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 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
A little bit of skepticism can go a long way. Too bad so many refuse to question the actions and policies of their party line.
Overall, politicians care much less about the individual and much more about the individual's vote.
If you went through the history of the two deals and by whom they were owned and what car lines they had franchise to carry, it probably would become clear. I could hypothesize that an owner may have owned both stores at one time when the sales of cars were booming. They gained the GMC franchise along with Pontiac at some time and opened the second store. The store may have been a Cadillac or Olds deal and the first owner bought the franchise and built a new building relatively close to his original location for convenience or because of its being a good traffic location.
I can cite a toyota store which built their new Hyundai shop adjacent to the toyota. Down the road is a Ford store which built their new Nissan franchise next door. The used salesmen try to sell from both lots of used cars.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM, the second a situation appears where they have two dealers within 10 minutes drive from each other (much less 10 minutes walk) should bring the hammer down immediately and rectify the situation. GM should never EVER be pitting its brands against each other and should not be pitting its franchisees against each other. No one else does that except for Chrysler, and Chrysler has gotten away from it (that's what the massive dealer closure was about)
Example: My wife wanted an Equinox. I didn't want to pay sticker, plus I don't like the "aura" (typical 'Mom'-mobile). So we bought a Malibu instead. But I think the Terrain is far-better looking than the Equinox and probably doesn't share a piece of sheetmetal with the Equinox. Not necessarily a bad thing.
However, as I mentioned before, Chevy has (and has had) many models that Buick does not. For the ones that might overlap, they're giving America more choice. Not sure that's a bad thing.
Now, a Lincoln that is a copy of a Fusion, for example? I mean, same sheetmetal? IMO, that's not a good thing.
Uhhh, wrong. In the 80s they were identical twins, just with different badges. Now they're closely related clones.
GM did a better job of differentiating their cars than Ford or Chrysler did, though. GM would at least usually change up the sheetmetal, interiors, dashboards, etc. Ford and Chrysler usually just went for the easy-swap stuff like taillights, grille inserts, etc.
Plus, as long as the cars were selling well enough, I see nothing wrong with having multiple versions, in varying trim levels and styles. In the early 80's for example, you could tell a Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, Cutlass Supreme, and Regal were all the same basic car, but they all looked different enough to at least give you some variety. If you didn't like the style of the Grand Prix, for example, you had three others to choose from.
Because of that, I don't mind that GM has both the Regal and Malibu, and LaCrosse and upcoming Impala. The styling is at least different enough on the two that they don't look like clones of each other. Personally, I prefer the Impala, but others might like the LaCrosse.
The problem comes in when said versions have to compete with each other for sales. You want to compete with the OTHER companies, not oneself.
Uhhhh....wha?
Well, there's definitely going to be some overlap between the Impala and the LaCrosse. However, the LaCrosse is probably going to bring in a few customers who would have otherwise bought something like a Lexus ES350. I don't see the Impala doing that.
Meanwhile, the Impala is going to lure in, for the most part, customers who would otherwise buy a Toyota Camry or Avalon. Or, unfortunately, a Malibu...but that's a different problem!
In my case, the LaCrosse just doesn't appeal to me. I'd consider the Impala, though. However, if there was no Impala, I'd probably go get a Dodge Charger.
Since the Impala is going to be on the same platform, you'd think it would have the same stylistic issues, but somehow it seems better balanced to me. The windows look a little bigger, and the car in general doesn't appear to be as top-heavy, IMO. Probably just a stylistic trick.
Here's a page that lists most of the Impala's specs:
http://www.automobilesreview.com/auto-news/chevrolet-impala-specifications-annou- nced/45489/
I'm impressed that they got the Impala's trunk up to 18.8 cubic feet! IIRC, the LaCrosse's trunk is only 13.3 cubic feet
I'm sure they will. But in this case, I think the styling differentiates them well. The Equinox, IMO at least, has more of a raised wagon/cute-ute look to it, whereas the Terrain seems more butch and trucky. It looks larger to me as well, although I don't know if that's just a styling trick or not.
I've always been impressed with the legroom in the Equinox...both this generation and the previous. I swear they feel like they have better front and back seat legroom than the Suburban!
Here is link: http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-top-ten-worst-cars-pictures,0,657711- 3.photogallery
I don't think the Ion is that bad of a car. I certainly wouldn't want one, but I can think of plenty of cars out there worse than that one. The Aztek had really off-the-wall styling, and was a sales flop. But GM didn't really invest much money in it (it was based on the minivans). And it wasn't horribly unreliable or anything. Just mediocre.
If anything, I think the Chevy Citation should be on that list. It wrested the most recalled car in history crown from the Aspen/Volare. In more recent years, I've heard that the Ford Focus managed to oust the Citation from that throne, but I don't know if they measure it by number of recalls, or number of cars recalled? Or some factor of both?
One of my friends, who has a 2006 Xterra, liked the Equinox as well at the time. Main reason he went for the Xterra was because it was more macho, cool, youthful, and trucky, whereas the Equinox was a bit more family-oriented and from some angles, a bit minivan-ish.
His Xterra has about 96,000 miles on it and has been fairly reliable, other than needing some work on the HVAC controls and two of the four tire pressure sensors failed. It was all covered under an extended warranty.
Sometimes I wonder, if he had gotten the Equinox instead, if he would have been happy with it. And how well would it have held up over the years?
You can say 'sales flop', 'bad styling', or whatever, but Aztek, Ion, Mustang II, and Cimarron really do not belong on that particular list, by anyone who's a thinking man and actually remembers the cars.
By some of their criteria, I'd put the BMW Isetta on the list ("Body by Norge"?).
Says who? They stunk. I've driven all of them at one point or another. What criteria are you using to say they don't belong there other than warm fuzzy memories for days gone by?
But, even based on these criteria, consider...
The Aztek ushered in a new era of automotive style. Suddenly, cars didn't have to have cohesive styling. They could just throw any shapes and angles and odd proportions together and go with what stuck.
For all the "Barbecue That Seats Four" Brewhaha, overall death rates for the Ford Pinto were slightly better than average for cars in its class. So, chances are that you were more likely to die in some other small car, although you were more likely to die by fire in the Pinto. And the Pinto sold well from its birth in 1971 right up through the end in 1980.
The Edsel was considered a flop, yet overcrowding in the mid-priced market and a serious recession that seemed to zero in on that exact market probably took their toll more than poor build quality, gas guzzling engines (these things had oversized engines and were almost musclecars for their day), or awkward, sexually-suggestive styling did. Ford's forecast for the 1958 Edsel was 100,000 units. They sold about 63,000-64,000, about the same as Chrysler. Meanwhile, everybody in the middle-priced market was seeing serious declines in sales over 1957. DeSoto was down by 58%. Dodge was off by about 52%. Mercury was off by around 53%. GM weathered it a little better, with Pontiac being down about 35%, Buick down about 40% and the ugly '58 Olds only down about 25%. So, Edsel was down about 36-37% from forecasts. Not *that* big of a flop when taken into the context of how far the others fell.
The Cimarron was an insult to the Cadillac badge, but IMO, they weren't bad looking little cars. I think the big damage to them came in 1984, when the Cavalier went to a 4-headlight setup and eggcrate grille that made it look too similar. And, the Cimarron still managed to move 20-25,000 units per year from 1982-86 (~15K in 1987 and only about 7K for 1988). I'm sure every one they sold, even at a deep discount, still represented a lot of profit.
Personally, I'd think the 1986 Hundai Excel deserves a spot in that top ten list. Hyundai has come an awfully long way, but those early Excels were crap! I can't think of anything nice to say about them, except that they were cheap.
BMW Isetta shouldn't be on that list because they're talking about cars. Not unreasonable facsimiles of cars. :P
Those cars might have stunk. They might have been even awful. But, were they really so bad that you'd consider them among the ten worst of all time?
Now I'm not arguing about them being bad cars, not by a long shot. I just think that there was a whole lot out there that was much, much worse!
I think the best thing to do with these types of lists is just read over the comments and opinions, take a trip down memory lane, and not think too much into them.
Put differently, nothing in the current lineup would make a future worst list.
And companies like Toyota have made it their business model which is one of the big reasons they have made it as far as they have.
Much to the disappointment and citicism of the rest of us "enthusiasts"
I think the best thing to do with these types of lists is just read over the comments and opinions, take a trip down memory lane, and not think too much into them.
I agree.
List like this are soooooo subjective...
Back in the 1930's, Chrysler developed the Airflow design, which wasn't very well received at the time (probably made someone's list of 10 worse cars of all time back then), but take a look today at how much technology from that design is incorporated into today's cars, much like many SAV designs can be traced back to the Aztek.
I can't remember which, but its either Hyundai or Kia that recalls the Airflow in one of its commercials. That's rather unusual, using a different manufacturer's product to sell yours....
I love the simple frontal styling. For anyone old enough to remember, I'm reminded of the clean front end styling of the '79 Impala--the grille and top of the headlights are at the same height, which I like.
I think the rear end is a little uninspired...I wish the taillights had three distinct red bulbs light up in each!
http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/impala/2014/photos/2014_chevrolet_impala_f34- _ns_40412.html
New era? No. GM was the one that brought grotesque to the forefront. And, it was not the first time.
You could drape an entire year's worth of porn over the Aztek and it still wouldn't look sexy. It tried to go about 12 different directions and did none of them well or cohesively.
The Aztek was never going to be a home run but marketed properly it could have lasted lots longer than it did.
Tolerable? What a disgrace to a once great division of GM that defined entire market segments, such as Grand Prix, GTO and TransAm.
If you want to say the "sporty" Pontiac division shouldn't have been making SUVs, well, you need to tell Porsche and BMW that too.