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.
Options

GM News, New Models and Market Share

18889919394631

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    That may have been the slowest car I've ever driven. It was sharp though. It also had a limited slip rear dif. like it needed that.. LOL.

    I could've used limited slip yesterday, when I got my '85 Silverado stuck in the yard. :blush: Can't wait for the snow to melt, and see what kind of landscaping I inadvertently did.

    I've always wondered if it was really worth it to come out with those undersized V-8's. The Olds 260 was actually the lowest-rated, only 100-110 hp, depending on the year. I think the Chevy 267 had 115-125 hp, depending on the year, while the Pontiac 265 put out about 120 hp. But in that same era, they had the Buick 231 V-6 that had 105-115 hp, the Chevy 229, with 110-115, the Chevy 250 inline-6 with 105-110, and the Buick 252 V-6 with 125 hp.

    The V-8's might have been slightly torquier, but they'd also be heavier, so that probably offset most of the power gain.

    CR tested a 1977 Cutlass sedan with the 260 V-8. They pitted it against an Impala/Caprice 305, an LTD-II with a 302, and Fury or Monaco with a 318 I think there might have been an AMC Matador in that test, too. The test was supposed to showcase how advanced the downsized big Chevy was, and how obsolete it made the old-school intermediates. And for the most part, the Chevy did well. I think the Mopar 318 was slightly quicker, although 0-60 came up in around 12-13 seconds for all of them...except the Cutlass. I think it clocked 0-60 in around 21 seconds! :surprise:

    One of the most mismatched engine choices I can think of was the 1976 Buick LeSabre, which offered a 231 V-6. If the midsized Cutlass was clocking ~21 seconds with 100-110 hp, I hate to think how long it would take a mammoth, pre-downsized LeSabre with similar hp, but probably less torque!
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    I think it clocked 0-60 in around 21 seconds! :surprise:

    One of the most mismatched engine choices I can think of was the 1976 Buick LeSabre, which offered a 231 V-6. If the midsized Cutlass was clocking ~21 seconds with 100-110 hp, I hate to think how long it would take a mammoth, pre-downsized LeSabre with similar hp, but probably less torque!


    No that's not a surprise. My '86 Escort with a 4 speed manual felt like a rocket compared to my friends 260 v8 powered Cutlass. 21 seconds to 60 in just insane. That could get you killed in big city traffic now days.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    were down 52.9% at GM, the largest drop of the Big 6.

    http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches-030309- .aspx

    General Motors (GM, news, msgs) said its sales fell 52.9% from a year ago. Ford Motor (F, news, msgs) said its February sales were off 48%. Toyota Motor (TM, news, msgs) said its sales fell 40% from a year ago.

    .....The recession is wreaking havoc with the automakers. And it doesn't matter if you're based in the United States or elsewhere.

    General Motors sales fell to 127,296 units in February from 270,423 units a year ago. Ford sales were down 48% to 99,050, including sales from its Volvo subsidiary. And Toyota sales were down 40% to 109,583.

    Chrysler Group said sales fell 44% to 84,050. But the company said most of the sales decline was due to falling "fleet sales" -- sales of vehicles to large buyers like rental-car companies.

    The sales translated into a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of 9.1 million units, the worst level since December 1981, when the population was 25% lower, market researcher Autodata said.

    Analysts had forecast a seasonally annualized adjusted rate of sales of 9 million to 10 million. (That statistic shows what sales would be for the full year if they continued at the same rate as that month with adjustments for typical seasonal fluctuations.)

    Total sales for GM, Ford and Chrysler plunged 37% in January.

    Analysts were hopeful that the first quarter would be the bottom for auto sales, but that assumes the economy starts to perk up again in the fall. As it is, the automakers aren't making big bets. Ford said it would cut production in the second quarter by 38%.


    I don't foresee a late-2009 bounce-back for the auto industry or the economy, do you? I can't imagine giving any more money to GM and even attempting to call it a "loan" with a straight face.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Member Posts: 3,062
    Saw artricle in newspaper that GM was trying to sell part of Opel. Maybe now would be a good time for them to try to get rid of Buick brand while it still has some value with someone in the world, the Chinese. They are flush with cash and like Buicks. This would fit right in with their rising middle class who would buy Buicks. By selling Buick to Chinese, US taxpayers hopefully would be able to stop baling out GM.

    Saw an article today in WSJ that Geely of China was going to bid on Volvo. Geely not big enough to also buy Buick, but maybe Chinese govt could step in and help them. Let's see, would they name the Lacrosse the Geely Lacrosse or the Geely Buick Lacrosse Deluxe. They could sell them at Walmart just like thousands of other Chinese stuff.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    By selling Buick to Chinese, US taxpayers hopefully would be able to stop baling out GM.

    This company is losing like $2 billion a month. There is no way a sale of Buick would fund more than maybe 15 days of that torrential cascade of dollars. Probably more like 10 days.

    I thought the Geely bid for Volvo had been ruled out for some reason? Maybe I am thinking of something else.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    I don't foresee a late-2009 bounce-back for the auto industry or the economy, do you? I can't imagine giving any more money to GM and even attempting to call it a "loan" with a straight face.

    No. (If you look at the congressional meetings, no one has a straight face.)

    The SAAR could drop to $9MM or under. The problem with the forecasters is they can't predict consumer buying patterns correctly. The economy has not bottomed yet. Keep watching the jobs numbers. If job losses contract, that indicates a mark toward a bottom. We're not there yet. This could last another year as a V-shaped recovery is extremely highly unlikely.

    C11 with or without a straight face is going to happen. Call it anything they want.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Industry sales plummeted 41 percent last month to a 9.1 million vehicle annual rate, the lowest since December 1981, according to Autodata Corp. GM, surviving with the aid of government loans, reported a 53 percent drop.

    At that level, nearly every automaker is struggling and GM and Chrysler, which are requesting $21.6 billion in additional loans from the U.S. government, said they likely will need it all. Additional government aid to keep the automakers out of bankruptcy is making less sense, because it has become difficult to project an end to the sales declines, said Stephen Spivey, an automotive analyst at Frost & Sullivan in San Antonio.

    “If it stays contracted at this rate for a significant period of time, the bridge loans are being recalled and they are going into bankruptcy,” Spivey said yesterday in an interview after the sales results.


    I believe that this will be the case as the recovery is now being predicted towards the end of 2009 at the earliest. Stands to reason if the stock market is a 6 month leading indicator.

    Best case scenario is Obama's team keeps pumping loans into GM and C to keep operating. There is no model that makes profit at these levels of sales in the US. Subaru is the only marquee that had positive sales numbers.

    Regards,
    OW

    Regards,
    OW
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    I believe that this will be the case as the recovery is now being predicted towards the end of 2009 at the earliest.

    Those people are ridiculous, or foolish optimists. The effect of all these layoffs the last couple of months has not really hit the economy yet. If these people haven't found a job, they are probably drawing down any savings or putting their expenses on credit cards. If they haven't found a job when unemployment runs out late this year, then that accelerates.
    Millions of people defaulting on credit cards, which again were given out to everyone regardless of ability to repay, is the next crisis that will hit the financial industries. There won't be any recovery in 2010.
    my prediction is if the government does everything right, we have about a 25% chance of avoiding a full-blown depression.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Millions of people defaulting on credit cards, which again were given out to everyone regardless of ability to repay, is the next crisis that will hit the financial industries.

    That is way overblown in my opinion. Credit card debt outstanding is about $1 Trillion compared to over $12 trillion for mortgage debt. CC debt/income has stayed around 9% since 1999. Mortgages OTOH, have gone from 65% debt/income in 2000 to over 100% in 2008, meaning it was a bubble that had to pop. No doubt delinquencies will increase, but I don't believe it will create problems like the mortgages have.

