I guess we agree. VW has a consistency of reputation for problems with its vehicles; that consistency we don't need.
You are right, but here's a lesson for GM should they survive. VW has a consistent low reliability/high dealer suck factor repuation. Yet their cars still have high resale value. Why is that? It's because VW cars are almost always excellent handlers, beautifully built with very high quality interiors. They inspire passion to drive. And that passion makes up for a lot of crappy reliability and service.
GM has no consistency. You can get a reliable Buick which is boring unless you're Lemko. You can get a passionate Corvette which is cheap inside. You can get an unrefined Cobalt. They are all over the map. There is no consistency. Even VW's consistency of dealers suck/cars unreliable/car handles very well/interior is beautiful is better than being all over the map. At least VW stands for something which many people want. What does GM stand for? Bloat? Inconsistency? Low resale value? Lack of refinement? Spotty reliability?
Decades worth of a solid reputation will do that for ya... :P
Seriously though, step away from the GM koolaid and look at it from this angle: I know numerous people who have owned Toyota's and everyone claims their vehicles have been rock solid reliable, trouble free and low cost as far as maintainence. What reason could you come up with to convince these people to go elsewhere for future business?
Oh, and the problem with the Aura was the same as what happens with almost every other GM vehicle. The concept makes the rounds and gets positive reviews, then the bean counters get involved with the final product. At least it's better than the G6 which is just lame. Heck, it's even nicer than the Rentabu IMO, and at least the Aura wasn't heavily fleeted. It's certainly the better looking of the bunch.
that a lot of folks who are fans of GM act sore that the Toyota brand is generally viewed with favor by the public, but that has been earned over a very long period of time, and it is not accidental. GM could do the same if they built vehicles with the consistency that other posters are referring to here.
Look at the Aura/Saturn example above: having driven the Aura, I was not all that impressed and would have rated it no more than a 2.5/4. Having owned a Saturn in the past, my rating would have been higher with the Saturn badge than with the Chevy or Buick badge, but that's only true because Saturn dealers are so great and will go to great lengths to ensure the satisfaction of their customers after the sale (in my experience). GM and GM fans do not seem to realize how damaged the reps are of GM and most of its brands.
With that in mind, I STILL don't get why they don't just make it the Chevy/Cadillac company. Most of the other domestic brands GM sells are either equated with "people who couldn't afford any better" or assumed to be rentals where I live, and in all the places I have friends (which not coincidentally do not include any midwestern locales).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM and GM fans do not seem to realize how damaged the reps are of GM and most of its brands.
I think many of them do. The problem is they blame the public, press conspiracy, currency manipulation, evil trolls, Marsians, Sun spots, George Bush, and locust of Southern Hemishpere for that - not GM itself. That's the difference between you and "them".
It reminds me of that little campaign GM did a couple of years back, when they decided to put a 'GM' badge on every GM vehicle regardless of brand. I thought that could only hurt them then, and the same would be true today, particularly on Saturns and Cadillacs.
I think Chevy could do so well in the marketplace if GM only had Chevy and Cadillac. Every model would be a contender in its segment, those ad slogans on TV would actually be halfways believable, and profits would go way up for the parent company. I really believe that. But GM would need to be half the size it is now, and all this other pointless stuff GM churns out would have to go first.
Toyota is well on its way to out-GM'ing GM - how can that be? GM is THE GM! Now is the perfect opportunity for it to put all its eggs in the very promising Chevy/Cadillac basket and run with it, but we see that is not to be the course taken. Instead, the whole bloated, sagging operation will be on corporate welfare for a few years, no friend of the consumer in that condition, and who knows when it will return to profitability. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Have you sat in a Camry like the one on the showroom floor last winter. It was cheap plastic inside. The salesman seemed anxious to hurry me away from it. Same problem with the Avalons when they came out: the assembly and parts were just chocked in there sometimes akilter. Wasn't there a door that kept breaking off... and that was supposed to be an upscale version of the Camry basis.
Have you sat in the Accords that I sat in at the showroom last winter? Cheap. Rough seats. I'd hate to drive to Nashville in one of those seats. The Civic on the floor was a big step nicer inside (was that because it was an SI? It was the only one on the floor.).
I think sometimes people are used to what they prefer in a brand and use that filter to look at other brands. And before you write back and point out that might true for GM owners, I agree.
>You can get an unrefined Cobalt
I love that term of things being refined. It's a subjective term and can always be used against a car that one doesn't like. I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined." Somehow having a car that's at the low cost end be refined doesn't mean anything to me.
I don't what car I'd look to if I were buying perfection and total refinement. I don't really have a need for it for my day-to-day transportion and my longer drive usage.
I think Chevy could do so well in the marketplace if GM only had Chevy and Cadillac. Every model would be a contender in its segment, those ad slogans on TV would actually be halfways believable, and profits would go way up for the parent company. I really believe that. But GM would need to be half the size it is now, and all this other pointless stuff GM churns out would have to go first.
I agree 100%. Saturn, Pontiac, Chevy, GMC, Buick and Cadillac primarily compete against each other for the same pool of customers. Instead of building a G6, Aura, and Malibu and spending the $ to differentiate and market each vehicle, putting it all into a Malibu could mean a home run market leader. Until GM sheds the overlapping brands, they will continue to produce vehicles that are marginally competitive. I don't believe taking a Chevy truck/SUV, slapping on GMC decals and a few extra bells and whistles steels sales from Ford, Dodge, or Toyota etc. GMC is just a means to give the bloated Buick, Pontiac, and Cadillac dealers a way to sell trucks. Just way to much bloat.
