^^that is just too many functions in one item
^^that is just too many functions in one item
neon4891 wrote: ^^that is just too many functions in one item
I'm sure some engineer somewhere is extremely proud of that little "miracle of compact packaging".
I ever meet him I'm punching him in the mouth.
Cotton wrote: Sometimes I'm amazed this is actually a motorsports board. GM has the Corvette, Solstice, Impalla SS, G8, CTSV, etc. Toyota and Honda have a lot of absolutely boring cars with the S2000 as the only exeption. We bought a new Solstice GXP for my Wife in late 2006. It has 260HP, handles great, and is dead reliable. She had an Audi Cabriolet previous to the Solstice and the Audi was quite a bit of trouble to say the least. We've owned all kinds of cars.....American, German, Japanese and curently own a mix of American and German cars and Japanese motorcycles. The General is turning out some sweet cars these days.
Cotton expressed my sentiments exactly.
Jensenman wrote: What y'all are missing about the 'boring cars': that's what the vast majority want. They will trade excitement for reliability, comfort, reliability, a small amount of style, reliability, decent gas mileage, reliability and some luggage space. Did I mention they want reliability? The average person views the breakdown of a car, even something so simple as a flat tire, as one of the worst things that can happen. They simply aren't equipped to deal with that type of thing. When they turn the key and nothing happens or a funky noise occurs, to the vast majority that's a lot like a dentist visit only more painful. Here's the thing: Honda and Toyota crank out zillions of boringly reliable cars. That's what the vast majority want and that's why those two are ripping the Big 3 a new one.
While "most people" might want boring cars, that is not what I want. I am shocked at how many guys here on this board can encourage some retarded engine/chassis/suspension work in the name of fun and then talk about how off-the-shelf cars should be appliances. Fortunately, there are still enough crazies out there that value the car for more than it's appliance characteristics to keep companies churning them out. Oh yeah, and while you're talking about reliability, check out the JD Power dependability scores...you'll notice that the General does much better than internet myth would have you believe. If somebody really does want an appliance, maybe they should be checking out a Buick.
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2007130.pdf
When it comes to fuel economy, the Cobalt XFE seems to be pretty durned good at an EPA rated 25/37, especially since the new EPA ratings are a bit conservative IMO (meaning you could probably do more like 27/39). I don't care for the car itself, but I don't buy a new vehicle for fuel economy reasons either...as is evidenced by our new car purchase being an AWD turbo wagon. 
Bryce
Two years ago I posted with a tittle something like "Thank God Gm is on the Way out" or some such.
The skin Gafts are healing quite nicely thanks for asking.
Unfortunately, time has shown that dumping their stock after the Eurpean trip was not a bad move.The war is over. America's time in the car limelight is finished. American carmakers are the Brittany Spears of the automotive world and have not fully accepted this yet. For consolation, we can go cry in our Beers with the Britts...Oh wait, Budweiser is now a foreign company also...Damn. Is there a trend here?
The good news? During the same trip, I learned that the world does not stop just because you lost the war. Germany is still a vibrant nation. Japan has had a good run. Even Italy is still around! They found a niche after the war and moved on.
America does not build ships anymore. America does not build large generators anymore. Steel is on the way out in America. Why are we so hung up on the car industry going the same way when most people on this board agree that the domestic product has no hope?!
And yet, except for the war debt, America has a strong economy fueled by people and companies that are not the walking dead. There is a future ; it is just not in the car sector.
I couldn't love GRM the magazine or the website more, and believe me, I don't like to be the P.C police or anything or the guy who has a problem with everything thing, but I do have a problem with this...
I find it a bit offensive that you use terms like “Save GM” etc etc... for your little descriptions or whatever in the avatars. I myself do not have a bad case of brain rot, nor am I a engineering teacher or psychic, but I feel sensitivity for people with GM vehicles as I am a student taking Automotive Idiocy classes, and my Girlfriend is pursuing her masters in the field.
These terms although I'm pretty sure are not even real words, are obviously meant to resemble the words used to describe people with automotive impairments, and it appears that they are used on these boards in a joking sense which, as I view it, makes light of people who are afflicted with partial judgement disabilities.
BTW my thoughts on the GM cars in the proposed lineup:
TRAX = Trash. It is an HHR on ugly hormone therapy, which is an oxymoron.
