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
Remember both of those were designed by GM-Korea. Spark is even made there. I don't think they're made for the US specifically.
They're sold in other markets to spread costs, which makes sense.
Those two models are competing with mass transit and bicycles
How true.
I like the say the Tata Nano competes with donkeys and motorcycles.
Well, Spark is a special case, being small enough to smuggle through customs.
But the Sonic is built here. HERE here, as in a UAW plant.
Didn't notice the article mentioning the Zip Car option nor the fact that GM and OnStar let owners rent their vehicles.
(Juice, got behind another Aztek today and the sloping roof did make me wonder why they'd mess it up that way. Was wishing the Prius V would have been less swoopy and more boxy.)
Rental or not, I guess the bottom line is still less ownership overall, and in the case of urban rentals, I'd bet these cars would (will) have the tendency to have fewer options than single-person-use vehicles.
Many in this generation will be looking soley for people movement, and they'll provide their own digital entertainment devices.
I had to drive my uncle up to the local muffler shop to pick up his '03 Corolla, which needed a $485 catastrophic converter. Not too big of a deal, considering it has about 225,000 miles on it.
Well, on the way home, I thought I'd stop by the Chevy dealer, since we've been talking on and off about the new Malibu and its shortcomings and whatnot, and the dealer was close by on the way home.
The Malibu I sat in was a dark gray LS model, so it was the strippo of the bunch I guess. It had some kind of weird adjustment for the front seat where the fore-aft was manual, and it had a manual recline, but there was a button on the side that if you pushed it one way, the seat would drop down, but also go back a bit further.
All the way back, it was comfortable for me. But, in the back, there was about 2 1/2 inches between the front of the cushion and the seatback. You could not fit any adult, and probably not too many children, in the space behind me. I didn't bother to even try squeezing into it.
With the exception of the 2+2 seating arrangement, it wasn't a bad car otherwise. I thought the fabric seemed pretty cheap, but then it was the base model. And, to its credit, I liked the tilt/telescope wheel. It seemed to have a higher quality feel to the adjustment than I've seen in many cars, both foreign and domestic. And, other than the cheap seats, the rest of the interior seemed decent.
But, as a midsized car, this thing flops in my opinion. It's a compact in my book. My '68 Dart had a back seat I could fit in better, and it was a 2-door hardtop...something that's traditionally lacking in both legroom and headroom compared to a 4-door sedan.
So, Chevy is left, in my opinion, with two cars that are just too close in size for comfort...the Cruze and the Malibu. And, even though the Cruze is supposed to be Chevy's compact, I swear its back seat had more room in it. It was at least roomy enough that I dared to venture inside and see how I fit.
So, if I want to see myself in a new Chevy anytime soon, I guess the 2014 Impala is my only hope...
Nah, you've got to much Mopar blood in your veins. A 300 or Charger would be a better choice IMO;)
As for the Malibu, considering the latest Camry, Accord, Altima, and Fusion, it will be a bottom feeder.
The Chevy Cruze is everything the new Honda Civic should have been, including the best-selling compact car in August.
During a week of driving the Cruze Eco, the Chevy's superiority to the Civic came constantly to mind. Simply looking at the eye-catching fabric texture of the dash reminds a reviewer of the tired tiered design of the Civic's that underwhelmed so many.
Among many of its strong attributes is the car's outstanding quality digital sound system.
Bottom line, considering all, Chevy hit a homer with the Cruze.
The character of this sedan is athletic in the Germanic sense of the word. You can feel the tires through the steering wheel, and they are Nikes. The suspension swallows the road bumps while keeping the dreaded "noise, vibration and harshness" at bay.
With the six-speed automatic transmission as a $995 option, the Cruze Eco covers 26 city MPG and 39 highway for acombined 31 mpg.
FOr 2013 models, Chevrolet added MyLink infotainment system as standard on 2LT, Eco and LTZ models and optional on 1LT. Two audio systems, including the AM/FM audio system with GPS-enabled navigation and a seven-inch-diagonal color touchscreen, are also new for 2013.
An "enhanced safety package" that's available on LT, Eco, and LTZ models features crash-avoidance technologies such as side blind zone alert, rear cross-traffic alert and rear park assist.
Before looking at the window sticker, I like to drive a review car and try to guess the price based on performance, workmanship, design and comfort. I would have pegged the Cruze Eco at about $25,000. The actual price with options was $22,655. Sacrifice the automatic transmission, the touch screen and the upscale audio system and you're looking at a highly appealing $19,325. Prices for the LS trim with manual transmission begin at $17,275.
That extremely competitive price, which even leaves Hyundai's Elantra falling short, goes a long way toward explaining Cruze's sales success.
The '89 Coupe DeVille felt big? Heck, I thought my 1994 DeVille, which was bigger, felt pretty nimble.
