General Motors discussions

bumpy · April 2007

GM is probably lucky that no one knows what a 'velite' actually was.

andres3 · April 2007

"I'm not going to support a manufacturer who sold me a problematic product" will have excuses galore for Toyota now and will most likely buy another Toyota product. The bottom line is GM (or Ford) dont get second chances with most import leaning customers but Toyota and Honda will always get the benefit of the doubt.

I myself, clearly favor the imports, because they are clearly superior in quality, refinement, economy, value, and sophistication in my mind. Also, the reliablity and dependability are light years apart in my eyes. Furthermore, I had an American car that burned me with repairs that cost big time $$$ every 3 or 4 months. I had a Honda that cost me nothing but regular maintenance for 50 months and 65,000 miles.

Most importantly, I myself do not give Toyota or Honda any benefit of any doubt. No second chances for Dodge, yes, Honda will get aa second chance.

Both cars had transmissions fail early in their lives, but the difference is Honda stepped up and paid to replace my tranny, while Dodge looked the other direction and stated it was normal for "parts to just breakdown" and I quote. If Dodge had paid for my tranny failure like Honda did, US makes would still be on my "consideration" list. Since they didn't pay for anything after 3 years/36K, they are on my black list.

Honda paid for the tranny after warranty and they are on my "yes, can I have another" list.

m1miata · April 2007

Wow, the offence is taking arms! They are serious

justaveragejoe · April 2007

I envision a day when GM will once again make great cars and trucks.

Check this story out.

http://www.sacbee.com/130/story/152695.html

1487 · April 2007

"I think that the Aura is a step in the right direction. Now they need something that can compete in the compact class. They need to compete effectively in all of the classes that are currently on the market. "

I think GM is competitive in every segment. Their small cars could use smaller engines with better mileage and are clearly not best in class, but they are definitely decent. Aside from small cars what segments is GM stinking up? You make it seem as if they offer nothing worth buying outside of SUVs.

"Why is it when you go to a Honda or Toyota board no one mentions GM. People buy what they want just leave it at that. "

Just to be clear, I dont think the regulars here want to discuss Honda or even care much about Honda. Honda has come up because there are several Honda fans here who get offended if anyone suggests Hondas aren't worthy of worship. I suspect that no one in Honda/Toyota forums mentions GM because most import drivers are unfamaliar with GM offerings and would never consider a GM product regardless of product competence.

1487 · April 2007

that is under the NEW standards. I didnt think I had to explain that. The Accord is at 21/31 with a four under the new standards I think. Altima and Camry are about the same give or take 1mpg. BTW, your precious civic doesnt get 40mpg under the new standards. I believe its 26/36 or so.

1487 · April 2007

"You refer to the Accord as being mid-pack. Interesting to note how well your so-called mid-pack rated car does in reviews against the newest of new car designs."

I understand that you own the Accord and that means you love it. The car is decent and its a good choice. I have no clue why you believe the Accord has been defeating the competition in all these comparos. The accord won ONE C&D comparo vs newer competitors. Thats it. It didnt even win the last two Edmunds comparos it was involved in. I already said Motorweek picked Aura as best family sedan. I already said autoweek picked Aura over Camry since the Camry is likely considered a contender for best in class. If you are aware of other tests where the Altima, '07 Camry or Aura lost to the Accord let me know.

1487 · April 2007

The 2008 Malibu would get 34-35mpg hwy under current EPA standards. The Accord V6 gets 18/26 under new standards. Sorry, but the Accord V6 doesn't beat the Malibu 4 in mileage.

Malibu V6 gets 18/26 which is considerably worse than four.

1487 · April 2007

my parents last three cars exceeded that number. They are over 90k on th Olds right now. MY uncle had a Delta 88 that lasted over 180k miles. I know thats nothing by Honda standards but its still pretty impressive.

1487 · April 2007

"Just because you disagree with a publication's test results does not make it invalid. You'll have to do better than that. "

how about this: I put no stock in a magazine that rates cars but wont tell you how they acheive the scores. i bet you never noticed that since CR always puts Hondas on top. CR's point scale is a complete joke that is not backed up by anything. If you have evidence to the contrary please share with us.

"And whose fault is it that GM does not have a competitive, more efficient, four-cylinder engine available in the Aura? "

Gm has a four in the mechanically identical G6. It would've been cheaper, lighter and gotten better mileage. BTW, the mileage on the G6 (and malibu) four is virtually identical to accord and camry with fours and autos. Inefficient? If you say so.

"I don't believe it...I know it because independent testers have reached those conclusions"

name two tests where the Accord beat out the current crop of midsize cars including Aura, altima, sonata, Camry.

"Plus the Camry is the number-one seller in its segment, and among all passenger cars in general. That is what is obvious. "

what is obvious is that the accord wasnt invited since its been surpassed. You cant honestly think autoweek believes the camry SE is worse that the 4 year old accord. There isnt one area where the Camry is inferior. It got more power, better styling and far more featurs than the Accord.

1487 · April 2007

Loren:

I already addressed this point earlier. You are equating "less reliable than Toyota" with "pieces of crap". Less reliable than Toyota covers a lot of ground and while GM was lagging Toyota, that doesnt mean MOST or even HALF or even a QUARTER of GM products sold were unreliable. All we know for sure is that GM's reliability was lacking compared to Toyotas. The problem with people like you is that you presume that people only buy GM because they are buy American die hards and fail to realise that SOME people, in fact MANY people have had good experiences with GM products and will return for another.

The car industry is the only one where people equate 25% share with failure. You and others are on here telling us "If GM didnt suck, they wouldn't have so little share". My question is why does Toyota only have 16% share after 50 years of making top notch products for the US market? The more players you have the smaller the pieces of the pie. Due to the competitiveness of the market, Toyota, GM nor anyone else will EVER have as much of the market as GM had even a decade ago. A 30+% share is unrealistic for anyone in this market.

1487 · April 2007

"I myself, clearly favor the imports, because they are clearly superior in quality, refinement, economy, value, and sophistication in my mind. Also, the reliablity and dependability are light years apart in my eyes."

Best parts of that statement are "in my mind" and "in my eyes". I am so glad you said that. There is absolutely nothing out there that would prove that imports are clearly superior in economy, refinement, value or sophistication. Import manufcturers are clearly better at making small cars since such cars a very popular in their home countries. That is a given. Aside from that, there is no advantage in economy. The problem is you are chosing to base your argument on a few predictable model choices (Fit, Civic, hybrids) while ignoring the gas guzzlers like Pilot, 4Runner, Armada, Sequoia, etc. that get worst in class economy. You can't say the Asians are clearly "better" when they are only better on one or two segments. If they were clearly more efficient they wouldnt be making SUVs that get 14mpg in the city.

Sorry about your dodge tranny problems, but I have never said anything positive about dodge. It's great that Honda makes warranty repairs when your car is out of warranty but I dont think that is a standard industry practice. BTW, at what point do you think a domestic automaker has a right not to fix an out of warranty car? BTW, are you suggesting that the average person with a Honda out of warranty is going to get a free repair? I wouldnt buy a car based on that risk.

what year was that dodge? I hope that tranny story isnt 15 years old.

andres3 · April 2007

You cant honestly think autoweek believes the camry SE is worse that the 4 year old accord. There isnt one area where the Camry is inferior. It got more power, better styling and far more featurs than the Accord.

Actually, the truth is the Accord still has the Camry beat in a number of areas, which include: handling, suspension, interior refinement, fit and finish, reliability, dependability (at least for the last couple of years), and finally, in price right now. Also, isn't the Accord 4 still more powerful than Camry's 4 banger? Styling is subjective, but I'm not a fan of any Camry's styling. I like Camry's because they run forever, ride like luxury cars, and are solid.

cooterbfd · April 2007

Well, in 23 years, I've had a:
1975 Buick Apollo
1986 Chevy S-10
1988 Buick Regal GS
1979 Buick Electra 225
1991 GMC 2500
1994 GMC safari
1996 Saturn SL2
1998 GMC Jimmy
1999 Buick Park Av (Current)
2004 Buick Ranier (Current)
2004 Chevy K3500 Crew Cab Dually (Current)
1965 Buick Wildcat Conv. (Current)
Of course, this includes my wife's cars as well. The biggest problem, a blown head gasket on the S-10. Were they all problem free? No. But no catastrophic failures either. I don't believe I was "lucky", I just bought good vehicles.

andres3 · April 2007

There is absolutely nothing out there that would prove that imports are clearly superior in economy, refinement, value or sophistication. Import manufcturers are clearly better at making small cars since such cars a very popular in their home countries. That is a given.

Well, if you consider Consumer Reports (the only objective publication around) nothing, well then, you still don't prove your point. There is a large body of evidence that suggests my viewpoints are accurate and concur with many other Americans.

I do not think it's fair to say Honda is making any vehicles with "worst in class" fuel economy. The Ridgeline and Pilot might not have 40 mpg LIKE A civic, but they are still fuel efficient given their power and weight.

what year was that dodge? I hope that tranny story isnt 15 years old.

It was a '95 model, however, the tranny didn't fail until about sometime in late 1999, which makes it less than a decade old issue and memory. I would say the domestics should warrant the powertrains at least as long as GM is now doing, and they should consider after warranty repairs for anything that is more than $250 up to 5 years and 100K miles just like the powertrain.

There is some risk in relying on a company to step up and do after warranty repairs. A customer cannot expect 100% guarantee's that will be the case, but, with a Honda, you almost will never need to ask for an after warranty repair, which is probably why they do them when you need them. It doesn't cost them much to handle the repairs that are extremely few and far between. I think it is quite common for Honda to do after warranty repairs when required as long as you have good maintenance and service records.

Heck, Dodge would probably be bankrupted if I had had the brains to buy an extended warranty.

Furthermore, if I had bought a 94 Civic instead of that 95 Dodge, I'd of spent maybe 1 to 2K more initially, but would have recouped that in the first year out of warranty in repair costs, and then when I had to sell my Dodge due to its :lemon: status, I got peanuts for it in resale. The Civic would still be running today, if I had decided to keep it, but if I sold it today, I'd still get more today in resale for that 94 Civic than the Dodge was worth 5-8 years ago.

imidazol97 · April 2007

>the only objective publication around)

It's objective in your mind because it agrees with you. There's nothing objective about it. :sick:

>The Civic would still be running today,

Supposition. Not an objective conclusion.

m1miata · April 2007

Toyota could drop all their prices some $5K per car and truck, and double the market share -- who cares? They don't care to do that. Toyota is a profitable company, as is Honda. They are both patient in approach of expansion of sales around the world. By 2010, Toyota will be the largest in the World, based on market share. Toyota and Honda both have less debt than GM has. GM could keep the title of most cars / trucks sold in North America, to the point of going bankrupt. What is the value in that? Profit, while maintaining quality and reputation, is important.

GM has market share in US, and Toyota in Japan, the way I understand. Honda has less market share around the world, yet is a big player in North America. Bottom line is two of the three are doing so while realizing a good solid, sustainable profit structure.

Thanks for pointing out that I have a problem of presuming what people do in their buying decisions. I had no idea I ever covered the issue of why a person buys a GM car or truck. There are so many reasons for buying any item in the world, it is amazing that I was able to identify only a couple for buying GM products. When did I address this, as I do not recall that ever occurring. From marketing class, I guess one could analyze car buying, or for that matter, all products, decisions as being somewhat close, yet you pointed out some differences. As you point out, some will only buy American products, and hold a grudge after WWII. I doubt those are great numbers. Some may buy in support of buying all American products to help the economy. Some like the discounts, or are swayed by advertising. I bought some cars from GM when my cousin worked for Olds. Heck, the list of why people would buy a car is pretty long. Why they no longer buy a brand list is pretty long. Having the best product and reputation never hurts though. Handling, gas mileage, reliability, quality, are a few of the things people look for in cars here in California, if I may presumptuous in saying so -- without your permission.

As far as your quotes of what I said on any issue, they appear to be more closely akin to your use of the language. GM sucks? When did I say that? I am sure now you will let me know all the things which I have said, or finish all my sentences for me. GM, Ford and Chrysler combined made an awful lot of product during a three decade period in history. So there was "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly", just like the movie title. And I can think of a few cars, GM included, which would be great to own. Heck, I may own a classic Camaro or Vette, and join a club some day. This does NOT mean one can ignore what got GM into this mess, and what is will take to get them out of the situation. You can preach to the choir all you want, to convert the sinners over, you have to deliver on the promise.
Loren

m1miata · April 2007

Wasn't the Citation, Motor Trends Car of the Year?
:shades:

m1miata · April 2007

Last fill-up it got 27.75MPG, which included some mountain climbing to go over the Santa Cruz mountain pass. Trust me, this is a new car, so the V6 gets more than 26MPG. I am thinking it should do over 30MPG.

Most all my GM cars got 10% over the EPA figures. Ford, I would say is closer to EPA figures or less. Over the years, I think they sucked more gas on the average. No problems with Toyotas getting the EPA figures. Not sure why people have gas mileage problems. The PT I had got a bit less gas mileage, most of the time. It had the wind resistance, so a head wind really hurt. Not all that fuel efficient anyway.

So the 2008 Malibu will get 34-35 MPG highway. What's about right and compares to my Dad's Camry at 33 MPG with an automatic.
Loren

m1miata · April 2007

180K is the break-in period on the Honda

Loren

m1miata · April 2007

True, the double wishbone suspension is more sporty in handling, than is the Camry. And the Accord doesn't have the funny nose, only a mother would love.

If you want a softer ride, more akin to the Delta88, I would say the Camry is pretty much today's Olds. In the GM line, I take it the LaCrosse is the most like the Olds, and the Impala less expensive work horse of the three mentioned.

The Aura XR comes the closest to the Accord V6 in most respects. It is a bit more narrow. It rides on 18" wheels, if that is your thing, has a pretty smooth 6 speed tranny, with paddle shift which comes in handy to down shift on turns. Not needed for going through all the gears, unless it's your thing -- everyone has their things. The DOHC engine is pretty sweat. Price starts out identical to the Accord SE V6, until they hang the extra junk on there. OK, extra "things" people gotta have their own things to enjoy.
Loren

grbeck · April 2007

1487: how about this: I put no stock in a magazine that rates cars but wont tell you how they acheive the scores. i bet you never noticed that since CR always puts Hondas on top. CR's point scale is a complete joke that is not backed up by anything. If you have evidence to the contrary please share with us.

Another red herring. READ the written part of the test, and it will become clear how they achieve their rankings. Just because the magazine does not reveal its ranking methodology does not mean that the test results are invalid.

Sorry, but you will have to do better than that.

1487: Gm has a four in the mechanically identical G6. It would've been cheaper, lighter and gotten better mileage. BTW, the mileage on the G6 (and malibu) four is virtually identical to accord and camry with fours and autos. Inefficient? If you say so.

We were talking about the Aura, which does not have a four-cylinder engine.

The G6 is a mediocre vehicle that usually brings up the rear in any comparision test, so I don't know why you would want to drag that one into this discussion. The GM four cylinder engine is far inferior to the Accord four in refinement (I just drove a 2005 four-cylinder Malibu this weekend - trust me, it's no match for the Accord in refinement) and reliability.

1487: name two tests where the Accord beat out the current crop of midsize cars including Aura, altima, sonata, Camry.

Car & Driver and Consumer Reports.

1487: what is obvious is that the accord wasnt invited since its been surpassed. You cant honestly think autoweek believes the camry SE is worse that the 4 year old accord. There isnt one area where the Camry is inferior. It got more power, better styling and far more featurs than the Accord.

Really? You need to tell that to Car & Driver, which placed the Accord ahead of the Camry.

And until you show me where Autoweek said - in print - that the Accord wasn't included in the comparison test because it is inferior to the Camry, the only place where this is "obvious" is in your imagination.

lokki · April 2007

Here's an interesting study on vehicle longevity in Canada dated using data up to the year 2000.

Vehicle Longevity Study -April 2002

It's a PDF document so you'll need Acrobat to open it.

Toyota and Honda lead the non-luxury car makes as the longest lasting vehicles.

Chevy comes in at the Industry average.

I await, with some interest, 1487's debunking of this report.

m1miata · April 2007

Motor Trend's Car of the Year 1971, the Vega.
Must admit, a pretty good looking little car. It had potential, from the looks stand point.
Loren

lokki · April 2007

A Quickie Wiki search
Though often today dismissed as a failure, the Vega was a strong seller. Although outsold most years by the Pinto, Chevrolet sold over two million Vegas during its lifetime.

