EvanR wrote: I'm personally waiting to see how the Spark comes out. Then again, I like the idea of 1.2 liters of fury.
I really hope GM decides to drop the 1.4T in the Spark. Then they would have a car that I might actually like to own and could afford. The problem to me with GM is right now is they build a lot of ok cars (obviously the Corvette is better then ok). They are decent but there are lots of better options in the same price range.
93EXCivic wrote: The problem to me with GM is right now is they build a lot of ok cars (obviously the Corvette is better then ok). They are decent but there are lots of better options in the same price range.
You can say the same thing about every other auto manufacturer right now. There a lot of options. It's not a bad thing that they're offering a couple of small turbocharged 6 speed cars, though.
How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.?
I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
So because GM made junk entry-level cars 20 years ago, you wouldn't buy a new one now? Ok I can see your point, but that knocks Hyundai off the list, Kia too, Fiat as well, although you'd have to go back a bit further. No Fords either, or Chrysler, or .......well you get my point.
Like em or not, the Cobalt proved to be an extremely reliable machine. The Sonic holds a lot of promise. It is clearly GMs best entry-level car in a long time.....maybe ever. After driving the 1.8 auto, (and really liking it) I can't wait to get ahold of a 1.4 Turbo with a manual.
Zomby woof wrote:93EXCivic wrote: The problem to me with GM is right now is they build a lot of ok cars (obviously the Corvette is better then ok). They are decent but there are lots of better options in the same price range.You can say the same thing about every other auto manufacturer right now. There a lot of options. It's not a bad thing that they're offering a couple of small turbocharged 6 speed cars, though.
It isn't that I am saying it is a bad car. I just don't see it being better then the Fiesta or Mazda 2. Basically it just doesn't stand out and in order for GM to win over customers, they need a car which is better then the competitors not almost as good.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
I don't think mazda belongs on the reliability list. As far as the GM vs the rest....add the GM fwd V6s in there and you'll see a ton of them still on the road.
Appleseed wrote:RexSeven wrote: IMHO, this is one of the rare times I think the sedan looks better than the hatch. The hatch looks very stubby from the side.And proving the exception to the rule, I usually, hate, hate, hate hatches, but here is were I dig the hatch more.
The only rule here is that we're all gonna have opinions and that someone is gonna disagree with you.
Oh, and I'll take the sedan over the hatch - any day; but only if it's given to me.
93EXCivic wrote: It isn't that I am saying it is a bad car. I just don't see it being better then the Fiesta or Mazda 2.
You will after some minor mods net you double the power of the cars you mentioned.
I think it's an ugly 4 door, so I wouldn't buy one, but as a cheap car guy I see serious upside. I don't see any with the cars you mentioned.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.?
I'll bet there's more of them than any of the manufacturers you mentioned.
Anything would be an improvement over a Bronco 2. I remeber driving an almost new model and thinking."Why would anyone want one of these"
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
Around these part there are a lot of them running around. I believe rust killed alot more of them than anything drivetrain related. Hell I've seen Iron dukes running and driving with holes the size of my head in the the side of the block at nearly 200k.
I've personally seen an Iron Duke run (though not very well) with a balance shaft poking thru the oil pan and half the No 1. piston on the ground in pieces with the engine oil. GM has learned a lot since then.
Tons of FWD V-6 GMs still roaming around these parts, and quite a few '90s Cavaliers as well. They stand up to abuse well, which is probably why most of their drivers give off an "I haven't changed the oil in years" vibe.
What's that old saying again? "A GM runs poorly for longer than most cars run at all!"
iceracer wrote: Anything would be an improvement over a Bronco 2. I remeber driving an almost new model and thinking."Why would anyone want one of these"
Ouch man! I love my Bronco 2!! And I never said they are great and yes I do distrust my judgement in cars! Yet I don't think I am the only with poor judgement on this site
And I never said I was getting a Sonic.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
ahem (I know its a 2000, but close enough) http://flint.craigslist.org/cto/2889175516.html
http://flint.craigslist.org/cto/2876130113.html
http://flint.craigslist.org/cto/2858360397.html
http://flint.craigslist.org/cto/2862292592.html
http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/cto/2888628192.html
http://saginaw.craigslist.org/cto/2887630499.html
Joey
Joe Gearin wrote:poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.So because GM made junk entry-level cars 20 years ago, you wouldn't buy a new one now? Ok I can see your point, but that knocks Hyundai off the list, Kia too, Fiat as well, although you'd have to go back a bit further. No Fords either, or Chrysler, or .......well you get my point. Like em or not, the Cobalt proved to be an extremely reliable machine. The Sonic holds a lot of promise. It is clearly GMs best entry-level car in a long time.....maybe ever. After driving the 1.8 auto, (and really liking it) I can't wait to get ahold of a 1.4 Turbo with a manual.
No. I guess I don't get your point. Ford's Mazda powered stuff was amazing. While dodge had its share of problems in the 80's, I'd drive a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo '88 any berkeleying thing before I'd drive a 2000 crapalier. Hyundai and Kia haven't been in the U.S. market for a hundred berkeleying years, so the jury's still out. I'll tell you I'd at least test drive a Hyundai. Unless the Chevy has a V8 it's not worth my time.
Chevy builds decent trucks and Corvettes...and the iron duke, which last I checked, didn't come in a 30-40mpg econobox that handled worth a E36 M3.
There's a reason you don't see successful 4 cyl, FWD, GM products in autocrossing, roadracing, 'crapcan' endurance racing, etc, etc, etc. It's because they're uninspiring, unreliable, E36 M3ty handling bags of ass. Yes, I'm sure someone can find a picture of a quad-4 whatever going around Road Atlanta. Congratulations.
Make it look like a toyota and stick a snail on it, there's still no berkeleying way in hell I'm going to make a $16,000 gamble on it, knowing good and damned well that IF, on the odd chance it's running 10 years from now, it'll command an amazing $1500-$2000.
Oh sigh. At my advanced age it pains me when I see folks post comments on things based on stale perceptions. THE way to find out is to experience the car. Go test drive one. Read the brochure. Open and close the doors, The Sonic is a great car at its price. We have them on sale for like 14,800. This car like every GM car and probably most cars on the planet is light years advanced in every way from its recent predecessors. Like from the Flintstones to the Jetsons. I was at the 13 Malibu Eco introduction yesterday. It has teutonic build quality, ride and handling and kills everybody in class with interior quality and creams even cars in this class with 37MPG highway. I LOVE my old cars but new cars like this one rock.
Rock compared to what? A new Honda? Mazda? Doubtful. Is GM saying "Hey guys, I know we bent you over for $16k for a steaming pile of E36 M3 that's worth two grand in ten years last time, but this one's different" ??? Put $5k worth of bluetooth, nav, onstar, DVD in the back of the headrest, sound deading so you can't hear what a piece of E36 M3 it is crap you want in it and claim that it's the "best in class."
I'd rather have a fun to drive, reliable car that's worth more than twice scrap value in ten years.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
My BIL has a Cavalier (with the Ecotec) and he does a 250 km per day commute and he does the bare minimum to take care of it (he is not a car guy).
It just keeps on going and it didn't cost them anywhere near $16k-17k.
1sl1fiero, What are your thoughts on the the Cruze?
NGTD wrote:poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.My BIL has a Cavalier (with the Ecotec) and he does a 250 km per day commute and he does the bare minimum to take care of it (he is not a car guy). It just keeps on going and it didn't cost them anywhere near $16k-17k.
Mine and my wife's Z24's were the same. Crazy mileage, and great reliability (the 99 was the most reliable car I've ever owned) for the money. Unbelievable value.
Too bad every GM thread has to end up like this.
ls1fiero wrote: Oh sigh. At my advanced age it pains me when I see folks post comments on things based on stale perceptions. THE way to find out is to experience the car. Go test drive one. Read the brochure. Open and close the doors, The Sonic is a great car at its price.
I agree with all of this. I really can't think of a car company that builds cars like they did in the 90s. I have this discussion with fanboy car kids all the time, especially the "import"(read VW) crowd. I used to think the same thing about Chevy, Corvettes and trucks, everything else sucks.
I am a Ford guy for sure and I wouldn't have bought anything Ford besides a truck until around 2005. The cars were E36 M3boxes(sorry P71 guys) until the 2005 Mustang and Five Hundred(Taurus) came out. It was a night and day difference driving those cars compared to previous Ford cars. I used to sell Fords in 2004 and hardly ever wasted my time going to the car lot, I always hung out in the truck/SUV lot because that what I mostly sold. Nowadays, There isn't a car on Fords lot I wouldn't buy.
Chevy has really turned over a new leaf in their car segment in the last couple of years starting with the Cobalt. Now the Cruze and the Sonic are showing the style and build quality that has been been missing from GM products that they desperately needed. I give a kudos to GM in finally getting their heads out of their asses and building something good beside Corvettes and trucks.
poopshovel wrote:Joe Gearin wrote:No. I guess I don't get your point. Ford's Mazda powered stuff was amazing. While dodge had its share of problems in the 80's, I'd drive a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo '88 any berkeleying thing before I'd drive a 2000 crapalier. Hyundai and Kia haven't been in the U.S. market for a hundred berkeleying years, so the jury's still out. I'll tell you I'd at least test drive a Hyundai. Unless the Chevy has a V8 it's not worth my time. Chevy builds decent trucks and Corvettes...and the iron duke, which last I checked, didn't come in a 30-40mpg econobox that handled worth a E36 M3. There's a reason you don't see successful 4 cyl, FWD, GM products in autocrossing, roadracing, 'crapcan' endurance racing, etc, etc, etc. It's because they're uninspiring, unreliable, E36 M3ty handling bags of ass. Yes, I'm sure someone can find a picture of a quad-4 whatever going around Road Atlanta. Congratulations. Make it look like a toyota and stick a snail on it, there's still no berkeleying way in hell I'm going to make a $16,000 gamble on it, knowing good and damned well that IF, on the odd chance it's running 10 years from now, it'll command an amazing $1500-$2000.poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.So because GM made junk entry-level cars 20 years ago, you wouldn't buy a new one now? Ok I can see your point, but that knocks Hyundai off the list, Kia too, Fiat as well, although you'd have to go back a bit further. No Fords either, or Chrysler, or .......well you get my point. Like em or not, the Cobalt proved to be an extremely reliable machine. The Sonic holds a lot of promise. It is clearly GMs best entry-level car in a long time.....maybe ever. After driving the 1.8 auto, (and really liking it) I can't wait to get ahold of a 1.4 Turbo with a manual.
You have a Fit right? ...and you're proud of it? Good for you. I'll keep all my apparent piles of GM scrap
Those piles have, and continue to be, more reliable than my German piles and my six past Toyotas. One toyota even had the legendary (for blowing headgaskets) 22re.
poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.
There are tons of 200k+ mile Saturns driving around. Probably a much higher number than Proteges. Doesn't make them a great car, but they fit your above requirements. From an appliance or even "fun" standpoint they are no worse than a comparable 90s Toyota or Mazda except they cost half as much. Honda is different because they had double wishbone goodness back in the 90s and an aftermarket to rival SBCs.
I sort of agree with your second statement. I find it hard to drop that kind of coin on an appliance that will depreciate like mad while I drive it into the ground.
I can't really argue in favor of the Sonic because I don't like it. The Cruze on the other hand, I like and find comparable to offerings from other manufacturers. Actually I like it more than Honda and Toyota crap.
Zomby woof wrote:NGTD wrote:Mine and my wife's Z24's were the same. Crazy mileage, and great reliability (the 99 was the most reliable car I've ever owned) for the money. Unbelievable value. Too bad every GM thread has to end up like this.poopshovel wrote: How many 90's, front-drive, 4 cylinder GM products are out there running with 200,000+ miles, versus 90's hondas, toyotas, mazdas, etc.? I understand there are people who go out and finance $16k-17k on a "throw-away" car. I am not one of those people.My BIL has a Cavalier (with the Ecotec) and he does a 250 km per day commute and he does the bare minimum to take care of it (he is not a car guy). It just keeps on going and it didn't cost them anywhere near $16k-17k.
I had a 93 Grand Am 2-door 3.3L (I think the only year that had them - it was derived from the 3.8L Buick V6). My wife and I put 214,000 kms on it in 7 years. The only major thing that went wrong with it was the AC Evap, and it was replaced on the extended warranty that I bought for $500.
"Too bad every GM thread has to end up like this."
The only issue I have with GM is that they made uninspiring cars, SO uninspiring that I'd rather take a less reliable car then drive one. Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with many of their products. But they weren't the best. Considering the resources at their disposal, it felt like the 80's and 90's was just a time for them to coast on their name.
A 1999 Malibu? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Compared to some of the stuff other companies were churning out, you release that as a new model?
Yes, it was a perfectly fine appliance. But there was better, for not much of a price difference.
You'll need to log in to post.