Have you sat in the Accords that I sat in at the showroom last winter? Cheap. Rough seats. I'd hate to drive to Nashville in one of those seats.
I agree about the Camry, but the seats in my the '09 Accord EX-L v6 he just bought are very comfortable. The interior (in my opinion anyway) is far more expensive looking than just about any car in it's price range, particularly the domestics. It does have to many buttons though.
I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined." Somehow having a car that's at the low cost end be refined doesn't mean anything to me.
Hmm, you can judge refinement by just looking at a car? While I myself would never want a Civic, I've driven a friends '08 and it's a nice small car. Honda's 4 cylinder's are just so smooth. Yeah, you got to rev them for any power, but they are very smooth and responsive.
A refined vehicle to me makes driving that much more enjoyable. The vast majority of GM vehicles leave me cold with the way they drive. Transmissions that don't downshift until the gas pedal is nearly floored, gearing that seems only to boost economy at the expense of responsiveness, steering that is either to light or to heavy with poor road feel. Brakes that are mushy and hard to modulate (that seems to be fixed with most of the latest GM cars I've driven.) I appreciate the manufacturers that sweat the details.
I know many people don't notice or care how a car drives, sounds or feels when behind the wheel. They don't notice the turn signal stalk sounding like a broken knuckle, the vibration of the powertrain while accelerating, or the rattles through out the cabin, or even how cheap the interior looks. I know lots of these type of people and they are perfectly happy with a domestic vehicle that reliably gets them from point A to point B. Nothing wrong with that, but even now people are still leaving the domestics to buy their first foreign car. The bleeding has not stopped. I have high hopes for the new LaCrosse and the new Taurus and the updated Fusion. I hope they are truly competitive in every way. But if history tells me anything, it's that they will fall short in someway.
I agree about the Camry, but the seats in my the '09 Accord EX-L v6 he just bought are very comfortable. The interior (in my opinion anyway) is far more expensive looking than just about any car in it's price range, particularly the domestics. It does have to many buttons though.
There's a guy at work who bought an '09 Accord EX-L V-6 a few months ago. I rode in it once. That sucker is a nice car. Probably also a $30K or so car, which might sound like a lot for an Accord, but it was just about fully loaded. If anything, it makes me question why anyone would pay $40K for an Acura TL, or $50K for an Acura RL!
Before the 09, he briefly had an '08 Accord base model. LX, or whatever they call it. Now to be honest, it had some cheap bits in it, like the door panels that were almost pure hard plastic, except for the armrests, which were oddly covered in cloth. I thought that was actually a nice touch, but I wonder how it'll hold up compared to vinyl or that rubberized stuff? However, even in 2009 an Accord LX automatic only stickers for $22,375, with shipping. Edmund's has a TMV listed of around $19,700, which IMO is definitely a lot of car for the money! That's about what my Intrepid was, over NINE years ago! And the Accord got big enough in the intervening years, that I'd say it's fairly comparable to an Intrepid.
Plus, even though it's cheaper, it has a few things my Intrepid doesn't, like ABS, 5-speed automatic, a fold-down rear seat, and probably some other things I'm missing. My Intrepid has a V-6, compared to a 4-cyl, but I'm sure by now, the 4-cyl Accord performs at least as well, if not better...plus getting better economy!
Anyway, I'm not trying to sound too much like a Honda hugger, but I do like the car.
You've described very nicely what keeps putting me back in Accords.
I'll shop around next time but it won't surprise me at all if I ended up in another. They are indeed a lot of car for the money and any time I've bought one there was nice financing available - not free but low rate.
The one thing that drives me a little nutty is no matter how big the car gets it still has the 14 cubic foot trunk. I'd like a bigger one.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The one thing that drives me a little nutty is no matter how big the car gets it still has the 14 cubic foot trunk. I'd like a bigger one.
Yeah, that 14 cubic foot figure bugs me, too. I swear though, the trunk looks bigger than that. My Intrepid has an 18.4 cubic foot trunk, but it doesn't look that much bigger than the Accord's. It could be though, that the Accord's has a bigger opening, and perhaps that makes it look bigger than it is?
And for all the griping that goes on, about the Accord being "too big" these days, for me it's finally gotten to the right size, that I'd seriously consider one! Although I found the '03-07 style to be big enough inside for my tastes, too.
Funny how nowadays, the Japanese cars seem to be just the right size for me, but their domestic counterparts aren't quite as roomy. I find the Camry and Altima to be decently sized inside, as well. However, the Malibu/Aura/G6 come up short in back seat legroom (I don't care what the published specs say, I'm going by what my knees tell me) and shoulder room. The Avenger/Sebring are also cramped in back. The Fusion/Milan aren't bad. I'd call them "snug" or "cozy" compared to "cramped"...adequate for my tastes, but they still feel a rung below the Japanese midsizers.
Of course, with the domestics, you can always go up a bit to a Charger/300 or Taurus/Sable. Some might also say the Impala/LaCrosse as well, but I always thought the W-body had a horrible back seat for a car of its size.
My dad got a hell of a deal on his 09 Accord Ex-L v6. Including freight etc, it stickered around 29,500, it's loaded except for Nav. He got it for $26k, plus they gave him $2k for his '00 Taurus with 190k miles that had a CE light on, a power steering pump you could hear down the block, and no heat. A Ford and Toyota dealer would only give him $500.
I still can't believe my dad is driving a Honda. He's driven primarily Fords his whole life. I think he's owned one Plymouth and one Chevy. Prior to this Honda, I don't think he had ever driven a foreign car. This time around, he decided to drive several different cars from different makes in $25k-30k range and he liked the Accord the best.
but I always thought the W-body had a horrible back seat for a car of its size.
That's for sure. I refuse to try to sit in the backseat of my wife's Grand Prix. I'd expect more room from a compact that what it offers. Just horrible.
Andre, have you sat in the back seat of a CTS? I sat in one at the Chicago auto show was extremely disappointed. I'm 6'1" and my head was right against the roof. I didn't try to many cars, but rear seat in the Accord offered me an inch or two as did the new Maxima. I was shocked that I couldn't not sit upright in the CTS. No way in hell would I spend that much money on a sedan that I couldn't comfortably sit friends or client's in the back seat.
I didn't get in any of the CTS competitors like a G37 or 3 series to compare, maybe that's par for the course. I've never really had a problem sitting in the backseat of most sedan's. I often expect leg room to be limited, but to have my head wedge against the headliner is pitiful.
I just looked up head room specs for the CTS and Maxima, what is strange is the CTS is listed at about an extra inch of head room. I don't know how that is possible. I noticed in the CTS if I moved my head forward a bit, I had enough head room, but if I sat back in a natural position, the back of my head was against the headliner...strange. The Maxima seemed to have quite a bit more head room in the rear seat, but the specs show the CTS having more. Hmm something doesn't add up.
They're all a bit cramped in the back as well. Note - the CTS without sunroof has about 2 inches more headroom. This might not seem like much, but it really is a huge difference.
Have you sat in a Camry like the one on the showroom floor last winter. It was cheap plastic inside.
Have you sat in the Accords that I sat in at the showroom last winter? Cheap. Rough seats. I'd hate to drive to Nashville in one of those seats.
I love that term of things being refined. It's a subjective term and can always be used against a car that one doesn't like. I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined."
You know, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe. It matters what the public believes. And most magazine reviews disagree with most of what you wrote. Which is why GM has big problems. Among a lot of other reasons.
>most magazine reviews disagree with most of what you wrote.
I've read Car and Driver, Road and Track, and several other of the magazine cadre whose names I don't recall in waiting rooms or the library. They spend most of their issue talking about the Lamborghini X32vlp and how wonderful it is to the motoring public. Or they are talking about the latest low production vehicle to be available from a company for $150,000. Or they talk about this and that. They rarely talk about reality cars which I suspect are what you drive and I know I drive them. Whether we agree on the particular brand and merits thereof or the demerits of that model, the cars Road and Track are drive testing ain't it. They are printing their mag toward a particular demographics who will subscribe to and buy off the rack their magazine. And that's what they do to survive.
I don't recall Popular Science and Mechanics Illustrated other more pedantic mags doing road tests of cars anymore, but they used to do more common tests. I notice the tests done by some freelancers that end up in our weekly section in the newspaper are more informative than Car Driver and the others. But these sources all affect "what the public believes." I don't place much credit on many of the mags.
Im not willing to buy a car from a company that can't manage its costs and I thereby absorb the bloat - i dont care where a car is made -I have no loyalty to the big three-they have no loyalty to me or the USA - I dont love the japanese or germans either-The big three love people simple enough to "buy american" -it sends a better and more truly american message to them to not buy their product-they are embarassing the USA-the main issue is the price of their products due to the bloated soft costs they carry- enough
I don't recall Popular Science and Mechanics Illustrated other more pedantic mags doing road tests of cars anymore, but they used to do more common tests. I notice the tests done by some freelancers that end up in our weekly section in the newspaper are more informative than Car Driver and the others. But these sources all affect "what the public believes." I don't place much credit on many of the mags.
Consumer Reports is more "common". Of course the D3 lovers think CU is horribly biased unless the review likes a D3 vehicle.
Regardless, the original point was that GM is so big and bloated and it has no consistency of image or meaning, other than perhaps good trucks, a bargain sports car with a crappy interior, and a lot of rebadges that have pretty much diluted the reason for having all of those brands to differentiate things in the first place. They've had horrible management for 30 years and that has been compounded by the boat anchor of the UAW limiting their flexibility and raising their costs to help ensure they can't be profitable. The market votes on perceived value through resale values and GM is poor in most respects. For all of the money GM has spent on advertising over the years, they don't stand for much. "An American Revolution" - a bunch of crappy vehicles bailed out by the taxpayer. "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet" - appeal to the blue collar patriot. "A new kind of failed car company".
What images do nameplates bring to mind?:
VW - unreliable, great interiors, great driving European designs Toyota - reliable, numb handling, quiet, boring Honda - reliable, slightly sportier, good ergonomic interiors, best engines Nissan - spotty with some very reliable vehicles and some dogs; mostly excellent engines Chrysler - junk and Jeeps Ford - some junk but rapidly improving. Great cars in Europe.
Chevy - blue collar cars, lots of turds and a couple of gems. Mostly junk interiors except newest cars. GMC - Trucks and SUVs, many rebadges Saab - used to be foreign and quirky but now just more GM rebadges Pontiac - blinged-up pseudo sporty cars, mostly rebadges Buick - old people's boats, reliable but boring looking Caddy - old people's boats with one good car and a blinged SUV Saturn - a failed experiment that's now rebadges GM in aggregate - 10% gems, 40% mediocre, 50% dogs
VW - unreliable, great interiors, great driving European designs Toyota - reliable, numb handling, quiet, boring Honda - reliable, slightly sportier, good ergonomic interiors, best engines Nissan - spotty with some very reliable vehicles and some dogs; mostly excellent engines Chrysler - junk and Jeeps Ford - some junk but rapidly improving. Great cars in Europe.
