By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
That said, I don't ever remember my folks sliding across the bench in the 50's and 60's to get out on the passenger side.
They probably did it in the movies because that's where they set up the camera track.
A good example is speakers. Most people who haven't had professional training in music of some sort will generally think that the slightly louder speaker is the better one. It's an old trick that Bose and other second-rate makers use to their advantage. GM is betting on the fact that the cars have a 4 cylinder versus their 6 and people will ignore the smoothness part of the equation. Afterall, it's practically a religion in the U.S. now - bigger is better. More power is better. More cylinders is better. More gears is better...
GM's real problem with the test is that they aren't comapring the Accord and Camry V6s to their top-end model that's only 24K(slightly more money). This is using the same engine as the CTS and the LaCrosse CXS - the 3.6VVT. This is an astounding price for that engine, and serious competition. It also would see to be more fair, since putting a V6 against the I4s is going to have the effect that I mentioned above. Well, that, and they offer three enignes in a car with a 3-4K spread between the prices. They need to stick that 3.6VVT in there and make that the only choice.
Remember them? Heck, every dinosaur in my fleet has them, so I'm re-acquainted with them on a regular basis!
Have to go with the V6 Accord or Camry when comparing to any other V6 vehicle.
I hope you arent serious. Your opinions are totally outdated and inaccurate. You obviously are out of touch with current domestic vehicles. There is NO excuse for CRs road test scores and thats why they dont tell you where the scores come from, its that simple.
CR does not care about value, that is a lie. CR never even mentions price when scoring vehicles, they will compare two cars that have a $10k price gap and act like that is realistic. They do this all the time. Domestic cars usually do well in the value department and this is probably one reason why CR doesnt care about pricing. As for ride quality, the average domestic sedan is probably firmer riding than the average Toyota. Toyota tunes their cars like Buicks of 10 years ago. FOrd and GM are tuning most of their cars to be more European in ride and handling while Toyota designs highway cruisers. Are you even familiar with any domestic cars that have come out in the last 3 years?
I sincerely hope you arent serious about that. If you knew anything about the Aura wou would know that Saturn doesnt need to sabotage the competition to make the Aura look good Get real. Can you imagine the bad press GM would get if people found out they altered the Camrys and Accords?
I see you are one of the most die hard GM haters to visit this forum thus far. I would say there is a 99.9% chance that you arent going to heed any logic and reasoning when it comes to talking about GM products.
This particular vehicle probably would have been 3 or 4 car lengths behind my V6 Accord Coupe on the drag strip at the 5 second mark. Not only that, but it was not comfortable, it was not "nice" inside, and it had no guts.
A friend purchased a Dodge Charger about a year ago, brand new. Only one of the head lights or turn signals wasn't lighting up and it was 10 days old or so! Brought back some terrible memories and was a sign things hadn't changed one iota! Minor problem, sure! It could of just been a bad bulb! But, how come my Honda's never had a burned out light!
The 2000-2002 model or so Cavaliers and Malibu's turned me off so much to GM, that I just haven't gone back to their produce isle to do any test drives on my own. But I do read and pay VERY close attention to everything CR publishes.
GM seems to be doing better than Chrysler and Ford. Ford is doing THINGS to make a comeback... not sure if its working or not. Chrysler is doing nothing, and is stuck in 1990's mode.
GM seems to be doing more things right than Ford or Chrysler, but that isn't really saying all that much. It seems 2008 will be GM's biggest do or die year, to see if there new stuff really lives up to expectations.
And I am serious about the 99.9% figure on car dealers committing fraud to the Honda's and Toyota's... I mean, it is Car dealers and salesman were talking about... not exactly a model of integrity and honesty in the world. They rank somewhere right above insurance people and below illegal drug dealers.
And Altima is now placing those where the clutch would be on a stick shift. Not sure what they do with the stick shift ones. I didn't like the car and stopped looking at different variations of that car. The CVT is blah.
GM has some cars now which compare well to other brands. They also have some which are better in one way, and less in another, just like any and every brand is different, with all so many a product. Of course there is also the reputation of what will this car be like three or more years from now. Sitting in the showroom, they all look good.
Loren
I'm a car fan, not a truck fan.
GM's real problem is that they don't just take one brand and make it the rental/low-end. I suggest Pontiac myself, since Chevrolet has the Corvette and trucks and such which would suffer, but Pontiac has.. right.. virtually nothing unique or non-expendible. So what we end up with is a hodge-podge of rental and non-rental quality cars splattered across almost all of the lines. Sometimes it even happens within a specific model(Lucerne V6 vs the V8 CXS).
The rental fodder I got from Honda and Toyota was excellent, Civic & Corolla. Sentra not so much, quite ordinary...., Mitsubishi worse than Sentra...
Loren
Comparing the V6 Accord price to the slow weak v6 Aura.... stuff like that... the V6 should be compared to the 3.6, the 4 cylinder to the weak/slow V6 from GM.
They could just put an H on the hood, like Hyundai, and people may think it is another brand, like a Honda, and blame them for the poor performance.
Loren
As for modern refinements, the New replicar Stang has the SUV engine it as the V6. It gets 25MPG freeway with the automatic. Good old hood prop to hold up the hood. Gas cap with an ad for BP gas on it. Ya know, it doesn't seem like they are giving it much respect. Some day, they will have a 3.5V6 in there and it will improve the replicar. I am old enough to have owned a '65,seen the '67 and '69 as new cars, so the replicar was a ho-hummm.
Loren
what information do you have that suggests GM engines cant compete with the Accord's I-4 in hp, durability, etc.? are you talking about the ecotec? Last time I checked it makes 169hp vs 166 in the Accord, sounds comparable to me.
Please stop, you are being quite ridiculous. I have never had a light bulb burn out after 10 days on any domestic car I've had experience with. give me a break. If that is the sole basis of your supposed "knowledge" of domestic makes than I cant be surprised at anything you say. Mustang? its all about bang for the buck, I think we all know its not a VW inside and I HOPE you arent talking about the old model. Check out aura, Enclave, Lucerne, STS, Fusion/Milan, Impala, 2008 Malibu, 2008 Vue (out now), 2007 SRX, 2007 Tahoe/Yukon, etc. There are plenty of decent options out there for those who are open minded.
This explains quite a bit about your opinions. I think you might be better served by checking out some other sources, they are well known for their anti domestic stance. They dont even like domestic models that everyone else likes such as the Aura, 300C, vette, etc.
THe 2002 Malibu was TWO generations ago, that is hardly a current GM product. The current car came out in 2003 and is about to be replaced. The 2004 was MUCH better than the first generation and the 2008 is MUCH better than the 2004-2007 model. It is hard to criticize a company if you dont know anything about what they sell. I wasnt crazy about Hyundais of 5 years ago, but they make some decent product now. This is what improvement is all about. To say that you rule out all GM products because you drove a 2000 Malibu is kind of silly.
" I mean, it is Car dealers and salesman were talking about... not exactly a model of integrity and honesty in the world. They rank somewhere right above insurance people and below illegal drug dealers. "
do some research of Saturn's rep for customer service. They often rank near or ahead of Lexus for satisfaction. Yeah, they are known for being a step above pimps and drug dealers. I was hoping you werent serious about that sabotage thing, but I see you were.
Loren
Loren
Do you have any links to show that is actually true? They probably won't have to do anything; just let the cars be themselves and they'll do it to themselves by running less smoothly, less quickly, and in a less refined manner... :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Comparing the V6 Accord price to the slow weak v6 Aura.... stuff like that... the V6 should be compared to the 3.6, the 4 cylinder to the weak/slow V6 from GM. "
Where have you seen an ad where GM uses two different engines in comparison to one competitor's engine? Never seen that before.
The "weak" V6 in the Aura and the 3.6 get about the same mileage. There is no need for a bait and switch. The Aura XR gets 1mpg less than the Accord, not a huge deal. Why would Saturn have to lie about a 1mpg difference between the XR and accord V6?
In GM Models with two V6s the mileage is usually pretty close. The exception is the Malibu with 3.5 and 3.9 V6s, there is significant difference in those two. The Impala with 3.9 gets 20/29 which is about the same as the Accord V6 with 11 less hp but 29 more lb-ft of torque.
Put the XR against the Camry V-6 SE and the Accord V-6 SE, and the Honda will have less equipment while the Toyota will cost a lot more. (they could also put Aura GL and Camry hybrids back to back if they were feeling gutsy - the Aura would have way lower fuel economy ratings but would also cost a lot less)
This plan has moxie, I like it. I thought originally the Toyota and Honda would be showroom floor queens, but I saw the TV ad and it looks like you can actually do back to back (to back) test drives.
Me, I would like to drive the Aura XR again, back to back with the Accord. I bet they would be very similar in most aspects. I might still go with the Accord just because of the Aura's high beltline, but it would be very close. And of course the Aura's transmission is shiftable while the Accord's is not.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So the light probably never worked from day 1 or mile 0. That tells me there is ZERO quality control at Dodge.
CR is not anti-domestic, not in the least bit. GM, Chrysler, and Ford are the most ANTI Domestic people around, as they are the one's who are guilty and responsible for the low ratings! The lousy engineers, the lousy managers, the lousy car builders, blame them all, blame one group more than the other, but don't blame CR.
Don't kill the messenger!
DETROIT — Taking a page from its Aero X concept car, Saab has tweaked the look of its 9-3 lineup and introduced a more powerful 280-horsepower 2.8-liter V6 turbo for the U.S. market.
The Saab 9-3 face-lift's most dramatic element is a clamshell hood that first was unveiled on the Aero X. The front end gets a deep, trapezoidal air intake that Saab says is even more pronounced on Aero versions of the car. The 9-3 lineup gets all-new bodywork forward of the A-pillar, the Swedish automaker said.
Flared side sill extensions have also become standard across the range. The exterior of the car is cleaned up, with the stripping of all external rubber trim. The automaker is also introducing flat wiper blades for reduced wind noise, and new alloy wheels, with 18-inchers now offered as an option on all but the 1.8i models.
For the U.S. market, Saab has improved the current 2.8-liter V6 turbo engine for the new 9-3 Aero XWD models. It is uprated from 250 to 280 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. Saab said it gives the Sport Sedan projected 0-100-kph (96 mph) acceleration in 6.3 seconds. Saab said in two-wheel-drive applications, the engine now provides a 5-hp increase in power to 255 hp.
The Saab XWD also gets an eLDS option. Saab describes this as "the first application of an electronically controlled rear limited-slip differential in this segment of the market." In slippery conditions, it uses input from rear wheel-speed sensors and can transfer up to 40 percent of torque between the driveshafts to whichever wheel has more grip, the automaker said. Saab XWD will be available starting early next year.
In Europe, the 9-3 lineup includes a new four-cylinder diesel engine with two-stage turbocharging. The 1.9-liter TTiD delivers 180 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque. There is also a new 9-3 BioPower 2.0t engine that delivers 14 percent more maximum power: 200 hp versus 175 hp.
A Bose Centerpoint Surround Sound audio system is optional on Sport Sedan and SportCombi models.
What this means to you: If you liked the look of the Aero X concept, you're going to like what Saab did with the new 9-3 lineup.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121215
What this means to me: If I can get my credit cleaned up from the disaster my wife left me and land a good job just maybe I will be able to buy/lease myself Saab 9-3 Convertible or maybe a Sedan Aero XWD someday.
-Rocky
Loren
Loren
Where is it said that they will not be comparing V6's? Missed that.
Have to go with the V6 Accord or Camry when comparing to any other V6 vehicle.
Then the Saturn will beat out the Camry/Accord on price. GM offers the CIB V6 at the pricepoint of a Camry 4. Now if you compare the 3.6 GM vs the Camry V6 then you have a horse race.
This particular vehicle probably would have been 3 or 4 car lengths behind my V6 Accord Coupe on the drag strip at the 5 second mark. Not only that, but it was not comfortable, it was not "nice" inside, and it had no guts.
A friend purchased a Dodge Charger about a year ago, brand new. Only one of the head lights or turn signals wasn't lighting up and it was 10 days old or so! Brought back some terrible memories and was a sign things hadn't changed one iota! Minor problem, sure! It could of just been a bad bulb! But, how come my Honda's never had a burned out light!
We are talking GM here. Not domestics in general.
Bulbs come from the same suppliers so your bias really shows thru here. A sample of one does not make a trend when you sell milions of cars.
Loren
No, but I will be sure to look tonight.
Loren
Loren
Even with all that, at least Honda would tell the supplier to go to hell with 10,000 of your bulbs and bring new one's that work. Dodge would just say ahhh... cut our cost by 50% and well keep the defects and live with 50% failure rates.
The body shop did it for me upon my 2nd request/reminder to them to do it.
What a joke. CR dogs cars that get universally good reviews in other magazines. You need to read other mags to understand what I am talking about. Why cant they tell us how they get their road test scores? In a recent issue they compared the Aura to the Altima and the altima outscored the Aura by a huge margin even though the cars got nearly identical ratings. Care to explain?
If you have not even seen the current generation Malibu yet and its been out for 4 years than I dont know what to say. Do you even know anything about cars in general? Why are you here anyway? Your comments show that you are completely unaware of GM products and yet you are firing away as if you are some CR sanctioned authority on cars.