Consumer Reports rated a 1971 Vega above the Pinto and the Gremlin, but had reservations about the Vega's workmanship with similar reviews for subsequent Vega tests through 1974 and a subsequent test of a similar Pontiac Astre in 1975.
Car and Driver awarded top pick to the Vega above five other cars including the Corolla, Pinto, Gremlin, Volkswagen, and an obscure Simca "because of its particular suitability to American driving conditions." It was the only car besides the shortened compact Gremlin that could cruise at 70 or above. Its long 2.53-to-1 axle ratio allowed a low 3,000 rpm at 80 mph. Its ride was judged to be plush with a comfortable seating position, though it lacked traditional glovebox.

But it didn't last

The Vega ultimately would be doomed by with poor reliability and several highly publicized design problems including carburetor fires, engine overheating problems, and premature body rust, which began to affect sales after 1974 even though most of those problems had been resolved by that time. Labor/management strife at the GM Lordstown, Ohio plant where Vegas were built including a three-week strike in early 1972 added to the car's woes.

Pintos didn't look so great to people either after awhile.

Its rival counterpart, the Ford Pinto, was known for fuel tanks which could and did rupture and explode in collisions, where the Vega's own defects were the oil-burning engine and body corrosion.

Wonder why people started looking at those funny little Japanese cars? The interesting thing is that VW OWNED the economy car market and threw it away. Toyota and Honda weren't the reason that the Vega and Pinto were built.... they were intended to ward off the VW Beetle.

cooterbfd · April 2007

Noticed that Chevy/GMC leads the volume trucks, while Toyota was BELOW industry average.

stever · April 2007

Wonder why people started looking at those funny little Japanese cars?

Edmunds says "At $2200 the Honda Civic represented a tremendous value" (talking about the 1973 model).

Anyone know what the Vega MSRP'd at in '71? Seems like Bugs back then were $1999.

lokki · April 2007

I have that very information at my fingertips! :shades:

I was researching Time Magazine archives:

September 1970:

Debut for Subcompacts

The biggest surprise was the price of Chevrolet's Vega 2300, which turned out to be about $150 higher than that of a comparable Ford Pinto and about $190 higher than that of the cheapest Volkswagen.

The basic list price of the Vega 2300 is $1,950, which (with federal excise tax and dealer preparation) comes out to $2,091 for a two-door sedan, $2,197 for a "hatchback" coupe, and $2,329 for a station wagon. Frequently requested optionssuch as automatic transmission ($111), deluxe interior ($125.95) and power steering ($95)can rapidly raise the Vega's price to more than $2,500. The Pinto, which comes in only one model, a two-door sedan, is priced at $1,944, including federal excise tax and dealer preparation charges. Volkswagen's 60-h.p. basic beetle sells for $1,899.

Nobody seems to even know or care that Toyota exists until 1971....

stever · April 2007

There you go - follow the money.

Thanks Lokki!

210delray · April 2007

...we're STILL talking about CR and the domestics vs. imports?

Or should I say GM vs. Toyota? Same old, same old.

OK, maybe it's time for my Camry vs. G6 comparo. As you may remember from my past posts, I have both a 2004 Camry LE 4 cyl 4A and a 2005 Camry XLE 4 cyl 5A. This is really by family happenstance that I have two nearly identical cars (see my profile for details if that matters).

We took a vacation to the Southwest last month. Gorgeous scenery and very nice weather; not too many tourists either. So if you're an empty nester or otherwise have no school-age kids, go in spring or fall.

We flew to Vegas and rented a 2007 Pontiac G6 sedan from Alamo. The Alamo experience has its own sorry sideline, but I'll deal with the car itself, not the rental company. We drove over 1600 miles total, on 2-lanes and interstates (and a few unpaved roads -- sssh!), flat land and mountains, so we gave it a good workout.

Of course, in traditional rental car fashion, it's a base G6 without even ABS. Side curtain airbags standard (wonderful), and it did have a sunroof(!), 3.5 V6, and alloys. Coal-bin black cloth interior. Manual seats (except power height adjuster for driver.)

Pluses: nice V6 power, competent A/C with the intuitive manual rotary climate controls (3 simple knobs - pioneered in the US by the '86 Taurus). Good ride, good handling. Steering felt artificially heavy at first, but we quickly got used to it. Nice sized trunk, comfy front seats with good side bolstering. Engine compartment well laid out for checking oil, adding water to the EMPTY washer reservoir, etc. Sunroof actually quieter when fully open than when tilted up, the opposite of my '04 Camry! (We had it open a lot.) Even a padded (soft-touch) dash (except for the center stack)! So in terms of the basics, give GM a thumbs up! BTW, we never used the radio.

Minuses: 4-speed auto with no discernible engine braking when placed into 3rd on steep high-speed downgrades. Like my former '90 Sable, you can't manually select 2nd for lower speed downgrades. No "PRNDL" indicator on the dash. Red gauge lighting -- okay, but not really my preference. "MPH" illuminated in red on the speedo -- makes you think a warning light is on, especially at night. Too-small side glass (when can we have big windows back)?

Have to use the trip computer to reset the twin trip meters -- can't I have the push button on the speedo instead? Tiny YELLOW indicators on the climate control to indicate recirc vs. fresh air, and a/c on. Why not green? Yellow's fine for the rear defogger. Passenger seat like sitting in a tub -- way down low. My wife and I couldn't reach items temporarily placed on the dash from the passenger seat, with the seat all the way back for max legroom. Cruise control didn't hold speeds as steadily as in our Camrys, and those dainty little buttons for "set" and "resume" have to go!

On the details, give GM a thumbs down!

Overall winner -- Camry.

Ok -- have at it (flameproof suit on).

tlong · April 2007

Please relax. Lutz makes one statement and the GM bashers are all over it. He spoke with no certainty and he is known for blurting out stuff that is somewhat confusing or misleading

I am quite relaxed. If I were paying an old guy megamillions to dress in a nice suit and represent my company, I wouldn't expect him to be "blurting out stuff". What an embarassment, and it says something about management judgement - not just his.

"1990's - "We're going to make $$$ on big SUVs" - Toyota and Honda look farther ahead than the next quarterly report and work on hybrid powertrains "

More revisionist history. In the late 90s and early 2000s the Asians were rushing to get into the pickup and SUV game as fast as possible. Sorry, but Toyota's commitment to hybrids doesnt mean that Asian companies as a whole bravely decided to commit to saving the planet while the big 3 turned out nothing but gas guzzlers. Prior to the gas price hike of 2005 the Asians were going full steam ahead into the last area of Detroit dominance. Remember the Titan? Sequoia? Pilot? Perhaps the Tundra? Armada? Ridgeline? Oh wait, those cant be from Asian companies because they arent 4 cylinders or hybrids. what was I thinking?

There's nothing revisionist. Fact: Toyota and Honda did start looking at hybrids in the '90s, GM did not. In an article I read, Toyota's CEO even said that he wanted to build a powertrain that could take them into the future, he was looking a long way ahead.

I never stated Toyota did not try to build trucks or bigger cars. I did however mean to imply that GM lacked the same strategic awareness to use their profits to look ahead and be innovative.

The point of the comment is the lack of GM innovation over a 30 year period, they find it much easier to complain and find scapegoats for their abysmal management decisions.

210delray · April 2007

Not wanting to go back and read a couple hundred posts, I assume you're talking about Lutz's silly rant the other day. He ought to be put out to pasture -- sounds like Henry (the Deuce) Ford and Lee Iacocca crying on Nixon's shoulder about safety and emissions controls threatening to put Ford out of business back in the 70s. Go, go "Maximum" Bob -- have some "whine" with that cheese!

I like what Joe Sherlock ("The View through the Windshield") had to say about him here (lead story under April 9, or see below).

Carping And Whining: General Motors Corp. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has said that a Bush administration proposal to sharply increase fuel economy mandates could "add between $5,000 and $6,000 to the price of a new car."

President Bush wants to raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mandates for passenger cars beginning in September 2009 and for light trucks in 2011 by an average annual increase of 4 percent.

To meet those mandates, it could require hybridizing nearly every vehicle and a number of other expensive steps, Lutz told The Detroit News at the New York Auto Show. "This technology does not come for free," he said, calling Bush's proposal an "unaffordable solution."

$5,000 to $6,000 per car?! What a load of crap! The Chevrolet Cobalt is basically the same size as a Honda Civic but the Civic gets EPA mileage numbers which are 25% better (!!!) than the Cobalt's. The Cobalt has a four-speed automatic; the Honda has five speeds. The Civic is also lighter than the Cobalt.

While I chose Honda for my comparison, the same would hold for true if Nissan or Toyota were used. Even the now-ancient Ford Focus gets better gas mileage than the small Chevy.

I also recall a MotorWeek test of minicars where the Korean-made Chevrolet Aveo was rated poorly overall and got mediocre mileage compared with its peers. In fact, when equipped with an auto tranny, the tiny Aveo is more thirsty than the larger Civic, Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla or Nissan Sentra.

GM can attain much better CAFE numbers simply by making class-competitive vehicles and equipping them with up-to-date transmissions. Lutz the engineer knows this and is being disingenuous by stating otherwise.

The nice thing about CAFE is that it's a great equalizer - every auto company has to meet the same standards. Every time CAFE is raised, Detroit execs carp, [non-permissible content removed] and whine. Meanwhile Honda and Toyota quietly develop innovative solutions to meet changing regulations.

Detroit sang the same tiresome songs in the 1970s about pollution controls. Lee Iacocca and Hank-the-Deuce used to perform sad, self-pitying duets at every press conference they held. Meanwhile, Honda hummed quietly to itself as it developed the efficient, low-emission and innovative CVCC engine which was so clean, it didn't require a catalytic converter.

In 2007, GM has (again) staked its future on cheap gas, squandering precious development money on redesigning its big pickups and SUVs. It has lost this bad bet and is now stuck with a product mix weighted to the fuel-sucking side. And, amazingly, GM introduced a new, ready-for-sale V-8 engined Buick at the New York Auto Show (and a more powerful Hummer model) while cynically displaying three tiny, fuel-sipping 'concept cars' which are far from production-ready and will probably never be made. Shades of the Chevy Volt at the Detroit Show, no?

Meanwhile, gas is now over $3.00/gallon around here (my wife paid $3.099 for Regular last week at Chevron) and too much of the U.S. fuel supply is still coming from the Middle East. CAFE is only part of the solution but it is an effective mandate which will help lessen our ever-increasing appetite for oil from terrorist-supporting nations.

Don't worry about high-priced gas, though. Ol' Maximum Bob is taking all this into consideration - spending GM development money to make a V-12 Cadillac engine instead of that V-16 he was contemplating (which environmentalists estimated got about 21 miles to the polar bear).

I think Bob Lutz has jumped the shark. I always thought he was overrated. His business book, 'Guts', was one of the worst I have ever read. (And I've read hundreds of business books.) Lutz's was so abominable, I couldn't even finish it.

Last week, Lutz also opined that Buick and Pontiac are no longer "damaged" brands. What the hell is this guy smokin'? Ummmm, probably the same weed as when he wrote that book.

imidazol97 · April 2007

>Tiny YELLOW indicators on the climate control
This is trivial.

>Have to use the trip computer to reset the twin trip meters -- can't I have the push button on the speedo instead?

I'll take the dual, easily reset trip odometers over one reset by push rod in middle of dash (tacky).

>My wife and I couldn't reach items temporarily placed on the dash from the passenger

I would expect to have something father away when I have the seat all the way back. I think this is normal. It's not an important point.

>MPH
The MPH tells you you're not in KM.

These are inconsequential points. I didn't read any of the others that are major short of driving one of the cars myself as you did. I suspect I could pick out things from a Camry were I to rent one - I probably won't be. Perhaps someone else has rented the base Camry and can put up the little things that may have to be gotten used to.

210delray · April 2007

I said these were details, but they were annoying to us. Do we always have to argue? I'm simply trying to present my very own "comparison test." I rarely get to drive other cars for extended periods.

Yellow to me means caution -- and the smallness of the indicators makes them very hard to see in the bright sunlight of the American Southwest.

The Camry has the trip meter push rod, yes, but it also has two trip meters, not one. GM (and other) cars used to have those same rods -- easier to use, without having to flip through various "menus."

Then again, our particular car had zero oil life left at the start -- thanks Alamo -- so that warning had to come on first in the display every blasted time we started the car. Maybe if Alamo had actually serviced the car first, the computer wouldn't have been so annoying. (There were NO other midsize cars in the row when we got to the rental lot.)

I know what MPH means, but it's lit in RED in the lower left of the speedo, so at a glance at night, you think a warning light has illuminated. The cruise control indicator was green -- so GM could have used green for "MPH" also.

And about that passenger seat -- it's way too low, and there's nothing you can do to raise it. You actually had to watch your back when getting in, as it was quite a drop down. This seat became a running joke between us for the entire trip. I can reach the dash easily from the passenger seat of my Camry with the seat all the way back.

I'll have to compute the overall gas mileage. That's why we used both trip meters so much.

But as I said, it was a decent car overall and the basics were solid, but I prefer my base Camry. YMMV.

msfoster · April 2007

>>push the gas V6 models hard, and finally (this one will prompt some howls) add the CAFE fine in really big numbers to the sticker price of every car and truck that falls short of the CAFE target. <<

If only v-6s got good mileage. Compare the fact that many v-8 Caddy owners report 18 to 19 in town and high 20s on the freeway. The same numbers most v-6 owners report (if they are lucky). I don't know about GM mini-van mileage but I know my 96 Chrysler with a 3.8 gets 14 to 16 in town and my wifes Odyssey gets one mpg better. I didn't have to flinch when I deceided to buy a Suburban gas costs are neglibly higher than my Chrysler. V-6s aren't going to get better mileage until they get the engineering attention and investment that the v-8s get.
My 75 Monza with a Chevy 307 v-8 got the same mileage a buddies Buick 3.8 v-6 Vega got. (sad)Granted both were hot rodded 4 barrel cars so mileage wasn't the point in the first place.
If you want good mileage buy a four cylinder or three cylinder. Hey how is the five cylinder GM truck engine doing on mileage?

m1miata · April 2007

Well my V6 averages around 24MPG and freeway MPG are around 29MPG. I would think that is quite a bit better than a Suburban. A V8 Caddy may get pretty good gas mileage when cruising around 70 on the freeway, but when pressed into service, as in any heavy foot driving added to the mix, my bet is that the mileage drops off quickly. And in averaged runs of in town and highway/freeway, the V8 uses quite a bit more than a V6. A four banger is still the best bet for mileage, but I lived too many years with those little engines, I just had to get some power this time. Now enjoying the 244HP, which is more than my last V8, the 1965 Mustang. Yeah, a long time with V6 and i4 lower HP cars. Whatever the car though, it was all fun! I love to drive.
Loren

torque_r · April 2007

Old news. But here is why:

General Motors Corp. is holding off on plans for virtually all new rear-wheel drive cars in response to the threat of far stricter fuel economy standards from the federal government.

Concerned that heightened mileage requirements will penalize the automaker for producing new versions of high-performance rear-wheelers, GM is halting all but a few of the vehicles in its future lineup.

Word of GM's change in plans came this week from GM product czar Bob Lutz in an interview with the Chicago Tribune. A GM spokesman confirmed the information on Wednesday.

While GM wouldn't give specifics, the move could mean consumers will never see a rear-wheel replacement for the full-size Buick Lucerne and Chevrolet Impala sedans or a small rear-drive Cadillac compact.

Still in the works, however, are a Chevy Camaro sports coupe due out next year and the Pontiac G8 sedan, which is being developed with GM subsidiary Holden in Australia.

"It says they are making a commitment to maximizing fuel economy and maximizing fuel efficiency, and that makes sense," said Tom Libby, an analyst with J.D. Power and Associates' Power Information Network.

The Bush administration wants to reduce U.S. gasoline usage 20 percent by 2017, in part by raising fuel economy standards an average of 4 percent annually. That would bring cars to an average 34 mpg by 2017, up from 27.5 mpg today. Also, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate cars' carbon dioxide emissions.

Lutz has been a scathing critic of the Bush plan, arguing that such a mandate could add $5,000 to the average cost of vehicles. "It would bring the market to a standstill," he told The Detroit News in an interview last week during the New York Auto Show. "We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead."

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/AUTO01/704120368/1148

imidazol97 · April 2007

>Do we always have to argue? I'm

When misrepresentations occur, I'm going to challenge them with information. You may choose not to respond.

>so that warning had to come on first in the display every blasted time we started the car

It's likely the car is serviced based on mileage rather than the oil life indicator - GM's version is very good. The reset button on the DIC is held in for a few seconds and the oil life reminder is reset to zero.

cooterbfd · April 2007

OK, I think you gave it a fair assesment. You may be biased towards the Toyota, seeing how you own 2, but you diddn't dismiss the G-6 out of hand. I think that has been a BIG bone of contention around here, with people lobbing bombs from both sides and all. Maybe a Malibu or Impala would've been more to your liking, but they weren't there, so it's a moot point. Good job though.

1487 · April 2007

"Well, if you consider Consumer Reports (the only objective publication around) nothing, well then, you still don't prove your point. There is a large body of evidence that suggests my viewpoints are accurate and concur with many other Americans.

I do not think it's fair to say Honda is making any vehicles with "worst in class" fuel economy. The Ridgeline and Pilot might not have 40 mpg LIKE A civic, but they are still fuel efficient given their power and weight. "

The Pilot and Ridgeline are not fuel efficient at all considering their power and weight. The Pilot gets 1mpg better fuel economy than the Tahoe with AWD in spite of weighing over 1000lbs less and having a V6. The Acadia gets better mileage than the Pilot and has 30 more hp and 500 more lbs of curb weight. You cannot be an unconditional domestic basher and import praiser without knowing the facts. The facts are that Nissan, Toyota and Honda trucks get mediocre mileage. I cannot think of ONE Japanese truck with a V6 or V8 that gets class leading mileage. I dont even want to get into European SUVs.

CR is hardly objective, they just dont take ad money. the two things are not related. There are 7 major foreign automakers and three major domestic automakers. The 3 domestics have about 55% of the market and yet you are telling me the majority of americans agree with you that imports are superior in every way. Dont think so.

1487 · April 2007

"180K is the break-in period on the Honda "

Really? I thought is was more like 200k.

1487 · April 2007

"Another red herring. READ the written part of the test, and it will become clear how they achieve their rankings. Just because the magazine does not reveal its ranking methodology does not mean that the test results are invalid. "

In your frustration, you are becoming more and more disingenious. CR doesnt back up its scores and that is very shady. C&D, Edmunds, R*T and others ALL show you how they get their scores. Check out the recent sedan test in CR> The Aura and Altima had almost identical performance measures and they generally liked the Aura XR as much as the Altima SE. They had quite a few complaints about both cars. Check the final scores, the Nissan was about 15-20 points higher than the Saturn. It was complete BS and totally unsubstantiated. This is the case with all their scores. CR is so stupid that they actually have the NEW Tahoe rated near the back of the class for large SUVS. These same morons gave the NEW Avalance (same vehicle underneath) a nearly best in class score that was abotu 20 points higher. Its completely made up and biased.

"We were talking about the Aura, which does not have a four-cylinder engine.

The G6 is a mediocre vehicle that usually brings up the rear in any comparision test, so I don't know why you would want to drag that one into this discussion."

Wrong again. My point was if C&D wanted a four cylinder sedan comparo they should've included a GM car with a 4, its that simple. The G6 has been in ONE real comparo and it came in last. Of course it was competing against vehicles that were generally in a higher price class so they loaded up the G6 to make it expensive as possible. The G6 has never been compared in MT, R&T, Automobile or on Edmunds. I dont even count the ridiculous CR comparo because they didnt even include the GTP model with 6 speed and DOHC V6.

"The GM four cylinder engine is far inferior to the Accord four in refinement (I just drove a 2005 four-cylinder Malibu this weekend - trust me, it's no match for the Accord in refinement) and reliability."

Not true at all. The ecotec is very refined and was improved substantially when the Cobalt came out to reduce NVH. Have any prooof of the reliability comment? I mean if you are going to throw out bold statements like that you should back them up. I've heard nothing of major ecotec problems or recalls. HAve you?

"Car & Driver and Consumer Reports. "

When did CR compare the Aura and Accord? Never. They compared Altima, Aura, G6 and Sebring.

"And until you show me where Autoweek said - in print - that the Accord wasn't included in the comparison test because it is inferior to the Camry, the only place where this is "obvious" is in your imagination. "

The AW thing is common sense. The Camry is new and its a potential class leader. The Accord is dated, lacking features and has been substantially outpowered by newer competitors. Why in the world would AW use the 4 year old Accord in a comparo instead of the brand new, state of the art Camry that is better in every way?

One thing you need to remember about C&D is sportiness is all they care about. I dont doubt that an Accord is better at handling than the Camry LE. notice C&D didnt use a Camry SE but then they criticize the camry for being soft. The performance of the Camry SE (I dont like the camry) is very impressive. Check out the MT COY issue and the AW comparison, it beats the Accord V6 in every measure. C&D likes to set up comparos where certain models are doomed from the get go. If you want sporty cars its ridiculous to skip the sporty trim of the Camry or any other car in the test.

1487 · April 2007

April 2002 is extremely current. Thanks for the info. We all know nothing changes in the automotive industry in 5 years. Cars on the road in 2002 were designed a decade ago.

lemko · April 2007

Also, the pie is a lot larger. I'd like to have 25% of a big pie than 50% of a Tastykake pie. I believe GM still sells just as many cars today as when it had over 50% of the market. In Europe, all major makes pretty much have an equal share. That's probably where the market is headed.

