compact Dart came out for 1963, it came in stripper 170, mid-level 270, or sporty GT series. The bigger Dodges were badged as the 330, 440, Polara, or Polara 500 while the true full-sized one was either the 880 or Custom 880.
I think the confusion often arises because some of those numbers actually did correspond to engine sizes. For instance, the Dart 170 came with a 170 CID slant six standard. But, so did the 270 and GT. And for 1964, there was a 273 V-8, which was close to "270".
As for "330", there was a Mopar 330, but it was pretty obscure. It was the 330.4 CID Desoto Hemi of 1956. There was a Chrysler 331 Hemi/Poly engine though, that had been much more widespread, but it was history by the time the 330/440/500 designations on their cars came out. But, in 1966, the 440 Wedge came out. And there was a Coronet 440 trim level.
As for extended warranties, my uncle got one on his '97 Silverado, and lucked out because he had to have the transmission replaced around 70,000 miles or so. My Dad also bought one on his used '03 Regal. I think it was $995, and didn't seem like a bad deal. I don't think he ever had to use it, but he also doesn't drive a lot. I know he's well past the time limit on that warranty, but I think the car only has about 60,000 miles on it.
Let's see....that view should lead the market in it's class, or at least second-best.. What's wrong with that interpretation in the real world?
Regards,
OW
That can also be interpreted as 'the best-equipped and/or biggest car with the longest powertrain warranty in its price class'.
Is that really the case, though?
A Kia Optima has a 10 year 100K power train warranty, and its classified as a mid size car... 5 passenger vehicle.
The key here is in its price class.
Can an Optima be bought (actual purchase price, not sticker) for the price of a Malibu?
2013 Kia Optima - $21,200 - $23,500 MSRP
2013 Malibu - $21,606 - $25,240 MSRP
That is for the 2 bottom-level trim on both. Are you saying that the 2013 'Bu will be sub-$21K with incentives leaving the Optima over priced?
Regards,
OW
If you're a true GM "believer", you can always find an excuse that makes some sort of sense to you to justify what you believe... Of course, the same goes for any make and fan.
At the end of the day, GM has roughly a 6 month unsold supply of Malibus on hand. Now, one can make of that whatever they like, but the truth is that the perceived value I posted about earlier isn't there... For whatever reason.
With a product glut like that, it's a safe bet (and I mean LV odds here) that its not going to be long before GM starts ratcheting up the incentives on the Malibu.
Of course, if you're buying a $1000 TV and the extended warranty is only $29.00, most would probably perceive that as a reasonable risk/reward (read:value). I know I probably would.
OTOH, on the same TV and an extended warranty of a couple of years at anything over 10% of the purchase price, I'd have to give it some thought.
The thing about electronics nowadays is that, for the most part they become obsolete before they fail.
You know, I think everyone's perception of GM is pretty much set by now, so the government selling its shares at a loss/profit/break even really doesn't matter much anymore.
My gut feeling is that if one felt the bailout was unjustified in the beginning, it wouldn't make any difference in their opinion if the government made a 1000% profit. Same goes for the other side of the aisle... If the government simply wrote off the entire debt, it's still justified.
In events such as this, I think opinions get set pretty quickly, and aren't subject to much re-evaluation over the course of a lifetime.
I know transaction prices too low is a no-no here, but as a consumer...it's a good thing for me.
For you, there isn't much difference between perceived value and cheap price. In fact, they're about the same. And, I mean no disrespect when I state that. I've mentioned my BIL here before, stating how even though he has a substantial income, he still drives worn out cars. In his viewpoint, price is equal to value. The cheaper the price, the better the value. Being stranded on the side of the road in the middle of the night means little to him.
Getting back to the Malibu, it would appear that, based on its lower sales figures and excessive inventory levels, most would-be purchasers don't perceive the Malibu to be the value that they perceive its competitors to be...for whatever reason.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesC
They are idling the plant for a few weeks. But yeah, as long as GM continues to produce more product than the market is willing to buy at the current price, the only options are to lower the price or an/or cut production. Seems GM has issues with the latter, so incentives are likely.
2013 Malibu - $21,606 - $25,240 MSRP
That is for the 2 bottom-level trim on both. Are you saying that the 2013 'Bu will be sub-$21K with incentives leaving the Optima over priced?
My 2011 Malibu was somewhere between $3,500 and $4,000 off sticker, IIRC, before my $1,500 in GM card rebate. Not at the end of the model year. And that was no hard-as-nails negotiation. Can you do that with a Kia? I ask because I don't know.
You continue to fail to realize that being able to get a car for so much less than MSRP is NOT a good thing for that manufacturer: it means they priced it wrong, and it really should be stickered at $3000 less. A car actually selling for MSRP is a good thing, because the manufacturer has correctly determined what the market will pay for the car.
Think about this: how many Chevy vehicles would you willingly pay sticker for? People buy Hyundais at sticker, as well as Hondas and Subarus.
As a consumer...best price=best deal for me. I'm not an officer of a car company. I know a lot of folks here like to think they're smarter than them.
Heck, my Studie might have rusted by the time you got over to my place!
I haven't paid MSRP on a new Chevy since I've been buying them--first one in January '81. And only two out of 13 were bought from dealer stock--one was ordered by me, and the others all came from other dealers' inventories, as I was very specific about what I wanted (no second choices acceptable to me). Sometimes, they went as far as Indianapolis to get my car, when we live in NE OH. (That was my Cobalt XFE, and the dealer there only had it eight days.)
In fact, my wife wanted an Equinox when we ended up buying the Malibu. They weren't dealing at all on them. For some reason, that's a turn-off to me--in that it's a very popular vehicle ('me too! me too!'). No disrespect to anyone who owns one or wants one, but again, that's a turn-off to me.
I'm sure they would have! GM's had the best bodies then I think.
The Stude dealer from my hometown always gets me a NAPA classic-car calendar every year. The new one has a silver '58 Eldorado Biarritz convertible in it. Made me think of you.
I don't think anyone buying a mainstream vehicle regardless of make has paid MSRP in a while.
My inlaws were able to negotiate several thousand off their '05 Camry XLS V6, my dad got his '09 Accord EX-L v6 for invoice price.
Something like a Camaro ZL-1, Mustang GT500, and the Boss 302 (since it won't be around much longer) probably command MSRP prices or more. But nobody is going to pay MSRP on a vehicle on the top 20 sales list I'd bet.
Surprising tips for car shopping in Internet age (USA Today)
GM and Peugeot are dancing again. Peugeot is getting "bailed out" by France to the tune of a 7 billion-euro financial guarantee on new bonds. Might not pass muster with the EU after VW and Fiat complain though.
GM, Peugeot to build compact vehicles in joint venture (Detroit News)
I've heard that the quality of the '55-56 Buicks, and possibly some of the earlier ones, wasn't so hot. Part of the problem is that they were wildly popular, so GM had to build them as fast as they could to keep up with demand. Demand for the '57 Buicks cooled off considerably, and I've heard part of the reason was the iffy build quality of the earlier models.
Of course, there were other factors no doubt. For one thing, 1957 was a cooling off period in general, as record sales in 1955-56 probably "pulled forward" a lot of sales. Also, for being an all-new car, the '57 Buicks (and Oldsmobile and Cadillac) didn't look all that radically different from the year before. And finally, there was increased pressure from the all-new Mopar products, as Buick had to compete not only with Chrysler and DeSoto, but even Dodge, as the high-volume Special was priced close to the upper level Dodges.
Still, I see '55-56 Buicks pretty regularly at car shows, and they do have a sturdy, solid, quality look about them. So I wonder how overblown the whole "slipping quality" thing really was? And, FWIW, quality slipped on the '55-56 Chrysler products as well, although they were still quality cars compared to the '57-58 models.
I don't know much about Ford from that era, but I suspect that they were pretty solid cars. They had to be, as the 1949-51 models had issues...mainly rust as I recall. So they probably improved them considerably for 1952-54. And then, the '55-56 really wasn't an all-new car, but rather a very heavy facelift. Ford's big quality nosedive came in 1957.