Chevy - blue collar cars, lots of turds and a couple of gems. Mostly junk interiors except newest cars. GMC - Trucks and SUVs, many rebadges Saab - used to be foreign and quirky but now just more GM rebadges Pontiac - blinged-up pseudo sporty cars, mostly rebadges Buick - old people's boats, reliable but boring looking Caddy - old people's boats with one good car and a blinged SUV Saturn - a failed experiment that's now rebadges GM in aggregate - 10% gems, 40% mediocre, 50% dogs
You've got ther general idea, but you missed some stuff:
Nissan - Great torqey engines, euro drive without VW interior Ford - The iconic F150
Chevy - The iconic Corvette. What that's doing in the blue collar brand, however, is puzzling to me. Caddy - Presidential Limo. Have to admit, that's something that'll stick out to some.
Andre, have you sat in the back seat of a CTS? I sat in one at the Chicago auto show was extremely disappointed. I'm 6'1" and my head was right against the roof.
I know I've sat in the back of the CTS on several occasions at auto shows, but as far as headroom goes, I'm drawing a blank. I do remember the car having very little legroom in back, but probably no worse than most of its competition.
VW - super unreliable, great interiors, eh designs, surly service, $$$ parts Toyota - boring, tedious, ultra-dull Honda - slightly sportier than a Toyota (damning with faint praise), weird styling Nissan - somewhat reliable vehicles and space alien styling Chrysler - Mopar Muscle! Ford - Average
Chevy - blue collar cars, excellent trucks, Corvette GMC - Ultimate trucks and SUVs Saab - quirky Pontiac - sporty cars Buick - Exponentially reliable and super-durable. Pleasant styling. Caddy - Best cars in the World! Love these cars more than anything else on earth! Saturn - ? GM in aggregate - 80% gems, 20% average
VW - Rich interiors, and handling, rich prices and repairs Toyota - Appliances on wheels Honda - Well-made, sportier appliances on wheels Nissan - Euro handling, torqy engines, cheaper and more reliable than VW Chrysler - Who? Are they still around? Ford - The best truck in the entire universe, up and coming car contender, Mustang rocks.
Chevy - Rental fleet specials GMC - Re-badged Chevys Saab - re-badged Chevys with turbochargers Pontiac - rebadged Chevys (and one re-badged Toyota) Saturn - re-badged Opels and Chevys Buick - re-badged Chevys with portholes and better interiors Cadillac - Land-yachts, re-badged Chevy trucks with bling
GM in aggregate - 100% rebadged.
Joyfulness you can get by buying any other brand? Priceless.
Unfortunately Chrysler's 2.4 problems per car is both understated and those 2.4 problems tended to cost me on average about $700 a pop, so 2.4 would be $1,680.
Like my Honda, my Audi has cost me 0 dollars for those 2.1 problems. So even if you have 21.1 problems, it still equals 0 dollars. The problem is Chrysler designs their vehicles to fail after 3 years or 36,000 miles to maximize short term profits and avoid too much warranty cost.
Other more reputable companies design and engineer their vehicles to last MUCH MUCH longer; without regard for the warranty period.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Chrysler's been putting the pentastar on cars going back to the 1960s. Jeep's been made by so many different manufacturers, it doesn't matter whose logo is on it: Willys-Overland -> Kaiser -> AMC ->Chrysler -> ?
what the heck? A website that is only viewable to people in the midwest?
Characterizing all Cadillacs as land yachts as someone did above does a disservice to Cadillac, but all the rest of the rebadged and imported stuff needs to go away. I think they could make it work to add the Lucerne to the Cadillac line as an entry-level model, but spruce it up some first and get that price down a tad.
And while Nissan has some interesting stuff these days, they have always been and remain spotty in reliability. The era of Ghosn cost-cutting has certainly taken its toll.
Chevy and Cadillac ONLY = GM profitability.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
what the heck? A website that is only viewable to people in the midwest?
Yeah, scary isn't it?
Characterizing all Cadillacs as land yachts as someone did above does a disservice to Cadillac, but all the rest of the rebadged stuff needs to go away.
That was me. :shades: Take away the land yachts and the rebadged blingmobiles and you have....pretty much just the CTS. One car does not a brand make, no matter how good that car is (and I admit the CTS is pretty durn good).
And while Nissan has some interesting stuff these days, they have always been and remain spotty in reliability.
Nissan's spotty reliability is still a step up from VW's non-spotty un-reliability. :P
It is my understanding (although I don't follow it that closely) that Jeep reliability suffered greatly in the 90s as a result of its purchase by Chrysler. What a shame to scar a brand with such saleability. It is better now, I hope, but when the end comes shortly here for Chrysler, I kinda hope the Jeep brand makes it out of the collapse intact, in a sale to some other automaking concern.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Exactly the point of the whole argument. The Volt will not be a mainstream vehicle at that price point.
Simple.
3Gen Prius takes the prize for best value for a Greenie. What else is new? By the time the Volt comes out, the Prius should be at 60 mpg or might even become a PI for $25K at over 100 MPG equivalent. :shades:
I'm almost certain that Jeep will survive. It's the "Jason" of automotive marques. Nothing seems to kill it. I don't know who would pick it up. I'm thinking Tata.
The STS, while seemingly redundant because of its closeness in size to the CTS, is a "pretty durn good car" too. And of course the new smaller SRX (all set to be released in a bit) holds promise, and the work for it is all done. So don't write off Cadillac just yet, please. I do agree that the ridiculous Escalade needs to go away, it is completely out of touch. There is an ad running on the radio right now where I live where one dealer is selling all his leftover 2008 Escalades for $21,000 off MSRP. That is the kind of thing that can damage a whole brand if repeated all around the country.
And lemko, if I "give you" an entry-level Cadillac Lucerne priced around $35K, will that do it for you, or must you have the Buick brand? Because I am firmly convinced that putting even one dollar towards keeping the Buick brand alive in the States is a waste of money. If the Chevy/Cadillac plan I advocate bears fruit and the profits start to pile up, they can consider bringing the brand back from China, but even then only if it consists of different and vibrant models that would sell here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And lemko, if I "give you" an entry-level Cadillac Lucerne priced around $35K, will that do it for you, or must you have the Buick brand?
I think the Lucerne might make more sense moved over to Chevy, and rebadged as a Caprice. It would probably cause confusion at Cadillac, because of its large size and low-price. The V-6 Lucerne, IMO, isn't prestigious enough to be a Cadillac. And the V-8 model would make people question why they should pay $10K or whatever more for a DTS.
As a Chevy though, the V-6 model would be right at home. And if they wanted to cost-cut a bit, for the V-8 option they could take out the Northstar and put in the 5.3 from the Impala SS.
I agree. That's why I can't wait until spring / summer when I can drive the '65 Impala again - haven't driven it since last fall.
I know the feeling! I had my '67 Catalina out on Saturday, driving around. I wanted to put the top down SOOOO bad, but I've only had the car back from the mechanic about a month, and he said to wait a few months to let the new top stretch out. But, being February, and 40 degrees, I guess it would've been kinda dumb to put the top down anyway. :shades:
Well a "Cadillac Lucerne" is pretty much a base DTS anyway. Still, I'm fiercely loyal to the Buick brand. It's been excellent to me ever since I came of driving age. I guess it's a sentimental thing.
Shoot, if Chevrolet could build Impalas as desirable as the 1960s models, there would be no Toyota or Honda. The Impala lost its way in 1971 and never really got its mojo back. There was a false dawn in 1994-96.
Comments
You are right, but here's a lesson for GM should they survive. VW has a consistent low reliability/high dealer suck factor repuation. Yet their cars still have high resale value. Why is that? It's because VW cars are almost always excellent handlers, beautifully built with very high quality interiors. They inspire passion to drive. And that passion makes up for a lot of crappy reliability and service.
GM has no consistency. You can get a reliable Buick which is boring unless you're Lemko. You can get a passionate Corvette which is cheap inside. You can get an unrefined Cobalt. They are all over the map. There is no consistency. Even VW's consistency of dealers suck/cars unreliable/car handles very well/interior is beautiful is better than being all over the map. At least VW stands for something which many people want. What does GM stand for? Bloat? Inconsistency? Low resale value? Lack of refinement? Spotty reliability?
Seriously though, step away from the GM koolaid and look at it from this angle: I know numerous people who have owned Toyota's and everyone claims their vehicles have been rock solid reliable, trouble free and low cost as far as maintainence. What reason could you come up with to convince these people to go elsewhere for future business?
Oh, and the problem with the Aura was the same as what happens with almost every other GM vehicle. The concept makes the rounds and gets positive reviews, then the bean counters get involved with the final product. At least it's better than the G6 which is just lame. Heck, it's even nicer than the Rentabu IMO, and at least the Aura wasn't heavily fleeted. It's certainly the better looking of the bunch.
Look at the Aura/Saturn example above: having driven the Aura, I was not all that impressed and would have rated it no more than a 2.5/4. Having owned a Saturn in the past, my rating would have been higher with the Saturn badge than with the Chevy or Buick badge, but that's only true because Saturn dealers are so great and will go to great lengths to ensure the satisfaction of their customers after the sale (in my experience). GM and GM fans do not seem to realize how damaged the reps are of GM and most of its brands.
With that in mind, I STILL don't get why they don't just make it the Chevy/Cadillac company. Most of the other domestic brands GM sells are either equated with "people who couldn't afford any better" or assumed to be rentals where I live, and in all the places I have friends (which not coincidentally do not include any midwestern locales).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think many of them do. The problem is they blame the public, press conspiracy, currency manipulation, evil trolls, Marsians, Sun spots, George Bush, and locust of Southern Hemishpere for that - not GM itself. That's the difference between you and "them".
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Regards,
OW
I think Chevy could do so well in the marketplace if GM only had Chevy and Cadillac. Every model would be a contender in its segment, those ad slogans on TV would actually be halfways believable, and profits would go way up for the parent company. I really believe that. But GM would need to be half the size it is now, and all this other pointless stuff GM churns out would have to go first.
Toyota is well on its way to out-GM'ing GM - how can that be? GM is THE GM! Now is the perfect opportunity for it to put all its eggs in the very promising Chevy/Cadillac basket and run with it, but we see that is not to be the course taken. Instead, the whole bloated, sagging operation will be on corporate welfare for a few years, no friend of the consumer in that condition, and who knows when it will return to profitability. :sick:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Have you sat in a Camry like the one on the showroom floor last winter. It was cheap plastic inside. The salesman seemed anxious to hurry me away from it. Same problem with the Avalons when they came out: the assembly and parts were just chocked in there sometimes akilter. Wasn't there a door that kept breaking off... and that was supposed to be an upscale version of the Camry basis.