How poetic. Unfortunately for the author, the Cruze Eco, in order to get the "Eco" designation, uses rock-hard low-resistance tires. They are not "Nikes." And there isn't all that much road feel anyway...plenty of heft in the steering, but that's not the same thing, Hyundai keeps confusing the two as well. This was a press release, not a review. I doubt the author drove it, and if the author did, said author never drove a Focus, or Mazda3, or anything else in the segment.
On the other hand, it does feel planted. Heavy, but planted. Not quite ponderous, but you can feel the difference in the curves, it's not as willing to be tossed around as something like a Focus or Mazda3. Assuming one is brainless enough to take a Cruze Eco into twisties without swapping out the tires first.
I'm certain Scripps-Howard has reviewed Honda products before and will do so in the future. If that was a press release, they certainly PO'd some folks at Honda I'm certain.
Personally, I prefer the Focus on paper anyway. I've yet to sit in a Cruze or Focus. If I were in that market a Focus hatchback with a manual trans would likely be my choice. That's not to take anything away from the Cruze.
The Malibu is different all together. There are at least 3-4 other cars in that segment I'd buy long before the 'Bu.
It doesn't fit either my preconceived notion of the car or my notions stemming from driving the car. Again: that was a poorly disguised press release for the new 2013 models, and actually read more like one of those ads designed to resemble actual news articles/reviews.
Got a link to the article or an author's name? I'd like to voice my disagreement with them.
It was mainly in the way it handled. It had a fairly wide turning circle, and the steering just didn't feel very direct. My Grandmother's '85 LeSabre, which we still had at the time, actually felt more maneuverable! So did my '79 New Yorker.
I keep wanting to get something more economical, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be in for some real culture shock. As much as I'm not endeared to my 2000 Park Ave, I have to admit that car is spoiling me. It's easy to get in and out of, and the seats are so thick it's like having a Lazy-boy recliner right in your car.
When I sat in that 2013 Malibu, my first thought was that it was hard to get in and out of...but then I realized I was comparing it to my Park Ave. I'd imagine it's similar to most competing cars, though.
Oh, and on the way home, I saw a 2013 Dart. I like it from the rear and I like it from the front, but I just don't like it in profile. Something about it just seems too egg-shaped, and sorta like the previous-gen Hyundai Elantra.
Hate to say it, but I think I'm going to have to almost be dragged, kicking and screaming, from my big cars and pickup trucks.
This article does look like a pseudo-press release .vs. bona-fide car review.
You can Google Scripps-Howard and get background from the web-site.
Somebody's always got to p*** in somebody's Wheaties when something good comes up.
I know what you mean about the seats in your Park Avenue. A few years ago we rented a DTS to drive on a five-hour trip, and the seats were like Barcaloungers and the V8 sound was just wonderful. My younger daughter at the time, probably around 12, said, "Dad, I'd give up the DVD player in our van if we could buy a car like this".
Some guy wrote a great expose about a Volvo event about 10 years ago like that. It was pretty funny how the "journalists" let themselves be led around and made to think it was their idea that a feature was earthshaking.
Sheesh, what a bunch of malcontents.
If "sheltered life" means I don't live in Jersey...I'm glad to be sheltered.
Now, if that had been said about the regular Cruze versus the Eco trim, it might have been believable. But the Eco trim had to be included so they could legally highlight the 40+ MPG number.
At this point it's simply from what I've seen and read. The new Altima, Accord, and Fusion all look more impressive "on paper" than the Malibu to me anyway. Better performance, better FE, better looks etc. Now this is simply my opinion based on what I've read.
I didn't say the Malibu is a bad car, but simply it will not be near the top in sales without fleet.
http://shns.com/autos
Maybe by comparing the tires to Nikes he meant they were overpriced and made bt third world children.
The bigger outfits can afford to be a bit less fawning. Like Dan Neil's reviews at the Wall St. Journal. Edmunds' seem to be less snarky than Neil's without too much fawning. :shades:
I know this isn't the most scientific way of choosing a car, but when I looked at that 2013 Malibu yesterday, even though it wasn't a bad car (other than the back seat), I just got this gut feeling that if I bought one, I'd be, for lack of a better word, "settling". I'd probably start hating it long-term simply because I wouldn't be able to get used to the small passenger cabin, and I'd constantly second-guess and kick myself for not getting something else.
If it's any consolation, I got the same feeling about the 2013 Dart when I sat in one back in July.
Actually, IMO, the Malibu even competes more with the Dart than it does "real" midsized cars. Maybe that's a hark back to the old days, when the Dart was usually the biggest of the compacts, while the Malibu was usually the smallest of the intermediates. In the early years, '64-67, the Chevelle/Malibu was actually about 10" shorter than the Buick Special, Pontiac Tempest, and Olds F-85/Cutlass, but by '68, GM pretty much standardized them. That added length to the BOP cars went mostly, if not all, into the rear, giving them huge trunks.
And it does seem like Mopar is getting some overlap as well. The Dart, their compact, seems to give up very little room compared to the midsized Avenger and 200, just as the Cruze and Malibu seem to overlap alot. IMO, Ford doesn't have this problem with the Fusion and Focus, although here the Fusion (2012 at least, haven't seen a 2013 yet) is what a midsized car "should" be in my opinion, while the Focus is simply too small for my tastes.
But then, Ford runs into the problem of having the Fusion and Taurus being too close together in interior room. Mopar doesn't have that problem with the 300/Charger versus the smaller cars. And, if the Buick LaCrosse is any indication, the 2014 Impala should be a lot roomier inside than the Malibu.
The one thing the Malibu has going for it IMO, over the Cruze, is that it has a more expensive, upscale look to it.
That's why Ford markets the Taurus as an "upscale" car rather than a full-size car.
Well, they try to at least, but I dunno how many buyers fall for it. :P Isn't the Taurus down to something like 50-60,000 units per year?
The Taurus seems to start off at a reasonable price, as well. The 2012 starts at $25,555, whereas a Charger starts at $25,595 and the Impala is $25,760. The Impala seems like a ripoff at first glance, but I'm sure with discounts and such it probably starts at more like $20-21K? I've seen Chargers internet-priced for around $22-23K. Dunno about the Taurus though, as I just haven't paid that much attention to it.
Yeah, they tried and have pretty much failed. Of those 50-60k units I'd guess nearly 1/2 are fleet.
Nothing feels particularly premium about my wife's Taurus. It's a big decent car, certainly nothing I'd buy. Though I could settle for a used SHO for the right price.
LOL, I've vowed never to bring that steaming pile of garbage up.
I don't hate the Taurus, but I don't particularly like it either. But considering some of the lousy company cars my wife has had over the past 10+ years, I'm not going to complain. It's certainly tolerable, something that I couldn't say about some of her previous vehicles.
Now that I've gone from a two GM vehicle household to zero, I have far less to complain about;)
This one went about 110 thousand, had an intermitent check engine light for the last 30k or so that the dealer wanted him to spend 2000 dollars to fix, (without any promises that it would :mad: ), a slipping transmission, and a squeeling rear end, (wheel bearings were my guess) It was also going through about 1-2 quarts of oil per month.
It was night and day compared to the 2004 one. :sick:
Oh, his company also let him get a company car of any make, as long as it was built in the US (good show for customers to be driving an American made vehicle). He bought a leftover 2012 Camry SE V6 :shades:
Likewise. Maybe the Cadillac ATS will soften the impact?
Actually, the smartest thing to do is just keep your old ride, run it into the ground, and save the difference of the price for a new car to fund ever escalating fuel prices.
The ATS appears to be a nice car, but room doesn't seem to be one it's strong points. I've read the rear seat doesn't have much head room and if you're over 5'10 your head will touch the headliner.
I don't see Andre in an ATS, maybe a Challenger;)
The Taurus has a ton of available gadgetry and if you go nuts on the option sheet, they can get expensive quick. I think an SHO starts around $39k and that will come with plenty of standard equipment.
Just like here though...it's not the conventional wisdom!
That's likely true, but when you actually look at what you get for the money, it's probably not out of line. Not many full-size cars can be had for $40k that offer 360HP and AWD. A 300C starts at 38K w/o AWD, and an SRT8 starts at $48k. So the SHO probably isn't overpriced in that regard. But I certainly would buy a 300C over the Taurus SHO.
"The Accord has some catching up to do".
Also, wouldn't say he likes the Civic by the sound of the Cruze drive review.
I think it's comical that folks who pan this review tried and act like the "Ten Worst Cars" list was a well-thought out and accurate list! The late Phyllis Diller would be amused. She liked cars, BTW, too.
Saw an old clip of hers online not too long ago:
"Fang's not a fan of my cooking...says it's not like his mother's. Ugh, his mother!!! Did I tell you she was a large woman? When she wears white we show movies on her!".
Some of the younger posters here will have to google her, no doubt.
I find it funny the lengths you will go to in order to defend GM and act as if they can do little to no wrong. By the way, did you hear the Washington Post is now throwing the Volt under the bus? Tells you something. :shades:
Stickers package? Is that where you get a sticker or label of SS without having the SS engine under the hood?
That's funny.
He mentioned he was going to let his grandson inherit it when he was old enough to drive. Not sure what his grandson did to piss him off, but a Camaro SS is one of the last cars I'd want to see a newly minted 16 year old male driver in! :P
Speaking of which, the insurance industry rapes teenagers. Imagine trying to insure a 16 year old boy in a Camaro SS??? That leads to the other topic of why young people try to avoid owning a car. The Insurance companies engage in the sodomizing of young people through the use of age discrimination (yes I know the statistics show young people get in more wrecks, but not all young people do!). I'm willing to bet that most of the "young" wrecks are caused by the same drivers over and over (if they live through them). If they dug deeper they'd see there's more to it than age alone.
I'd say perhaps getting a 95% or better on your driver's license test would be a start, but I got 97% on mine the first try and I could have done that with a hand tied behind my back and a patch covering one eye!
Surely we could improve training to the point where it's not a risky bet to have a teenager at the wheel.