"An analysis of one hood showed the latch assembly had no evidence of welds for the secondary latch, suggesting the latch assembly missed the weld station at the latch plate supplier."
GM recalling nearly 119,000 pickups for missing hood latches (Detroit News)
Hey, that's the supplier's problem, not GM's! (Of course I'm being sarcastic--it's definitely GM's problem.)
bpizzuti, I think if you were a little older, you'd be more aware that no one ever paid sticker prices, for decades, unless you were a totally uneducated buyer (and I'm sure they were out there).
Now crash test failure. This morning CBS's morning show said 2.5 million total sales for GM in US and 1.8 million. Is that right?
What's camry and prius doing wrong?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505266_162-57560180/toyota-vehicles-deemed-poor-in-c- rash-test/
Notice the camry wheel folding crosswise and moving the steering column away from in front of driver so the airbag misses. You're not safe if you drive this.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I believe the all-new '14 model starts coming off the line in the spring.
But if that video is accurate (and I have no reason to not think so), that crash test in the year 2012 is rather scary, even though crashworthiness is not the first thing I'm looking for in a car. I guess like everything else, one expects Toyota to be 'top of the game'.
I hear what you are saying. OTOH, Chrysler wasn't really hurt after it's initial bailout loans in the 80's and they seem to be doing alright now too as evidenced by them consistently having better sales gains than GM and Ford. I suppose time will tell.
The Detroit pundits are weighing in on the stock sale. Look for juicier job offers for new execs now, and perhaps engineers and designers.
GM customers, talent likely to return (Detroit News)
BTW, do any cars really go for MSRP right now? The few Hondas I've researched lately using TMV are ~$1,000 off MSRP.
Malibu and Sonata didn't do a whole lot better. Seems for some reason we're just seeing more recalls and issues in general. Maybe too much profit squeeze these days?
Not many and usually not for very long. Unless the car is very unique, most who pay sticker will end up regretting it!
The crash tests are shocking, but maybe not surprising. It seems cars are engineered to pass specific tests - this is a new test that nobody had worked for. I'd wager in a year or two, results around the board will be better.
Remember who the head PR guy was back in the 80's during Chrysler's first dance, which was not so much a bailout as loan guarantees, which, in my mind, is a huge difference. Co-signing a car loan for your BIL is significantly different that buying him a car. Brother Lee was an excellent front man, and his challenge to "if you can find a better car, buy it" showed a level of confidence in his product. Speaking directly to the public in commercials also helped.
On Chrysler's second dance, they found a sugar-daddy in Fiat, which helped them out from the financial viewpoint. I would think a lot of folks might see that as a positive development, in that Chrysler was at least appearing in an attempt to get off the government's life support system. Folks generally prefer those who try to help themselves get better over those just waiting for assistance...
Still, even at those internet prices, with close to $5,000 off MSRP, I don't find any of them particularly compelling.
Do you actually cruise the Chevrolet store to check on their stock? I have trouble picturing your being interested in their models and latest offerings. Of course I might be wrong.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think it's the other way around. Fiat announced today that they are building a new Jeep plant in Italy. (Reuters)
I would agree. Unless the buyer is a complete novice, I can't imagine anyone paying list price for an automobile, much less above sticker price, unless its a highly sought-after limited collector, super-whatzit, less than a handful made edition.
I remember when the PT Cruiser first came out, and a local Chrysler dealer had a several hundred dollar markup/surcharge on them.
That didn't last very long, and because of that, I never considered purchasing any vehicle from him afterwards. Around the time the bailouts rolled around, the dealership folded and the local Dodge dealership acquired the Chrysler sales functions.
From the link...
Some manufacturers, such as Ford (F.N), General Motors (GM.N) and Peugeot (PEUP.PA), have chosen to shut plants.
Fiat, which owns U.S. car maker Chrysler, and Germany's Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE), have opted instead to increase investment and the Italian company intends to launch 15 new models over the next four years.
The company does seem to have fared better than GM. Not sure about better on the bottom line but that's the perception. Paying off the bailout loans last year helped too.
All of the ones I have seen look like nicer models - probably LTs too. But many rental Impalas are also well equipped, I have seen many with leather and roof.