Have you sat in the Accords that I sat in at the showroom last winter? Cheap. Rough seats. I'd hate to drive to Nashville in one of those seats. The Civic on the floor was a big step nicer inside (was that because it was an SI? It was the only one on the floor.).
I think sometimes people are used to what they prefer in a brand and use that filter to look at other brands. And before you write back and point out that might true for GM owners, I agree.
>You can get an unrefined Cobalt
I love that term of things being refined. It's a subjective term and can always be used against a car that one doesn't like. I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined." Somehow having a car that's at the low cost end be refined doesn't mean anything to me.
I don't what car I'd look to if I were buying perfection and total refinement. I don't really have a need for it for my day-to-day transportion and my longer drive usage.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I agree 100%. Saturn, Pontiac, Chevy, GMC, Buick and Cadillac primarily compete against each other for the same pool of customers. Instead of building a G6, Aura, and Malibu and spending the $ to differentiate and market each vehicle, putting it all into a Malibu could mean a home run market leader. Until GM sheds the overlapping brands, they will continue to produce vehicles that are marginally competitive. I don't believe taking a Chevy truck/SUV, slapping on GMC decals and a few extra bells and whistles steels sales from Ford, Dodge, or Toyota etc. GMC is just a means to give the bloated Buick, Pontiac, and Cadillac dealers a way to sell trucks. Just way to much bloat.
I agree about the Camry, but the seats in my the '09 Accord EX-L v6 he just bought are very comfortable. The interior (in my opinion anyway) is far more expensive looking than just about any car in it's price range, particularly the domestics. It does have to many buttons though.
I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined." Somehow having a car that's at the low cost end be refined doesn't mean anything to me.
Hmm, you can judge refinement by just looking at a car? While I myself would never want a Civic, I've driven a friends '08 and it's a nice small car. Honda's 4 cylinder's are just so smooth. Yeah, you got to rev them for any power, but they are very smooth and responsive.
A refined vehicle to me makes driving that much more enjoyable. The vast majority of GM vehicles leave me cold with the way they drive. Transmissions that don't downshift until the gas pedal is nearly floored, gearing that seems only to boost economy at the expense of responsiveness, steering that is either to light or to heavy with poor road feel. Brakes that are mushy and hard to modulate (that seems to be fixed with most of the latest GM cars I've driven.) I appreciate the manufacturers that sweat the details.
I know many people don't notice or care how a car drives, sounds or feels when behind the wheel. They don't notice the turn signal stalk sounding like a broken knuckle, the vibration of the powertrain while accelerating, or the rattles through out the cabin, or even how cheap the interior looks. I know lots of these type of people and they are perfectly happy with a domestic vehicle that reliably gets them from point A to point B. Nothing wrong with that, but even now people are still leaving the domestics to buy their first foreign car. The bleeding has not stopped. I have high hopes for the new LaCrosse and the new Taurus and the updated Fusion. I hope they are truly competitive in every way. But if history tells me anything, it's that they will fall short in someway.
There's a guy at work who bought an '09 Accord EX-L V-6 a few months ago. I rode in it once. That sucker is a nice car. Probably also a $30K or so car, which might sound like a lot for an Accord, but it was just about fully loaded. If anything, it makes me question why anyone would pay $40K for an Acura TL, or $50K for an Acura RL!
Before the 09, he briefly had an '08 Accord base model. LX, or whatever they call it. Now to be honest, it had some cheap bits in it, like the door panels that were almost pure hard plastic, except for the armrests, which were oddly covered in cloth. I thought that was actually a nice touch, but I wonder how it'll hold up compared to vinyl or that rubberized stuff? However, even in 2009 an Accord LX automatic only stickers for $22,375, with shipping. Edmund's has a TMV listed of around $19,700, which IMO is definitely a lot of car for the money! That's about what my Intrepid was, over NINE years ago! And the Accord got big enough in the intervening years, that I'd say it's fairly comparable to an Intrepid.
Plus, even though it's cheaper, it has a few things my Intrepid doesn't, like ABS, 5-speed automatic, a fold-down rear seat, and probably some other things I'm missing. My Intrepid has a V-6, compared to a 4-cyl, but I'm sure by now, the 4-cyl Accord performs at least as well, if not better...plus getting better economy!
Anyway, I'm not trying to sound too much like a Honda hugger, but I do like the car.
I'll shop around next time but it won't surprise me at all if I ended up in another. They are indeed a lot of car for the money and any time I've bought one there was nice financing available - not free but low rate.
The one thing that drives me a little nutty is no matter how big the car gets it still has the 14 cubic foot trunk. I'd like a bigger one.
Yeah, that 14 cubic foot figure bugs me, too. I swear though, the trunk looks bigger than that. My Intrepid has an 18.4 cubic foot trunk, but it doesn't look that much bigger than the Accord's. It could be though, that the Accord's has a bigger opening, and perhaps that makes it look bigger than it is?
And for all the griping that goes on, about the Accord being "too big" these days, for me it's finally gotten to the right size, that I'd seriously consider one! Although I found the '03-07 style to be big enough inside for my tastes, too.
