Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
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
drove them into the ground like they did Isuzu and Suzuki
Maybe it was intentional, to eliminate competitors? Saab and Hummer, too.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/20/saab-suspends-all-warranty-coverage-cars-to-b- e-sold-as-is/#continued
This is what I call support for America. Like it or not, help comes from anywhere, even if minds remain closed! :shades:
Regards,
OW
I've always thought exactly that. Unfortunately, while Ford was smart enough to use Volvo safety technology throughout their line, GM treated Saab like the red headed step child and never used a darn thing from Saab while slowly turning Saab into an Opel with a different body.
Not really. Doing a quick Google showed me a GM 3.6L has a weight of 370LB, so maybe you're adding 200 LB to a 3000 LB vehicle. If you make the vehicle AWD, you are then adding transmission weight to the rear to offset it. Relocate the battery to the trunk, and you'll hardly change the balance. I believe VW actually was able to take their Golf GTI and produce a pocket rocket a few years ago - was it the VR3.2?
That Sonic RS is nothing but high-margin cosmetic add-ons.
I like the Sonic overall, but GM should be pricing and equipping these things to sell like Model T's. GM should be pricing them comparably equipped to the competition, at least 5% less than ANY competitor.
This is certainly a two-way street.
You mean GM doesn't help people in South Korea, Europe or China by building cars there? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
You hit the nail on that one. This has been one of GM's huge problems.
Honda comes out with Civic >> GM comes out with Chevette
Chrysler has PT Cruiser >> GM comes out with HHR
Ford resurrects Mustang >> GM resurrects Camaro
Ford buys Volvo >> GM buys Saab
Toyota is successful with Prius >> GM comes out with THREE different kinds of hybrids (after kLutz disses hybrids only a couple of years earlier)
They NOW have the money to lead and no longer follow like a confused sheepdog. So then a Malibu review says the new Malbu was NOT benchmarked against the leaders in the segment, only within GM. Why? :confuse:
For GM to be successful, they must lead. Or at least try really hard. I don't see that yet.
Well, since GM is not leading and they are only following themselves, don't you think it's time for them to get out of the way?
Oh, that's right...they did that with cars long ago...I remember now!
Regards,
OW
Ford resurrects Mustang >> GM resurrects Camaro
I think an automotive history lesson is required here.
You don't believe that GM introduced the Chevette in the fall of 1975 because the Civic was making it shake in its shoes then, do you? More like they knew then that they needed a replacement for the Vega and the Chevette was being built elsewhere already.
Ford didn't resurrect the Mustang...it never went away. The Camaro is outselling it though.
Mustang versus Camaro: it’s a story as old as, well, 1967, when the Chevrolet Camaro was introduced as an answer to Ford’s muscle car.
Countless comparos have pitted the Ford and Chevy pony cars against each other, in countless iterations and machinations. But if you swear by the measure of the bottom line — sales over more than four decades — the ‘Stang’s the top dog.
Unless Camaro sold over 3 million cars since 2002, case closed. Mustang is King, period, The End.
Year: Mustang/Camaro
64:*121,583/NA
65: 559,451/NA
66: 607,568/NA
67: 474,121/*220,906
68: 317,404/ 235,147
68: 299,824/ 243,065
69: 299,824/ 243,065
70: 190,727/ 124,901
71:*149,678/*114,630
72: 125,093/ 114,630 (not a typo!)
73: 134,867/ 96,751
74:*385,993/ 151,008
75: 188,575/ 145,770
76: 187,567/ 182,959
77: 153,173/ 218,858
78: 192,410/ 272,631
79:*369,936/ 282,571
80: 271,322/ 152,005
81: 181,552/ 126,139
82: 130,418/*189,747
83: 120,873/ 154,318
84: 135,678/ 261,591
85: 156,514/ 180,018
86: 224,410/ 192,219
87: 159,145/ 137,760
88: 211,225/ 96,275
89: 209,769/ 110,850
90: 128,189/ 35,048
91: 98,737/ 101,316
92: 79,280/ 70,712
93: 114,228/ *39,755
94:*123,198/ 119,934
95: 185,986/ 122,844
96: 126,483/ 66,827
97: 100,254/ 95,812
98: 170,642/ 77,198
99: 126,067/ 42,098
00: 218,525/ 45,417
01: 155,162/ 29,009
(01 production stopped May 2001. 2002 had a lengthy run))
02: (not yet released)
Total 1965-2001: 7,899,556/ 4,821,768
Any questions?
You see, Corvette is the only car model/brand in it's own right that received/continues to receive GM development since inception. GM follows as a rule. That's why they failed and Ford at least survived as the proud lone USA Auto Company ON IT"S OWN!! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Let's talk about now...the current cars.
This reminds me of when you brought up GM's 1971 motor mount recall to make Toyota's double-digit-million recalls in 2010 look better--39 years later.
They'd have a better chance cramming the V6 under the Cruze's hood.
I know and it breaks my heart:(
It would be interesting to see a SS vs. GT sales. One thing I've noticed is I see a lot of women driving v6 Camaros (that's not a dis).
Back when the Mustang routinely outsold the Camaro it was due to the base models. I wonder if roles have reversed. No question the Camaro is more aggressively styled.
Mustang will always lead Camaro because it wasn't discontinued....in many ways.
Regards,
OW
OK, history lesson.
The Civic was significantly smaller than the Vega, and the Chevette was significantly smaller than the Vega as well. The Civic came out in 1972, the Chevette in 1975 (gee, just about the right amount of time to realize they needed to get into the subcompact segment). The Vega continued to be made until 1977, the Vega was clearly in a different class and the Chevette didn't replace Vega, it sold concurrently:
Chevrolet Vega - 170 in long (and that was BEFORE the 1974 bumpers which added 5 more inches to the length)
Honda Civic - 147 in long
Chevrolet Chevette - 159 in long
Ford didn't resurrect the Mustang...it never went away.
OK, thanks for the correction. It's just that the Mustang sold like garbage until the massive redo for 2005, which launched GM's interest in resurrecting its sporty Camaro. Ford launched the Mustang redesign in 2005, GM brought out a new Camaro prototype in early 2006 and announced in mid 2006 that new models would enter production.
So it looks as I was essentially correct. :shades:
And I have to wonder if Toyota didn't follow GM's EV1 lead when they started researching hybrids, as a stepping stone to the plug-in Prius that's coming.
Well, the electricity and electric motors are about the only common element. For years people have known you can charge batteries and then power motors. But hybrid technology - using a combination drive, with small battery capacity recharged by the engine as well as regenerative braking, is IMHO *much* more innovative and complex. Both Toyota and Honda worked on this. GM gave up on their "charge and go" cars and destroyed them AFAIR.
Agreed, as long it was one of the late models. I believe they had pretty much fixed both the rust and the engine problems in the last couple of years. And the Vega was inherently a nice car if it had not had so many issues.
Oh, you mean GM's mistake regarding the EV-1. It's good to learn from your competition and then do it the right way. If GM would have developed the EV-1, perhaps hybrids would not be part of history.
Regards,
OW
Back then, I'd have much-preferred the V8 Monza 2+2. I had two high-school friends with new '75 Monza 2+2 V8's. At the time, I thought they were awesome-looking and pretty plush inside, and it was strange to hear V8 sounds emanating from a car that size. One was orange, one was red, but both ate brakes. The kid with the orange one beat it; the other kid still has his red one, with about 40K miles.
The current Camaro is also a disappointment in that it does not have a T-Top option. Paying an extra $7,000 for a convertible is not a great option. I'd buy a few year old Vette before I pay that kind of money for a new Camaro.
I postulate that the EPA testing doesn't discriminate and show the real advantage of the fuel efficiency of the smaller car. I suspect people driving under city conditions would get noticeably better economy in the smaller car, Fiesta Vs. Focus or Sonic Vs. Cruze, in stop and go driving. It simply has to be that the lighter car requires less energy to get it rolling. On the highway due to the wind resistance and other factors, there is not much of a fuel advantage--at least not in EPA's test mode.
I would like to see an unbiased test of this by a group that has a test track and proper measuring setup where they would do an honest test within brands trying to drive the same pattern of in town and suburban driving to compare the cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
On the topic of the 2013 Malibu, realistically how much innovation do you get in high volume basic sedans? The consumers won't pay much for it - they like ads at under $20K. The new Passat is getting all kinds of media hype for a car where the majority will be powered by an old 5 cylinder beast of an engine. Why doesn't VW get nailed for lack of leadership here?
I've driven a lot of different CUV's lately and it seems to me that the Acadia and Enclave may well be the nicest full sized ones out there right now in the under $50K price range.
GM seems to be taking the lead in a low priced e-assist system to improve mileage and performance, while Ford seems to be doing the same thing using turbos. Time will tell if either is successful I guess - but risk is a necessary part of leadership.
Despite the BK, GM is still tight on cash for R&D and Ford is even worse. They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained. GM and Ford need some time, but I think they will prove capable competitors in time. The GM BK did eliminate unprofitable segments, but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.
I thought VW would be a has-been with the new strategy, but to my slight astonishment, US citizens are eating up the new bigger and decontented sedans. Is it just the aura of "German sedan" that's more memory than reality? I don't know.
Ask yourself if GM had come out with the Sonata, and Hyundai had come out with the new Malibu, how much Hyundai would be selling of that Malibu. A midpack sedan is going to mostly attract existing pro-US and pro-union buyers, because it's still made by the home team. If it were a Hyundai it wouldn't be a sales leader at all. But if GM had come out with the new Sonata you'd be hearing about how great they had done. And you'd be right. More boldness, more effort in the Sonata than in the Malibu.
Despite the BK, GM is still tight on cash for R&D and Ford is even worse. They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained. GM and Ford need some time, but I think they will prove capable competitors in time. The GM BK did eliminate unprofitable segments, but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.
Well I had read online that they have over $30B in cash. They have the US government behind them. And from what I've read here, they also don't need to pay US income taxes for (five years?).
2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 Classic
Lemko, I remember the '97 "Cutlass". Ick! Good use of space, but not much else.
Regards,
OW
According to GM's own accountants they had $20.3B in cash and $11B in securities they could sell. See the first 2 line items of P.10. http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2011/Q3-2011-Highlights.pdf-
1) How much more $ do they need? 2) why did they just give their many thousands of employees bonuses, if they don't have $ to properly fund their operations?
They don't have the Korean government behind them and they don't have the huge pile of state tax breaks for their plant operations helping their cash flow, so they realistically are a bit constrained.
Check P. 8 of that link next. There is a row "Income Tax Expense (benefit)" GM made $1.822B in the 3rd quarter and paid $107M in taxes. This is about 6%. Would you pay 6%? I would CERTAINLY consider this tax breaks!
but it isn't a gift that keeps giving like having a foreign government continually helping your finances or having 10 years or more of massive state tax breaks for their US plants.
A simple solution as we're still the 800-LB economic gorilla. Our government bans the import of goods, or place tariffs on goods from countries that subsidize their industries to any degree. As I said before - I'm for bringing our troops out of Korea and such places. Let's see what governments have left to subsidize when they have to pay for their own defense.
Nice choice! Kona Blue is my favorite.
Fiat: That's the deal perhaps filled with the most irony. GM and Italy's Fiat linked up thinking that there was plenty to gain from sharing power train technology and other hardware ventures. But the industrial prenuptial agreement had a section that, in effect, required GM to pay Fiat a lot of money if GM decided not to buy most or all of Fiat over time.
So, in February 2005, GM announced it was paying Fiat $2 billion for a divorce, nervous about winding up owning all of then-troubled Fiat at a time GM had its own array of troubles.
That became seed money for Fiat to survive, develop new models and fuel-efficient, low-pollution power trains. Thence, to use the promise of sharing its fuel-efficient technology as a lever to take control of Chrysler when that Detroit maker went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in 2009.
Fiat's CEO, Sergio Marchionne, accelerated the strong Chrysler products in the pipeline, generated a profit, and now Chrysler is propping up again-troubled Fiat, while directly challenging GM in several segments of the new-vehicle market.
Here's the link. Dicey GM deals
Regards,
OW
And the next gen V6 GT's? I had one myself and it kept right up with the Mustang GT of the same vintage on numerous occassions (back when I was a stupid kid).
I agree. At least their web site also accepts real-world MPG as input. We should check those numbers as well, and not just rely on EPA numbers, which are obtained in a lab.
It's not really low priced, though:
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/19/2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-first-drive-revie- - - w/
The 2013 Chevrolet Malibu will set you back $25,996, including destination, which doesn't exactly make it a steal compared to the more efficient 2012 Toyota Camry Hybrid at $25,900 excluding destination
I hope it's very well equipped else it will need a $1000+ rebate ASAP.
By the way, I agree that the Passat's success is a curiosity. I think it's because they dropped the price, primarily. $19,995 base now.
How long before you save $6000 worth of gas on a Malibu Eco?
I was there, too.
Did you also notice the Fiat booth had the hottest models?
wife slaps me
I mean, I *HEARD* from other unmarried men that Fiat had the hottest models.
wife slaps me again
Never mind.
You going again? We should get an Edmunds crew together and meet up there.
Regardless, the last gen Probe GT was a very good performing car and Ford sold a lot of them.
I have an uncle that's about 6 years older than me and he bought a '94 Probe GT v6 manual trans of college. I drove it many times and it was a fun car. Extremely smooth revving v6 with a broad powerband, tight handling, good gearbox, good steering feel, and strong brakes. Plus they were reliable. A better engineered and much tighter car than a Mustang at the time.
Girly or not, they were about as much fun you could have in a FWD car. No they weren't a Mustang. Thankfully Ford came to their senses and listened to the customer for once.
I don't know if they're girly or not. I see women driving v6 Camaros all of the time, are they girly too? A base Mustang was know as a secretary's car for years. Who cares, some women like sporty cars too.
Chevrolet Vega - 170 in long (and that was BEFORE the 1974 bumpers which added 5 more inches to the length)
Honda Civic - 147 in long
Chevrolet Chevette - 159 in long
Those are pretty noticeable differences by today's standards, but back in those days, if it was shorter than about 190 inches, I think the typical American lumped them all together as "small" cars. The smallest domestic compact was probably the 2-door Maverick, which was sort of an anomaly, on an abbreviated 103" wheelbase and probably around 185" long. Your more typical compact was around 190-206", midsized cars ran from around 205" to 220" plus, and big cars started around 218" and, once they started putting the 5 mph bumpers on, some of them broke the 230" barrier.
IMO, GM really botched up with the Chevette by initially only offering it as a 2-door hatchback, from the abbreviated 1975 model year though 1977. The 4-door hatch wouldn't debut until 1978, the same year as the much more modern (but not necessarily reliable) Plymouth Horizon and Dodge Omni.
Yes. And this from a GM guy.
No comment, because I fear it will summon a phone call from my ex-wife! :P
Another thing I noticed at the 2010 show was that they no longer had the Rolls Royces and Bentleys up on the pedestals and roped off, so all of us bougie class and trailer-park dwellers could actually get up and get our fingerprints on the things!
Maybe business was hurting enough for RR and Bentley that they decided they need to get off their high horse and mingle a bit more with the crowds. Not that any of us could probably afford one!
You going again? We should get an Edmunds crew together and meet up there.
Haven't decided yet on this year, but I might go down. I missed it last year. Was planning on going to the Philly show last year, but I came down with an ear infection and had to back out.
"Ribbed for her pleasure" :P
Yes. And this from a GM guy.
Last year, when I was in a different location at work, I used to see a V-6 Camaro in the parking lot, which was driven by a guy. Found out that he was a secretary! :P So, I guess that stigma still stands! Actually, is it politically correct to say "secretary" anymore?
Kinda sad though, that the V-6 still has that chick/secretary stigma. That ~300 hp would probably equate to around ~400 gross, back in the good old days, and I'm sure the V-6/automatic Camaro would smoke most of those old 60's muscle and pony cars.