Reliabilty? It's been a L---O---N---G time since I've been stranded by any vehicle be it foreign or domestic. Most failures I've seen are caused by owner-neglect or old age/high mileage. It really has nothing to do with the manufacturer.

1487 · April 2007

"I never stated Toyota did not try to build trucks or bigger cars. I did however mean to imply that GM lacked the same strategic awareness to use their profits to look ahead and be innovative.

The point of the comment is the lack of GM innovation over a 30 year period, they find it much easier to complain and find scapegoats for their abysmal management decisions. "

Going forward who has the more aggressive hybrid strategy GM or Honda? We can trash GM history all day long (I'm sure you will continue to do so) but if Honda is so committed to hybrids why do they only have two on the market with few plans to expand their offerings? Honda has two now, will have one by the end of the year and has another model in the works before the end of decade. GM has one out now, and three more coming by end of year. Hybrid pickups and Escalade plus two mode Vue are coming in 2008. We can all acknowldge GM wasnt the first into the hybrid game, but we cannot all agree that GM cares nothing about the tech and only the Japanese are committed to hybrid vehicles. If GM is so far behind Honda (and they are in hybrids) why is it that GM will have far more hybrid offerings than Honda within a year's time?

Let me guess, now you wil go on to tell me how GM's hybrid isnt "real" because its not a full blown $3000 system like Toyota's. Very true but the Aura hybrid gets the same mileage as the Accord hybrid for way less money. Sure the Accord is faster, but are people really willing to shell out $8000 more to get a faster 0-60 time and the same mileage? I'm not. BTW, is GM's "fake" hybrid system better than Hyundai's or Nissan's? Oh wait, they dont even have any on the market yet. Nissan just bought Toyota's system and dropped in the Altima.

1487 · April 2007

"Having the best product and reputation never hurts though. Handling, gas mileage, reliability, quality, are a few of the things people look for in cars here in California, if I may presumptuous in saying so -- without your permission. "

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean but I presume you are saying "educated" buyers in a state like California look for qualities that only imports can deliver. I am amused whenever import lovers suggest that if you want reliability, efficiency, performance, etc. your ONLY choice is to buy foreign. Import fans paint with broad brush strokes but in reality the ONLY Asian models that can be called reliable, fuel efficient, and clearly best in class are SOME Honda and Toyota small and midsize cars. The efficiency argument is out the window when we start talking about trucks. The reliabiity argument is out the window if we start talking about Mazda, Nissan or Hyundai products. The resale value issue si out the window unless we are talking Honda and Toyota only. If we are talkign handling I think we better focus on Honda only because Asian cars in general are not known for being sporty, especially not Hyundais and Toyotas. I would say a larger percentage of Asian vehicles meet the requirements you mentioned, but that hardly means there are no domestic entries that offer them.

"This does NOT mean one can ignore what got GM into this mess, and what is will take to get them out of the situation. You can preach to the choir all you want, to convert the sinners over, you have to deliver on the promise. "

who here has claimed not to know that GM (and the others) screwed up in the 70s and 80s? I just want to know because you continue to post on the history of the Big 3 as if these facts are in contention. I think we all are well versed on the failures of the domestic auto industry. If you chose to buy only Hondas because of what Detroit did in the past decades that is your choice. I don't subscribe to that because I am shopping for cars in the present, not 1985. While you may find it unacceptable for people to disregard what GM did 20 or 30 years ago, that is exactly what I do. Let me say (in order to save you keystrokes) that I agree with you 100% that GM has made MAJOR mistakes and Honda/Toyota have generally been MUCH more efficiently run. Honda and Toyota have had GM beat in reliability, small cars, production efficiency, build quality, materials quality, four cylinder engines, etc. in past years. Did I leave anything out?

bumpy · April 2007

I believe GM still sells just as many cars today as when it had over 50% of the market.

Globally that may be true, but not in the United States. GM's US sales have steadily declined since the late '90s and may not reach 4 million this year.

andre1969 · April 2007

Globally that may be true, but not in the United States. GM's US sales have steadily declined since the late '90s and may not reach 4 million this year.

Just to put that in an historical perspective, just about every automotive history book I have paints the 1982-83 timeframe as the bleakest era in automotive history since the Great Depression. In 1983, GM sold about 3.5 million cars. Now that's just cars, not trucks. Seems like most of the history books tend to ignore trucks. I'd imagine that between Chevy and GMC trucks, that truck sales might have boosted that total to maybe 4.5 million?

So, in one of the worst years in living memory, GM turned out more vehicles than they do nowadays. However, that timeframe was a bit odd for GM, in that Buick, Cadillac, and Oldsmobile actually sold pretty well. In fact, for 1983 Oldsmobile and Buick outsold Ford! Of course, part of that was because Ford was doing so poorly around that time, but Olds and Buick did seem somewhat immune to that recession.

bumpy · April 2007

...in China.

2008 Park Avenue (derived from the WM Holden Caprice)

nippononly · April 2007

Geez, the only thing delray was "representing" was his own opinion. How can anyone say someone else's preferences are wrong?

I hope GM does a better job from now on of listening to what customers want, than some of the most avid GM fans here. I'm sorry, but how someone FEELS about a vehicle can't BE "wrong".

There is obviously a very broad spectrum out there of customer wants and needs, and it seems equally obvious to me that the more of that spectrum an automaker can appeal to, weighed against its own rising costs in doing so, the more successful it will be in sales, and hopefully the more profitable also.

General Motors discussions

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles