Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
302 replaced the 289 in 68 I believe...my dad's 68 Fairlane had a 289, but there was a local old lady original owner of a 68 Torino (the year Torino was the top Fairlane trim level) with a 302. 351 came out around 69 too IIRC, I am pretty sure those made it into Mustangs. The Bullitt car was a 390 IIRC.
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-timeline.shtml
I had a 302 or whatever in a 70 Mustang. Real dog because of attempts at pollution control with retarded time at low motor speed/idle.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Wait, so getting a 400hp Corvette engine on the current GTO/Holden for just over 30k is a bad thing
reply:
Yes. I guess they could lower the price on the Corvette to say $34,999. If you are paying best, it should be exclusive the car it was designed for. You should not expect Neiman Marcus quality at Wal Mart prices.
Loren
the Shelby Stang
http://www.shelbyautos.com/
Loren
Come on people, discussing the merits of muscle cars is fine, if you debate whether it will be good for GM or not.
:mad:
We went to the Nissan dealer first, because he's really smitten with the Xterra. He and the salesguy went out together, while I just hung around the lot. My friend came back from the drive, really in love with it.
Well, just to give it a fair chance, we went to a Chevy dealer next and checked out an Equinox. My buddy has always liked them, ever since they came out, but just kind of forgot about it once he started noticing the Xterra. I had a feeling that the Xterra was going to make the Equinox look like a total piece of crap, but surprisingly, that didn't happen!
I rode along on the test drive with the Equinox, and afterwards really wished I had with the Xterra as well, so I could have compared them better. Anyway, when it comes to stuff like interior quality, fit and finish, etc, Nissan really has nothing over Chevy. Orange peel is just as bad, the fit of the body panels is no better, there's just as much hard plastic inside, etc. Actually, I think I liked the Equinox a bit better, because the fabric on the seats was nicer, and it also had matching fabric on the door panels, where the Xterra was just a mix of soft and hard plastics.
When we went for the drive, the 3.4 V-6 didn't sound nearly as noisy or unsophisticated as I expected it to, and the 5-speed automatic tranny seemed to shift just fine. It had adequate power, and even merging onto a highway with 3 of us on board seemed fine. I'm sure the Xterra was better in this regard, but the Equinox was still nothing to be embarrassed about.
Now, the Equinox wasn't without its faults. For one thing, I wasn't overly impressed with the fact that it had drum brakes on the back. Even on the LT model, which was supposedly upscale. And I see what other posters have commented about, with the poor layout of the cargo area. It seems like the suspension/strut area robs a lot of cargo space. Just eyeballing it, the Xterra seemed like it had a better cargo area.
As for interior comfort, the Xterra seemed wider, but the Equinox had better legroom, both front and rear. The Xterra was adequate for me, but the Equinox seemed downright generous, and there aren't many vehicles I say that about! Also, while the Xterra was better in the back seat than its published dimensions might suggest, the wheel cutouts and door openings made it hard to get into and out of.
Oh, and the Equinox had a nicer color selection! :surprise: And slightly better EPA estimates. (18/24 versus 16/21 IIRC) But then the Xterra had a better warranty, something like 5yr/60K miles on the powertrain and 3yr/36K on everything else, while the Equinox was just 3/36 for EVERYTHING.
As for price, both stickered in the $26K range. Without even trying, the Chevy guy said we could get the Equinox for around $23K. We really didn't talk price much on the Xterra, although they had a $500 rebate and $500 markdown, which brought it into the $25K range. I'm sure both could be had for less, but I doubt they'd come down a whole lot more on the Xterra since they're a hotter item.
In the end, my buddy just doesn't know which one he wants. For him, the Xterra still has the coolness factor going for it. But his practical side is leaning toward the Equinox, and in his opinion, it's still "cool" enough!
I'll keep you guys posted!
:shades: Loren
Well you need to do a little research then. The LSx engines were never designed "exclusively" for the Corvette. In fact, the previous generation LS1 Corvette engine could be had in Camaro's/Firebird's for less than 25k (stripped of course). I am quite happy with getting a high quality 400hp car for 30k, as most people would be if they actually drove the car.
Loren
If you don't tow or go off road, the Eqinox probably is the better choice.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd lean toward York's point of view - cut the dividend, cut pay for EVERYBODY, (including management), and sell off Hummer, Saab.
The public does not know the targets but that is because GM has not made them public.
I'd lean toward York's point of view - cut the dividend, cut pay for EVERYBODY, (including management), and sell off Hummer, Saab.
Cutting the dividend sounds reasonable. Worst it could do is drop the stock price which would make it another buying oportunity. Dropping Saab? No one answered my earlier question on whether Saab adds anything in Europe? Perhaps diesel capability? If not try and sell it but to who? Who wants it?
Hummer? Hummer is all profit right now. GM needs all the profit they can get. There is no need to refresh any of the models (H2/H3)in tne next 2 years so they might as well ride on the profits. Of course they are probably developing a small version to compete with small jeeps?
I used to have an 89 and have been in plenty of all 4 generations and have never seen one with a backseat that adults could reasonable deal with.
The GTO on the other hand has quite a nice backseat. It may be the best in a GM since they stopped making coupe de villes. The Goat looks much better inside than it does outside.
I didn't try out the new GTO's back seat, but I've sat in the front. Very roomy up there, almost 70's car big!
My Camaro comment: the car was in the same position as the Mazda RX-7 and Nissan 300Z in the 90's: the prices got to high on these cars. You really can't get on GM too much for killing the Camro and Firebird since Nissan(300Z), Mazda(Rx-7), amd Toyota(supra) all got axed through out the 90's. Mazda did come back with a sports car with the RX-8 and Nissan did come back with the 350Z a few years ago. Mitsubhi slso killed the 3000GT and never came back with a replacement for the 3000GT and Toyota never followed through on a Supra replacement.
The sales went down every year even though the later models were much better than the late 80s early 90s. I had an 89 that I loved at the time (despite it's poor reliability) but I outgrew it. There were hardly any die hards left to appease. The next gen of enthusiasts had moved on to the Fast & Furious cars. Changing tastes and killer insurance rates killed the Camaro & Firebird. Maybe they could have tried harder, but it would not have made much of a difference.
One has to wonder if bringing back a Camaro will work. The current GTO is selling quite slowly.
One advantage a Mustang had, too, is that the base models made a good chick car. Adequate performance in a small, sporty package that still had a semi-useable backseat and cargo area. Now it hardly had the versatility of a minivan, but it was still a bit more practical than the Camaro. Now the Camaro/Firebird made for great performance cars, but as a chick car/college kid car, the Mustang would've been better IMO. For one thing, a Camaro/Firebird is pretty intimidating even in base form, with that long hood and low seating position that just make it feel like more of a handful than it really is.
IIRC, weren't Mustangs usually a lot cheaper than equivalent Camaros and Firebirds, too?
- We're about as long as a 73 Grand Safari
- Made you sit in a hole
- Lost all body integrity when converted to a convertible or T-Tops
- Had a live rear axle
- Weighed 3500 pounds
- Had reliability issues.
They were very limited appeal cars. Comparable year Mustangs were better cars for alot of reasons.
Bringing back the Camaro will work if they don't OVERPRICE it.....like they did the GTO. Price is one reason the GTO are slow sellers.
Don't think tweaking would have helped. They just got too big and fat. Young guys moved on to pickups and other.
Wonder what would be so difficult for GM to build a "balanced" performance 2-door coupe benchmarked to BMW, but with a base in mid 20's. Make it about the size of BMW 3. Could be in Pontiac division, but name would have to be other than Firebird.
York's point was that Hummer is not part of the core business. It's a standalone operation. Effort spent in running Hummer diverts company attention from where it really needs to be. GMAC is profitable, too, but they're selling that.
York's point was that Hummer is not part of the core business. It's a standalone operation. Effort spent in running Hummer diverts company attention from where it really needs to be. GMAC is profitable, too, but they're selling that.
My earlier point is that Hummer is not really standalone any longer. Yes the low volume H1 was pretty much done my American General and is still built by them but they have revised the design and the H1 will soon be by itself and may no longer be economically viable. The H2 was also primarily developed by them BUT it uses large truck components from GM. This one could possibly be built and sold by a separate company and when the time comes to replace it this new company could do it. The H3 however was completely developed and designed by GM and uses Colorado architecture parts. Again a new one could be developed by a new company. The H1/H2 are built by American General but the H3 runs down the line with GM trucks.
Now would someone buy Hummer? What would they get? The rights to continue to build and sell what has already been developed and is already selling. They would somehow have to buy the H3's from GM. So this new company would get the profit. But GM would not sell for nothing since they are already reaping the profit of what they sowed.
So far there is really no advantage to sell the Hummer brand to another company. GM will not sell it unless they can make the future profit of the Hummers now from the sale.
The new company could start development of replacement vehicles and that would be the possible reason to buy the Hummer brand from GM. BUT, is the Hummer a one time great shot? Will a replacement line be possible or will it fail like the latest T bird and lose sales? Awful risky investment.
And what attention is diverted? The 3 trucks are cooked and selling without much advertising. Public loves them (well enough that they are a huge status symbol to most everyone except those concerned with energy). There are probably only about 20 people in all GM actually working full time on Hummer.
Question is whether GM is developing new Hummer products.
Yes but that is a huge cash cow and GM will be getting big bucks today to help run the day to day business. I could be wrong but selling the Hummer brand would not be for much since there is not much to sell except for the brand name and the tools.
Also GMAC is very separate from GM. They mostly deal in the retail side with dealers and the home mortgage side. Very easy to split off.
Explain how a 400hp car for 32k is overpriced?
Convertible = $3,092 in 1964 / $18,662 in 2005.
Hardtop = $2,852 in 1964 / $17,213 in 2005.
Pillared Sport Coupe = $2,787 in 1964 / $16,821 in 2005.
If the current GTO was priced as above, they'd be flying off lots.
The base price of my '57 DeSoto was something like $3085, but I spec'd it out once with one of those American Standard catalogs, and it probably ran around $3800 (again, around $26K today).
My '69 Dart GT had a sticker price of around $3600 when it was new, which is around $19,000 today. That's with an automatic transmission, air conditioning, bucket seats, all the GT trim, power steering, 3 speed wipers with electric washers, etc...but just a 225 CID slant six.
Convertible = $3,092 in 1964 / $18,662 in 2005.
Hardtop = $2,852 in 1964 / $17,213 in 2005.
Pillared Sport Coupe = $2,787 in 1964 / $16,821 in 2005.
If the current GTO was priced as above, they'd be flying off lots
No they would not. YOu would have to go to China to buy it. Need to add multiple air bags. Need to add emission equipment and computers. Need to add structural metal. Need to add double the life improvements on all parts. etc etc. Then there is air conditioning, power windows, locks, trunk, RKE and on and on.
Now, hypothetically, we could take a GTO and strip a few things off.
Let's start with an MSRP of $32,000. And then take off...
Air conditioning: $1000
Leather seats: $800
Replace the alloys with a steel wheel and plastic covers: $500?
Power windows: $300
Power seat: $300
Power locks: $200
Put in a cheaper sound system: $500.
So now you end up with a stripper GTO that still stickers for around $28K. And nobody's going to buy the damned thing because it doesn't have a/c, leather, power stuff, etc!
The imported GTO is what Holden is selling in Australia as the Monaro. The Manaro is a performance car very much like the orginal GTO, but with a much better suspension.
While lemko has the consumer price index right, it does apply to a mixed bag of stuff, not any one thing in particular. The Solstice is fairly close to the indexed price.
Sorry for that host, and I know that was off-topic, but...
I dunno if the car itself is overpriced, but maybe overpriced for a Pontiac? It's actually a high-quality car, and seems to be better built and more nicely trimmed than just about all of GM's current offerings. It's just that it's not in-your-face enough, style wise, to carry on the GTO name, and probably ends up getting compared to smaller cars like the BMW 3-series coupe, where it's not going to handle as well due to its increased size and weight.
Perhaps if they could've found a way to market it as something more upscale, it would have done better? But then, the market for large-ish coupes (and the GTO probably passes for large-ish these days) just isn't that big.
Probably being a large, expensive coupe is what kept sales down more than anything else. If it were a 4-door sedan, and named something else, it would've sold much better. Also, the lack of a factory sunroof in the early models (I think you can get one now though) probably didn't help sales.
I actually think that cars are a better value now than in the 80s. I bet that cars are cheaper in constant dollars now.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The number of GTO's that Holden can build is around 18,000 annually. With price where it is now, they are selling 12,000. With a lower price tag demand might double, but only 18,000 would be available.
The "family car" in the early 60's was a full size Ford or Chevy or Plymouth. I think the price tags were about $2500 depending on bottom or top of the line. The full size car now is much smaller than the early 60's full size. The current "family car" is a range of vehicles. I do not think that one can point to anything in particular. But I think that the average family spends about 6 months income on a family vehicle. In the 50's and 60's that was also the case.
1980 Malibu coupe, $7000 (~$17.8K today)
1982 Malibu Classic wagon, $11,000 (~22.3K today)
1985 LeSabre Limited, $16,200 (~$28K today)
1985 LTD (the small Fox-based one), $11,000 (~$19.5K today)
1985 Silverado, $13,500 (~24K today)
1986 Monte Carlo, $14,500 (~24.8K today)
1989 Taurus LX, $18,000 (~28K today)
Now these are just very rough figures, off the top of my head. For instance, I think the $7K for that Malibu was out the door, with tax and everything, minus $1K trade for her '75 LeMans, for a balance of $6K. I think the $16.2K was out the door for the LeSabre, same for the pickup. But with the Taurus, I think the sticker price was $18K, and Granddad just said "I'll give you $10K + the LTD" and it was a done deal.
I think the Monte's price was out the door too, with tax and everything. Same with the Malibu wagon.
You can definitely get a lot more car for your money these days, especially once you factor in the safety and emissions features. Back over the summer, I spec'd out a new Silverado, and it came to around $16-17K (depending on whether I wanted a V-6 or V-8), so out the door probably around $17-18K. Now it wouldn't have had cruise control, power windows/locks, two-tone paint, dual tanks, or the nice sport rims that the '85 has, but it would have more power, a cd player, higher GVWR (although I wonder how much of that would get eaten up by a higher curb weight). And if I wanted all that extra stuff, I'm sure it would still come in at less than the $24K that '85 would extrapolate to nowadays.
I'd say the biggest ripoff of those cars I mentioned was the '82 Malibu wagon. Looking back, I don't know why it was so expensive. I don't remember it really being much better-equipped than my '80 coupe. It had cruise, a tilt wheel, and a nicer stereo. It also had lots of fake woodgrain and I think used the Monte Carlo gauge cluster instead of the regular Malibu. And it had wire hubcaps and a roof rack. But it was still just a V-6, and had crank windows (the ones that rolled down, at least ), manual locks, manual seat adjust, solid bench (no 60/40 or anything nice like that) and I think it just had vinyl seats, although it was a nicer grade than what my Malibu had. And while the '82 was a Classic, they called them ALL Classics that year. There was no more Malibu/Malibu Classic model separation.