Funny how nowadays, the Japanese cars seem to be just the right size for me, but their domestic counterparts aren't quite as roomy. I find the Camry and Altima to be decently sized inside, as well. However, the Malibu/Aura/G6 come up short in back seat legroom (I don't care what the published specs say, I'm going by what my knees tell me) and shoulder room. The Avenger/Sebring are also cramped in back. The Fusion/Milan aren't bad. I'd call them "snug" or "cozy" compared to "cramped"...adequate for my tastes, but they still feel a rung below the Japanese midsizers.
Of course, with the domestics, you can always go up a bit to a Charger/300 or Taurus/Sable. Some might also say the Impala/LaCrosse as well, but I always thought the W-body had a horrible back seat for a car of its size.
I still can't believe my dad is driving a Honda. He's driven primarily Fords his whole life. I think he's owned one Plymouth and one Chevy. Prior to this Honda, I don't think he had ever driven a foreign car. This time around, he decided to drive several different cars from different makes in $25k-30k range and he liked the Accord the best.
That's for sure. I refuse to try to sit in the backseat of my wife's Grand Prix. I'd expect more room from a compact that what it offers. Just horrible.
Andre, have you sat in the back seat of a CTS? I sat in one at the Chicago auto show was extremely disappointed. I'm 6'1" and my head was right against the roof. I didn't try to many cars, but rear seat in the Accord offered me an inch or two as did the new Maxima. I was shocked that I couldn't not sit upright in the CTS. No way in hell would I spend that much money on a sedan that I couldn't comfortably sit friends or client's in the back seat.
I didn't get in any of the CTS competitors like a G37 or 3 series to compare, maybe that's par for the course. I've never really had a problem sitting in the backseat of most sedan's. I often expect leg room to be limited, but to have my head wedge against the headliner is pitiful.
Yes it is, and I didn't think about that.
Have you sat in the Accords that I sat in at the showroom last winter? Cheap. Rough seats. I'd hate to drive to Nashville in one of those seats.
I love that term of things being refined. It's a subjective term and can always be used against a car that one doesn't like. I find most of the Civics I see driving locally "unrefined."
You know, it really doesn't matter what you or I believe. It matters what the public believes. And most magazine reviews disagree with most of what you wrote. Which is why GM has big problems. Among a lot of other reasons.
I've read Car and Driver, Road and Track, and several other of the magazine cadre whose names I don't recall in waiting rooms or the library. They spend most of their issue talking about the Lamborghini X32vlp and how wonderful it is to the motoring public. Or they are talking about the latest low production vehicle to be available from a company for $150,000. Or they talk about this and that. They rarely talk about reality cars which I suspect are what you drive and I know I drive them. Whether we agree on the particular brand and merits thereof or the demerits of that model, the cars Road and Track are drive testing ain't it. They are printing their mag toward a particular demographics who will subscribe to and buy off the rack their magazine. And that's what they do to survive.
I don't recall Popular Science and Mechanics Illustrated other more pedantic mags doing road tests of cars anymore, but they used to do more common tests. I notice the tests done by some freelancers that end up in our weekly section in the newspaper are more informative than Car Driver and the others. But these sources all affect "what the public believes." I don't place much credit on many of the mags.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Consumer Reports is more "common". Of course the D3 lovers think CU is horribly biased unless the review likes a D3 vehicle.
Regardless, the original point was that GM is so big and bloated and it has no consistency of image or meaning, other than perhaps good trucks, a bargain sports car with a crappy interior, and a lot of rebadges that have pretty much diluted the reason for having all of those brands to differentiate things in the first place. They've had horrible management for 30 years and that has been compounded by the boat anchor of the UAW limiting their flexibility and raising their costs to help ensure they can't be profitable. The market votes on perceived value through resale values and GM is poor in most respects. For all of the money GM has spent on advertising over the years, they don't stand for much. "An American Revolution" - a bunch of crappy vehicles bailed out by the taxpayer. "Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet" - appeal to the blue collar patriot. "A new kind of
failedcar company".What images do nameplates bring to mind?:
VW - unreliable, great interiors, great driving European designs
Toyota - reliable, numb handling, quiet, boring
Honda - reliable, slightly sportier, good ergonomic interiors, best engines
Nissan - spotty with some very reliable vehicles and some dogs; mostly excellent engines
Chrysler - junk and Jeeps
Ford - some junk but rapidly improving. Great cars in Europe.
Chevy - blue collar cars, lots of turds and a couple of gems. Mostly junk interiors except newest cars.
GMC - Trucks and SUVs, many rebadges
Saab - used to be foreign and quirky but now just more GM rebadges
Pontiac - blinged-up pseudo sporty cars, mostly rebadges
Buick - old people's boats, reliable but boring looking
Caddy - old people's boats with one good car and a blinged SUV
Saturn - a failed experiment that's now rebadges
GM in aggregate - 10% gems, 40% mediocre, 50% dogs
VW - unreliable, great interiors, great driving European designs
Toyota - reliable, numb handling, quiet, boring
Honda - reliable, slightly sportier, good ergonomic interiors, best engines
Nissan - spotty with some very reliable vehicles and some dogs; mostly excellent engines
Chrysler - junk and Jeeps
Ford - some junk but rapidly improving. Great cars in Europe.
Chevy - blue collar cars, lots of turds and a couple of gems. Mostly junk interiors except newest cars.
GMC - Trucks and SUVs, many rebadges
Saab - used to be foreign and quirky but now just more GM rebadges
Pontiac - blinged-up pseudo sporty cars, mostly rebadges
Buick - old people's boats, reliable but boring looking
Caddy - old people's boats with one good car and a blinged SUV
Saturn - a failed experiment that's now rebadges
GM in aggregate - 10% gems, 40% mediocre, 50% dogs
You've got ther general idea, but you missed some stuff:
Nissan - Great torqey engines, euro drive without VW interior
Ford - The iconic F150
Chevy - The iconic Corvette. What that's doing in the blue collar brand, however, is puzzling to me.
Caddy - Presidential Limo. Have to admit, that's something that'll stick out to some.
I know I've sat in the back of the CTS on several occasions at auto shows, but as far as headroom goes, I'm drawing a blank. I do remember the car having very little legroom in back, but probably no worse than most of its competition.
VW - super unreliable, great interiors, eh designs, surly service, $$$ parts
Toyota - boring, tedious, ultra-dull
Honda - slightly sportier than a Toyota (damning with faint praise), weird styling
Nissan - somewhat reliable vehicles and space alien styling
Chrysler - Mopar Muscle!
Ford - Average
Chevy - blue collar cars, excellent trucks, Corvette
GMC - Ultimate trucks and SUVs
Saab - quirky
Pontiac - sporty cars
Buick - Exponentially reliable and super-durable. Pleasant styling.
Caddy - Best cars in the World! Love these cars more than anything else on earth!
Saturn - ?
GM in aggregate - 80% gems, 20% average
VW - Rich interiors, and handling, rich prices and repairs
Toyota - Appliances on wheels
Honda - Well-made, sportier appliances on wheels
Nissan - Euro handling, torqy engines, cheaper and more reliable than VW
Chrysler - Who? Are they still around?
Ford - The best truck in the entire universe, up and coming car contender, Mustang rocks.
Chevy - Rental fleet specials
GMC - Re-badged Chevys
Saab - re-badged Chevys with turbochargers
Pontiac - rebadged Chevys (and one re-badged Toyota)
Saturn - re-badged Opels and Chevys
Buick - re-badged Chevys with portholes and better interiors
Cadillac - Land-yachts, re-badged Chevy trucks with bling
GM in aggregate - 100% rebadged.
Joyfulness you can get by buying any other brand? Priceless.
Like my Honda, my Audi has cost me 0 dollars for those 2.1 problems. So even if you have 21.1 problems, it still equals 0 dollars. The problem is Chrysler designs their vehicles to fail after 3 years or 36,000 miles to maximize short term profits and avoid too much warranty cost.
Other more reputable companies design and engineer their vehicles to last MUCH MUCH longer; without regard for the warranty period.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Characterizing all Cadillacs as land yachts as someone did above does a disservice to Cadillac, but all the rest of the rebadged and imported stuff needs to go away. I think they could make it work to add the Lucerne to the Cadillac line as an entry-level model, but spruce it up some first and get that price down a tad.
And while Nissan has some interesting stuff these days, they have always been and remain spotty in reliability. The era of Ghosn cost-cutting has certainly taken its toll.
Chevy and Cadillac ONLY = GM profitability.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, scary isn't it?
Characterizing all Cadillacs as land yachts as someone did above does a disservice to Cadillac, but all the rest of the rebadged stuff needs to go away.
That was me. :shades: Take away the land yachts and the rebadged blingmobiles and you have....pretty much just the CTS. One car does not a brand make, no matter how good that car is (and I admit the CTS is pretty durn good).
And while Nissan has some interesting stuff these days, they have always been and remain spotty in reliability.
Nissan's spotty reliability is still a step up from VW's non-spotty un-reliability. :P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Simple.
3Gen Prius takes the prize for best value for a Greenie. What else is new? By the time the Volt comes out, the Prius should be at 60 mpg or might even become a PI for $25K at over 100 MPG equivalent. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Wouldn't you classify the S-Class, 7-Series, and LS as land yachts, or do they get a pass because they're imports?
Don't know why that would be. This is the real world. Maybe they're selective.
What is meant by real world?
I'll post the article. It's by a free lance car reviewer thatAAA uses who writes for the Kansas City Star as well.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And lemko, if I "give you" an entry-level Cadillac Lucerne priced around $35K, will that do it for you, or must you have the Buick brand? Because I am firmly convinced that putting even one dollar towards keeping the Buick brand alive in the States is a waste of money. If the Chevy/Cadillac plan I advocate bears fruit and the profits start to pile up, they can consider bringing the brand back from China, but even then only if it consists of different and vibrant models that would sell here.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree. That's why I can't wait until spring / summer when I can drive the '65 Impala again - haven't driven it since last fall.
They don't get a pass: they're land yachts. However, they're not as known for land yachts as Cadillac (and Lincoln).
I think the Lucerne might make more sense moved over to Chevy, and rebadged as a Caprice. It would probably cause confusion at Cadillac, because of its large size and low-price. The V-6 Lucerne, IMO, isn't prestigious enough to be a Cadillac. And the V-8 model would make people question why they should pay $10K or whatever more for a DTS.
As a Chevy though, the V-6 model would be right at home. And if they wanted to cost-cut a bit, for the V-8 option they could take out the Northstar and put in the 5.3 from the Impala SS.
You forgot Bantaam (sp.?) - the originator of the Jeep, or General Purpose - GP for short -, and Ford.
I know the feeling! I had my '67 Catalina out on Saturday, driving around. I wanted to put the top down SOOOO bad, but I've only had the car back from the mechanic about a month, and he said to wait a few months to let the new top stretch out. But, being February, and 40 degrees, I guess it would've been kinda dumb to put the top down anyway. :shades: