Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
Well, Edmunds says $1200, unless there's a mfgr to dealer incentive of another $300 for the '07.
Still to pull the 4Runner out of the air as an example of Toyota overproducing is a stretch. They can barely keep up with demand for the Camry, Corolla, Prius, Yaris, and RAV4. Even the old Tundra sales were down minimially for 2006 CY compared to 2005. The Tacoma is far and away the biggest selling compact/midsize pickup.
G.M. will still reign as King of Trucks and SUVS even though there will be more competition from Toyota because GM has more selection. They seem to know how to build trucks that people want, but not cars.
liked GM's showing at the auto show (unlike what he thought of Ford and Chrysler), and thought it out-greened Toyota (not a hard thing to do with 'Yota introducing the most monstrous truck in their history! ;-)):
The real winner here is, again, Lexus. At this stage Lexus is invincible. The distance between Lexus and second best seller, BMW, is almost 50,000 units. The distance between Lexus and Cadillac is almost 100,000 units. In the month of December, Lexus sold a whopping 37,200 units.
1- Lexus: ---------- 322,434 up 7% 2- BMW: ------------ 274,432 up 3% 3- Mercedes: ------- 248,080 up 11% 4- Cadillac: ------- 227,014 down 3% 5- Acura: ---------- 201,223 down 4% 6- Infiniti: ------- 121,146 down 11% 7- Lincoln: -------- 120,476 down 2% 8- Volvo: ---------- 115,807 down 6% 9- Audi: ----------- 90,116 up 9% 10- L. Rover: ------ 47,774 up 4% 11- Saab: ---------- 36,349 down 5% 12- Porsche : ------ 34,227 up 7% 13- Jaguar: -------- 20,683 down 32%
If you go to the Detroit show you will find that the big trucks dominate over the cars at the Toyota stand. They are pushing the trucks, not the hybrids or small cars.
General Motors Corp. will probably report a decrease in new-vehicle sales for January after trimming sales to rental-car companies by 30,000 this month, the company's marketing chief said in an interview.
That would bring GM about halfway to its goal of cutting 75,000 rental sales this year, said Mark LaNeve, who oversees North American sales and marketing. GM is trying to trim wholesale purchases because profit on those transactions is slim.
“You've got to bite the bullet on fleet sales and get them down,'' Kevin Tynan, an analyst with Argus Research Corp. in New York, said today. “They've been doing these just for the sake of market share and it's hurting profits.''
Reducing rental sales will further GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner's plan to endure short-term U.S. market share losses in exchange for getting more profit per vehicle. GM's U.S. market share is at an 81-year low, and 2006 sales were the lowest since 1970.
GM, the world's largest automaker, sold 1.1 million cars and trucks to U.S. business customers last year, including 650,000 to rental companies, LaNeve said. They accounted for about a quarter of GM's total 4.07 million U.S. sales in 2006.
GM plans to eliminate as many as 10,000 rental sales each month from February through June and will have about 65,000 of the planned cuts complete by mid-year, LaNeve said. GM will cut North American production this quarter by 10 percent, primarily because of the reduced rental-car sales, he said.
With the reduction in fleet sales, it will be hard for GM to increase overall sales this year, according to LaNeve. That may frustrate investors who only look at total sales figures.
“Sweet” might best describe General Motors’ moment to exhale.
The automaker’s sweep this month of the 2007 Car and Truck of the Year awards presented at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit could not have come at a better time.
With 11 vehicles vying for the car category and 15 for the truck designation, recognition by 49 automotive journalists from the U.S. and Canada appears to signal new product-development strategies are working.
Particularly considering GM’s Saturn all-new Aura midsize sedan beat out two strong Japanese-brand finalists, the Toyota Camry and Honda Fit subcompact, and its redesigned fullsize Silverado pickup topped the all-new Ford Edge and Mazda CX7 cross/utilities.
Indeed, GM’s win marks only the second time in the 14-year history of the annual competition that one automaker has taken both awards. Honda won last year with its all-new ’06 Civic and Ridgeline midsize pickup.
But the win also is remarkable for other reasons. The formidable challenges faced by GM playing out in critical arenas over the last year would have been enough to take the focus off new product for any company:
Sliding vehicle sales due to rising fuel prices.
A boardroom drama pitting Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner against billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian’s proposed partnership with Carlos Ghosn’s Renault-Nissan Alliance.
A delay in filing first-quarter financials due to accounting irregularities.
A drastic restructuring calling for the closing of 12 plants and the elimination 34,000 employees, about 30 percent, of its hourly workforce.
While GM last year lost $10.6 billion, it says it now is set for profitability in 2007 thanks to massive cost cutting over the last 12 months. But analysts repeatedly have told Detroit’s Big Three aggressive cost-cutting their way to profit is not sustainable without strong product.
And that’s where winning the car and truck awards come in.
It sends a message that while there were “bombs across the air last year, every way, shape and form they could have come, the vast majority of the people at GM were doing exactly what they should,” Wagoner tells reporters at the auto show.
That would include creating the Chevrolet Volt Concept, arguably one of the most important concepts to debut in Detroit. GM says the plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle is capable of 150 mpg (1.56 L/100 km). But unlike traditional HEVs, the Volt’s internal combustion engine does not provide propulsion.
Instead, it is designed to run solely on charged electric power for a range of 40 miles (64 km). When that power supply starts to wane, a 1.L, 3-cyl. turbocharged engine, burning gasoline or alternative fuels, kicks in to generate power to run the electric motor.
The Volt stores energy via a lithium-ion battery pack – supplier technology that is still very much in the development stage.
Mark LaNeve, vice president-sales, service and marketing, acknowledges it’s “very important” from an engineering and public perception standpoint for GM to bring the Volt to market.
“The idea is elegantly simple,” he says. “It gets people to think about (fuel economy issues) differently.”
More importantly, it will get people thinking about GM differently.
DETROIT – The automakers got a little, and now they want a little more.
Last year, Ford and General Motors won health-care and other concessions from the United Auto Workers union. With those two still struggling to return to profitability and contract negotiations looming this fall, the automakers say they expect the union to make more sacrifices.
"We have open communication with the union," said Gary Cowger, executive vice president in charge of manufacturing and labor relations for General Motors, noting the dialogue between the automakers and the UAW for the last year. "The union recognizes the business model needs to change. We've gotten health-care and attrition [buyout offers] changes the last two years. The union is willing to listen to what needs to be done." Cowger stopped short of detailing what automakers want.
"We aren't going to bargain in the press," he said.
UAW spokesman Roger Kerson echoed that, saying the union would have no comment on the automakers asking for more concessions.
"We aren't going to negotiate in the media," he said.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner, however, was not as reluctant.
"We've made some big steps with labor union problems but we aren't going to reduce the gap to zero," he said of the estimated $1,500 added to each domestic vehicle to cover health care. That gives a huge cost advantage to the Japanese, who employ non-union labor at their U.S. plants. The government covers health care in Japan.
"There's a spirit of cooperation, but we're still at a disadvantage in postretirement health care," Wagoner said. "Japan still doesn't have to write a multibillion-dollar check like we do each year to cover retirees. And the jobs bank, of course, is an area of uncompetitiveness."
The jobs bank ensures employees of an idled plant continue to get paid.
Alan Mulally, president and CEO of Ford, echoed Wagoner on the cooperation but didn't mention what Ford hopes to get out of this year's contract.
"The union negotiations will be tough but I'm confident, very confident, we can all work together. The union understands we are all in this together," he said.
Such dialogue is what garnered Ford and GM another concession last year. Under the contract, the union was entitled to a $1 per hour cost-of-living raise, but it agreed the money would be put toward health-care costs, instead.
Even with such cooperation, Chrysler is still waiting for the UAW to bend. The union approved the givebacks when Ford and GM were posting hefty losses. At the time, however, Chrysler was posting profits and got nothing.
The company remains hopeful, according to President and CEO Tom LaSorda.
In the third quarter, Chrysler lost $1.5 billion and is expected to report a loss of $1.3 billion for the year, so UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is reconsidering.
"We didn't get concessions like GM and Ford, but Gettelfinger came back to us in December and asked for more financial information to review," LaSorda said. "We gave it all to them by Dec. 22 and now they have said they want more dialogue with us. Ron understands where we are at now."
LaSorda said Chrysler hopes to be more on a par with Ford and GM before talks officially open this fall.
Troy Clarke, president of GM's North American operations, said no one should expect anything precedent-setting, despite the union's sense of candor and urgency. "They have some rather liberal benefits now. To be precedent-setting would take changes that are really not attainable," he said.
I dont care what edmunds TMV says, check you local paper and get back to me. That's all I'm asking. In the Philly area local Toyota dealers are discounting Tundras, Tacomas, Siennas, Sequoias and 4Runners BIG TIME. The ads are all about how many thousands you can save off MSRP. BTW, Pruis sales have been stablizing and days on the market have increased. The RAV4 and Corolla appear to be doing very well. The point is GM bashers are real experts on everything GM has and is doing wrong but fail to realize that Toyota and others engage in similar behaviors. The media and GM bashers (actually they may be one in the same) preached that GM was forcing gas guzzlers down the throats of the public and offering huge discounts to keep us addicted for foreign oil. Yet when I check my local ads, Nissan and Toyota are offering the biggest truck rebates and discounts. Chrysler is up there as well. Toyota is propping up its sales with huge discounts, but they are NOT national incentives. Toyota keeps its average incentive figure low my minimizing national programs and allowing discounts to be handed out at the dealer level. This helps them avoid the bad press the BIg 3 get by having high standardized incentives. As I said, Toyota is more concerned about posting huge monthly sales increases and passing GM than cutting production of dated gas, guzzling trucks that are decreasing in popularity.
Making statements about GM being committed to producing nothing but mediocre vehicles sounds good in the GM bashing echo chamber but it doesnt jive with reality.
GM has lost share for 30 years for many reasons. lack of commitment to exciting vehicles and quality are only two of them and both have been addressed. The reality is increased competition leads to decreased marketshare for the early leaders in that industry. Back in the day EVERYONE but the big 3 were bit players in the US market and they Big 3 split the lion's share of the market. Now Hyundai, Honda, Nissan and Toyota are full line manufacturers with complete lineups. As they expand their offerings they pick up share, there is little the former market leaders can do about it. Yes, it's possible that GM could have a 30% share instead of 25% if they had been more focused 15-20 years ago but the days of 50% share are long gone and rightly so in this type of market. Get real. European carmakers all have LESS share at home than GM has in the US. Are you saying that VW and MB make mediocre products since they have lost share? I ask this question to GM bashers and never get a real answer.
When you say GM doesn't design anything above average its obvious you are either a0 unknowledgable about current GM offerings or b)you know what they offer but chose to ignore the facts. Any company that makes the V series cadillacs, Escalade, Aura, Sky, C6, XLR, '08 CTS, SRX, Cobalt SS supercharged and until recently the GTO cannot be considered a purveyor of nothing but bland products.
"Unfortunately, since about 1980 GM seems to have been guided by the maxim you described, hence the constant decline in market share and multi-billion dollar losses. "
GM was making money as recently as 2004. Are you confident they will post a multi billion dollar loss this year? I'm not.
"The problem is that GM's competitive offerings are inferior to rival Hondas and Toyotas in those respective market segments, although the new Saturn Aura is a giant step forward for GM."
Other than fuel economy explain why the Cobalt is inferior to the Corolla in subjective terms. Do the same for the Aura/G6 vs Accord. BTW, resale value isnt an engineered feature so don't count that. I want you to tell me how the Accord is superior in terms of design, space, features, performance and price.
"You must have forgotten about the Civic Si, and Accord V-6 six speed. So there's your proof right there. The basic Civic and Accord are pretty remarkable, too. "
You cant be serious about the base accord and civic. You named two exciting Hondas that are relatively affordable. That doesnt prove to me that the majority of Honda's arent dull. For under $30K GM offers the G6 GTP with 252hp and 6speed auto or 240hp and manual, Cobalt SS and SS SC, Grand prix GXP with 303hp, solstice GXP/Sky redline, G5 GT with 173hp and manual and Aura. The Astra is coming late this year. I would say that GM makes some interesting vehicles that are affordable as well.
