GM News, New Models and Market Share

andres3 · January 2013

I have to think the differences aren't as dramatic as decades ago might have been.

They're not.

Even if that's true, and it hasn't been proven, there's this:

When a manufacturer continually settles for the bottom of the heap it creates a perception that the owner's/execs/assemblers don't care about reliability, and that is generally a perception based on reality.

Why so much cost cutting that you continually year after year score "worse than average" even if being worse than average is "fair?"

Why bother buying a "fair" product when you can buy excellent products?

And as to the comments that someone should avoid Honda because of VCM or CVT, simple solution, buy a Honda without VCM or CVT, should be easy to do. Not to mention those are 2 options, not standard equipment.

But to be fair, all you have to worry about is your VCM and CVT should you have a Honda with both. With the domestic, you have to worry about every single part breaking down; and there are far more than 2 parts in a vehicle.

andres3 · January 2013

Thats because all you buy is GM's. :P If you GM card suddenly said you could use it on Fords, Chrysler, and Fiats (or any car built in "America") in the spirit of America, might that sway your purchasing decisions?

No card will give 5% back on everything anymore. The best I've seen in the past is 1.4%, but that's gone. Now I use a card that has a combo of 1%, 2%, 3% depending on what you buy. I also have another card that will give 5% back on restaurants and gas about 6 months out of the year (3 months at a time), and during those months, I use it on those things.

But regardless of the %, I always have the option to use it on anything, including cash money, no restrictions, no expirations.

tlong · January 2013

tlong, do you subscribe? If so, you didn't see the two issues I saw recently, one showing the Focus to be least reliable in its class and the Mazda 6 the least-'liked' car by owners in its class?

I do subscribe. I usually skim over the car sections. I don't specifically recall either of those, particularly the Mazda 6 as I do know they show owner satisfaction, but I don't remember (doesn't mean it's not there) any comment like a car is "least liked in its class". I do know that Ford, which had been running pretty high reliablity, has had a lot of problems in the last year or two with My Ford Touch as well as the CVT on the Focus. So that means for domestic choices, you have the unreliable Focus vs. the unreliable Cruze. Of course the smaller Sonic, Spark and Fiesta might do well.

tlong · January 2013

GM has several vehicles I'm willing to consider.

You (rightfully) criticize all of the stereotyping. Yet are you willing to consider buying other makes? How about foreign nameplates made with high US content?

If not, then does that make you just as biased as others, but in a different direction?

If so, then kudos!

busiris · January 2013

5% back is an excellent return only if you're interested in what you can spend that 5% on.

A credit card that gives you 50% back on all purchases you make at your local nudie bar is worthless if you never go to the nudie bar in the first place.

So, if you are in the market for being locked into what you can spend your" cash back reward" on, then it's a deal. If you don't like being locked into what you can purchase with your rewards, then it's no deal at all.

I'm not saying its worthless... I usually try to stay at Hampton Inns when I travel, and I get points for staying there. And, I use those points for free stays at Hampton Inns, which is a service I use. So, it can be a smart decision. Then again, I get the points for staying there, not for using any particular payment type.

Personally, I'd rather take a smaller % rebate with no restrictions and have the option to use it however I wish, unless I know for 100% sure I'm going to use the restricted rebate on a product/service that it applies toward.

tlong · January 2013

I now have the 2013 Buying Guide in my hands, and not only does it not say that the Mazda 6 was least liked in its class, but listed under CARS: FAMILY it shows the rankings and owner satisfaction of about 12 makes/models. The Mazda 6 GT gets an "average" for Owner Satisfaction. The only car worse than average? - the Chevy Impala LT. So no, the Mazda is not worst, at least in the categorization in this section.

bpizzuti · January 2013

This is for the 2013, right? Not the recent redesign that just dropped? Might be why the redesign is here, it was pretty much the oldest car in the class. However, it's actually not a class Mazda concerns itself all THAT much with.

tlong · January 2013

This is for the 2013, right? Not the recent redesign that just dropped?

It's historical data, so I assume it's from the recent years of the current model, not the new one.

ateixeira · January 2013

They poll owners and ask would you buy the same car again, I'm guessing what uplanderguy saw were those results. I can see that dated, oversized sedan having owners with a little buyers remorse.

Of course it was just replaced. Diesel on the way, too, which will likely boost that rating.

CR bias can be blatant, they don't recommend the Prius C despite it being among the most reliable cars in their survey.

andre1969 · January 2013

I actually found something appealing about the outgoing Mazda 6. Hard to put my finger on why, exactly, but I liked the way it looked. But, who knows...with a little exposure I might have learned to hate it, too!