    I do agree that the process of deleveraging will take probably until at least 2010 to clear up. With boomers trying to save more for retirement to make up for what they've lost in the market and their real estate holdings, buying an expensive car is probably the last thing on their mind. This was the case for my parents. They have a second house in Florida they've been trying to sell for 2 years. Dad was planning on a loaded CTS or MKS type car. Instead of spending 45-50 grand on a car, he cut back spent under $30k for a loaded Accord. My parents went from traveling and spending on themselves and the grand kids to trying to save every penny to bulk up their funds.

    Same thing happened in Japan in the 90's. Car sales in Japan never recovered. Granted their demographics are a bit different from ours, but the parallels between their problems and ours are quite alarming. It will be along time until we see 16 million plus cars a year. The days of people trading every two years may never return.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    dispicable.
    Atrocious.
    Terrible.
    Miserable.
    Incompetent.
    Fraudulant.
    Forseeable.
    Completely Predictable.
    A runaway train.
    It's over, time to throw in the towel!

    They should go bankrupt in disgrace. If they'd of disappeared 10 years ago, they could have dissappeared with a tiny bit of honor, but no more, that opportunity has long passed.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Not to much time left...History will soon be made.

    GM auditors raise doubts on automaker's viability
    GM auditors cite losses, lack of cash flow in raising doubts about its viability


    * Tom Krisher, AP Auto Writer
    * Thursday March 5, 2009, 6:37 am EST

    DETROIT (AP) -- General Motors Corp. says its auditors have raised substantial doubt about the company's ability to continue operations.

    The troubled automaker revealed the auditors' concerns in its annual report filed on Thursday.

    GM has received $13.4 billion in federal loans as it tries to survive the worst auto sales climate in 27 years. It is seeking a total of $30 billion from the government. During the past three years it has piled up $82 billion in losses, including $30.9 billion in 2008.

    GM says in its report that its auditors cited recurring losses from operations, stockholders' deficit and an inability to generate enough cash to meet its obligations in raising substantial doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern.

    Regards,
    OW
  • kernickkernick Member Posts: 4,072
    Credit card debt outstanding is about $1 Trillion

    That is now. It will be much higher in 9 - 12 months. Maybe $2T then. $1T - $2T is certainly MORE than all the TARP funds which are now being used to save the banks from crisis. So you think it's no big deal the government will just throw another $1T+ at the banks? And because of the credit card defaults even good customers (backlash), will have trouble getting a card and pay 20% interest?

    I agree with you otherwise.

    GM and Chrysler are toast unless the government decides to subsidize them for years to come.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I read that piece. It sounds more like liquidation than reorganization. With vehicles sitting in ships offshore and storage lots overflowing. I don't think anyone but Lemko would notice if GM turned off the lights and closed their doors. With the inventory backlog the dealers could probably go another year.

    Reminds me of the 1960s when I visited my folks in Idaho. There was a huge surplus of potatoes. The farmers could not give them away so they rotted in the ground. Maybe the auto manufacturers should get tied in with the lottery and give cars away on lottery tickets.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    That is now. It will be much higher in 9 - 12 months. Maybe $2T then. $1T - $2T is certainly MORE than all the TARP funds which are now being used to save the banks from crisis. So you think it's no big deal the government will just throw another $1T+ at the banks? And because of the credit card defaults even good customers (backlash), will have trouble getting a card and pay 20% interest?

    I understand where your coming from, but banks have been cutting credit card limits and even if CC debt doubles to 2T, it's crazy to think it's all going to default. Current CC default rates are around 7% and is expected to peak around 10%. 2005 was the highest CC default rate ever at 7.5% when people rushed to bankruptcy court to avoid changes bankruptcy laws that were implemented.

    It will be a problem with the recovery, but at this point, I don't see it being anywhere near the problem as the mortgage mess. Retailing may never be the same. That shake out has only begun. I think peoples outlook on debt is changing and I'm concerned we will go from having excessive personal spending to excessive savings.

    Granted, this whole thing is still developing, and certainly I'm only presenting my opinion based on the info I've read. I'm not saying your wrong, but only my opinion differs from yours. I hope we're both wrong and the recovery is upon us.

    Really what this all means is the likely hood of GM surviving w/o government assistance for the next few years is slim. I expect some type of bankruptcy, I don't see how they ever be profitable at their current debt levels. That debt has to go away.
  • bvdj84bvdj84 Member Posts: 1,724
    GM has had plenty of chances to regain control. They have made the company so huge, not realizing that all news cars will not gain an income. It might seem like a really cool idea, but I wonder if they did studies to see if the car would sell. Even in the market now, they continue to release the big SUV's, when the market has shifted a bit and people are not looking for huge SUV's like they used to. Or like any other car, seems like a really cool car, but when its so comparable to the car next to it, that it doesn't sell enough to make ends. Costs more to make, that is the real issue. I have noticed a really stale market for the company, they need to move the cars they have still sitting on the lots. Some of which have now been there for a year now. I know that goes for the whole market, its a bit slow, but they have really stopped moving. People will be a bit nervous in buying from GM.

    I have no sympathy for them, when the let all those chances slip right on by. They will go under, if they do not do something drastic to fix or control the issues. This does NOT mean borrowing more money. I am not sure what could be done, perhaps a HUGE downsize. It will hurt, but not as much as when they go completely under. Either take the blow now, or take such a huge hit, that they might not ever be able to recover enough to move ahead. However, people will certainly remember this, and doubt the company. That alone will limit its buyers now and in the future. As a consumer, why would I want to buy a new car that is already so upside down in value, that I will never be able to sell or trade the car for years. Its to where the real-world values of the cars are not on par with the price tag on the car. The differences are great.

    I do not want them to fail. I believe they can be a great company, they just got too big for their own good, too big of an ego. It finally caught up with them.
    However, they should not borrow anymore money. I do not want failure for them.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Funny thing about cutting credit limits. I got notice from one card on this. They've been raising the limit for years and I don't even use the card more than once in a while. They still left enough credit on there that I could go out and buy a nice family sedan with it. (Well, except that no one would accept a credit card payment for a whole car.) I have no idea what they accomplished with changing the limit other than wasting postage.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    GM piled up $82 billion in losses in three years, years in which the annual sales were never less than 13 million.

    They are functionally broke, every loss from now on must be funded dollar for dollar by more government bailout.

    For the remainder of 2009, their costs will be as high as they were last year, save for some new labor savings, unless they can get their debts reorganized and mostly forgiven, which seems unlikely given that they want to pay stock and debtholders in new GM stock - what good is that in a company with no future?

    The amount they may generate from a sale of Hummer and Saab, even if both are successful, is a drop in the bucket of their enormous ongoing losses.

    This company is a corpse in denial of its own death. If the taxpayers prop up this company in a new environment of much lower annual sales, we will be out $30, $40, maybe $50 billion per year for the next couple of years that WE WILL NEVER GET BACK. Why is that worth it? It is much higher than the costs that would be incurred from just liquidating. And there will still be a domestic auto industry, if for no other reason than that Ford is still out there quietly ticking along. When it all shakes out in the liquidation, I am betting the Chevy and Cadillac brands will continue operating - someone will want to pick them up, and in a liquidation the price should be right.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I use but one card and I have a high enough limit to charge a Cadillac CTS if I wanted to. However, I keep no balance on the card. You're a chump if you do. The guy from Visa is making money for doing nothing from the interest. It isn't like you'll see this scenario, "Hi, I'm Bob from Visa! I see you're paying 14% interest on your Citibank card. Is there anything I can do for you? Mow your lawn? Clean your bathroom?" No. The likely scenario is a fat slob in an Armani suit smoking a big cigar and holding a glass of brandy! "Ha ha ha ha! Look at this idiot in Philly paying me all that money in interest and I'm just sitting on my butt all day!"
  • tlongtlong Member Posts: 5,194
    This company is a corpse in denial of its own death.

    So well put! The best outcome would be a way to save the 20% (I'm being charitable) of GM that is really good and discard the rest. Preserve the gold nuggets of the US auto industry and trash all else.
  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,386
    Absolutely.

    Balances are nuts on plastic.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • dave8697dave8697 Member Posts: 1,498
    For the remainder of 2009, their costs will be as high as they were last year, save for some new labor savings, unless they can get their debts reorganized and mostly forgiven

    costs are a function of quantity of products produced. As they build less cars, they order less parts from suppliers. Their costs are dropping significantly. Their fixed costs like owning the Milford Proving Grounds and payinf CEO's does remain the same. Their interest on debt is going up. The reduced parts ordering, however, is steering the ship right now.
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Maybe the auto manufacturers should get tied in with the lottery and give cars away on lottery tickets.

    That's an extremely better business model than the current state of affairs.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Understand your points and agree. Too big to fail does not apply, however. They already failed. Just like the banks. They FAILED.

    The next step is: Pay me now or later but you WILL pay.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    They are really helping your credit rating in the long run by raising your limits even if you do not use the card.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Agreed...Chevy and Cadillac should survive in the end. That is the perfect business model that GM SHOULD be aligning to but, alas, did anyone expect them to do the right thing now???????

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Hey, don't laugh but the Hotel Manager at a Marriott in NJ cleaned the snow off the cars of his customers on Monday morning! My wife is staying there on business and she was SHOCKED to see this. The guy cleaned off over 30 cars with the help of his maintenance guy!

    Interesting!

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Member Posts: 8,666
    Don't look now but the TITANIC is about to slip under the water never to be seen again...except on Discovery!

    Regards,
    OW
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    ...uh, there's got to be some room for Buick in there. I'd be extremely happy with a GM that consisted of just Chevrolet-Buick-Cadillac.

    Chevrolet would build the trucks, vans, SUVs, Cross-overs, Corvette, and everyday subcompact, compact, and midsize cars.

    Buick would build upscale near-luxury cars in the same tier as, say, Acura.

    Cadillac would be no-holds-barred, no-compromises luxury cars.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Well, I'll stand on the deck and proudly go down with it. The end of GM, (and almost certain death of Chrysler) pretty much means the end of my new car buying days forever. Heck, if any domestic company could've sank, why couldn't it be Ford? Aside from the Mustang and soon-to-be-dead Mercury Grand Marquis, I find the remainder of their lineup to be as palatable as nine day-old cold Brussels sprouts! :sick:
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    I think a big part of why Ford is doing better is that they concentrated on making better more reliable cars, not providing longer warranties for crappy cars like GM and Chrysler have.

    I know, you never got a lemon from the Big 3. However, I'd hypothesize that Ford has sold less lemons than GM or Chrysler.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Funny, I never needed the warranties on my GM or Chrysler cars.

    Even in the heyday of the Big Three, I'd have chosen a Cadillac or Imperial over a Lincoln. Ford cars always seemed rather dull compared to their competition. Maybe they just fit in better in this age of dull, tedious, boring, soulless, appliance-like, zero-personality cars. Good God, what a choice. Ford or an import. That's like choosing between a root canal sans Novocaine or spinal tap sans anesthetic! :cry:
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    The new Fusion and Taurus are getting very good press, every bit the equal of the favorable reviews of the Malibu. But Ford is also bringing out a new Focus for 2011, and the Fiesta. That's four.

    By comparison, GM has...? It has introduced the FOURTH version of its Lambda crossover. Aveo, Cobalt, and Impala have much murkier futures, it would seem, what with Cruze on hold or pushed back, and a new Lacrosse coming without any such happy news for the Impala.....indeed this is perfectly typical of why GM is failing, and proof that even on the verge of collapse it is unable to change.

    It's time for GM to be reorganized from without, under the safety umbrella of the government's helping hands. There's no point in flushing any more money down this drain.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Ford cars always seemed rather dull compared to their competition. Maybe they just fit in better in this age of dull, tedious, boring, soulless, appliance-like, zero-personality cars

    Dude, not to be cliche, but...Have you driven a Ford? Lately? These days they're more like the antonym of "dull, tedious, boring, soulless, appliance-like, zero-personality." Those adjectives I would instead apply to all GMs not branded Cadillac (and some that are).
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    I've driven a Fusion...lately. Although it was a solid-feeling car, it did nothing for me. It's just a well-built appliance like my 12 year-old Whirlpool washing machine. It gets the job done and nothing else - an American Camry. Snoooorrrrre!!!
  • carnaughtcarnaught Member Posts: 3,576
    I've driven a Fusion...lately. Although it was a solid-feeling car, it did nothing for me. It's just a well-built appliance like my 12 year-old Whirlpool washing machine. It gets the job done and nothing else - an American Camry.

    Wow, those are powerful words from a Buick owner.
  • delthekingdeltheking Member Posts: 1,152
    Hi,in an ideal world there should be 3 gm brands.Chevy-with all sedans,crossovers,suv`s,trucks. Cadillac- all luxury cars. Saturn- cool, chic,catering to gen-x,funky,,like scion of toyota.
    Alas it is not an ideal world.The best case scenario-Gm needs to file bankruptcy.It has too many brands,insurmountable costs,poor reliability and horrible resale values.
    They cannot undergo cost restructuring without bankruptcy.
    They make such lousy cars, I wonder how people still are buying them.Most of the people buying cars do not want to be in the mechanic`s shop or cars with poor rides or comfort.It is better they close,since that is the only way to eliminate their costs.
    And,America need not worry.We will get a new leaner,reliable domestic automaker.that is just the way of capitalism.Poor performers lose,, better ones survive.
    A nice example would be the legacy airline carriers vs the low cost ones like southwest or Jetblue.They are more efficient,flexible with good management.So I would say,,let GM go down under,,,we will get a more efficient domestic alternative instead,,as people inevitably have to buy cars .
    Just,mho.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    Wow, those are powerful words from a Buick owner.

    Yeah, kind of like the pot calling the go-kart an appliance.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Yeah, kind of like the pot calling the go-kart an appliance.

    LOL. Buick is not an appliance, but a suede covered couch with wheels, I have some high tech appliances that are engineered well.

    I've driven many, many Buick's over the past few decades in in my opinion every one SUCKED!!!!!!!! Unless your a passenger, then you ride in relative comfort.

    I'll give the Enclave and a v8 Lucerne a pass since I've never driven them. The 3.8 powered Lucerne OTOH can go straight to the crusher though. That engine has absolutely no business being put in anything other than a low rent car. So maybe it is okay. LOL
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Member Posts: 2,743
    The 3.8 powered Lucerne OTOH can go straight to the crusher though. That engine has absolutely no business being put in anything other than a low rent car.

    it IS in a low-rent car...it's in a GM. :shades:
  • dino001dino001 Member Posts: 6,191
    Perhaps on a grocery trip. The seats are an absolute disaster on trips longer than 200 miles. Zero back support, awkward recline angles, zero lateral support. In my book that is not comfortable. Before I knew anything, I learned that Detroit, and GM especially, was absolutely incapable of building a driver's seat that would not kill your back. Well - perhaps on Corvette they did. So - yes they were capable, just not on a car that cost less than $30K.

    2018 430i Gran Coupe

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    what's crucial and compelling right now is not the relative merit of GM vehicles, but rather the totally hopeless position they are in - they made $9 billion of the government's (taxpayers') money disappear in just about two months, from late December to late February. They have no viable plan in place or even PROPOSED to reduce their expenses by much this year. No-one, not the UAW, not the bondholders, will give them the breaks they need.

    10 more months this year = $45 billion that will disappear by Christmas, and for what? How much would it cost us to mop after the mess GM makes when it falls, instead of trying to prevent the fall? If there are really 1 million people that would lose their job by year's end, that's still $45,000 per worker. If it is just a case of propping up suppliers, that could be done for 1/10th of the cost of propping up GM.

    And now they are saying that even with the extra $4 billion the government just gave them, they won't make it to month's end!!!!!!!!!!

    START THE CH. 7 PROCEEDINGS NOW.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,023
    Before I knew anything, I learned that Detroit, and GM especially, was absolutely incapable of building a driver's seat that would not kill your back.

    I think that might depend on the person just as much as the car. FWIW, most cars nowadays kill my lower back given enough time, because the shape of the seat often forces me into a slouching position. It's as if there's too much padding up high around my shoulders, and not enough down around my lower back.

    Strangely enough, one of the best cars I've ever had for lower back support is a 1976 Grand LeMans. Now, it does other things bad, such as having no side bolstering to keep you in place during spirited driving, and headrests that would be of no use whatsoever if the car got rear-ended. But it still manages to do two things that many modern cars are incapable of...support my lower back and give me thigh support.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,934
    they should go bankrupt since about the year 2000.

    Think of how rich I'd be if Americans had appointed me the dictator of the USA back in 2000. How much money would I have saved taxpayers since 2000 if I had closed the doors on 1/1/00? All that money could have made all us Americans much more wealthy.

    How much have they lost in the last 9 years? The number must be gigantic.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....I think a big part of why Ford is doing better is that they concentrated on making better more reliable cars, not providing longer warranties for crappy cars like GM and Chrysler have."

    I don't think so. They aren't in the soup like the other 2 because they mortgaged their proporties to the hilt for a line of credit. God forbid this economy stays sour for more than a year and they will find themselves right where GM is now.

    And if Toyota is truely has the debt that some have suggested ($120 billion) from expanding as much as they have the last few years, then they can't be far behind, either.
  • dieselonedieselone Member Posts: 5,729
    Perhaps on a grocery trip. The seats are an absolute disaster on trips longer than 200 miles. Zero back support, awkward recline angles, zero lateral support. In my book that is not comfortable. Before I knew anything, I learned that Detroit, and GM especially, was absolutely incapable of building a driver's seat that would not kill your back. Well - perhaps on Corvette they did. So - yes they were capable, just not on a car that cost less than $30K.

    Good point, Ford's have been hit or miss. The seats in the '98 Ford SVT Contour I had were among the most comfortable of any vehicle I've owned. My Suburban was pretty bad, comfortable for about an hour, then I couldn't wait to get out of it. My 07 Expedition is really comfortable, my wife's 07 Grand Prix company car is horrible. GM should be ashamed to put such a horrible product on the street. They should hand out chiropractic services with each one of those POS's they put on the street.
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....They make such lousy cars, I wonder how people still are buying them."

    OK Homey, I'll bite. What makes you and "expert" on how lousy they are????
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    ".....The seats are an absolute disaster on trips longer than 200 miles. Zero back support, awkward recline angles, zero lateral support."

    Well, I've taken my Park Avenue AND my Rainier on several trips longer than 200 miles, and they are comfortable. Great rides, quiet, nice equiptment, and great fuel economy. I've never gotten less than 30 mpg in the P.A. (which is rated at 27), and 22 in the Rainier (which is rated at 20). And no, I wasn't alone. There was at least 600 lbs in passengers.
  • bmgpebmgpe Member Posts: 62
    1966 Buick Wildcat convertible. 401 nailhead, bucket seats, console, factory A/C, looking for a good home. Can't figure out how to include pictures. Lemko, help! (seriously)
  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Member Posts: 2,770
    Try V8Buick.com I have a '65 Wildcat convertible. They have a for sale thread.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,675
    Exactly right. I've driven my cars for full day trips with only a stop for lunch and still arrived comfortable and not shaken up. The 3800 Series II motors deliver more than enough power for a normal driver. I chose these cars over test drives of the sort of equivalent competitors from the foreign companies because of a better ride, more room, better seats, and ability to give me what I want.

    The big problem I see if that people keep repeating things that aren't true about specific things such as the 3800 and keep repeating generalities about the GM cars without any real reason other than it's in to be against the US brands.

    Sometimes people recite stories about a car they had or someone they knew had a car that's decades ago and that's their reason to hate GM. Things changed at GM, although slowly, and today's cars are better and competition to the foreign company's equivalent offerings. People need to take a good look at the change.

    Couple that with all the negativity toward spending by the population today and GM is having trouble even selling cars. With constant news that they might be out of business reminding people every day, many are afraid to buy a vehicle. Add the lack of leadership from the administration many people are holding back on all spending.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

Sign In or Register to comment.