"No, we are happy that excellence is rewarded in the marketplace, "
I would say excellence in reliability and reputation is rewared as long as Japan is the source. Reliability is only a key criteria for bashing a company when its American. European reliability (lack of) has done little to diminish their appeal to customers. Japan has been excellent at building reliable cars, they are no where near excellent when it comes to exterior design and merely average when it comes to handling/performance. And yes, I know the Civic Si is an exception to that.
Funny thing is that GM builds as many or more vehicles today with its 25% market share as it did when it had 50%+ market share. The pie is expanding, not staying the same size.
The day of 1,000,000 impalas or ford wharevers a year are long gone. I do not know the numbers but Toyota has many more models than they did 20 years ago. Maybe 8 then vs. 25 now? I did not count, just estimated. Now it is all about niche marketing. Sure the top 10 sell from 200,000 to 500,000 but most models sell closer to 100,000 or less. In the old days they would not think of selling a model that had less than 200,000 sales unless it was a specialty vehicle.
GM does have more models and I agree they have too many brands but they have become more focused. i.e. Buick will have 3 models next year and be dualed with Pontiac (soon to have 4 models) and GMC truck. In their heydays they each had maybe 6 or 7 models. All 3 are tuning their brand image and hopefully this will be clear in 2 years. This dealer chain will become a premium, mid priced store.
GM has made lots of mistakes but they have been doing a bit better "thinking" starting 5 years ago. Takes time to turn the boat. They did start before last year.
One of the drums that GM supporters beat repeatedly is the advantage that the Japanese have in terms of health care and pension plan costs.
Both Toyota and Honda USA HAVE health care and pension plans and very good ones. Here's what Honda says they offer
"We believe in taking care of our associates. That's why we provide a comprehensive benefits package, including full medical, dental and vision care, life insurance, 401 (k), pension plan, full-service Credit Union, vacation and holiday pay, product purchase plans, educational assistance, car lease, and purchase programs"
Taking as granted that they offer competitive benefits and retirement, the advantages the Japanese/America factories have in the benefit and pension arenas are two:
1. They do not have the 'feather-bedded' levels given to UAW workers which are among the most generous in the nation.
2. Honda and Toyota USA have a young work force. This young work force has essentially NO retirees at this point, and thus, few expenses. The same thing is true for their healthcare plan. Costs come from an aged population. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have a very large retired population and an aging work force.
These are NOT government controllable advantages; they're the advantages of any new company over an old one. I don't think that the American taxpayer is going to want to bail out the automakers with a nationalized healthcare plan.
Bankruptcy would permit them to dump a lot of their retirement costs off on the government, but I don't think that "solution" is in the cards either.
This advantage that the Japanese makers have will eventually disappear as the age of the workforces equalizes over the coming decades, but in the interim, GM and the others are going to have to find another source from which to compensate for that competitive advantage. It's not realistic to ask the UAW to give up everything for the company which hasn't done it's part by designing good product.
This article doesn't respond directly to your question but I found it of interest.
"The auto maker posted a net loss of nearly $1 billion over the first nine months of 2006 and will report full-year earnings Jan. 30. The performance in the first three quarters represented a $3.5 billion improvement over the same period in 2005, when GM went on to lose $10.6 billion for the year."
GM, the world's largest automaker, sold 1.1 million cars and trucks to U.S. business customers last year, including 650,000 to rental companies, LaNeve said. They accounted for about a quarter of GM's total 4.07 million U.S. sales in 2006.
I came up with 27%, but close enough I suppose. I stand corrected.
They say that it's a lot cheaper to keep the customers you have, than it is to grab someone else's. No wonder, then, thatToyota, which makes more profit than any other automaker, tops J.D. Power's Customer Retention Study.
The Japanese automaker's flagship Toyota brand topped its Lexus luxury brand in the annual survey, which measures the percentage of new vehicle buyers and lessees who replace a vehicle with another from the same brand.
What is interesting is that Nissan is already complaining of the cost of retiree health care. They have been here a while and it is starting to add cost to their american built cars that they do not have back in Japan.
"We believe in taking care of our associates. That's why we provide a comprehensive benefits package, including full medical, dental and vision care
Wow, I cannot believe that they pay 100% of medical costs in this day and age. They really do take care of their employees.
I think the issue of health care and pension problems in our country is just starting. The next step will be our government. Here in Michigan with people leaving the state and business's going broke they are actually talking about raising taxes. Unemployment is high. There is no discussion of lowering benefits to government employees. Of course this is the same issue at the national level. I know we do not want to hear it here but out imbalance with other countries is driving us lower and lower. If it wasn't for all that really cheap stuff they are sending us we would really feel poor. Hard to feel poor when the house is full of stuff.
I guess you cannot just trust the media to state correct facts anywhere Hey, maybe they were bias'd toward GM in this case!! They did say "about". Just rounding error!
How are you corrected? I was just showing an article.
The media is amazing when it comes to coverage of the auto industry. I have read numerous articles talking about how GM and Ford are trying to re-establish a prescence the midsize car market that is "dominated" by the Japanese. This sentiment is widely shared and the Accord and Camry are usually mentioned but the problem is there is a difference between having the two best sellers and "dominating". GM has a lower share of the midsize market than it did in years past but still sells more non-luxury midsize cars than Toyota. The Malibu/Impala sold almost as many copies as the camry last year and that doesn't include the Monte carlo even though Toyota counts the Solara as a Camry. I believe GM sold over 885k midsize cars last year (this doesnt take into account Ford/DC) and yet the press continues to push this notion that the midsize market has been totally handed over to the Japanese. Domination of a market is the Big 3 and their share of pickups. The Big Japanese 3 having 50% (if it's even that high) of the midsize market isn't domination. The dominate the best seller's list, not the segment.
Note one real difference in past pension plans aka 'traditional' and future plans aka 'portable'. My wife has worked at Fedex for around 25 years. She is covered by a traditional plan that will pay her a pension based on highest 5 years salary on a formula (deduct 3% per year if retiring at less than 60 years of age). MANY of the older US companies have/had pension plans like this and thus owe their qualified retirees payments for a set term, usually life.
That is changing and has been for a number of years. Now most companies encourage if not require new hires to use the 'portable' retirement plans. In these plans the companies contributes an amount equivalent to a percentage (5%, 7% or maybe 10%) of your salary to a annuity for you that you manage and after a few years are fully vested. With these payments you have your retirement to control as you see fit and in return the company has NO future obligation to support you in retirement unlike the traditional plans. Much cleaner for the companies.
This may be where the Japanese have an advantage...not having the history of traditional plans with all the obligations for the past.
Michigan, other states want more ethanol use California makes similar push to reduce global warming and reliance on imported oil.
Wall Street Journal
In separate actions aimed at reducing "greenhouse gases," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a cut of "at least 10 percent" in the carbon content of motor-vehicle fuels used in his state by 2020, while governors of 37 states, including Michigan, pushed for a new federal rule to require greater use of ethanol fuel.
Both efforts are designed to reduce global warming and the U.S.'s reliance on imported oil, but they also could raise consumer prices for food and fuel. The initiatives also signal the increasing urgency of climate change as an issue both in state capitals and Washington.
President Bush is expected to express more support for domestically produced ethanol when he gives his State of the Union address later this month. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders in Congress are talking up the need for alternative fuels and national emissions controls.
The 37 governors Wednesday proposed a new federal standard that would mandate substantially higher use of ethanol fuel and offer new tax incentives for the production of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from farm wastes and wood chips, and doesn't rely on corn, the feedstock typically used by current ethanol producers.
The proposal would require fuel sellers to increase the use of ethanol to 12 billion gallons a year by 2010, eclipsing an earlier federal mandate, contained in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The new standard calls for the use of 15 billion gallons by 2015 and around 37 billion gallons by 2025, which means ethanol could displace about 25 percent of the nation's gasoline use.
A January 2005 proposal by the governors' coalition to mandate greater use of ethanol as fuel was quickly endorsed by President Bush and became the centerpiece of the energy bill passed by Congress.
Announcing his carbon-reduction order in his State of the State address Tuesday, Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "California has the muscle to bring about such change."
While the details of the proposal have yet to be worked out, California officials explained that the program would leave it up to oil suppliers in the state to figure out how to reduce carbon content, but that using more ethanol, which contains less carbon, would be the most likely way.
There are 2 tiers to the family car segment. The Japanese do dominate the smaller size tier, with Camry, Accord and Altima being the 3 top sellers. The Americans dominate the full size tier with Impala and 300 the top 2 sellers, outdistancing Avalon and Maxima. Consumers generally prefer American when think big, Japanese when think small.
Food for thought: should GM concentrate more on Impala, less on Malibu, Ford more on 500, less on Fusion? Reason: less Japanese competition probably means fatter profit margin.
GM should concentrate on where the money is and where future customers come from. Those young folks buying Civics/Cobalts will move up some day. All need those customers.
The reason that consumers prefer large american is that american make buyers tend to like larger cars. As those buyers leave the market GM has to get back some of the younger buyers who are buying the smaller midsize cars. BUT do not make the mistake of overgeneralizing. it can really depend on where you live.
GM has got to get away from too many models in one segment with the same attributes. We see this finally happening. The mid priced FWD midsize market is huge but GM does not need all the models it has. It is a wide market though with many different kinds of buyers: economical, sporty, premium, etc. are distinct markets in that size. Malibu and Impala were on top of each other and Impala will leave that segment. I know many still think this is too many but here they are in my mind:
malibu:economical more like the Camry refridgerator
G6:sporty (but may go RWD??) Mazda 6, Accord
LaCrosse:premium not sporty (you know, premium materials like wood, comfortable ride) Avalon or high end Camry.
Aura:ecomical for those who prefer not to buy domestic (I know you may not believe but a huge portion of Saturn sales comes from import intenders that would not buy a Chev/Pont/Buick)
Funny. As a younger person I was never interested in any small cars whether they were foreign or domestic. I've always preferred traditional full-sized cars. GM always did these cars well which probably accounts for my preference for GM.
i doubt many younger folks today really want a larger car. Then again there may be nothing there they can afford or is "cool" or whatever term I should be using.
1487: Making statements about GM being committed to producing nothing but mediocre vehicles sounds good in the GM bashing echo chamber but it doesnt jive with reality.
You were the one who tried to excuse GM by saying that virtually all non-luxury vehicles are mediocre. Unfortunately, from about 1980, GM seems to have been guided by that belief, with the present sad results.
1487: GM has lost share for 30 years for many reasons. lack of commitment to exciting vehicles and quality are only two of them and both have been addressed. The reality is increased competition leads to decreased marketshare for the early leaders in that industry.
That excuse won't wash. GM's SALES have also declined, not just its market share. And for some divisions, the sales declines have been catastrophic. Buick and Pontiac, for example, could be counted on to sell over 800,000 cars - not SUVS or minivans - at their peak. And most of those vehicles went to retail customers.
Now Pontiac and Buick are down to about 400,000 and 300,000 cars, SUVs and minivans, respectively, and almost 1/3 of those vehicles go to fleet customers! Oldsmobile sold 1.1 million cars at its peak, and had slumped to about 350,000 cars, SUVs and minivans when GM pulled the plug in December 2000, and now it is gone. Saturn and GMC have not entirely picked up the slack. Cadillac isn't near its peak of 300,000+ cars reached in the late 1970s.
If GM had merely maintained its sales in a growing market, then it wouldn't be in such bad shape, and the market share loss would be less worrysome. No one expects GM to maintain market share with more competitors. But losing BOTH sales and market share is a big problem.
1487: Any company that makes the V series cadillacs, Escalade, Aura, Sky, C6, XLR, '08 CTS, SRX, Cobalt SS supercharged and until recently the GTO cannot be considered a purveyor of nothing but bland products.
And exactly how many of those are affordable, mainstream products? I count...two (Aura and Cobalt SS), and the Aura just debuted. And the GTO, XLR and SRX are either also-rans in their respective market segments or outright flops.
The 2008 CTS is not available yet in showrooms. And please note that I have praised it based on what I've seen so far, as I have done with the revamped 2008 Malibu.
1487: GM was making money as recently as 2004. Are you confident they will post a multi billion dollar loss this year? I'm not.
Look deeper. GMAC was making the money. GM was losing money in North American on vehicles.
Eventually the losses from vehicle production overwhelmed the profits brought in by GMAC. And even the profit GM recorded in the last quarter had more to do with accounting measures than it did with actually making money on vehicle production. If GM makes money in 2007 - great. I hope it does.
1487: Other than fuel economy explain why the Cobalt is inferior to the Corolla in subjective terms.
Better built and more reliable, for starters. And fuel economy is a very big consideration in this class of cars.
1487: Do the same for the Aura/G6 vs Accord.
The Accord is better built (check out exterior panel gaps, materials used on the interior), more reliable than the G6 (no results yet for the Aura, so we don't know), handles better, has a nicer interior, has superior four- and six-cylinder engines, and is more refined (although the Aura is winning praise for its quietness during operation, which is good).
If you don't believe me, look at any major road test of these cars. The G6 has received mediocre reviews, while the Accord regularly ranks ahead of the GM offerings in comparison tests. And spare me the whining about bias...several different testers have reached the same results. Are they all biased against GM products? Please...
1487: BTW, resale value isnt an engineered feature so don't count that. I want you to tell me how the Accord is superior in terms of design, space, features, performance and price.
Resale value is the market speaking. That sounds pretty compelling to me. As for price - people have shown that they will pay more for a better product. GM can't compete by saying, "Our vehicle may not be as good, but it is cheaper." Especially when Hyundai is nipping at GM's heels with rapidly improving products that that have even Toyota and Honda worried, let alone the domestics.
1487: For under $30K GM offers the G6 GTP with 252hp and 6speed auto or 240hp and manual,
And Honda offers the Accord V-6 with a six-speed manual.
1487: Cobalt SS and SS SC,
And Honda offers the Civic Si that beats it in every comparison test.
1487: Grand prix GXP with 303hp,
And Honda offers the Acura TL (if we are going to consider all GM divisions, we can consider all of Honda's divisions). The W-bodies don't need a V-8. They need a complete makeover.
1487: solstice GXP/Sky redline,
Which look great, but don't drive as great as they look, although the Sky Redline is a big step in the right direction.
1487: G5 GT with 173hp and manual
This is a Cobalt with a Pontiac grille. Over-reliance on badge engineering is part of GM's troubles...
1487: Japan has been excellent at building reliable cars, they are no where near excellent when it comes to exterior design and merely average when it comes to handling/performance.
Even the base Accord and Civic are praised for their handling and performance in every test I've read...
You do not have a clue what you are talking about. GM just posted its 2nd best year ever in 2006. GM has only sold more than 9 million vehicles three times in its history and last year was one of them. GM still sells over 4 million in the US but the size of the market has grown and thus 4 million only gets you 25% share. We all know they would sell way more vehicle if they had the share of 30 years ago, but there was much less competition. If excellent product is enough to get a 50% share in the US why does Toyota only have 15% share right now? You also failed to respond to my point about the fragmented European market in which the "home teams" all have less share than GM. Figures. NO auto company will EVER have share close to what GM had in the 70s because there is too much competition. If GM goes bankrupt tomorrow Toyota STILL wouldn't get 30% or 40% share because it is IMPOSSIBLE regardless of the competence a comapany's product.
You keep talking about mediocrity without addressing the products I mentioned with SUBJECTIVE reasons for calling them mediocre. Yes, in your opinion GM makes crap but that isnt enough to prove anything. I say that Toyotas are mediocre in almost every regard except resale value and there is reasoning behind my statement, its not just a random opinion. The majoriy of GM products are no less exciting than the majority of Honda/Toyota products. You haven't said anything to dispute that.
"Look deeper. GMAC was making the money. GM was losing money in North American on vehicles. "
Wrong, GM was making money on vehicles as well when SUVS were at their peak. Same applies to Ford.
People like you throw around terms like "better built" without backing that up. That is just a random opinion that means nothing to me or anyone else who believes in proof. Can you provide any proof that the Cobalt is poorly built? No you cant. Can you provide proof that the Corolla is more reliable? I believe the Cobalt has done well in CR's ratings (not that I believe in CR's flawed data gathering methods) and I have heard nothing about the Cobalt having significant recalls or problems. Fuel economy is important, but the Cobalt offers more performance, features and space than the Corolla so it has its advantages. If ALL you care about is economy than the Corolla is the way to go.
"The Accord is better built (check out exterior panel gaps, materials used on the interior), more reliable than the G6 (no results yet for the Aura, so we don't know), handles better, has a nicer interior, has superior four- and six-cylinder engines, and is more refined (although the Aura is winning praise for its quietness during operation, which is good). "
It's hard to have a discussion with someone who doesnt know anything about GM's offerings. You are totally incorrect. If you look at the test where the G6 GTP was compared to the Accord 6M you will see the G6 whipped the Accord in every category except acceleration (.3 sec difference) and cost less. Its braking and skidpad numbers were MUCH better but C&D put it in last place because they didnt like the shifter. The G6 four cylinder is more powerful than the accord's, gets similar mileage (1mpg difference), is refined and redlines higher. You are incorrect. The GM 3.6 V6 is one of the most praised V6s on the market and is every bit as refined as the SOHC V6 in the Accord and its more powerful, redlines higher and has 40 more lb-ft of torque. Your notion about the panel gaps is pure rubbish, the Epsilon cars have extremely small panel gaps just like all modern GM cars that I've seen. As for plastics, that's subjective but in my experience the Accord has some hard plastics on the dash. The Accord also has an exposed airbag cover, no manumatic, no 18" wheels, no 6 speed auto, no split fold rear seat, no panoramic sunroof, no MP3 jack and no trip computer. You're right, its much better. Please.
"The G6 has received mediocre reviews, while the Accord regularly ranks ahead of the GM offerings in comparison tests. And spare me the whining about bias...several different testers have reached the same results. Are they all biased against GM products? Please..."
First of all, the G6 with DOHC V6 has never been compared to the Accord. Secondly, if you are talking about C&D then you should know the Accord never loses any comparisons (except to Jetta GLI) regardless of the test results. The Accord puts up mediocre numbers and C&D comes up with ways to justify its win. Name some other comparos where the Accord has beat the G6 or Aura because I have seen none and I suspect you haven't either.
Look, if you chose to put the Accord on a pedastal that is your choice but dont come here and act like it's "proven" that the Accord is superior to everything on the market. I cant think of one category where the Accord is the segment leader. Its not the fastest, the most efficient, the largest, the best looking, the cheapest or anything. Nor does it have the best warranty. Explain to me again why we should be worshipping this car.
"As for price - people have shown that they will pay more for a better product. GM can't compete by saying, "Our vehicle may not be as good, but it is cheaper." Especially when Hyundai is nipping at GM's heels with rapidly improving products that that have even Toyota and Honda worried, let alone the domestics. "
Typical weak argument of a person too closed minded to consider domestic cars. YOu are saying that better products should offer less value. How come Hyundai doesnt subscribe to that theory? Hyundai and GM are trying to offer good vehicles AND good value, what a concept. Honda/Toyota want to charge you a premium for underequipped vehicles and then tell you to be happy about it. GM is offering you subpar cars for less, they are offering you competitive cars for less. The Aura is cheaper than the Camry and Accord but nothing about the car says "blue light special". Yes it offers value, but its styling and performance are very upscale for the money. Get real.
BTW, Hyundai sold about 20% as many vehicles as GM in the US last year. They are really close to overtaking GM, I stand corrected. Next GM should worry about VW nipping at their heels right.
"And Honda offers the Civic Si that beats it in every comparison test. "
Honda wins the tests, but the Cobalt performs better.......just check the stats. First of all, no one other than Edmunds has bothered to compare the two cars so I dont know what "tests" you are referring to. C&D had both cars at the track and said the Cobalt was far better on the track than the Si AND the GTI. Read if for yourself and see how they called the Si "floppy" on the track. I think some magazines refuse to compare the cars because they dont want the Civic to lose.
"And Honda offers the Acura TL (if we are going to consider all GM divisions, we can consider all of Honda's divisions). The W-bodies don't need a V-8. They need a complete makeover. "
The G6/Aura/Fusion/Malibu vs. Accord is a pointless debate. If one can't notice the difference then of course it'll be idiotic for him/her paying the premium for an Accord. However, there is also nothing wrong for people like me whom appreciate the refinement in an Accord (or Camry) want to pay more and get more.
Call us brain-washed, biased or import lovers but until GM can put out a product on the same caliber as the Camcords, Honda and Toyota will contiune to get my business.
The current Malibu and Aura look promising but their predecessors' long track record do not. If GM is able to keep this up for the next iteration then I'll put them both into my consideration list next time I am looking for a midsize sedan.
1487: You do not have a clue what you are talking about. GM just posted its 2nd best year ever in 2006.
Not in the U.S. it didn't. That is what we are talking about. And you must have missed all of the stories from credible sources noting GM's risk for filing bankruptcy. Fortunately, that risk appears to be receding.
1487: GM has only sold more than 9 million vehicles three times in its history and last year was one of them. GM still sells over 4 million in the US but the size of the market has grown and thus 4 million only gets you 25% share. We all know they would sell way more vehicle if they had the share of 30 years ago, but there was much less competition. If excellent product is enough to get a 50% share in the US why does Toyota only have 15% share right now? You also failed to respond to my point about the fragmented European market in which the "home teams" all have less share than GM. Figures. NO auto company will EVER have share close to what GM had in the 70s because there is too much competition. If GM goes bankrupt tomorrow Toyota STILL wouldn't get 30% or 40% share because it is IMPOSSIBLE regardless of the competence a comapany's product.
Nice try, but you keep missing my point about GM's sales in the U.S. declining, not just its market share. (And we are talking about North American sales, not worldwide sales.)
Reread my original post - I said that if GM had prevented sales from declining in the U.S. even if its market share was shrinking, it would not have a problem. I understand that GM will never reclaim 50 percent of the market. What is a problem is that Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac are well off their SALES - not market share - peak, which contradicts your claim, and Oldsmobile is gone.
1487: You keep talking about mediocrity without addressing the products I mentioned with SUBJECTIVE reasons for calling them mediocre.
And I've provided my own observations, combined with test results from reputable sources. That works for most people except for those who want to play ostrich and keep their head in the sand.
1487: Yes, in your opinion GM makes crap but that isnt enough to prove anything.
Don't put words in my mouth or try to read my mind. I have said that its products aren't as good as those of Honda in most cases. I didn't say GM vehicles are crap. There is a difference.
1487: The majoriy of GM products are no less exciting than the majority of Honda/Toyota products. You haven't said anything to dispute that.
Sorry, but you haven't proven your contention, as it contradicts most of the test results I've seen.
1487: Wrong, GM was making money on vehicles as well when SUVS were at their peak. Same applies to Ford.
For the last few years (since 2001, as I recall, when GM hit the incentives hard in the wake of 9/11), GM has been LOSING money on vehicles. SUV profits have not been enough to offset the loses on car sales. In 2005, as SUV sales tanked, those profits have disappeared, too.
Read any respected financial or business publication - GMAC that has been generating profits for GM.
Incidentally, a "respected financial or business publication" does not include the hyperventilating of the fanboys at cheersandgears.com.
1487: People like you throw around terms like "better built" without backing that up. That is just a random opinion that means nothing to me or anyone else who believes in proof.
Look at how the major parts mate - are the panel gaps uniform? Are they small or large? How is the paint applied? How well do the bumpers mate with surrounding sheetmetal? Are the gaps even on both sides of the bumper? Check out the quality of the interior materials - are they soft to the touch? Is the interior put together with care?
1487: Can you provide any proof that the Cobalt is poorly built? No you cant.
See above. Come with me to an auto show, and I'll point these things out to you.
1487: Can you provide proof that the Corolla is more reliable? I believe the Cobalt has done well in CR's ratings (not that I believe in CR's flawed data gathering methods) and I have heard nothing about the Cobalt having significant recalls or problems.
Both Consumer Reports and JD Powers put the Corolla ahead of the Cobalt for reliability. And, for now, Consumer Reports results are superior to anything you have produced. Sorry, but "because I said so" doesn't constitute proof. If you have a superior method, we'll be happy to review it.
1487: If you look at the test where the G6 GTP was compared to the Accord 6M you will see the G6 whipped the Accord in every category except acceleration (.3 sec difference) and cost less. Its braking and skidpad numbers were MUCH better but C&D put it in last place because they didnt like the shifter.
Wrong, they put it in last place because it wasn't as refined as the Accord, it's build quality was inferior, and skidpad results are the not same as real-world driving conditions.
Please show me a test in a reputable publication where the G6 has beaten the Accord.
1487: The G6 four cylinder is more powerful than the accord's, gets similar mileage (1mpg difference), is refined and redlines higher. You are incorrect.
Hogwash. I've driven the GM fours, and there is no way they are as refined as a Honda four.
1487: Your notion about the panel gaps is pure rubbish, the Epsilon cars have extremely small panel gaps just like all modern GM cars that I've seen.
Get your eyes checked.
1487: The Accord also has an exposed airbag cover, no manumatic, no 18" wheels, no 6 speed auto, no split fold rear seat, no panoramic sunroof, no MP3 jack and no trip computer. You're right, its much better. Please.
If you want more gadgets, buy the G6. If you want a better car for driving, buy the Accord.
1487: But the Secondly, if you are talking about C&D then you should know the Accord never loses any comparisons (except to Jetta GLI) regardless of the test results. The Accord puts up mediocre numbers and C&D comes up with ways to justify its win. Name some other comparos where the Accord has beat the G6 or Aura because I have seen none and I suspect you haven't either.
Spare me...the Accord wins because it's the better car. And the Accord just beat the Aura in the latest Car & Driver comparison test.
Robert Cumberford of Automobile called the Aura "pretty good," which is hardly backs up the contention that it is going to set its class on its ears.
Until you show me your credentials, their views will weigh more than yours.
1487: Look, if you chose to put the Accord on a pedastal that is your choice but dont come here and act like it's "proven" that the Accord is superior to everything on the market.
I don't have to "act like it." The tests results back me up.
I drove both Accord and Impala so I know what I am talking about. This is exactly what I was saying, if you can't notice the difference then it's pointless for you to pay more because you already got what you want.
See above. Come with me to an auto show, and I'll point these things out to you.
grbeck, I did that to several people whom went to the auto shows with me and after I pointed out those things the most common reponse I got is: Hmm, you are right but who cares about those tiny details.
Then I said: Exactly and that's why you are driving what you are driving...
The point is you are not getting more unless you count monthly payments. It is condescending to suggest that Accord fans are intelligent and savvy enough to "appreciate" the finer points of a new car but anyone who drives a competitor is just incapable of recognizing a well designed car. I just want SOMEONE, ANYONE to tell me what "more" I would get if I bought an Accord.
"Call us brain-washed, biased or import lovers but until GM can put out a product on the same caliber as the Camcords, Honda and Toyota will contiune to get my business. "
Its already been done, but it is your choice to buy only Toyotas and Hondas. Honestly, people like you have no intentions of considering an american car but its a free country. Just dont get on your soap box and preach about how the only "smart" choice is to go Japanese. Thats nonsense.
"If GM is able to keep this up for the next iteration then I'll put them both into my consideration list next time I am looking for a midsize sedan. "
These are not the first decent GM vehicles. Now you are saying you wont even consider these vehicles, but you wil think out it when the next generations are launched in 5 years. GM's products started getting significantly better about 5+ years and and the Aura/Malibu are just the latest and best efforts. You are talking about a track record, but honestly the sad GM products you are referring to are long gone. The Cimarron and Vega are ancient history at this point. Read reviews of products of the Intrigue, Alero, '97 Grand Prix, Alero, '98 STS, Aurora, etc. when THEY WERE NEW and tell me about GM's poor track record. Although coverage of GM is all gloom and doom now it wasnt always the case especially when it came to reviews of their new products of the last 8 years.
I just want SOMEONE, ANYONE to tell me what "more" I would get if I bought an Accord.
We told you before but you wouldn't listen and don't seem to get it, which is perfectly fine. "I" get more from an Accord because of its superior interior ergonomics and quality, superior handling and better powertrain (both V6 and I4). If you can't see it and don't agree then you are right, it's not worth it for you to pay the premium.
Its already been done
No, it's not. Maybe to you it is but to me it ain't. Okay, call me subjective but I'll believe its done when Malibu starts to finish ahead of Camry/Accord in comparos in regular basis and tops the sales chart. Fair enough?
These are not the first decent GM vehicles
To me they are. I don't consider the previous Malibu, current Impala and any previous Saturn sedans as honest efforts from GM.
I always am amazed that some take an arrogant approach that others just aren't as knowledgeable or perceptive enough to ascertain the superior quality of their automobile choice. I drove Camrys. I drove Accords. I did that the two times I last shopped for a new vehicle. I saw and felt much less.
I hear the same arguments about sports teams among the sports fans, often ad nauseam. E.g., can you say "Ohio State"? Paper tigers for egos to argue about.
As I've said before many people aren't looking for a car to 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, corner at 2.5 g's, roar up sides of mountains to go around trees blocking the wilderness trail, and so on.
So enjoy the car you chose, but please don't insult everyone else as though they were too ignorant to feel lack of quality in what they found they wished to purchase while the author has superior sensitivity and understanding that their car is much superior.
GM Fans: couldn't you point to details, or features, or other characteristics of your GM vehicles that you feel are superior to the competition, as to why you bought the vehicle you did?
Import fans: couldn't you do the same?
GM will rise or fall based on what MASSES AND MASSES of buyers just like yourselves (the very small data points that you are, GM and import fans alike) consider to be the pluses and minuses of each model and brand. If the retail buyers cojntinue to flock away from the General, there has to be a reason. We can talk about prejudice, media bias, whatever we want, but at the end of the day what difference does it make to the General? It is still losing sales.
Now maybe the retail buyers are already flocking away LESS, and maybe 2007 will see an upswing in retail sales. GM is on the right track when it comes to product. They may not quite yet have arrived, but they're just outside the station. They have heeded many of the critiques laid on them by others, including survey groups and the press.
In terms of the profitability of the car sales operation, the single biggest step they could take to improve has already been taken: last year's concessions from the union and axing of excess production capacity. The other crucial process has also already begun, the knocking down of the massive fleet sales. They said they would do it, and then shock of all shocks! They actually stayed true to their word, through hard times I might add. I hope they continue down the path without wavering this year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Nice try, but you keep missing my point about GM's sales in the U.S. declining, not just its market share. (And we are talking about North American sales, not worldwide sales.)"
GM's sales have decreased in 2006 due to falling sales of SUV (which affected everyone) and cutting back on fleet sales. GM is trying to get profitable, not attain 30% share at all costs. Profit is what matters and as they learned, its possible to have more share and lose money. Cadillac had its best year in like 15 years in 2005 but 2006 sales were down slightly so your notion that they continue to lose sales and share is wrong. Buick has shrunk its model lineup and will continue to do so. You dont mention how many model Buick had when it was racking up huge sales numbers, nor do you address how many similar vehicles were on the market back then. When there was less competition the market was full of cars with huge yearly sales. Think about it, the camry today cant touch the huge sales of old GM cars from the 60s and 70s simply because there are too many models. Camry is a great car, but it wont ever crack 1 a million annual sales like some GM models did. I've asked you several times to explain to me why GM should have 30% or 40% share in this market when that condition doesn't exist in Europe in spite of the top notch product made by BMW, MB and VW. Still waiting for an answer.
"And I've provided my own observations, combined with test results from reputable sources. That works for most people except for those who want to play ostrich and keep their head in the sand."
you reference one C&D comparo and feel that you have "proven" all GM vehicles stink. I dont think that's good enough. As I said, if you actually look at performance and price the same sources you speak of show Hondas routinely getting outperformed by GM products. Honda typically lose all the subjective categories but when editors opinions and biases are incorporated the Honda magically rise to first place along with a bunch of excuses.
"See above. Come with me to an auto show, and I'll point these things out to you. "
You cant do so because modern GM products are assembled to the same tolerances as competing models. Notice how assembly quality and panel gaps are no longer mentioned when GM products are reviewed.
The Corolla may rank higher in CR but that doesnt make the Cobalt unreliable and that is the point missed by people who tout CR results. Most cars arae reliable, its just about measuring great reliability as opposed to very good reliability. Bottom line is, Corolla nor Cobalt is likely to give you major problems if you own one. Besides, the Chevy has a longer warranty if you are truly concerned. The other advantages I mentioned still stand and can't be refuted.
"wrong, they put it in last place because it wasn't as refined as the Accord, it's build quality was inferior, and skidpad results are the not same as real-world driving conditions.
Please show me a test in a reputable publication where the G6 has beaten the Accord. "
The G6 and Accord have only been compared once, and never since the G6 got a better powertrain. C&D made no comments about the G6s poor build quality, perhaps you should read the test. They said the interior was a refreshing change from the sea of black in the other cars. As I said, they ranked it low because of the shifter and possibly the steering if I remember correctly. Every time an import performs poorly in testing i read excuses about how test numbers dont mean anything. Why do they bother recording the information if that be the case?
"Hogwash. I've driven the GM fours, and there is no way they are as refined as a Honda four. "
Perhaps you should not base your assessment of the G6 engine on your experience with old GM designs. The VVT 2.4L and 2.2L are very refined. I've driven the Ion and the Mazda3 and the Ion engine is definitely in the same ballpark. But of course, the fact that the press hasnt had anything bad to say about the engine means nothing since you dont like it.
"Get your eyes checked. "
I have pretty good vision. Perhaps you should get a micrometer and check the gaps yourself. The media doesn't even comment on GM's gaps anymore because there's nothing to complain about. It's apparent that your blind rage against GM has clouded your judgement. I dont get how anyone can hate a company so much when that company has done nothing to them personally. What are you really getting about of all this?
"If you want more gadgets, buy the G6. If you want a better car for driving, buy the Accord. "
Actually the G6 is better at both, as is the Aura. Automoble magaizine said the Aura is more engaging to drive that Accord or Camry and looks better to boot. Read it for yourself. The handling part would apply to the mechanically identical G6.
The Accord did beat the Aura, I forgot about that test. The Aura performed better though which isnt surprising. I still want to see an Accord V6 vs Aura 3.6 in a publication other than C&D. Everyone knows C&D has a thing for Honda, its no secret and if you read the part of the latest comparo with the Accord they can barely come up with legit reasons for it's first place finish. I think they said it won because of seating position and steering. WOW! Thats more than enough to overshadow its average perormance and bland looks. They admitted its interior was dated, the styling was dull and the performance was midpack and yet it wins. Yes, its the best car.
"which is hardly backs up the contention that it is going to set its class on its ears. "
Never said that, read what Automobile said in their '07 MY new car issue like I referenced above and then get back to me. Since you value their opinion I think you'll find it interesting.
"The tests results back me up."
Wrong again, the C&D rankings back it up. On edmunds the Accord lost the last two comparisons it was involved in. In terms of test results the Accord is ALWAYS midpack, even in C&D where it always wins. When it beat the Fusion in C&D in 2005 the Fusion was better in every category except acceleration and it was cheaper. Hondas and class leading stats do not go together.
I think they will sell more than 50,000 if it really is prices at $25k. Think there is some misinformation here
Holden Commodore SS set to become Pontiac G8
General Motors is expected to expand Pontiac's U.S. product line with a rebadged rear-drive Australian sedan.
The Holden Commodore SS will be called the Pontiac G8 and priced around $25,000, according to the Herald Sun in Melbourne, Australia.
While GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz did not confirm the plan, he told the newspaper, "It's such a logical thing to do. The volume range is 30,000 to 50,000. It depends on how we price it." He refused to say when shipments might begin.
Lutz said details would be revealed next month.
"We have yet to make an official announcement," Lutz said. "Much more will be revealed at the Chicago show."
This will be GM's second try at selling a rebadged Holden model as a Pontiac in the United States. The Holden Monaro was marketed as the Pontiac GTO for the 2004 to 2006 model years. Sales did not live up to expectations.
that may apply to people you know, but not to me. I look at vehicles very closely at the autoshows. come with me and I bet you wont be worhsipping at the altar of ToyoHonda anymore. When I go I find so many shortcomings in imports that I wonder if the media is looking at what I see. I just realized the TL and new Altima have goose neck trunk hinges when the Cobalt doesnt even have them. The Accord doesnt even have a split folding seat when the Intrigue had it 9 years ago. The TL doesnt have a folding rear seat at all because Honda claims they cant make the TL rigid with the folding seat. What? The G35 has fixed headrests in the back, a criticim often levelled against domestic cars. It also has a 2cm gap between the door and center console, but I bet you noticed that already since you are so keen on details. Interestingly enough reviews NEVER point these things out. There is much more, those are just a few examples. Dont even get met started on the old Altima.
Dont flatter yourself into thinking anyone who doesnt drive a Honda is too ignorant to know good design and engineering. The arrogance of import lovers is amazing.
And just for the record, I dont hate imports like you hate GM. I just dont put them on a pedastal, I realize they have faults just like domestic vehicles.
Only problem is Accords engines arent better. Its handling isnt better and its ergonomics are no better than any other midsize car. Do you have an example of poor ergonomics in the G6/Aura? I know I don't. Their cockpits are just as logical as any Honda. If you cant figure out how to work the controls I think that says more about you than the interior design of the cars.
Let's just say you are an Accord fan and that is what you chose to buy. That I can work with. Let's not get into pretending there is any actual proof that the accord is a world beater that is generations ahead of GM offerings. That is a dubious claim at best.
"Okay, call me subjective but I'll believe its done when Malibu starts to finish ahead of Camry/Accord in comparos in regular basis and tops the sales chart. Fair enough?"
Malibu will never finish above the Accord on the sales chart, they cant even make enough malibus to do so. If GM changed all their midsize cars to Malibus than I think GM could easily outsell the Accord. I dont think you want to compare GM midsize sales to Hondas. Fair enough?
"To me they are. I don't consider the previous Malibu, current Impala and any previous Saturn sedans as honest efforts from GM. "
Aurora, Intrigue, Lucerne, STS ('98 and '05 models), Deville/DTS, G6, CTS? None of them are/were "honest" efforts? whatever you say. Let's just say you refused to even look at any GM offerings prior to the '08 Malibu.
I agree, but this is lost on import lovers. Since I have been on edmunds I have yet to find an import supporter that will simply say "there are some good domestic cars out there but my PREFERENCE is to stick with Japanese cars".
I dont see why its hard to make such a statement, instead we get insults, accusations that domestic drivers are rednecks and flag wavers, suggestions that "smart" people know that imports are better in every way, etc. They wont come to grips with the fact that some american cars are better than some imports and those who buy accordingly are not stupid, naive or closed minded. If that fails than we get "C&D says Honda is #1" as if that is anything more than the opinion of editors who openly admit to being fans of certian cars and manufacturers. Then we get "look at the sales charts!" as if that is proof. Vehicle sales are not the only indicator of the quality of a model. The impala is the third best selling midsize car but I doubt many would conclude its the 3rd best midsize car on the market.
Sales are always prood when talking Accord and Camry but things change when talking about othe segments. The F150 is going to crush the '07 tundra in sales but I dont think anyone is going to say the Ford is the better truck. Of course when comparing Accord to Aura or Fusion its a TOTALLY different story.
Ok, I'll say it, "there are some good domestic cars out there but my PREFERENCE is to stick with Japanese cars."
My current fleet of '04 and '05 Camrys and a '98 Nissan Frontier work fine for me, get great fuel economy, and in the case of the Camrys (both with side airbags), have good front and side crash test ratings. Also, I basically see my friendly independent repair shop now only when the vehicles need their yearly state inspections. (I do nearly all my own maintenance.)
Now, can we get back to comments instead of novels?
I Have seen a lot of complains of how much more GM spends for health care compare to the other car makers, What I have not seen are numbers how much GM spends for warranty repairs compare to the other car makers. I have no statistics, but I know that GM spent somewhere between $3.5-$4K to keep my 04 Malibu running and there was at least the other $1000 in repair before I decided to let her go. Don't you think that there is a little problem GM should address before blaming unions, west and east coast people, liberals, conservatives, currency rates etc,...?
Warranty repair frequencies and costs are well-guarded secrets, unfortunately. Companies will gladly tell you they've reduced warranty costs by X percent, but the absolute costs are elusive.
Even if their new models are perfect their sales figures aren't going to climb for 4 or 5 years. They have disappointed so many times in the past, that it's going to be a long time before the baby boomers trust them again. Too many people see Lucy with the football.
We've already had the long lists of problems, so there's no need to rehash that - please folks?
You can dismiss market share as unimportant, but a lot of Americans are driving cars that are NOT made by GM.
You can argue about the advantages that the other companies have, but the fact is that GM has to live in the world that exists.
GM HAS been making progress over the past few years. Is it enough? Can they keep it up? Does Chevrolet need a halo vehicle to draw attention to it? Caddy has people coming into the showroom to look at their cars, and that's good.
Pontiac tried to do that with the GTO, and failed, but has a crowd-drawer in the Solistice. It brings people in the showrooms, where you can try to sell them a car. Saturn has the prize winning Aura.
Buick - nada. Do they need something to draw attention with?
Chevy? - the Corvette is a great car, but it's not new enough or obtainable enough to bring new folks in.
I think that Chevy needs the new Camaro NOW. Do the first year's production only as street racers with big engines and gutted interiors. Make it a limited edition. Lots of press, lots of showroom activity, more time to work on the fussy interior stuff that CR likes, later.
If you look over the books of a large dealership you can probably estimate how much warranty cost is built into each vehicle line or model but that is about it.
Comments
Still to pull the 4Runner out of the air as an example of Toyota overproducing is a stretch. They can barely keep up with demand for the Camry, Corolla, Prius, Yaris, and RAV4. Even the old Tundra sales were down minimially for 2006 CY compared to 2005. The Tacoma is far and away the biggest selling compact/midsize pickup.
http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
1- Lexus: ---------- 322,434 up 7%
2- BMW: ------------ 274,432 up 3%
3- Mercedes: ------- 248,080 up 11%
4- Cadillac: ------- 227,014 down 3%
5- Acura: ---------- 201,223 down 4%
6- Infiniti: ------- 121,146 down 11%
7- Lincoln: -------- 120,476 down 2%
8- Volvo: ---------- 115,807 down 6%
9- Audi: ----------- 90,116 up 9%
10- L. Rover: ------ 47,774 up 4%
11- Saab: ---------- 36,349 down 5%
12- Porsche : ------ 34,227 up 7%
13- Jaguar: -------- 20,683 down 32%
That would bring GM about halfway to its goal of cutting 75,000 rental sales this year, said Mark LaNeve, who oversees North American sales and marketing. GM is trying to trim wholesale purchases because profit on those transactions is slim.
“You've got to bite the bullet on fleet sales and get them down,'' Kevin Tynan, an analyst with Argus Research Corp. in New York, said today. “They've been doing these just for the sake of
market share and it's hurting profits.''
Reducing rental sales will further GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner's plan to endure short-term U.S. market share losses in exchange for getting more profit per vehicle. GM's U.S. market share is at an 81-year low, and 2006 sales were the lowest since 1970.
GM, the world's largest automaker, sold 1.1 million cars and trucks to U.S. business customers last year, including 650,000 to rental companies, LaNeve said. They accounted for about a quarter of GM's total 4.07 million U.S. sales in 2006.
GM plans to eliminate as many as 10,000 rental sales each month from February through June and will have about 65,000 of the planned cuts complete by mid-year, LaNeve said. GM will cut North American production this quarter by 10 percent, primarily because of the reduced rental-car sales, he said.
With the reduction in fleet sales, it will be hard for GM to increase overall sales this year, according to LaNeve. That may frustrate investors who only look at total sales figures.
The automaker’s sweep this month of the 2007 Car and Truck of the Year awards presented at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit could not have come at a better time.
With 11 vehicles vying for the car category and 15 for the truck designation, recognition by 49 automotive journalists from the U.S. and Canada appears to signal new product-development strategies are working.
Particularly considering GM’s Saturn all-new Aura midsize sedan beat out two strong Japanese-brand finalists, the Toyota Camry and Honda Fit subcompact, and its redesigned fullsize Silverado pickup topped the all-new Ford Edge and Mazda CX7 cross/utilities.
Indeed, GM’s win marks only the second time in the 14-year history of the annual competition that one automaker has taken both awards. Honda won last year with its all-new ’06 Civic and Ridgeline midsize pickup.
But the win also is remarkable for other reasons. The formidable challenges faced by GM playing out in critical arenas over the last year would have been enough to take the focus off new product for any company:
Sliding vehicle sales due to rising fuel prices.
A boardroom drama pitting Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner against billionaire shareholder Kirk Kerkorian’s proposed partnership with Carlos Ghosn’s Renault-Nissan Alliance.
A delay in filing first-quarter financials due to accounting irregularities.
A drastic restructuring calling for the closing of 12 plants and the elimination 34,000 employees, about 30 percent, of its hourly workforce.
While GM last year lost $10.6 billion, it says it now is set for profitability in 2007 thanks to massive cost cutting over the last 12 months. But analysts repeatedly have told Detroit’s Big Three aggressive cost-cutting their way to profit is not sustainable without strong product.
And that’s where winning the car and truck awards come in.
It sends a message that while there were “bombs across the air last year, every way, shape and form they could have come, the vast majority of the people at GM were doing exactly what they should,” Wagoner tells reporters at the auto show.
That would include creating the Chevrolet Volt Concept, arguably one of the most important concepts to debut in Detroit. GM says the plug-in hybrid-electric vehicle is capable of 150 mpg (1.56 L/100 km). But unlike traditional HEVs, the Volt’s internal combustion engine does not provide propulsion.
Instead, it is designed to run solely on charged electric power for a range of 40 miles (64 km). When that power supply starts to wane, a 1.L, 3-cyl. turbocharged engine, burning gasoline or alternative fuels, kicks in to generate power to run the electric motor.
The Volt stores energy via a lithium-ion battery pack – supplier technology that is still very much in the development stage.
Mark LaNeve, vice president-sales, service and marketing, acknowledges it’s “very important” from an engineering and public perception standpoint for GM to bring the Volt to market.
“The idea is elegantly simple,” he says. “It gets people to think about (fuel economy issues) differently.”
More importantly, it will get people thinking about GM differently.
Jan. 10, 2007
DETROIT – The automakers got a little, and now they want a little more.
Last year, Ford and General Motors won health-care and other concessions from the United Auto Workers union. With those two still struggling to return to profitability and contract negotiations looming this fall, the automakers say they expect the union to make more sacrifices.
"We have open communication with the union," said Gary Cowger, executive vice president in charge of manufacturing and labor relations for General Motors, noting the dialogue between the automakers and the UAW for the last year. "The union recognizes the business model needs to change. We've gotten health-care and attrition [buyout offers] changes the last two years. The union is willing to listen to what needs to be done."
Cowger stopped short of detailing what automakers want.
"We aren't going to bargain in the press," he said.
UAW spokesman Roger Kerson echoed that, saying the union would have no comment on the automakers asking for more concessions.
"We aren't going to negotiate in the media," he said.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner, however, was not as reluctant.
"We've made some big steps with labor union problems but we aren't going to reduce the gap to zero," he said of the estimated $1,500 added to each domestic vehicle to cover health care. That gives a huge cost advantage to the Japanese, who employ non-union labor at their U.S. plants. The government covers health care in Japan.
"There's a spirit of cooperation, but we're still at a disadvantage in postretirement health care," Wagoner said. "Japan still doesn't have to write a multibillion-dollar check like we do each year to cover retirees. And the jobs bank, of course, is an area of uncompetitiveness."
The jobs bank ensures employees of an idled plant continue to get paid.
Alan Mulally, president and CEO of Ford, echoed Wagoner on the cooperation but didn't mention what Ford hopes to get out of this year's contract.
"The union negotiations will be tough but I'm confident, very confident, we can all work together. The union understands we are all in this together," he said.
Such dialogue is what garnered Ford and GM another concession last year. Under the contract, the union was entitled to a $1 per hour cost-of-living raise, but it agreed the money would be put toward health-care costs, instead.
Even with such cooperation, Chrysler is still waiting for the UAW to bend. The union approved the givebacks when Ford and GM were posting hefty losses. At the time, however, Chrysler was posting profits and got nothing.
The company remains hopeful, according to President and CEO Tom LaSorda.
In the third quarter, Chrysler lost $1.5 billion and is expected to report a loss of $1.3 billion for the year, so UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is reconsidering.
"We didn't get concessions like GM and Ford, but Gettelfinger came back to us in December and asked for more financial information to review," LaSorda said. "We gave it all to them by Dec. 22 and now they have said they want more dialogue with us. Ron understands where we are at now."
LaSorda said Chrysler hopes to be more on a par with Ford and GM before talks officially open this fall.
Troy Clarke, president of GM's North American operations, said no one should expect anything precedent-setting, despite the union's sense of candor and urgency. "They have some rather liberal benefits now. To be precedent-setting would take changes that are really not attainable," he said.
GM has lost share for 30 years for many reasons. lack of commitment to exciting vehicles and quality are only two of them and both have been addressed. The reality is increased competition leads to decreased marketshare for the early leaders in that industry. Back in the day EVERYONE but the big 3 were bit players in the US market and they Big 3 split the lion's share of the market. Now Hyundai, Honda, Nissan and Toyota are full line manufacturers with complete lineups. As they expand their offerings they pick up share, there is little the former market leaders can do about it. Yes, it's possible that GM could have a 30% share instead of 25% if they had been more focused 15-20 years ago but the days of 50% share are long gone and rightly so in this type of market. Get real. European carmakers all have LESS share at home than GM has in the US. Are you saying that VW and MB make mediocre products since they have lost share? I ask this question to GM bashers and never get a real answer.
When you say GM doesn't design anything above average its obvious you are either a0 unknowledgable about current GM offerings or b)you know what they offer but chose to ignore the facts. Any company that makes the V series cadillacs, Escalade, Aura, Sky, C6, XLR, '08 CTS, SRX, Cobalt SS supercharged and until recently the GTO cannot be considered a purveyor of nothing but bland products.
"Unfortunately, since about 1980 GM seems to have been guided by the maxim you described, hence the constant decline in market share and multi-billion dollar losses. "
GM was making money as recently as 2004. Are you confident they will post a multi billion dollar loss this year? I'm not.
"The problem is that GM's competitive offerings are inferior to rival Hondas and Toyotas in those respective market segments, although the new Saturn Aura is a giant step forward for GM."
Other than fuel economy explain why the Cobalt is inferior to the Corolla in subjective terms. Do the same for the Aura/G6 vs Accord. BTW, resale value isnt an engineered feature so don't count that. I want you to tell me how the Accord is superior in terms of design, space, features, performance and price.
"You must have forgotten about the Civic Si, and Accord V-6 six speed. So there's your proof right there. The basic Civic and Accord are pretty remarkable, too. "
You cant be serious about the base accord and civic. You named two exciting Hondas that are relatively affordable. That doesnt prove to me that the majority of Honda's arent dull. For under $30K GM offers the G6 GTP with 252hp and 6speed auto or 240hp and manual, Cobalt SS and SS SC, Grand prix GXP with 303hp, solstice GXP/Sky redline, G5 GT with 173hp and manual and Aura. The Astra is coming late this year. I would say that GM makes some interesting vehicles that are affordable as well.
"No, we are happy that excellence is rewarded in the marketplace, "
I would say excellence in reliability and reputation is rewared as long as Japan is the source. Reliability is only a key criteria for bashing a company when its American. European reliability (lack of) has done little to diminish their appeal to customers. Japan has been excellent at building reliable cars, they are no where near excellent when it comes to exterior design and merely average when it comes to handling/performance. And yes, I know the Civic Si is an exception to that.
GM does have more models and I agree they have too many brands but they have become more focused. i.e. Buick will have 3 models next year and be dualed with Pontiac (soon to have 4 models) and GMC truck. In their heydays they each had maybe 6 or 7 models. All 3 are tuning their brand image and hopefully this will be clear in 2 years. This dealer chain will become a premium, mid priced store.
GM has made lots of mistakes but they have been doing a bit better "thinking" starting 5 years ago. Takes time to turn the boat. They did start before last year.
Both Toyota and Honda USA HAVE health care and pension plans and very good ones. Here's what Honda says they offer
"We believe in taking care of our associates. That's why we provide a comprehensive benefits package, including full medical, dental and vision care, life insurance, 401 (k), pension plan, full-service Credit Union, vacation and holiday pay, product purchase plans, educational assistance, car lease, and purchase programs"
Taking as granted that they offer competitive benefits and retirement, the advantages the Japanese/America factories have in the benefit and pension arenas are two:
1. They do not have the 'feather-bedded' levels given to UAW workers which are among the most generous in the nation.
2. Honda and Toyota USA have a young work force. This young work force has essentially NO retirees at this point, and thus, few expenses. The same thing is true for their healthcare plan. Costs come from an aged population. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have a very large retired population and an aging work force.
These are NOT government controllable advantages; they're the advantages of any new company over an old one. I don't think that the American taxpayer is going to want to bail out the automakers with a nationalized healthcare plan.
Bankruptcy would permit them to dump a lot of their retirement costs off on the government, but I don't think that "solution" is in the cards either.
This advantage that the Japanese makers have will eventually disappear as the age of the workforces equalizes over the coming decades, but in the interim, GM and the others are going to have to find another source from which to compensate for that competitive advantage. It's not realistic to ask the UAW to give up everything for the company which hasn't done it's part by designing good product.
1982-2004 sales
"The auto maker posted a net loss of nearly $1 billion over the first nine months of 2006 and will report full-year earnings Jan. 30. The performance in the first three quarters represented a $3.5 billion improvement over the same period in 2005, when GM went on to lose $10.6 billion for the year."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/AUTO01/701110395/1148-
I came up with 27%, but close enough I suppose. I stand corrected.
The Japanese automaker's flagship Toyota brand topped its Lexus luxury brand in the annual survey, which measures the percentage of new vehicle buyers and lessees who replace a vehicle with another from the same brand.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/Toyota_Tops_Power_Loya- lty_Rating.S173.A11529.html
"We believe in taking care of our associates. That's why we provide a comprehensive benefits package, including full medical, dental and vision care
Wow, I cannot believe that they pay 100% of medical costs in this day and age. They really do take care of their employees.
I think the issue of health care and pension problems in our country is just starting. The next step will be our government. Here in Michigan with people leaving the state and business's going broke they are actually talking about raising taxes. Unemployment is high. There is no discussion of lowering benefits to government employees. Of course this is the same issue at the national level. I know we do not want to hear it here but out imbalance with other countries is driving us lower and lower. If it wasn't for all that really cheap stuff they are sending us we would really feel poor. Hard to feel poor when the house is full of stuff.
How are you corrected? I was just showing an article.
BUT, this does not excuse GM. They still are doing as well in the mid market as they should be.
That is changing and has been for a number of years. Now most companies encourage if not require new hires to use the 'portable' retirement plans. In these plans the companies contributes an amount equivalent to a percentage (5%, 7% or maybe 10%) of your salary to a annuity for you that you manage and after a few years are fully vested. With these payments you have your retirement to control as you see fit and in return the company has NO future obligation to support you in retirement unlike the traditional plans. Much cleaner for the companies.
This may be where the Japanese have an advantage...not having the history of traditional plans with all the obligations for the past.
Wall Street Journal
In separate actions aimed at reducing "greenhouse gases," California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a cut of "at least 10 percent" in the carbon content of motor-vehicle fuels used in his state by 2020, while governors of 37 states, including Michigan, pushed for a new federal rule to require greater use of ethanol fuel.
Both efforts are designed to reduce global warming and the U.S.'s reliance on imported oil, but they also could raise consumer prices for food and fuel. The initiatives also signal the increasing urgency of climate change as an issue both in state capitals and Washington.
President Bush is expected to express more support for domestically produced ethanol when he gives his State of the Union address later this month. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders in Congress are talking up the need for alternative fuels and national emissions controls.
The 37 governors Wednesday proposed a new federal standard that would mandate substantially higher use of ethanol fuel and offer new tax incentives for the production of cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from farm wastes and wood chips, and doesn't rely on corn, the feedstock typically used by current ethanol producers.
The proposal would require fuel sellers to increase the use of ethanol to 12 billion gallons a year by 2010, eclipsing an earlier federal mandate, contained in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, of 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. The new standard calls for the use of 15 billion gallons by 2015 and around 37 billion gallons by 2025, which means ethanol could displace about 25 percent of the nation's gasoline use.
A January 2005 proposal by the governors' coalition to mandate greater use of ethanol as fuel was quickly endorsed by President Bush and became the centerpiece of the energy bill passed by Congress.
Announcing his carbon-reduction order in his State of the State address Tuesday, Gov. Schwarzenegger said, "California has the muscle to bring about such change."
While the details of the proposal have yet to be worked out, California officials explained that the program would leave it up to oil suppliers in the state to figure out how to reduce carbon content, but that using more ethanol, which contains less carbon, would be the most likely way.
Food for thought: should GM concentrate more on Impala, less on Malibu, Ford more on 500, less on Fusion? Reason: less Japanese competition probably means fatter profit margin.
The reason that consumers prefer large american is that american make buyers tend to like larger cars. As those buyers leave the market GM has to get back some of the younger buyers who are buying the smaller midsize cars. BUT do not make the mistake of overgeneralizing. it can really depend on where you live.
GM has got to get away from too many models in one segment with the same attributes. We see this finally happening. The mid priced FWD midsize market is huge but GM does not need all the models it has. It is a wide market though with many different kinds of buyers: economical, sporty, premium, etc. are distinct markets in that size. Malibu and Impala were on top of each other and Impala will leave that segment. I know many still think this is too many but here they are in my mind:
malibu:economical more like the Camry refridgerator
G6:sporty (but may go RWD??) Mazda 6, Accord
LaCrosse:premium not sporty (you know, premium materials like wood, comfortable ride) Avalon or high end Camry.
Aura:ecomical for those who prefer not to buy domestic (I know you may not believe but a huge portion of Saturn sales comes from import intenders that would not buy a Chev/Pont/Buick)
You were the one who tried to excuse GM by saying that virtually all non-luxury vehicles are mediocre. Unfortunately, from about 1980, GM seems to have been guided by that belief, with the present sad results.
1487: GM has lost share for 30 years for many reasons. lack of commitment to exciting vehicles and quality are only two of them and both have been addressed. The reality is increased competition leads to decreased marketshare for the early leaders in that industry.
That excuse won't wash. GM's SALES have also declined, not just its market share. And for some divisions, the sales declines have been catastrophic. Buick and Pontiac, for example, could be counted on to sell over 800,000 cars - not SUVS or minivans - at their peak. And most of those vehicles went to retail customers.
Now Pontiac and Buick are down to about 400,000 and 300,000 cars, SUVs and minivans, respectively, and almost 1/3 of those vehicles go to fleet customers! Oldsmobile sold 1.1 million cars at its peak, and had slumped to about 350,000 cars, SUVs and minivans when GM pulled the plug in December 2000, and now it is gone. Saturn and GMC have not entirely picked up the slack. Cadillac isn't near its peak of 300,000+ cars reached in the late 1970s.
If GM had merely maintained its sales in a growing market, then it wouldn't be in such bad shape, and the market share loss would be less worrysome. No one expects GM to maintain market share with more competitors. But losing BOTH sales and market share is a big problem.
1487: Any company that makes the V series cadillacs, Escalade, Aura, Sky, C6, XLR, '08 CTS, SRX, Cobalt SS supercharged and until recently the GTO cannot be considered a purveyor of nothing but bland products.
And exactly how many of those are affordable, mainstream products? I count...two (Aura and Cobalt SS), and the Aura just debuted. And the GTO, XLR and SRX are either also-rans in their respective market segments or outright flops.
The 2008 CTS is not available yet in showrooms. And please note that I have praised it based on what I've seen so far, as I have done with the revamped 2008 Malibu.
1487: GM was making money as recently as 2004. Are you confident they will post a multi billion dollar loss this year? I'm not.
Look deeper. GMAC was making the money. GM was losing money in North American on vehicles.
Eventually the losses from vehicle production overwhelmed the profits brought in by GMAC. And even the profit GM recorded in the last quarter had more to do with accounting measures than it did with actually making money on vehicle production. If GM makes money in 2007 - great. I hope it does.
1487: Other than fuel economy explain why the Cobalt is inferior to the Corolla in subjective terms.
Better built and more reliable, for starters. And fuel economy is a very big consideration in this class of cars.
1487: Do the same for the Aura/G6 vs Accord.
The Accord is better built (check out exterior panel gaps, materials used on the interior), more reliable than the G6 (no results yet for the Aura, so we don't know), handles better, has a nicer interior, has superior four- and six-cylinder engines, and is more refined (although the Aura is winning praise for its quietness during operation, which is good).
If you don't believe me, look at any major road test of these cars. The G6 has received mediocre reviews, while the Accord regularly ranks ahead of the GM offerings in comparison tests. And spare me the whining about bias...several different testers have reached the same results. Are they all biased against GM products? Please...
1487: BTW, resale value isnt an engineered feature so don't count that. I want you to tell me how the Accord is superior in terms of design, space, features, performance and price.
Resale value is the market speaking. That sounds pretty compelling to me. As for price - people have shown that they will pay more for a better product. GM can't compete by saying, "Our vehicle may not be as good, but it is cheaper." Especially when Hyundai is nipping at GM's heels with rapidly improving products that that have even Toyota and Honda worried, let alone the domestics.
1487: For under $30K GM offers the G6 GTP with 252hp and 6speed auto or 240hp and manual,
And Honda offers the Accord V-6 with a six-speed manual.
1487: Cobalt SS and SS SC,
And Honda offers the Civic Si that beats it in every comparison test.
1487: Grand prix GXP with 303hp,
And Honda offers the Acura TL (if we are going to consider all GM divisions, we can consider all of Honda's divisions). The W-bodies don't need a V-8. They need a complete makeover.
1487: solstice GXP/Sky redline,
Which look great, but don't drive as great as they look, although the Sky Redline is a big step in the right direction.
1487: G5 GT with 173hp and manual
This is a Cobalt with a Pontiac grille. Over-reliance on badge engineering is part of GM's troubles...
1487: Japan has been excellent at building reliable cars, they are no where near excellent when it comes to exterior design and merely average when it comes to handling/performance.
Even the base Accord and Civic are praised for their handling and performance in every test I've read...
You keep talking about mediocrity without addressing the products I mentioned with SUBJECTIVE reasons for calling them mediocre. Yes, in your opinion GM makes crap but that isnt enough to prove anything. I say that Toyotas are mediocre in almost every regard except resale value and there is reasoning behind my statement, its not just a random opinion. The majoriy of GM products are no less exciting than the majority of Honda/Toyota products. You haven't said anything to dispute that.
"Look deeper. GMAC was making the money. GM was losing money in North American on vehicles. "
Wrong, GM was making money on vehicles as well when SUVS were at their peak. Same applies to Ford.
People like you throw around terms like "better built" without backing that up. That is just a random opinion that means nothing to me or anyone else who believes in proof. Can you provide any proof that the Cobalt is poorly built? No you cant. Can you provide proof that the Corolla is more reliable? I believe the Cobalt has done well in CR's ratings (not that I believe in CR's flawed data gathering methods) and I have heard nothing about the Cobalt having significant recalls or problems. Fuel economy is important, but the Cobalt offers more performance, features and space than the Corolla so it has its advantages. If ALL you care about is economy than the Corolla is the way to go.
"The Accord is better built (check out exterior panel gaps, materials used on the interior), more reliable than the G6 (no results yet for the Aura, so we don't know), handles better, has a nicer interior, has superior four- and six-cylinder engines, and is more refined (although the Aura is winning praise for its quietness during operation, which is good). "
It's hard to have a discussion with someone who doesnt know anything about GM's offerings. You are totally incorrect. If you look at the test where the G6 GTP was compared to the Accord 6M you will see the G6 whipped the Accord in every category except acceleration (.3 sec difference) and cost less. Its braking and skidpad numbers were MUCH better but C&D put it in last place because they didnt like the shifter. The G6 four cylinder is more powerful than the accord's, gets similar mileage (1mpg difference), is refined and redlines higher. You are incorrect. The GM 3.6 V6 is one of the most praised V6s on the market and is every bit as refined as the SOHC V6 in the Accord and its more powerful, redlines higher and has 40 more lb-ft of torque. Your notion about the panel gaps is pure rubbish, the Epsilon cars have extremely small panel gaps just like all modern GM cars that I've seen. As for plastics, that's subjective but in my experience the Accord has some hard plastics on the dash. The Accord also has an exposed airbag cover, no manumatic, no 18" wheels, no 6 speed auto, no split fold rear seat, no panoramic sunroof, no MP3 jack and no trip computer. You're right, its much better. Please.
"The G6 has received mediocre reviews, while the Accord regularly ranks ahead of the GM offerings in comparison tests. And spare me the whining about bias...several different testers have reached the same results. Are they all biased against GM products? Please..."
First of all, the G6 with DOHC V6 has never been compared to the Accord. Secondly, if you are talking about C&D then you should know the Accord never loses any comparisons (except to Jetta GLI) regardless of the test results. The Accord puts up mediocre numbers and C&D comes up with ways to justify its win. Name some other comparos where the Accord has beat the G6 or Aura because I have seen none and I suspect you haven't either.
Look, if you chose to put the Accord on a pedastal that is your choice but dont come here and act like it's "proven" that the Accord is superior to everything on the market. I cant think of one category where the Accord is the segment leader. Its not the fastest, the most efficient, the largest, the best looking, the cheapest or anything. Nor does it have the best warranty. Explain to me again why we should be worshipping this car.
"As for price - people have shown that they will pay more for a better product. GM can't compete by saying, "Our vehicle may not be as good, but it is cheaper." Especially when Hyundai is nipping at GM's heels with rapidly improving products that that have even Toyota and Honda worried, let alone the domestics. "
Typical weak argument of a person too closed minded to consider domestic cars. YOu are saying that better products should offer less value. How come Hyundai doesnt subscribe to that theory? Hyundai and GM are trying to offer good vehicles AND good value, what a concept. Honda/Toyota want to charge you a premium for underequipped vehicles and then tell you to be happy about it. GM is offering you subpar cars for less, they are offering you competitive cars for less. The Aura is cheaper than the Camry and Accord but nothing about the car says "blue light special". Yes it offers value, but its styling and performance are very upscale for the money. Get real.
BTW, Hyundai sold about 20% as many vehicles as GM in the US last year. They are really close to overtaking GM, I stand corrected. Next GM should worry about VW nipping at their heels right.
"And Honda offers the Civic Si that beats it in every comparison test. "
Honda wins the tests, but the Cobalt performs better.......just check the stats. First of all, no one other than Edmunds has bothered to compare the two cars so I dont know what "tests" you are referring to. C&D had both cars at the track and said the Cobalt was far better on the track than the Si AND the GTI. Read if for yourself and see how they called the Si "floppy" on the track. I think some magazines refuse to compare the cars because they dont want the Civic to lose.
"And Honda offers the Acura TL (if we are going to consider all GM divisions, we can consider all of Honda's divisions). The W-bodies don't need a V-8. They need a complete makeover. "
In case you mi
Call us brain-washed, biased or import lovers but until GM can put out a product on the same caliber as the Camcords, Honda and Toyota will contiune to get my business.
The current Malibu and Aura look promising but their predecessors' long track record do not. If GM is able to keep this up for the next iteration then I'll put them both into my consideration list next time I am looking for a midsize sedan.
Not in the U.S. it didn't. That is what we are talking about. And you must have missed all of the stories from credible sources noting GM's risk for filing bankruptcy. Fortunately, that risk appears to be receding.
1487: GM has only sold more than 9 million vehicles three times in its history and last year was one of them. GM still sells over 4 million in the US but the size of the market has grown and thus 4 million only gets you 25% share. We all know they would sell way more vehicle if they had the share of 30 years ago, but there was much less competition. If excellent product is enough to get a 50% share in the US why does Toyota only have 15% share right now? You also failed to respond to my point about the fragmented European market in which the "home teams" all have less share than GM. Figures. NO auto company will EVER have share close to what GM had in the 70s because there is too much competition. If GM goes bankrupt tomorrow Toyota STILL wouldn't get 30% or 40% share because it is IMPOSSIBLE regardless of the competence a comapany's product.
Nice try, but you keep missing my point about GM's sales in the U.S. declining, not just its market share. (And we are talking about North American sales, not worldwide sales.)
Reread my original post - I said that if GM had prevented sales from declining in the U.S. even if its market share was shrinking, it would not have a problem. I understand that GM will never reclaim 50 percent of the market. What is a problem is that Buick, Pontiac and Cadillac are well off their SALES - not market share - peak, which contradicts your claim, and Oldsmobile is gone.
1487: You keep talking about mediocrity without addressing the products I mentioned with SUBJECTIVE reasons for calling them mediocre.
And I've provided my own observations, combined with test results from reputable sources. That works for most people except for those who want to play ostrich and keep their head in the sand.
1487: Yes, in your opinion GM makes crap but that isnt enough to prove anything.
Don't put words in my mouth or try to read my mind. I have said that its products aren't as good as those of Honda in most cases. I didn't say GM vehicles are crap. There is a difference.
1487: The majoriy of GM products are no less exciting than the majority of Honda/Toyota products. You haven't said anything to dispute that.
Sorry, but you haven't proven your contention, as it contradicts most of the test results I've seen.
1487: Wrong, GM was making money on vehicles as well when SUVS were at their peak. Same applies to Ford.
For the last few years (since 2001, as I recall, when GM hit the incentives hard in the wake of 9/11), GM has been LOSING money on vehicles. SUV profits have not been enough to offset the loses on car sales. In 2005, as SUV sales tanked, those profits have disappeared, too.
Read any respected financial or business publication - GMAC that has been generating profits for GM.
Incidentally, a "respected financial or business publication" does not include the hyperventilating of the fanboys at cheersandgears.com.
1487: People like you throw around terms like "better built" without backing that up. That is just a random opinion that means nothing to me or anyone else who believes in proof.
Look at how the major parts mate - are the panel gaps uniform? Are they small or large? How is the paint applied? How well do the bumpers mate with surrounding sheetmetal? Are the gaps even on both sides of the bumper? Check out the quality of the interior materials - are they soft to the touch? Is the interior put together with care?
1487: Can you provide any proof that the Cobalt is poorly built? No you cant.
See above. Come with me to an auto show, and I'll point these things out to you.
1487: Can you provide proof that the Corolla is more reliable? I believe the Cobalt has done well in CR's ratings (not that I believe in CR's flawed data gathering methods) and I have heard nothing about the Cobalt having significant recalls or problems.
Both Consumer Reports and JD Powers put the Corolla ahead of the Cobalt for reliability. And, for now, Consumer Reports results are superior to anything you have produced. Sorry, but "because I said so" doesn't constitute proof. If you have a superior method, we'll be happy to review it.
1487: If you look at the test where the G6 GTP was compared to the Accord 6M you will see the G6 whipped the Accord in every category except acceleration (.3 sec difference) and cost less. Its braking and skidpad numbers were MUCH better but C&D put it in last place because they didnt like the shifter.
Wrong, they put it in last place because it wasn't as refined as the Accord, it's build quality was inferior, and skidpad results are the not same as real-world driving conditions.
Please show me a test in a reputable publication where the G6 has beaten the Accord.
1487: The G6 four cylinder is more powerful than the accord's, gets similar mileage (1mpg difference), is refined and redlines higher. You are incorrect.
Hogwash. I've driven the GM fours, and there is no way they are as refined as a Honda four.
1487: Your notion about the panel gaps is pure rubbish, the Epsilon cars have extremely small panel gaps just like all modern GM cars that I've seen.
Get your eyes checked.
1487: The Accord also has an exposed airbag cover, no manumatic, no 18" wheels, no 6 speed auto, no split fold rear seat, no panoramic sunroof, no MP3 jack and no trip computer. You're right, its much better. Please.
If you want more gadgets, buy the G6. If you want a better car for driving, buy the Accord.
1487: But the Secondly, if you are talking about C&D then you should know the Accord never loses any comparisons (except to Jetta GLI) regardless of the test results. The Accord puts up mediocre numbers and C&D comes up with ways to justify its win. Name some other comparos where the Accord has beat the G6 or Aura because I have seen none and I suspect you haven't either.
Spare me...the Accord wins because it's the better car. And the Accord just beat the Aura in the latest Car & Driver comparison test.
Robert Cumberford of Automobile called the Aura "pretty good," which is hardly backs up the contention that it is going to set its class on its ears.
Until you show me your credentials, their views will weigh more than yours.
1487: Look, if you chose to put the Accord on a pedastal that is your choice but dont come here and act like it's "proven" that the Accord is superior to everything on the market.
I don't have to "act like it." The tests results back me up.
You aren't really serious, are you?
I test drove an 03 (snap, crackle, pop, road wander, buzzy, cheap interior). Have ridden in occasional since but not the Impala copy.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
grbeck, I did that to several people whom went to the auto shows with me and after I pointed out those things the most common reponse I got is: Hmm, you are right but who cares about those tiny details.
Then I said: Exactly and that's why you are driving what you are driving...
"Call us brain-washed, biased or import lovers but until GM can put out a product on the same caliber as the Camcords, Honda and Toyota will contiune to get my business. "
Its already been done, but it is your choice to buy only Toyotas and Hondas. Honestly, people like you have no intentions of considering an american car but its a free country. Just dont get on your soap box and preach about how the only "smart" choice is to go Japanese. Thats
nonsense.
"If GM is able to keep this up for the next iteration then I'll put them both into my consideration list next time I am looking for a midsize sedan. "
These are not the first decent GM vehicles. Now you are saying you wont even consider these vehicles, but you wil think out it when the next generations are launched in 5 years. GM's products started getting significantly better about 5+ years and and the Aura/Malibu are just the latest and best efforts. You are talking about a track record, but honestly the sad GM products you are referring to are long gone. The Cimarron and Vega are ancient history at this point. Read reviews of products of the Intrigue, Alero, '97 Grand Prix, Alero, '98 STS, Aurora, etc. when THEY WERE NEW and tell me about GM's poor track record. Although coverage of GM is all gloom and doom now it wasnt always the case especially when it came to reviews of their new products of the last 8 years.
We told you before but you wouldn't listen and don't seem to get it, which is perfectly fine. "I" get more from an Accord because of its superior interior ergonomics and quality, superior handling and better powertrain (both V6 and I4). If you can't see it and don't agree then you are right, it's not worth it for you to pay the premium.
Its already been done
No, it's not. Maybe to you it is but to me it ain't. Okay, call me subjective but I'll believe its done when Malibu starts to finish ahead of Camry/Accord in comparos in regular basis and tops the sales chart. Fair enough?
These are not the first decent GM vehicles
To me they are. I don't consider the previous Malibu, current Impala and any previous Saturn sedans as honest efforts from GM.
I hear the same arguments about sports teams among the sports fans, often ad nauseam. E.g., can you say "Ohio State"? Paper tigers for egos to argue about.
As I've said before many people aren't looking for a car to 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, corner at 2.5 g's, roar up sides of mountains to go around trees blocking the wilderness trail, and so on.
So enjoy the car you chose, but please don't insult everyone else as though they were too ignorant to feel lack of quality in what they found they wished to purchase while the author has superior sensitivity and understanding that their car is much superior.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Import fans: couldn't you do the same?
GM will rise or fall based on what MASSES AND MASSES of buyers just like yourselves (the very small data points that you are, GM and import fans alike) consider to be the pluses and minuses of each model and brand. If the retail buyers cojntinue to flock away from the General, there has to be a reason. We can talk about prejudice, media bias, whatever we want, but at the end of the day what difference does it make to the General? It is still losing sales.
Now maybe the retail buyers are already flocking away LESS, and maybe 2007 will see an upswing in retail sales. GM is on the right track when it comes to product. They may not quite yet have arrived, but they're just outside the station. They have heeded many of the critiques laid on them by others, including survey groups and the press.
In terms of the profitability of the car sales operation, the single biggest step they could take to improve has already been taken: last year's concessions from the union and axing of excess production capacity. The other crucial process has also already begun, the knocking down of the massive fleet sales. They said they would do it, and then shock of all shocks! They actually stayed true to their word, through hard times I might add. I hope they continue down the path without wavering this year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
GM's sales have decreased in 2006 due to falling sales of SUV (which affected everyone) and cutting back on fleet sales. GM is trying to get profitable, not attain 30% share at all costs. Profit is what matters and as they learned, its possible to have more share and lose money. Cadillac had its best year in like 15 years in 2005 but 2006 sales were down slightly so your notion that they continue to lose sales and share is wrong. Buick has shrunk its model lineup and will continue to do so. You dont mention how many model Buick had when it was racking up huge sales numbers, nor do you address how many similar vehicles were on the market back then. When there was less competition the market was full of cars with huge yearly sales. Think about it, the camry today cant touch the huge sales of old GM cars from the 60s and 70s simply because there are too many models. Camry is a great car, but it wont ever crack 1 a million annual sales like some GM models did. I've asked you several times to explain to me why GM should have 30% or 40% share in this market when that condition doesn't exist in Europe in spite of the top notch product made by BMW, MB and VW. Still waiting for an answer.
"And I've provided my own observations, combined with test results from reputable sources. That works for most people except for those who want to play ostrich and keep their head in the sand."
you reference one C&D comparo and feel that you have "proven" all GM vehicles stink. I dont think that's good enough. As I said, if you actually look at performance and price the same sources you speak of show Hondas routinely getting outperformed by GM products. Honda typically lose all the subjective categories but when editors opinions and biases are incorporated the Honda magically rise to first place along with a bunch of excuses.
"See above. Come with me to an auto show, and I'll point these things out to you. "
You cant do so because modern GM products are assembled to the same tolerances as competing models. Notice how assembly quality and panel gaps are no longer mentioned when GM products are reviewed.
The Corolla may rank higher in CR but that doesnt make the Cobalt unreliable and that is the point missed by people who tout CR results. Most cars arae reliable, its just about measuring great reliability as opposed to very good reliability. Bottom line is, Corolla nor Cobalt is likely to give you major problems if you own one. Besides, the Chevy has a longer warranty if you are truly concerned. The other advantages I mentioned still stand and can't be refuted.
"wrong, they put it in last place because it wasn't as refined as the Accord, it's build quality was inferior, and skidpad results are the not same as real-world driving conditions.
Please show me a test in a reputable publication where the G6 has beaten the Accord. "
The G6 and Accord have only been compared once, and never since the G6 got a better powertrain. C&D made no comments about the G6s poor build quality, perhaps you should read the test. They said the interior was a refreshing change from the sea of black in the other cars. As I said, they ranked it low because of the shifter and possibly the steering if I remember correctly. Every time an import performs poorly in testing i read excuses about how test numbers dont mean anything. Why do they bother recording the information if that be the case?
"Hogwash. I've driven the GM fours, and there is no way they are as refined as a Honda four. "
Perhaps you should not base your assessment of the G6 engine on your experience with old GM designs. The VVT 2.4L and 2.2L are very refined. I've driven the Ion and the Mazda3 and the Ion engine is definitely in the same ballpark. But of course, the fact that the press hasnt had anything bad to say about the engine means nothing since you dont like it.
"Get your eyes checked. "
I have pretty good vision. Perhaps you should get a micrometer and check the gaps yourself. The media doesn't even comment on GM's gaps anymore because there's nothing to complain about. It's apparent that your blind rage against GM has clouded your judgement. I dont get how anyone can hate a company so much when that company has done nothing to them personally. What are you really getting about of all this?
"If you want more gadgets, buy the G6. If you want a better car for driving, buy the Accord. "
Actually the G6 is better at both, as is the Aura. Automoble magaizine said the Aura is more engaging to drive that Accord or Camry and looks better to boot. Read it for yourself. The handling part would apply to the mechanically identical G6.
The Accord did beat the Aura, I forgot about that test. The Aura performed better though which isnt surprising. I still want to see an Accord V6 vs Aura 3.6 in a publication other than C&D. Everyone knows C&D has a thing for Honda, its no secret and if you read the part of the latest comparo with the Accord they can barely come up with legit reasons for it's first place finish. I think they said it won because of seating position and steering. WOW! Thats more than enough to overshadow its average perormance and bland looks. They admitted its interior was dated, the styling was dull and the performance was midpack and yet it wins. Yes, its the best car.
"which is hardly backs up the contention that it is going to set its class on its ears. "
Never said that, read what Automobile said in their '07 MY new car issue like I referenced above and then get back to me. Since you value their opinion I think you'll find it interesting.
"The tests results back me up."
Wrong again, the C&D rankings back it up. On edmunds the Accord lost the last two comparisons it was involved in. In terms of test results the Accord is ALWAYS midpack, even in C&D where it always wins. When it beat the Fusion in C&D in 2005 the Fusion was better in every category except acceleration and it was cheaper. Hondas and class leading stats do not go together.
Holden Commodore SS set to become Pontiac G8
General Motors is expected to expand Pontiac's U.S. product line with a rebadged rear-drive Australian sedan.
The Holden Commodore SS will be called the Pontiac G8 and priced around $25,000, according to the Herald Sun in Melbourne, Australia.
While GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz did not confirm the plan, he told the newspaper, "It's such a logical thing to do. The volume range is 30,000 to 50,000. It depends on how we price it." He refused to say when shipments might begin.
Lutz said details would be revealed next month.
"We have yet to make an official announcement," Lutz said. "Much more will be revealed at the Chicago show."
This will be GM's second try at selling a rebadged Holden model as a Pontiac in the United States. The Holden Monaro was marketed as the Pontiac GTO for the 2004 to 2006 model years. Sales did not live up to expectations.
Dont flatter yourself into thinking anyone who doesnt drive a Honda is too ignorant to know good design and engineering. The arrogance of import lovers is amazing.
And just for the record, I dont hate imports like you hate GM. I just dont put them on a pedastal, I realize they have faults just like domestic vehicles.
Let's just say you are an Accord fan and that is what you chose to buy. That I can work with. Let's not get into pretending there is any actual proof that the accord is a world beater that is generations ahead of GM offerings. That is a dubious claim at best.
"Okay, call me subjective but I'll believe its done when Malibu starts to finish ahead of Camry/Accord in comparos in regular basis and tops the sales chart. Fair enough?"
Malibu will never finish above the Accord on the sales chart, they cant even make enough malibus to do so. If GM changed all their midsize cars to Malibus than I think GM could easily outsell the Accord. I dont think you want to compare GM midsize sales to Hondas. Fair enough?
"To me they are. I don't consider the previous Malibu, current Impala and any previous Saturn sedans as honest efforts from GM. "
Aurora, Intrigue, Lucerne, STS ('98 and '05 models), Deville/DTS, G6, CTS? None of them are/were "honest" efforts? whatever you say. Let's just say you refused to even look at any GM offerings prior to the '08 Malibu.
I dont see why its hard to make such a statement, instead we get insults, accusations that domestic drivers are rednecks and flag wavers, suggestions that "smart" people know that imports are better in every way, etc. They wont come to grips with the fact that some american cars are better than some imports and those who buy accordingly are not stupid, naive or closed minded. If that fails than we get "C&D says Honda is #1" as if that is anything more than the opinion of editors who openly admit to being fans of certian cars and manufacturers. Then we get "look at the sales charts!" as if that is proof. Vehicle sales are not the only indicator of the quality of a model. The impala is the third best selling midsize car but I doubt many would conclude its the 3rd best midsize car on the market.
Sales are always prood when talking Accord and Camry but things change when talking about othe segments. The F150 is going to crush the '07 tundra in sales but I dont think anyone is going to say the Ford is the better truck. Of course when comparing Accord to Aura or Fusion its a TOTALLY different story.
My current fleet of '04 and '05 Camrys and a '98 Nissan Frontier work fine for me, get great fuel economy, and in the case of the Camrys (both with side airbags), have good front and side crash test ratings. Also, I basically see my friendly independent repair shop now only when the vehicles need their yearly state inspections. (I do nearly all my own maintenance.)
Now, can we get back to comments instead of novels?
I have no statistics, but I know that GM spent somewhere between $3.5-$4K to keep my 04 Malibu running and there was at least the other $1000 in repair before I decided to let her go.
Don't you think that there is a little problem GM should address before blaming unions, west and east coast people, liberals, conservatives, currency rates etc,...?
Even if their new models are perfect their sales figures aren't going to climb for 4 or 5 years. They have disappointed so many times in the past, that it's going to be a long time before the baby boomers trust them again. Too many people see Lucy with the football.
We've already had the long lists of problems, so there's no need to rehash that - please folks?
You can dismiss market share as unimportant, but a lot of Americans are driving cars that are NOT made by GM.
You can argue about the advantages that the other companies have, but the fact is that GM has to live in the world that exists.
GM HAS been making progress over the past few years. Is it enough? Can they keep it up? Does Chevrolet need a halo vehicle to draw attention to it? Caddy has people coming into the showroom to look at their cars, and that's good.
Pontiac tried to do that with the GTO, and failed, but has a crowd-drawer in the Solistice. It brings people in the showrooms, where you can try to sell them a car. Saturn has the prize winning Aura.
Buick - nada. Do they need something to draw attention with?
Chevy? - the Corvette is a great car, but it's not new enough or obtainable enough to bring new folks in.
I think that Chevy needs the new Camaro NOW. Do the first year's production only as street racers with big engines and gutted interiors. Make it a limited edition. Lots of press, lots of showroom activity, more time to work on the fussy interior stuff that CR likes, later.
I have no idea what to do for Buick, though.