The new Mazda 6 looks like it could be interesting.

ateixeira · January 2013

I hated it. You had to duck to get in the rear door, they cancelled the wagon, and ditched the manual trans. 3 strikes.

imidazol97 · January 2013

>Yet are you willing to consider buying other makes? How about foreign nameplates made with high US content?

Yup. Bad guess. In 89 I went around and sat in and compared Honda and toyota. Chose a Buick Century cooked to order because a camry didn't get the gas mileage with a V6 and automatic that it did and for the cost.

In 92 sat in and looked at stickers of the Honda and toyota and got a 93 leSabre. 31 or 32 mpg and lots of room. In 03 I especially went around and drove a Honda (noisy, ultrastiff, hard seats, steering led different ways at times) and didn't like the camry I drove. Bought an 03 leSabre that was luxurious compared to the camry and not much more out the door than at the local toyota ripoff place (they're letting you have the privilege of buying a toyota, you know, is their attitude).

Yes, I've looked in the toyota and Hnda showrooms about 3 years back. toyota salesman was like a leech and I told him I just wanted to look at the cars. Also have ridden in same. Friend in Michigan has a camry so have ridden in it. It's not a leSabre, but it's transportation. Drove corolla to Columbus and back for a friend. It's actually a nice car if you want tight and small. It compared nicely with our Cobalt. I can't get past the current corolla taillights now that I'm looking around at cars again. Will test drive Accord, camry, corolla, Malibu, Cruze, Verano most likely while I'm looking right now.

ateixeira · January 2013

Ultra tall overdrive gears help get those numbers, but those got high teens city mpg.

andre1969 · January 2013

Ultra tall overdrive gears help get those numbers, but those got high teens city mpg.

Also, I don't know if my 2000 Park Ave Ultra is the rule or the exception, but I've found that the only way it's going to hit 30 mpg on the highway is to drive it fairly gently. Not necessarily slowly, but when you get up to those higher speeds, you have to accelerate slowly, be willing to lose a few mph on the upgrades, etc.

I think my Ultra has a 2.84:1 axle, which by itself isn't exactly "tall" by itself, but the overdrive gear is going to knock the effective rate down to around 1.89:1. At least, I'm presuming overdrive is 0.667:1?

In contrast, my old Intrepid had a 3.89:1 axle, and overdrive would knock that down to around 2.59:1

Oddly, I've heard that GM's non-supercharged big FWD cars used a quicker axle, like a 2.93:1 or 3.05:1? Seems kinda strange to me, as normally you get a quicker axle with the performance engine. Wouldn't a taller axle simply offset that added power to a degree?

uplanderguy · January 2013

So that means for domestic choices, you have the unreliable Focus vs. the unreliable Cruze. Of course the smaller Sonic, Spark and Fiesta might do well.

The Sonic is average, the Cruze is average for 2012, the Fiesta and Focus are much worse than average, and I can't recall what the Spark was. The Verano was much worse than average (I was surprised about this, but then I don't believe it's built at Lordstown like the Cruze and it has a different engine I believe).

The Nissan Juke was much worse than average for the 2011 model and much better than average for the 2012 model! LOL

uplanderguy · January 2013

tlong, you are clearly not looking at the issue on the newsstand--a regular issue--that I looked at. There is apparently even sample error between the regular issue and whatever the date of the buying guide you are looking at.

This all reminds me of being called a liar about the Automobile Magazine that listed several negatives about the 2011 long-tern Sonata they had--until the article posted online, that is.

Does anyone have the November or January issues of CR handy, because it was definitely one of those...I'd lean towards January, actually.

andre1969 · January 2013

The Nissan Juke was much worse than average for the 2011 model and much better than average for the 2012 model! LOL

That's a bit disturbing, actually. I look at those reliability ratings to be sort of a snapshot in time, but that they can change from year to year. So this would imply to me that a 1 year old Juke is trouble-free, but then they tend to start crapping out around year two?

BTW, how far back does CR track reliability data? At one time it was only 6 years, but I think in more recent years, they expanded it to 8.

bpizzuti · January 2013

Jukes are really designed to be hooned some...WRX-lite almost. Sounds like they might not be able to take it long term though.

They are a fun drive though, very tight, responsive engine when using the manual mode on the CVT to keep it on boil.

I don't think the saleslady was happy with how I test drove it. :shades:

uplanderguy · January 2013

The one I saw in the supermarket this morning went from '03 to '12. I was just at the drug store and saw the Feb. issue of CR on the newsstand (the one about how people like their cars was apparently the January issue--Volt was at the top of the list).

Feb. they tested mid-size sedans. The Malibu 1LT 2.5L, they gave a higher overall number score to than an Optima, Legacy, and Passat. They did say it stickered higher, and that 'rebates seem inevitable'. I think that's already happened since press time. Don't know about the others.

Concerning the GM card rebate...I think it's a great deal and I'd be using any other card the same amount. I don't feel forced to buy a GM because of it, but when I've had satisfaction for thirty years with them, and get 5% off purchases when other cards give a fraction of that--I feel quite certain at this point that I'll utilize it on my next new car.

tlong · January 2013

Thanks for the answer imid. It looks like your size/taste lean similar to lemko's - larger and softer sprung suspensions. So it makes sense you wouldn't like most of the mainstream foreign nameplates, as that's not as much their market. Of course you could go for something like Audi or MB, but then you're getting into nosebleed territory as far as price.

The Avalon might be close, but as lemko has indicated and I concur, the design has gone from bland to ugly.

tlong · January 2013

The Nissan Juke was much worse than average for the 2011 model and much better than average for the 2012 model! LOL

I did read the blurb in CR about what the numbers mean, and your pointing out of apparent inconsistencies between years makes more sense now. The CR dot ratings are RELATIVE to other comparable models in that year. So for example, in addition to any year being different due to a difference in age, there is also what the competition's reliability has done. So I can see a few scenarios:

Let's assume vehicle X had midlevel reliablity Y. And for a certain year, say 2008, the average of other vehicles was also Y. So vehicle X gets an average rating.
And then unchanged vehicle X for the 2009 model is similar in reliablity (adjusted for being a year newer. But a couple of competitors introduce new models that are horrible in reliability. So vehicle X is now better than average because the competition has gotten worse.

Another scenario is that vehicle x is great for the first 3 years, but then has high failure rats of the tranny and interior trim falling off at year 4. So year 3 the vehicle is average, and year 4 the vehicle drops to worse than average due to the common failures at that age.

imidazol97 · January 2013

I didn't like Accords suspension in their 03 where every pebble could be felt under the tire... exaggerating a little.

bpizzuti · January 2013

I didn't like Accords suspension in their 03 where every pebble could be felt under the tire... exaggerating a little.

I happen to like that sort of thing. :shades:

stever · January 2013

Me too. I've worn out more brake pads stopping to pick up those dimes I run over.

andre1969 · January 2013

I have a friend with an '03 Accord EX, and I've logged a lot of seat time in it. It didn't seem unduly harsh to me. I do remember, after an hour or a little more, my hamstrings would get a little achy and I'd get a bit fidgety. But, at that point, it's already ahead of the pack, as I have a problem sitting still for too long, and in many cars, I don't make it even that long!

stever · January 2013

Well, the timeline really starts in '08.

Key events in the fall and rise of General Motors (washingtonpost.com)

andres3 · January 2013

I had the '03 Accord Coupe V6, and it was far from stiff in my opinion. First, the coupe is supposed to be a bit sportier than the sedan (and I imagine a bit more tuned), but back then, they were still putting tall skinny 205/65/R16 tires on it.

It could have been a bit tighter in my opinion, and should of had 215/60/R16.

But it was a great all-around cruiser.

berri · January 2013

I've owned and rented a lot of import brand and D3 vehicles. I know a lot of people are blaming D3 on the UAW, but really assembly quality has become pretty similar in my experiences. Where D3 still seems to have some catching up to do is more in engineering and purchasing. For example, lately I've rented a lot of minivans and 3 row crossovers. The far back row shows the difference. A Toyota or Honda is usually pretty easy and quick to raise or lower the third row. That's not always the case with D3. The domestics often seem to have more steps involved and the levers and pulls often seem balky or hard to work. That's engineering and low bidder purchasing, pure and simple. The T&C minivan and new Ford Explorer seemed particularly bad in these respects to me. However, the GM Lambda's like Traverse and Acadia were very good, as were rented Highlanders and Sienna's. I had an Ody that was also very user friendly. Detroit just doesn't seem as focused on the user as Toyota or Honda. The little stuff does matter because it affects consumer perceptions.

andres3 · January 2013

The little stuff does matter because it affects consumer perceptions.

I can't agree more!

Instead of death by a thousand daggers or nails (like when you find yet another cost savings or cost cutting feature in your car), it is great to find somewhere in the vehicle where you got unexpected value where the maker didn't skimp on costs.

For example, the aluminum door sill plates and no black bar seams on the roof of my A3. Two things I didn't necessarily notice or buy the car because of, but that I was appreciative of when I noticed them later.

andre1969 · January 2013

I thought those aluminum sill plates on the Altima were a nice touch...until I found out they were extra-cost!

As for those black bar seams, I hate them as well, but truth be told, I hate 'em even when they're painted body-color. To me they just reek of cost-cutting. I could understand having them on a cheap economy car, or a work truck, but they have no place on a luxury car or even a medium-price car.

My 2000 Park Ave has those strips, but even worse than that, the rear quarter panels seem to be bolt-on. Or at least, there's a seam at the base of the C-pillar, where you can tell the quarter panel is separate. Probably makes it easier and cheaper to replace/repair in an accident, but I think it looks a bit cheesy.

As a used car that I only paid $7500 for, I really don't care. But, if I was looking at this car when it was brand-new, I have a feeling I would've been turned off.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Feb. they tested mid-size sedans. The Malibu 1LT 2.5L, they gave a higher overall number score to than an Optima, Legacy, and Passat. They did say it stickered higher, and that 'rebates seem inevitable'. I think that's already happened since press time. Don't know about the others.

I left, by mistake, the Altima out of that list above, also.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Speaking of visible seams, I had my '81 Monte Carlo stolen in '82. It was never recovered. I was given as a rental, an '81 Mercury Cougar (not XR-7--this one was like a Zephyr/Fairmont). Besides looking like a box and having no wheelcovers and one of four lugnuts on one wheel was missing, it had right at eye-level on the "C" pillar, a seam filled in with a plastic or fiberglass cover (body color). At that time, there was nothing at GM like that, especially in that size/price class. A total turn-off to me. The styling inside was as boxy as outside. I think "The Deuce" went for that boxy/blunt styling, but I hated it, even though a lot of folks say their quality was better than GM's at the time.

andre1969 · January 2013

I don't remember the seam at the top of the C-pillar...one thing I do remember though, was a fake plastic vent/grille thingie at the base of the C-pillar. I thought it was kind of neat at the time (my grandparents had an '81 Granada coupe), but now that I think about it, that was probably put there to hide a lower seam. Probably cheaper than filling it in properly.

One thing I miss is how, in the real old days, they'd actually go through the effor to finish off the seams of the panel that fits between the rear window and the trunk lid, where it joins the rear quarter panels. That gave the cars a classier, more finished look, IMO. I don't know how far you have to go back to see that, though. My '57 DeSoto is finished off like that, but my '67 Catalina isn't, and neither were my Darts, or my '76 LeMans. In later years, I think that piece just became a panel that you could unbolt and take off on many cars. Nowadays, most if not all trunk lids go right to the rear window, so that panel probably a thing of the past by now.

I never really liked the Fairmont, at least the base model with the single headlights. But the quad headlight models, as well as the Zephyr, I kinda like. But I'll confess that I do have sort of a soft spot for the '81-82 Granada/Cougar, and the XR-7. Never liked that '80-82 T-bird, though.

My grandparents replaced their '81 Granada with an '85 LTD. It seemed like a nice car at the time. When I was learning to drive, I logged a lot of hours on that car, as well as my Mom's '80 Malibu. The LTD seemed a bit more nimble, probably because of the rack and pinion steering and stubbier wheelbase. But the Malibu just seemed like a more solid, substantial car. Definitely roomier inside too, despite it being a coupe and the LTD being a sedan.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Here's the upper seam 'cover' on the C-pillar.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/4686124661/

andre1969 · January 2013

Ugh...yeah, that does look kinda bad. Still, I have to profess an odd sort of attraction to these things. It's a shame you couldn't get a 302 in them, although you could easily swap one in. I think the best these cars had was the 4.2 V-8 with around 112 hp. But, when you figure that GM pretty much quit putting their ~5 liter engines in their competing cars, unless you got the wagon, so about the best you could get was a 260, 265, or 267 V-8, or 252 V-6, I guess that was all Ford really needed in these cars.

I think they still let you get the 302 in the T-bird/XR-7 in '81-82, but I think most of them were just the 4.2 or worse, the 200 6-cyl, which I think was a credit option.

Chrysler still let you get a 318 in their competing cars, but it was choked down to 130 hp, stuck with a tall 2.26:1 axle, and their cars were considerably heavier, so I doubt they gave you much, if any, performance advantage.

uplanderguy · January 2013

When the GM intermediates came out in '78, they were the smallest car available that was body-on-frame. As a result, IMHO, they were a comfortable, pretty quiet car, and were roomy inside too as you've noted before. The Fords seemed cheap by comparison IMHO--however, IIRC, they were a good bit less expensive. An Olds or Buick intermediate in '78 could cross the $7K sticker mark--a Monte Carlo could do, now that I think about it--and that was pretty high back then for a car that size.

The only rental car I ever had that died alongside the road was probably an '80 Fairmont 4-door, white with pumpkin-colored vinyl interior. I once had a beautiful '80 Grand Prix rental, light blue with blue velour interior, but the only interior light that worked (besides the instrument lights) was the courtesy light on the right front floor (dome light and driver's side courtesy light burned out), and it ticked and I had to put three quarts of oil in it! When I complained about it, I got the royal brush-off by the disinterested chick at the rental car counter.

ateixeira · January 2013

The Nissan Juke was much worse than average for the 2011 model and much better than average for the 2012 model! LOL

Wasn't 2011 their v1.0?

It's very common to iron out the smaller issues after the first model year.

I would always expect the first model year to be the worst, and then the last model year to be the best, as all the issues are fully ironed out.

Your Malibu is the best of that generation, because the kinks were worked out.

ateixeira · January 2013

Either that or the first year owners were SHOCKED at how ugly it is.

Then by year two people had gotten used to the look, so it rated better.

uplanderguy · January 2013

I think the ratings change from '11 to '12 is dramatic to say the least, and one wonders if there were really that many changes to the car...or if the '11 started to disintegrate after a year!

I wonder what the '11's rating was after one year?

The car looks like a deformed animal to me.

ateixeira · January 2013

It is a deformed animal. LOL

Blame "le cost cutter" Ghosn if they don't hold up after 1 year.

busiris · January 2013

Looks like a bug waiting to be squashed under Paul Bunyan's boot at some point.

It's definitely a "love it or hate it " design.

One could make the argument that its sporty and nimble, but the are lots of other models that offer the same, but look much better.

ateixeira · January 2013

They are tiny inside too.

circlew · January 2013

One note: Why doesn't GM have a car in the Top 10 2012 sales list? Should'nt they by now?

Regards,
OW

uplanderguy · January 2013

As said, reality lags perception, and maybe with 'darling' CR rating GM cars better and foreign makers (some, anyway), lesser than in past years, word will get around. Again, the Malibu rated a higher total score than Altima, Optima, Passat, and similar-sized Subaru product.

uplanderguy · January 2013

That's 'perception lags reality'. Some good things being said about GM lately. Some of us already knew this, though.

andres3 · January 2013

Good for GM having some solid initial quality reviews. I'll reserve judgment until they start getting some red dots for vehicles 7 years or older.

Even the freaking Neon might have gotten some non-black dots it's first 3 years.

andres3 · January 2013

One note: Why doesn't GM have a car in the Top 10 2012 sales list?

When I've told people in person that Big 3 vehicles suck face to face, the pro-domestic crowed almost always has countered with I had so and so for "enter 6 digit mileage here" miles, and never had any big issues. The so and so was ALWAYS "enter Big 3 truck here." I'd always countered with it seems the Big 3 don't know how to make a decent CAR, but I suppose they've figured out trucks.

uplanderguy · January 2013

Well, per Power, 2009 models overall for Chevrolet are better than Audi, VW, Benz, BMW, Subaru, and Nissan. That's not 'new model' stuff.

andre1969 · January 2013

I'd always countered with it seems the Big 3 don't know how to make a decent CAR, but I suppose they've figured out trucks.

The Big Three have traditionally done full-sized cars very well too, but unfortunately that market has dried up. Oddly, GM was traditionally the king when it came to full sized cars, and Chrysler was always the weakest. Yet, now that GM has retired the old Lucerne/DTS, and Ford did away with the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Town Car, the only domestic offering even resembling full size, IMO, is the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300. And even there, I think of them as more of a "big midsize".

bpizzuti · January 2013

Naah, they're definitely full-size (unless you consider Rolls Royce and Bentley to be "full size" anyway). I'm wondering how the redesigned Impala will stack up, given that it may be smaller (they should have just used the Caprice PPV and counted the extra rear legroom as a bonus).

GM News, New Models and Market Share

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles