Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And also giving it a worse power/weight ratio than either Civic or Accord.
Last time I checked, 2.2 G5 had a better torque to weight ratio than the 2.4 accord.
as far as the extra weight, it is put in 1000 or more different places. size and structural rigidity are two big ones. Your remark about cheap materials being heavier as the place where that 450 lbs is shows you talk about things you know little about as though you were an expert. Didn't this start with my comment about the G5 being a larger car than the civic and the G5 being 91% of the size of the accord. By your logic, the accord has even cheaper materials? shows how weak your arguments are.
But, as an example, how about parking and going in to the coffee shop or Mickey D's instead of using the drive thru?
That 5 min. twice a day can equal almost an HOUR of idling time. I'll bet that comes out to 1/2 to 3/4 of a gallon of wasted fuel each week.
Put this way, if you use 10 gal a week to go 250 miles, that's 25 mpg. But if you wasted just 1 gallon of gas unnecessarily idling (and I don't mean at stoplights), that drops the economy down to 22.7!!!!
Now if you did things to save an extra gallon (like proper P.M., ease off on the gas a little) the F.E. jumps to 27.5!!!
Why is the Vue so heavy? Why is the Aveo heavier than most cars in it's class? In neither case is it because of added content.
News flash: weight and structural rigidity are only equivalent if you're using cheapo parts, rather than finding lighter materials that are more rigid.
And in fact, you said G5 had 90% of the CONTENT of the Accord, not the size. Which is laughable. Size isn't, but then again, exterior dimensions between compact and midsize cars are not only minimal, but make zero difference, since a car's size class is based on interior dimensions. Which is why the Elantra and Versa are technically midsize cars...which means they're over 100% of the content of the G5 to your thinking, right? They're also both lighter and have more rigid bodies. And oh look, they're cheaper too!
So, why is the G5/Cobalt so wonderful again?
But no, not everyone can outperform their fuel economy ratings. There's too many variables. A different set of tires can send you 2 MPG in either direction. Even a full bottle of coolant and a full bottle of anti-freeze in the trunk can increase weight and affect MPGs. I got 20 more miles out of a tank of gas when i cleaned all the trash out of my car. Just as examples.
Last I checked I still have the right to post my opinion, which if you read my post you would have seen that I said "IMHO". I still stand by my statement.
Some people like the G5 because it weighs 450 lbs more than the civic, giving it the feel of a more solid car.
What does weight have to do with it. My wife's 3600lbs GrandPrix doesn't feel as solid as the my friend's '08 Civic. The GP with only 40k miles, squeaks and rattles, rides excessively rough without handling well, and overall feels like the cheap POS that it is. Same with a '00 Suburban I had, eons less solid than the '01 Pathfinder I had at the same time, the PF felt like a vault. Sure, the Suburban was much heavier, but it felt less stable and secure, due to poor suspension design and build quality. I used to drive both vehicles down a gravel road that had a severe washboard surface. I could drive the PF 50 mph with one hand on the wheel down that gravel road. OTOH, the Suburban would reverberate so bad through the suspension and interior that I couldn't drive it 35mph without it wanting to go all over the road as the suspension couldn't keep the tires planted to the road, the the dash would shake so excessively the radio volume knob would fall off and one time, I kid you not, the entire overhead console fell down from driving down that road. I drove the PF down that road for years w/o issue. With the Suburban I either drove real slow or went out of my way to stay on paved roads to keep it from self destructing.
If I believed all CR numbers, I'd be driving a civic. You know I don't get CR so I don't know what mileage I should get but on long trips 65-70 mph all interstate, my 3800 got over 30mpg. Grand Prix is geared different, turns higher revs, different aero. I got 27 max in one of them.
Thank you, that's exactly what I've posted regarding the fuel economy of the GP and everyone tells me I'm nuts 'cause the 3800 is the best engine in the world and any vehicle it powers automatically gets 30+mpg. I've driven a '00 Park Ave from Florida to Ohio. Never got 30mpg. Avg about 27mpg going 75-85mph, that's still impressive mileage for that size of car, but I still stand by my opinion of a Park AVe. I hope to never drive one again, IMHO they're crap). No, I don't drive like many Buick owner's do with their left turn signal on for 2 hours while going 55 in the left lane;).
You just go on thinking that If I switched from a 4.3 3850 lb truck to a 2.2 liter 2990 lb G5, I'd end up with no improvement from the relatively thirsty 24 mpg overall that CR got. After all, CR said it.