Terrain = Torrent, Vue, and all those other GM small SUVs that are not selling... lets add different headlights, that'll do it!
G3 Wave = Aveo Sedan = OMFG what a bad car. I mean really, if you want to feel scared for your life test drive one.
Invicta = I love it, but I love 6,000lb grilles.
Provoq = Yeah... umm, hasn't anyone told these guys that substance is the new style? Give me a break Cadillac, you do NOT need an SUV.
Hummer HX = Did anyone see that bus? I might have missed it...
Nashco wrote:Cotton wrote: Sometimes I'm amazed this is actually a motorsports board. GM has the Corvette, Solstice, Impalla SS, G8, CTSV, etc. Toyota and Honda have a lot of absolutely boring cars with the S2000 as the only exeption. We bought a new Solstice GXP for my Wife in late 2006. It has 260HP, handles great, and is dead reliable. She had an Audi Cabriolet previous to the Solstice and the Audi was quite a bit of trouble to say the least. We've owned all kinds of cars.....American, German, Japanese and curently own a mix of American and German cars and Japanese motorcycles. The General is turning out some sweet cars these days.Cotton expressed my sentiments exactly.Jensenman wrote: What y'all are missing about the 'boring cars': that's what the vast majority want. They will trade excitement for reliability, comfort, reliability, a small amount of style, reliability, decent gas mileage, reliability and some luggage space. Did I mention they want reliability? The average person views the breakdown of a car, even something so simple as a flat tire, as one of the worst things that can happen. They simply aren't equipped to deal with that type of thing. When they turn the key and nothing happens or a funky noise occurs, to the vast majority that's a lot like a dentist visit only more painful. Here's the thing: Honda and Toyota crank out zillions of boringly reliable cars. That's what the vast majority want and that's why those two are ripping the Big 3 a new one.While "most people" might want boring cars, that is not what I want. I am shocked at how many guys here on this board can encourage some retarded engine/chassis/suspension work in the name of fun and then talk about how off-the-shelf cars should be appliances. Fortunately, there are still enough crazies out there that value the car for more than it's appliance characteristics to keep companies churning them out. Oh yeah, and while you're talking about reliability, check out the JD Power dependability scores...you'll notice that the General does much better than internet myth would have you believe. If somebody really does want an appliance, maybe they should be checking out a Buick. http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2007130.pdf When it comes to fuel economy, the Cobalt XFE seems to be pretty durned good at an EPA rated 25/37, especially since the new EPA ratings are a bit conservative IMO (meaning you could probably do more like 27/39). I don't care for the car itself, but I don't buy a new vehicle for fuel economy reasons either...as is evidenced by our new car purchase being an AWD turbo wagon.
You miss the point, Bryce. Me, I would love to have an Elise, or a Z06, a Ford GT, etc. Note those are all limited production sports cars, in the case of the Ford GT it's a 'halo' car.
Reality: I have a family to think of and a race car to tow. None of those cars are anywhere near practical for that. So I drive the ol' Trooper.
Face facts: our kind of people (car nuts) who really want and can afford such cars and don't have families etc which drive their car buying decisions are comparatively rare.
Knowing this, the car manufacturers aim the largest part of their production capability at the boring SUV and sedan market.
ditchdigger wrote:This turd kinda sums up my feelings of GM products Ewww....
LOL...I posted the exact same thing on the old board once to sum up GM's craptitude. Except I think the stalk they use from 1982-2000 was even a little worse.
My pops was in the field as a service rep for GM for just under 30 years. Except for the last hand full, he was a Chevy rep before they realized it was foolish to have, in some cases, 6 different reps calling on the same dealership. He still keeps in contact with some of his old crew and I visit some dealerships that we've been friends with for years. It's sad, but the business isn't the same. It never will be the same. GM did a great deal to damage it with people who were not car people and had no desire to be.
But in the end, it is all about product, as mentioned earlier. What amazes me about the big three is that didn't we go through this before? Let's concentrate on the big money making vehicles and let the imports have the small, economy cars. Oh, whoops, gas crisis. Now it's, oh whoops, gas is $4. I almost want it to stay at $4 so people don't go back to buying trucks and suv's they don't need.
And for the record, I do own a 2500 HD Silverado Crew cab, but it is used as a truck. I've put about 130,000 on it and I can't say anything negative about it's performance (on a recent trip towing the Volvo on a trailer I was at 16 mpg - mostly all highway). It's also never left me stranded, has handled long tows in comfort.
It's just a shame they ignored the small cars. Really, there is nothing wrong with a Cavi or Colbalt. My sisters, who are both horrible on cars, have had decent luck with them. You just can't go 10 years with out a real design change while the competition has a new model every 3 to 4 years.
Oh, and I loved my 91 s-10. If it didn't start losing oil pressure at 160k I'd probably still be driving it. I really should have kept that truck. But again, we know Chevy and Ford can build trucks.
Except I think the stalk they use from 1982-2000 was even a little worse.
Yes, the older version was my thought as well. I invision the crappy "chrome/plastic" flaking off the stalk of a '84 J-body. What the picture can not tell is "the feel." My goodness that stalk feels like it is goind to break off every time.
Jensenman wrote: You miss the point, Bryce. Me, I would love to have an Elise, or a Z06, a Ford GT, etc. Note those are all limited production sports cars, in the case of the Ford GT it's a 'halo' car. Reality: I have a family to think of and a race car to tow. None of those cars are anywhere near practical for that. So I drive the ol' Trooper. Face facts: our kind of people (car nuts) who really want and can afford such cars and don't have families etc which drive their car buying decisions are comparatively rare. Knowing this, the car manufacturers aim the largest part of their production capability at the boring SUV and sedan market.
I guess you're right, I am missing your point. You say reality has pushed you towards a Trooper, what's that have to do with Camry vs. Malibu sales or RAV4 vs Vue sales? IMO, GM isn't ignoring the "boring" sectors, they have some decent products that are boring (to me) but ALSO have made cool cars that I can appreciate. Boring cars like the Malibu, Vue, Aura, and Astra seem to run well through the comparison mags for family mobiles.
Toyota used to make cool cars, remember those days? The people that grew up liking Toyota because of the cool MR2, Celica, Supra, etc. are all adultified and wanting a Camry or Avalon, it seems. What kind of cars do you think today's youth is going to latch onto? Toyota doesn't make any cool cars anymore. If the MR2, Celica, Supra, etc. didn't exist back in the day, do you think Toyota would have the same success today? I think there's more to having performance cars in your lineup than appealling to the small percentage that actually buy them.
Bryce
The Chevy Beat looks cool. If it drives like it looks, I'd buy it if I was in the market for a car like that.
The Chevy Trax is kinda interesting but the looks tells me that its more of a looker than a driver's car. Looks like its trying to be SUVish.
Rather than another SUV / Crossover car/truck/caruck that has crappy driving dynamics and isn't aerodynamic (thereby resulting in crappy MPG), why not make some more wagons and hatch backs on chassis that are fun to drive and efficient and make them AWD so that its useful in all weather...
That Pontiac Wave is fugly. Why do they design their small cars to be ugly? Seriously. Do they do it on purpose?
That Buick Invicta looks pretty frickin cool. I'm late 30s and if I were looking for a 4 door sedan, I'd consider something like that - IF the driving dynamics of the car were good and the drivetrain was peppy and efficient.
The Cadillac Provoque looks nice but I just don't see the point of crossovers. If I want space, I'll look for a wagon with a manual tranny that is fun to drive.
Having "cool, fun, reliable" sports cars in your lineup for the "young" kids is what builds brand loyalty when they're "grown ups" and need that boring sedan to haul the wife and 2.5 kids around.
I'm with Bryce on this one. With the imports, I can have a wagon big enough to haul the family around with a turbo charged 5-speed and an INCREDIBLY successful Rally heritage.
p.s. mine is not turbo charged like his, but it's 8 years old with 90k on the odometer and it's only ever needed a clutch...
You can tell what my plans are for this little gem when my wife gets another car and let's me at it, but she just won't let it go. It drives too well, pulls great on the highway on-ramps even in NA guise and she keeps putting me off.
Don't get me wrong, there are a few exceptions to the domestic's poor image, but they're the exceptions, not the rule.
When you look at Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, BMW, the exception is when they have a "bad" one slip through.
I will, without hesitation, buy a 3/4 ton diesel truck from a domestic brand, but that's because it's what they seem to consistently do well and the imports don't really have anything to compete in this space... yet...
The local paper had an article about the "NEW" 2008 Chevy Aveo. They were bragging that it gets 24mpg city. 
As the replacement for the metro, it's a down right embarrassment.
Growing up in a die hard GM family made me endure the S-10, Cavalier, LeSabre, Century, Venture, and Malibu. The engineering that has went into cost cutting is just unbelievable.
Ex: Instrument cluster lights can't be replaced (easily). There's no way in hell a cheap Slovak like myself is going to pay $100+ for a couple 25 cent lightbulbs. The bulbs are surface mounted to the board and the needles can't be removed, so the gauge motors need to be desoldered from the board to gain access. And they have the balls to use LED's for the dummy lights...
Lousy Paint/ Corrosion protection: GM's 6 year corrosion warranty is one of the 10 commandments; however, after 6 years your SOL. Every GM car we've had starts to rust apart as soon after 6 years. At 6.5 year on the S-10 and Venture the rocker panels were toast, as in swiss cheese holes and leaving rust stains on the driveway. These vehicles were washed top and bottom atleast once a week all year 'round. My 02 cavalier has under 80k miles and more rock rock chips on the hood then any of my friends cars, which have double the mileage and age.
It will take a miracle, or complete memory loss, for my generation to look past the crap of the last 30+ years.
YaNi wrote: The local paper had an article about the "NEW" 2008 Chevy Aveo. They were bragging that it gets 24mpg city.
You're right, but the problem is worse than you think. The Aveo is built by Daewoo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Aveo
The metro was built by suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_Metro
All Geos were rebadged. The storm was an isuzu, the prism was a toyota, etc.
GM needs to start designing and building small cars in house instead of paying other companies to rebadge their stuff as a GM product.
Nashco wrote:Jensenman wrote: You miss the point, Bryce. Me, I would love to have an Elise, or a Z06, a Ford GT, etc. Note those are all limited production sports cars, in the case of the Ford GT it's a 'halo' car. Reality: I have a family to think of and a race car to tow. None of those cars are anywhere near practical for that. So I drive the ol' Trooper. Face facts: our kind of people (car nuts) who really want and can afford such cars and don't have families etc which drive their car buying decisions are comparatively rare. Knowing this, the car manufacturers aim the largest part of their production capability at the boring SUV and sedan market.I guess you're right, I am missing your point. You say reality has pushed you towards a Trooper, what's that have to do with Camry vs. Malibu sales or RAV4 vs Vue sales? IMO, GM isn't ignoring the "boring" sectors, they have some decent products that are boring (to me) but ALSO have made cool cars that I can appreciate. Boring cars like the Malibu, Vue, Aura, and Astra seem to run well through the comparison mags for family mobiles. Toyota used to make cool cars, remember those days? The people that grew up liking Toyota because of the cool MR2, Celica, Supra, etc. are all adultified and wanting a Camry or Avalon, it seems. What kind of cars do you think today's youth is going to latch onto? Toyota doesn't make any cool cars anymore. If the MR2, Celica, Supra, etc. didn't exist back in the day, do you think Toyota would have the same success today? I think there's more to having performance cars in your lineup than appealling to the small percentage that actually buy them. Bryce
Here's the thing: if someone buys a Honda and (like ours) at 175K miles it feels as good as it did at 60K miles when we bought it, whereas a high mileage US built car may still run but feels loose and sloppy,where do you think they are going to go after that vehicle finally is due for replacement?
People do not forget the times their car let them down. They take it personally. I see this each and every day. A very good customer of mine had a '03 Grand Cherokee which had the usual litany of window regulators, taillights, the upper A/C blend doors etc and when the 4.7 V8 engine developed serious oil consumption and a knock at 132K miles, she traded for a Volvo. 'Cool' has nothing to do with it, she has a Crossfire for when she wants to feel 'cool'. She got tired of plowing $$ into the GC every time she turned around and still not being able to trust it. Will the Volvo be any better? I dunno. All I know is she was disgusted enough with the GC that all the loyalty rebates etc meant nothing.
The Saturn store is right next door to me, I know most of those guys pretty well. They will tell you, in an unguarded moment, that there are not a lot of people trading old Saturns in on new ones. That's a bad sign; people don't trust the brand enough to buy another one. FWIW, our tradein lot has very few Jeeps or Chryslers.
Go to the Honda store, the tradein lot is full of used Hondas. See a pattern here? The people who trade an Accord are usually after another Accord. It's not common to seean Accord traded toward a S2000. Which brings us full circle to the 'boring cars are bread and butter' point once again.
The biggest selling passenger cars in America over the last several years? Accords, Camrys and Tauruses. The best selling vehicle overall? The F150 Ford. I don't see any halo or sporty cars in that lineup of profit makers
JoeyM wrote: You're right, but the problem is worse than you think. The Aveo is built by Daewoo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Aveo The metro was built by suzuki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_Metro
Oh, the connections between those two care are far, far more wierd than that Wiki article would lead you to believe. The Daewoo build Aveo is the decendant of the Daewoo Lanos, decendant of the Opel Corsa, which is the offspring of the, wait for it, Opel Kadett D, which replaced the Kadett C that was RWD and sold here in the US as the Chevette.
It uses the GM Family 2 engine, which is based on the old Opel red-top 2.0L motor that was introduced in Opels before both the Ecotec and the Quad-4 motors and was the first really good DOHC motor GM built. What else uses those motors now? Why, the Suzuki Reno an Forenza, with the Reno being the Suzuki replacement for the Sprint....
The Aveo is much less the son of the Metro, much more a cousin moving into the pool house.
I disagree with the Saturn thing. The same thing they did to Saab, they did to Saturn. What used to be a car that probably could've had the Corolla and Civic scrambling to keep up with a few years of refinement, turned into a mediocre, quasi-unreliable GM clone.
And all that happened was GM taking more control over the design and marketing of the cars.
autoblog just had a story about how Ford could sell Mazda to make money...
There you go GM.. buy Mazda.. zoom zoom bitches.
ignorant wrote: autoblog just had a story about how Ford could sell Mazda to make money... There you go GM.. buy Mazda.. zoom zoom bitches.
Shut your damn mouth!!
Mazda is the best thing Ford has going for it right now.
HeavyDuty wrote: It's just a shame they ignored the small cars. Really, there is nothing wrong with a Cavi or Colbalt. My sisters, who are both horrible on cars, have had decent luck with them. You just can't go 10 years with out a real design change while the competition has a new model every 3 to 4 years.
Alright, I know everyone thinks I just hate cavaliers, but really? The cavalier had little but body and engine updates from the early eighties to 2004 (put a 84 and 04 cav on lifts side by side and see if you can tell the difference). My wifes 04 cav has the same suspension my 86 century had. It even has the terrifying rear wheel lockup during panic braking the buick had.
Honestly, my 86 century is a huge part of why I can't stand GM. While it was a decent transportation appliance it SUCKED at being a car. It was relatively reliable and got good gas mileage, but the interior was atrocious compared to similarly priced cars from the day and it had the driving dynamics of a tool shed. And this was a creampuff low mile grandma car. I really can't believe any development was done to the chassis aside from getting the suspension to hold the car off the ground. A surprising blend of horrible ride quality with almost completely undamped suspension undulations. It almost killed me more than once during low speed (less than 30 mph) emergency maneuvers. Need to stop fast? Be prepared for rear wheel lockup. Need to change lanes quickly? Expect terminal understeer followed by almost hilarious snap oversteer. If you can put one foot on your back bumper and push the rear suspension to the stops I guess you shouldn't expect any handling miracles (my car was mechanically perfect and I've tried this trick on every "a-body" car I come in contact with, it wasn't just mine that did that).
And the cobalt? Go drive a new civic, carolla, and cobalt in the same day. If you're even considering the cobalt after that there's something seriously wrong with you. Really, you could just go sit in all three and come to the same conclusion.
I drove a CiViC a Corolla and a Cobalt in the same day and drove home in a Cobalt.
The CiViC was the BEST car and the only ones on the lot were high option autos for 24K The Corolla was one of a dozen on the lot and had an auto that would barely get out of its own way and was the worst car of the group for 18K. My Cobalt was the only stick I found on the lot, I got it for $14K before supplier discount.I REALLY wanted a Mazda 3 but there was an issue with getting us sold in the Mazda. I was approved at the GM lot but Ford wouldn't write it.
I call spam. The managing editor of a real car magazine posts a link, to what is quite obviously a filler article, on a board that is strongly anti-GM, and you guys fell for it.
The first thing I thought of when I saw this:
Was this:
for the love of god, don't let GM ruin mazda too
You'll need to log in to post.