Yeah, it's possible depending on the Vehicle. My 6000lb 2007 Expedition gets better hwy fuel economy that a '01 NIssan Pathfinder I had which had 60 less HP and 1500lbs less to lug around. Overall in mix driving the mileage is about the same. Same with the Suburban, it would easily match the PF fuel economy on the Hwy.
I don't know why CU gives low mpg ratings for the Cobalt/G5, maybe they just hate GM. They rate the Focus at 29mpg overall with a 150mile loop at 36mpg.
I checked a Grand Prix and the list overall at 20mpg and 150mile loop at 25 with max hwy mileage at 31mpg. Those are definitely about what we get around town and on our trips right around 25mpg. All I said was, CU fuel economy ratings are inline with what I've observed with different cars I've driven and owned etc.
BTW, CU rates a P/A at 32mpg max hwy, 21mpg overall, and 26mpg on a 150 mile trip which is still mixed driving. I'd say that's right in line with what most have reported.
But, as an example, how about parking and going in to the coffee shop or Mickey D's instead of using the drive thru?
That 5 min. twice a day can equal almost an HOUR of idling time. I'll bet that comes out to 1/2 to 3/4 of a gallon of wasted fuel each week.
Put this way, if you use 10 gal a week to go 250 miles, that's 25 mpg. But if you wasted just 1 gallon of gas unnecessarily idling (and I don't mean at stoplights), that drops the economy down to 22.7!!!!
Now if you did things to save an extra gallon (like proper P.M., ease off on the gas a little) the F.E. jumps to 27.5!!!
All very good points. No doubt idling kills FE. I've seen that with my Expedition watching the Avg. FE display. In the winter, with picking the kids up etc, I spend more time in the car waiting in various lines. I'll go from averaging 14.5-15mpg to 11-12mpg, partially because of more idling and shorter trips I take in the winter.
That's a good one. Ever consider writing fantasy novels? :P
It DOES directly compete with the Honda Ridgeline. Similar feature set, similar target market. Similar low sales. :shades:
The Ridgeline is as ugly as the original Avalanche, only less capable.
I still think they can, but I agree, there are many variables. The key is to eliminate as many as possible, change habits if necessary. Good example; I arrived in DC last nite for vacation. We took the wife's Rainier. I can't control the fact that there are 4 of us, and we weigh approx 850 lbs total with our luggage and things we need (like this laptop). I COULD have gone 75-80 mph when possible and got here in 6-1/2 or 7 hrs w/ no stops, but we took our time, went between 60-70 mph, took breaks, and got here in 9-1/2 hrs. For a vehicle thats supposed to get 20 mpg on the highway, our 410 mile trip garnered me 23.2 mpg!!! Now, I won't check it ( as I don't want to know) but I'll guarantee it won't get anywhere near the 16 in town here.
Well they are claiming that they have been doing right from day 1???
Uh? You have? See now, not only are they sugar coating all of their cars with the value packages, but they are lying to us... again. I respect that they are wanting to offer that, but certainly don't lie to us and claim you were doing right from the beginning. Your not.
Mileage....
I have an 08 G6 4cyl, gets decent mileage. I usually go about 40 miles a day 5-6days out of 7 a week. I usually have to fill up every week. But, I have noticed I do not get as good of mileage as my 06 Accord 4cyl I had. The Accord had substantially more performance, torque, cleaner power band, and still received better mileage. I could probably go about a week and a half if I drove consistent and calmly.
If seems really easy to suck the gas down in my G6 than it did in the Accord. I truly miss that Honda engine. I think the G6 engine wants to be revved up high,
the transmission and its engine programming is way off. The transmission actually is a huge disappointment. There are times at 40-55mph, that its gears sorta "bump" right into the next. I hate it!! Its quite rough. I am thinking of having my dealer look at it, and I will drive another similar model.
GM has decided to put in a 6spd auto in most of their line up, so that will help, but the actual engine, seems to be unchanged. Something still is not right, when comparing a their 4cyl to a Honda 4cyl. I would love to know what exactly is suffocating the engine.
A
A fillup is not specific number of gallons. I fillup often when the needle gets to about 1/2. My neighbor fills up much less often because he waits until the needle is at 1/8.
How many gallons does your car use over a month and how many miles and what type of driving.
I assume you kep the same records for your accord. And is that accord a manual transmission? Lots of Hondas are and people want to compare that to the mileage with automatics in other cars. Do you have records of number of gallons used over a period of time int he accord and the number of miles driven with those gallons. And what kind of driving.
Often people compare driving in winter weather in the colder half of the country with mileage obtained in summer weather. There's going to be a drop with the cold weather especially with repeated cold starts. And the gasoline is blended differently with high vapor pressure components for easier starting but reducing the fuel efficiency of the fuel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Oh well, the G6 is a lease. Turn it in, then I am done, No more GM.Sorry GM.
Anyway... If I were in charge, I would pull the plug on its new ad...
"we've been doing right from day 1" HA!! That commercial has been playing every commercial break today!!! :confuse:
Good points. Another point is "city" driving. I used to complain that my 2004 Quest got bad gas mileage until I saw that the average mph for a tank of gas was often below 20 mph. Which means my wife is doing a ton of stop & go driving and very little "highway" driving. On vacations when we do 70% highway driving, we avg. 24+ mpg (over 26 when I keep my speed under control). So the van is fine.
I've rented a few Cobalts for work and never was able to get over 30 mpg with mostly highway driving. Of course, I did exceed the speed limit once or twice.
Gas mileage is dependent on too many factors and variables and it's impossible to compare one poster from another unless you drive the same exact roads, at the same exact speeds, in the same type of weather.
But it does make for some good debates.
Hmm...what have they been doing right from day 1? Running the company into the ground? :sick:
How many top CR recomendations did your SL1 get?
How many victories did it have over the Civic, Corolla, etc... in comparision tests?
In what testing did the LS defeat the Accord?,
How many comparison tests has the Aura won?
When did the Astra reach the top in performance and mileage among compacts?
And if you were doing things right, why did you completly abandon most of your original business model and started selling nothing but rebadged Opels and Chevys?
The only way anybody is upside-down on any car is putting too little down, extending the payments for too long, negative equity in your trade or a combination of all three. I never trade my cars before they are paid-off and put at least 20% down.
Yeah, but we're talking about a GM. :shades:
All of the above are vulnerable and something's got to give. Ch. 11 looms.
Buick GM will want to hold on to...it won't be in the US market anymore, but they'll want it for China, if they can hold on to it. Problem is, it actually has value in China, and they'll be pressured to sell it to someone there.
Hummer will just fade away, but GMC they have to make a decision on...dump Chevy trucks, or dump GMC. If they dump the Chevy trucks, they might be able to hang on to GMC.
1) Buying Toyota Corollas and Calling them Geo Prism's and selling them.
2) Buying Honda V6's and putting them in GM vehicles as a wonderful engine option.
3) Sucking the good parts out of other car companies and bleeding them dry.
So I'd throw away all that is GM and start by purchasing Civic's from Honda, slapping a Chevy logo on them, marking them up 15%, and put a for SALE! "BUY MADE IN AMERICA" POSTER on it.
Of course, I'd try and make sure none of those pesky superior Civics with a VIN number starting with J sneak onto the lot!
Saturn should have been killed a while ago but we will see. They are still running the dumb commercials. :sick:
GM's Tom Stephens: Lutz Successor Is a Serious Engineer - and Serious Enthusiast (AutoObserver)
But then came the 80's. While the Japanese were investing in R&D and quality control, GM was headed in the opposite direction. Cutting costs, content and quality, anything to enhance the bottom line. Exploiting (and destroying) a reputation and loyal following built over 70 years for short term gain.
I think the defining moment in my mind was the introduction of the Pontiac Aztec. How an abomination like that could get through the GM bureaucracy with all the focus groups and committees necessary to bring a vehicle to market was astounding. At the time it was a real look into the future of GM.
Very simply GM should file for bankruptcy protection and emerge with Chevrolet and Cadillac.(Possibly Buick for the Asian markets) All the other brands are redundant vehicles anyway. Two brands worked fine for Toyota and Nissan for a long time.
Buick will do just fine, based on its new models due for release. Very sharp!
GMC, Done!, Hummer, Done!
By the way, we all better love the new Camaro, as GM spent MILLIONS on just the preparation of the car. I do!! Its very sharp, BUT...Wrong time for release?
Perhaps. Is it a need? A need for the company to stay alive? No, Not now, its a want. Also, remember, GM still released the new Traverse SUV, though we already have several other platforms. GM has several models that are outdated!
Instead of improving them, they simply just put out a new car, while keeping the old. They will run the old models right into the ground. The dealers are really taking the hit for that.
At this point GM has to make a drastic, painful change in order to stay alive.
I'am of the lost generation that has never bought an American car.Ford is sending over a 100 Fiestas from Europe for a hundred people to try out. There is a catch you have to be under 35 or 40 .( I know there is a set age for sure)Ford wants to get the young drivers back they lost back into the fold. They better send the hatch or they will be in trouble.We want to have roof racks ,inside cargo room for all our gear,Skis, surfboards(minis) wetsuits whatever.TheFord Fiesta has great low end torque and heated seats .
If you all go to MSN and see the results of the auto show ratings, I don't think an American car made it although, I scanned it fast.
What would I do if I was the head of GM? The same as I did in the military I'd adapt, and improvise.In other words get rid of the redundancy. Cheverolet pick up or GMC. I'd have better quality control, fit and finish Maybe I'd reverse engneer an Acura, Honda,Toyota, BMW, Audi and just badge them.I would gear the cars for zoom zoom ,but with better mpg.I'd get the price of the Volt down around the price of a Prius, Altima and other hybrids.Bigger is risky. Gas prices are low now ,but not for long.Muscle cars are for people that are spending disposable income,or spending $ 200.00 a month to impress people. I'd think like the competition(Japan,Germany,Belgium,Korea) and build vehicle that will sell and are low maintenace.(timing chains not belts for example)Lastly, I'd have a few rear wheel drives. Then I'd resign and try to appoint the head of Hundai, as CEO of GM.
I don't believe that there are many (if any) stand-alone Pontiac dealerships. That was a big factor in choosing Olds to die.
Additionally, I don't believe (except for the delicious G8 that isn't selling anyhow) that Pontiac has any unique vehicles whose niche isn't covered already by a Chevy or Buick.
Saturn may die next, but I think that they still have a public aura of "New GM" that may be useful.
To me, the most important question that faces GM is "How are we going to convince people that we're not the same old GM?".
I think that Saturn has value in becoming a new face for GM. Their reputation is for good service experience and customer relations.
Hummer will eventually fade away, but I believe that GM thinks they have a commodity in the name that they can sell....
So, Pontiac dies first.
What about GM Holden who builds G8 now. Is Holden going to end up as a good part of GM?
They'd be better off making it an Impala replacement.
What is that old slogan? "Feel the excitement" The Solstice is dead too.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=134167 :lemon:
Camaro may be retro, but it is also futuristic; ala Transformer.
If I were in charge of GM, I'd forbid anyone from this point forward suggesting a retro design.
People are tired of retro. People want to look to the future now. Things are shifting, much like they did in 1955. Nobody wanted cars that looked like the 40s. In 1955, GM jumped on that bandwagon and left everyone else in the dust with their competitors' dowdy old designs.
A company only needs to have 1 or 2 small compact cars, GM I think has several.
I just received a owners Pontiac Magazine or book showing new info or a look at new models because I lease an 08 G6 now. They were all old, except for the solstice roadster, but I think that is old news too. Dead. There was not anything in the book that showed new innovative ideas making their future look bright. Heck, the pontiac website is less than exciting. The updated G6 isn't even on the site yet. The money on the updates were not needed on a car that is dead. If they are going to update, they certainly didn't make updates that show the time took to do them. Just tackily done. Personally the original model looks more classy, without all the body molding. Yuck! OLD!
You know what though, with the G8 flopping, I wonder if the very expensively made Camaro will flop too? I am not sure its smart to even release it, as it might be like the G8, sitting, and not practical for people who are thinking practical now. It will be for those who want a show off kind of ride. How long will the rage be on the new model? Will they ever break even? Still not real smart!
Wow, GM is in worse shape than I thought.
Everyone likes a few retro cues in a new car sports cars. Mustang, Camaro, Genesis Coupe, and Nissan Z are all cars to show off looks and horse power and fun. I think each one has done an admiral job. Even BMW keeps the kidney grill around for their sports cars.
Cars like the Accord, Malibu, Camry, Fusion, and Mazda6 set the tone for future style of the fleet.
That being said, you are a 100 percent correct when you say retro does not sell main stream.
It is a shame to drop it, but GM would be better off dropping it and focusing on the Comaro. Maybe and some suicide doors to the Camao and call it a Pontiac Firebird as a one off. :confuse: