z28luvr01

Grading the Revolution

67 posts in this topic

C&G Member Article – “Grading the Revolution”
By z28luvr01
Posted Image
Many of us remember the now infamous car-carrier ad for Chevrolet that debuted during the New Years Eve 2004 festivities. That ad represented the start of the “An American Revolution” campaign for the bowtie brand, retiring the lamented “We’ll Be There” campaign for cars and the stalwart “Like a Rock” campaign for trucks. At the heart of “An American Revolution” was the release of 10 new or significantly redesigned vehicles over the next 20 months starting January 2004. With that time just about completed, and the 10 new cars and trucks are either at dealerships now or arriving soon, now is an opportune time to take a look at the results of the “An American Revolution” campaign, examining each of the ten new vehicles and their relevance in today’s marketplace while giving some thoughts as to the overall success of the program.

Aveo
Grade: A-

The Aveo is based off the Daewoo Kalos, which also is the foundation for the Canada-only Pontiac Wave. The Aveo is currently available in two bodystyles: a four-door sedan and a five-door hatchback. Power comes from an Opel-sourced 1.6L four-cylinder that makes 103hp at 6000rpm, and to get that power to the ground buyers have a choice of a five-speed manual or a four-speed automatic. Pricing starts at $9,995 for both the sedan and the hatch, and loaded with options each can reach the mid-teens.
Posted Image
Many, including myself, balked at the idea of a subcompact, Korean built Chevrolet. I questioned GM’s belief that it needed two cars to handle the small-car segment. Well, not only was I wrong, I could never have predicted that GM’s small-car strategy would begin playing out at other manufacturers, namely Honda, Ford, and Nissan, all of whom have committed to releasing vehicles lower in price than the Civic, Focus, and Sentra, respectively. The Aveo has sold very well since its introduction, becoming one of the best selling subcompacts out there. That honor is pretty well deserved, too, as the car offers buyers a lot for this price range, including lost of cargo space, a fairly roomy (and well-put-together) interior, power that matches the competition, and fuel economy that leads the competition. Exterior styling is rather quirky (especially the front fascia), but nothing that won’t grow on you after a couple of days of ownership.

Colorado
Grade: B

Chevrolet replaced the long-in-the-tooth S10 with an all-new Colorado that was co-developed with Isuzu. It is available in numerous cab configuration (standard, extended, crew) and suspension packages (ZQ8 sport, Z85 standard, Z71 off road). Similar in size to the S10, the Colorado is powered by four or five cylinder engines derived from the highly successful Vortec 4200 I6 in the Trailblazer – the 175hp Vortec 2800 I4 and the 220hp Vortec 3500 I5. Either of these engines can be coupled to both a five speed manual and a four speed automatic. Pricing for the Colorado begins at $15,990 for a base 2WD standard cab model, and well equipped versions can approach $30,000.
Posted Image
The Colorado is a good truck that needed to be great. Given that the S10 languished in Chevy’s lineup for 11 years having received little more than a new nose and a new interior, just about anything Chevrolet could have released would have been an improvement. Unfortunately, the Colorado was barely competitive when it was first released, and now that almost all small truck manufacturers have since released new or redesigned competitors, it is now behind the pack, especially given the price Chevy is asking for one. The Colorado kept the S10’s tidy compact truck dimensions while the competition got bigger and more powerful. Chevy also has an uphill battle of a task trying to explain why five cylinders are better than six. However, take the competition out of the equation, and the Colorado is a wonderful, capable truck, and the sales numbers indicate that it resonates well with some buyers. Both engine choices suit the truck well and give decent fuel economy. The exterior styling enjoys the same smooth, timeless quality that adorned many Chevy trucks in the past.

Corvette
Grade: A

The sixth generation Corvette was first shown to the public in January 2004. Using an evolved version of the Y-body (which is now shared with the Cadillac XLR), the new Corvette is smaller, lighter, more powerful, and more agile than its predecessor. This is reflected in the car’s exterior design, which can best be described as a tauter, leaner, more aggressive version of the outgoing fifth-generation. As with previous Corvettes, both coupe and convertible bodystyles are available. The Corvette also receives an all-new interior that does away with the cheapness that plagued previous Corvettes. In its place is a cockpit that features soft-touch materials, tight fitting panels, and contrasting colors. Power comes from a 400hp LS2 V8, which represents the most standard horsepower ever offered in a Corvette. Available transmissions include a six speed manual and a four speed automatic. Pricing begins at $44,600, in actuality a few hundred dollars cheaper than the outgoing base Corvette. However, fully loaded convertibles can approach $60,000.

While the fifth generation put Corvette back on the map as a relevant high performance sports car, the sixth generation establishes it as a full-fledged supercar ready to take on, and beat, some of best the world has to offer. Once a straight line-only bruiser, Corvette now a sophisticated, refined, precise handling machine that outdoes cars costing several times more. Dollar for dollar, the Corvette is the best sports car out there.
Posted Image
Corvette Z06
Grade: A+

After a one year hiatus, the Z06 moniker returns to the Corvette lineup for model year 2006. A beneficiary of Chevrolet’s highly successful Corvette racing program, the Z06 ups the ante over the base Corvette via a hand-built 505hp, 7.0 liter LS7 engine. Carbon fiber body panels and extensive use of aluminum in the suspension helped shave even more weight off the already svelte base car. The end result: a street legal race car. The performance numbers speak for themselves: 0-60 in 3.7 seconds. 198mph top speed. A Nurburgring lap time of 7:43 . Couple all of that the fact that the Z06 can be had for a “paltry” $65,000, and it appears that Chevrolet has redefined the exotic supercar. In Chevy’s push to turn itself into a serious global auto manufacturer, the credibility of the Z06 provides a huge image boost.

Cobalt
Grade: A-

Late 2004 saw the arrival of Chevy’s replacement for the Cavalier, the Cobalt. Built off the global Delta chassis that debuted underneath the 2003 Saturn Ion, the Cobalt enjoys an excellent basis for a premium compact car, far superior to the 23 year old J body in every way. Cobalts come in two body styles, coupe and sedan. Both have a crisp, clean exterior that encases one of the best small car interiors. Chevrolet initially offered two engines in the Cobalt – a 2.2L Ecotec that makes 145hp and, for the top-of-the-line SS Supercharged, a 2.0L supercharged Ecotec that makes 205hp. For 2006 Chevy added a 171hp 2.4L Ecotec available in Cobalt SS coupes and sedans. The 2.2 and the 2.4 can be mated to either a five speed manual or a four speed automatic, while the 2.0 is only available with the five speed manual. Cobalts start at $14,190 and top out at around $23,000 for a fully loaded SS Supercharged.
Posted Image
The Cobalt has proved to the pundits that GM can build a competent small car. The greatest shortcoming of the Cobalt would have to be the hard plastics that make up some of the interior. However, unlike many Chevrolets before it, they are substantial and do not have that hollow feeling when you touch them. Indications of Chevrolet's progress in the compact car segment can be found in many reviews found in auto magazines. While the Cavalier was frequently mentioned in compact car comparisons solely for comic relief, the Cobalt is now viewed as a serious threat to the category once dominated by imports. Some even go so far as to say that the Cobalt is the best small car available. Furthermore, the SS Supercharged is getting positive attention both the street and the track, gaining serious credibility in the sport compact segment. Sales totals for the Cobalt are on pace to eclipse those of the Cavalier, which despite being uncompetitive still sold pretty well. All in all, early indications are that the Cobalt will be a success for Chevrolet.

Equinox
Grade: B-

Arriving in spring 2004, the Equinox was billed as a replacement for the Suzuki-based Tracker. Chevrolet’s new small SUV is in actuality similar in size to the now departed Blazer. Built off the Theta architecture shared with the Saturn Vue, the Equinox comes with just one powertrain option: a 185hp 3.4L V6 mated to a five speed automatic. Buyers do have their choice of FWD-only or AWD, though. Equinoxes start at $22,345 and can top out near $30,000.
Posted Image
The Equinox has sold rather well since its introduction, and with good cause. It is a handsome looking SUV with a lot of room and a wealth of features. The interior is highly configurable, featuring fold-flat rear seating and a sliding rear seat. Several things prevent the Equinox from being the segment leader, however. Not the least of which is the engine. While few owners have actually complained about a lack of power in the Equinox, on paper the engine lags far behind similarly priced competition, in many cases eliminating the Chevy from many buyers’ shopping lists before they have the chance to experience it in person. In addition, much of the interior looks and feels cheap, something that should not happen in an SUV whose transaction prices are typically in the mid $20,000s. As if these problems were not enough, GM may have very well stymied whatever sales success the Equinox had by deciding to rebadge it as the Pontiac Torrent; only the front fascia, taillights, wheels, interior bits, and some suspension and steering tweaks differentiate the two.

Malibu/Malibu Maxx
Grade: B+

An all-new Malibu sedan bowed for the 2004 model year on the new Epsilon architecture shared globally with the Pontiac G6, Saab 9-3, and Opel Vectra. Alongside it (albeit a few months afterward) came a five door “wagon” variant, dubbed Malibu Maxx, that rides on an extended version of Epsilon. Both wore what at the time was to be Chevy’s new corporate look: a dominating crossbar on the front of the grille with scallops on the sides that evoke lines from Chevy’s past. Each also received an interior that vastly improved on the previous Malibu. Powertrain choices include a 145hp 2.2L 4cyl and a 200hp 3.5L V6, both of which can be had solely with a four speed automatic transmission. People looking for a Maxx will only find one with the V6; there are no plans to give it the 4cyl. Malibus start at around $17,990, and a fully loaded Maxx can reach the low $30,000s.

Initially, the new Malibus started off selling very slowly before picking up a lot of steam. In a segment where pleasing the many is a must, the Malibu’s exterior styling was a turnoff for quite a few, seeing it as a combination of bland and awkward. Some referred to the front fascia as being “truck-like” or “pug-nosed”. The interior, while improved over the previous Malibu, contains some cheap bits, an ugly steering wheel, and the same overall quirkiness that the exterior possesses. Despite these negatives, the Malibus have a lot going for them. The Malibu provides a nice value for customers, in many cases buyers can get a V6 Malibu for the price of a competitor’s 4cyl model. Both engine options deliver excellent gas mileage, with the V6 being exceptionally fuel efficient. The interior is rather utilitarian and in some cases innovative. The Maxx, like the Equinox, features a rear seat that has fore and aft adjustment, and also has a fixed rear skylight so rear-seat passengers can take in the view overhead.

Chevy deserves credit for showing a commitment to the Malibu twins, giving them incremental updates each model year since their debut. The 2006 model year features restyled, more attractive front fascias, and a seriously upgraded interior appearance that includes contrasting color combinations and a much nicer steerng wheel.

Uplander
Grade: C-

For 2005, Chevy performed minor cosmetic surgery on the Venture minivan and renamed it Uplander. The higher noseline is meant to give it an SUV-like stance that GM believes will shake off some of the negative image associated with minivans. The Uplander also receives a new engine (the same 3.5L V6 found in the Malibu) and an upgraded interior. Uplanders start out at $21,990 but can top out well into the mid $30,000s.
Posted Image
Simply put, the Uplander is an example of GM at its worst. It is well behind the pack in terms of size, available power, features, looks, and refinement. Even Kia, a newcomer to the segment, offers a better minivan for the money than GM. And to top things off, there are three other minivans just like it in GM’s portfolio, each mainly differentiated by front fascias and interior trim. The Uplander is by no means a bad vehicle, but it doesn’t take too much research to find a minivan that offers more to customers.

Impala
Grade: A-

A restyled Impala bowed for the 2006 model year, featuring an all new exterior, interior, and engine options. Outside, the Impala gains a cleaned up, more upscale, albeit more anonymous and less "Impala-ish" exterior. The redone interior is vastly improved over the previous generation Impala. Gone is the mishmash of various colored hard cheap plastics, replaced by a simple, clean layout that is more inviting for both driver and passengers. Three engines are available in the Impala: a 3.5L V6 that produces 211hp, a 3.9L V6 that produces 242hp, and, for the SS version, a 303hp 5.3L V8. All three engines are controlled by a four-speed automatic. The starting MSRP for an Impala is $21,990, and fully loaded SS versions can reach the low $30,000s.

The 2000-2005 Impala wound up becoming a surprise hit for Chevrolet, eventually becoming the fourth best selling car in the country. Chevy has fixed the previous car’s shortcomings and added more advantages. The new Impala is a tremendous value, offering a lot to customers for their dollar, particularly in the power department. To put things in perspective, the 2006 Impala’s base engine outpowers the top-of-the-line engine in the Impala of just three model years ago. The new V8-powered SS should make its mark as one of the best performing Impalas of all time. For all the added power, the new engines do not bring with them the penalty of poor fuel economy. These engines, even the V8, all equal or surpass the MPG ratings of engines offered by competing models. While the 2006 Impala has only been available for a couple of months, it has all the makings of a sales success for Chevrolet.

HHR
Grade: B+

The HHR (short for “Heritage High Roof”) is a new-for-2006 vehicle. It shares the Delta chassis currently with the Cobalt and Ion. Instead of a traditional wagon based off the Cobalt, Chevy decided to create a retro body that’s based heavily on the 1949 Suburban. The end result is a different looking vehicle that offers compact car buyers an option if they need cargo space that cannot be had in a Cobalt. The HHR features the same 2.2L and 2.4L Ecotecs that are in its platform mates, and both engines can be had with either a five speed manual or a four speed automatic. Pricing for the HHR begins ar $15,990 and tops out at just over $23,000.

The HHR has the unenviable task of overcoming all the negative press it received before pictures of it were even released to the public. Despite being written off as a PT Cruise clone, sales are off to a very brisk start and reviews have been mostly positive. The HHR in person is quite a pleasant surprise. Its appearance in pictures is deceiving, as its dimensions are in reality very tidy. It’s obviously retro, which may turn off some buyers who want a contemporarily styled car, but it gets credit for being a unique wagon alternative. The comments about the Cobalt’s interior also apply to the HHR’s, tight fitting panels, attractive design, and hard but substantial plastic are all present in the HHR. Performance and fuel ecomony for the HHR are both slightly lower than in the Cobalt, due to the HHR’s larger, less aerodynamic body.

Monte Carlo
Grade: C+

The Monte Carlo received modest exterior upgrades for the 2006 model year, not nearly as comprehensive an upgrade as the one the Impala received. A new nose, revised tail lamps, and half of an upgraded dashboard are the Monte’s main appearance upgrades. Engine and transmission options are identical to those offered in the Impala. Monte Carlos start at $21,990, and a fully loaded SS can reach the low $30,000s.

The retouched exterior and interior do give the Monte a slightly more refined look, but the car needs more, and given its status as the best selling large coupe, it deserves more as well. The exterior desperately needs a clean-up similar to the one the Impala received, so that it doesn’t need “NASCAR inspired” ground effects and spoilers to be a good looking car. By the time the model cycle is over, this basic body style will have been in existence for over 10 years. This is not to say that the Monte is terrible, as it is still a roomy, well equipped, decent (if unspectacular) handling coupe, and the additional power does make things interesting, especially in the V8 powered SS, which could very well be the fastest Monte Carlo to date.

Commercials, Advertisements, etc.
Grade: B+

The “car carrier” commercial got people talking about a Chevrolet commercial for the first time in a very long time. Other memorable ads followed, including the ads accompanying the Cobalt launch and a Corvette ad that ended up being more controversial than it should have been. Chevrolet was giving viewers and readers some product-based advertising that ceased to be a part of GM’s marketing strategy over a decade ago. During this time Chevrolet also began an aggressive sponsorship effort, earning spots on major league baseball games and popular reality TV shows. While it is true that the “stock footage with voiceover” ads have returned and the campaign has lost a lot of its initial luster, it has done its job in bringing positive attention to Chevrolet products.

Conclusion

It is easy to tell that Chevrolet is in a much better position now than it was before “An American Revolution” began. No longer is Chevrolet the laughingstock in the compact and midsized car segments. Its flagship vehicle is arguably the standard bearer for exotic sports cars. During the campaign Chevrolet reached its goal of selling three million vehicles, becoming the best selling passenger car brand in the US, no small feat for a brand that not too long ago had no identity and was perceived as a maker of behind-the-pack, “me-too” vehicles.

Despite these advances, Chevy still has a lot of work to do. It still lacks a buzz-generating “wow” vehicle in the midsized market that turns the segment upside down. The trucks and SUVs are competent but losing some steam in the sales race to newer competing models, putting a lot of pressure on the forthcoming redesigned full-sized trucks to be nothing short of fantastic.

At this point, with the “10 Vehicles in 20 Months” push now complete, the question comes to mind as to whether or not to continue the “An American Revolution” campaign. My suggestion is to keep it, only if GM Marketing can recreate the initial buzz that accompanied the first ads in the campaign. Using “An American Revolution” would still be appropriate, as the new full-sized trucks are just some of the new products in the pipeline for Chevy.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new Impala is really starting to grow on me, but yes, the MC is a joke.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow...nice article, Z28!

Very impressed with your writings/thoughts...and I agree with you on most everything.


Cort, "Mr MC" / "Mr Road Trip", 32swm/pig valve/pacemaker
MC:family.IL.guide.future = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
Models.HO = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/trainroom.html
"Are you still the same?" ... Savage Garden ... 'I Don't Know You Anymore'
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great read and great review. This should be sent to General Motors...awaiting anxiously the reviews on the new Avalanche/Tahoe/Escalade.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd swap the ratings on the Equinox and Malibu...and lower the Cobalt rating. Cobalt's interior is much too cheap in person, though it photographs well.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good idea for an article. I'll grade these products by how good they are compared to the competition, not if they are good for sales or compared to their predecesors. Let's see, "A" is excellent, "B" is above average, "C" is supposed to be average, "D" is below average, and "F" is terrible. Aveo: C- (what's not below average about this car?) Cobalt: C (has not one one comparison test, mid-pack finishes at best) Colorado: D+ (better than the Ranger, but nothing else) Corvette: A- (interior cheapness holds it back) Equinox: B- (nice looks, crappy engine) Impala: C (it reeks average/bland/dull) HHR: C+ (a decent knockoff of the PT, but loses some comparos to it (amazing) and adds nothing to the market) Malibu: C (ugly, dull, and cheap looking) Monte Carlo: C- (still ugly and average) Uplander: F+ (it MIGHT beat the Freestar, whoopee) Average: C- Except the Corvette, none of these products are best of breed or world class for their price point. They are OK, but OK gets you a "C". Mark
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea for an article.

I'll grade these products by how good they are compared to the competition, not if they are good for sales or compared to their predecesors.

Let's see, "A" is excellent, "B" is above average, "C" is supposed to be average, "D" is below average, and "F" is terrible.

Aveo: C- (what's not below average about this car?)
Cobalt: C (has not one one comparison test, mid-pack finishes at best)
Colorado: D+ (better than the Ranger, but nothing else)
Corvette: A- (interior cheapness holds it back)
Equinox: B- (nice looks, crappy engine)
Impala: C (it reeks average/bland/dull)
HHR: C+ (a decent knockoff of the PT, but loses some comparos to it (amazing) and adds nothing to the market)
Malibu: C (ugly, dull, and cheap looking)
Monte Carlo: C- (still ugly and average)
Uplander: F+ (it MIGHT beat the Freestar, whoopee)

Average: C-

Except the Corvette, none of these products are best of breed or world class for their price point.  They are OK, but OK gets you a "C".

Mark

[post="23224"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


it really iratates me when people open there mouth when they dont know everything..the hhr and the cobalt HAVE won comparison test, the cobalt was even picked over the acura rsx type-s, and it was by one of the biased rags
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great read, Z28. I agree with most of what you have said. Your ratings may be a tad optimistic, but your comments are bang on. The most important point is GM can't just sit back. Already Toyota has replacement for the Echo that takes away the Aveo's two biggest advantages: interior size and the fact that the Echo was FUGLY from any angle. The cars demand 2nd year refreshes and 3rd year bigger changes to keep the leasing customers happy, if nothing else. Toyota and Honda do it. Why can't we?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aveo: B (kinda funjy but safe good milage cheap and reliable) Cobalt: A- (Great car needs a high milage engine option and a little more refinement) Colorado: C+ (Great Chasis held back by powertrains need 5300 DOD v8 and new interior) Corvette: A (Exotic level perfromance for 41k and change) Equinox: B+ (Very Competent mini ute with great ergonomics and fuel econemy. Could use a better powertain though the one it has is not horrible) Impala: A- (Takes the W-body to its topmost potential and than some. Competitve car with good quality) HHR: B (Needs a little more juice under the hood nice interior) Malibu: A- (with the MCE the Malibu now has a broad range of competitve engines. This car is very high quality and sells largley because of its very good value rating) Monte Carlo: B (Some dont like the refersh but I do) Uplander: D (Waste of time) Overall grade B+
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very good read.. I would have to agree with most of what was said.... The only two that stink would be the Uplander and the Colorado. Everything else at this point is pretty solid. I wouldn't even worry too much about the Uplander though...since it is now on deathwatch...the new crossovers..should be out in less than a couple of years.. Time to get out of the minivan market anyways.... Rumor is that the Uplander is done when the 2007s are. As for the colorado-they need to fix that-FAST. :angry:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd swap the ratings on the Equinox and Malibu...and lower the Cobalt rating.  Cobalt's interior is much too cheap in person, though it photographs well.

[post="23220"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


That would just be a matter of opinion...I happen to like the Cobalt's interior. :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea for an article.

I'll grade these products by how good they are compared to the competition, not if they are good for sales or compared to their predecesors.

Let's see, "A" is excellent, "B" is above average, "C" is supposed to be average, "D" is below average, and "F" is terrible.

Aveo: C- (what's not below average about this car?)
Cobalt: C (has not one one comparison test, mid-pack finishes at best)
Colorado: D+ (better than the Ranger, but nothing else)
Corvette: A- (interior cheapness holds it back)
Equinox: B- (nice looks, crappy engine)
Impala: C (it reeks average/bland/dull)
HHR: C+ (a decent knockoff of the PT, but loses some comparos to it (amazing) and adds nothing to the market)
Malibu: C (ugly, dull, and cheap looking)
Monte Carlo: C- (still ugly and average)
Uplander: F+ (it MIGHT beat the Freestar, whoopee)

Average: C-

Except the Corvette, none of these products are best of breed or world class for their price point.  They are OK, but OK gets you a "C".

Mark

[post="23224"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Keep in mind it is a matter of opinion...and if you don't like em...well...don't buy them. :rolleyes:

Many updates for these cars are being worked on as you speak....
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guys... Chevrolet is NOT a "premium" mainstream brand. Chevrolet is a mainstream (catch-all) brand. Chevrolet has some exceptional niche vehicles to spice up its average line-up: SSR, HHR, Corvette, SS-trim, etc... etc... I agree with the original post. All Chevrolet vehicles now successfully accomplish what they are intended to do: provide attractive (but inoffensive), solid, reliable, quality transportation for the average entry-level to middle-class consumer. They aren't meant to be pseudo-luxury vehicles or premium boutique alternatives (exception to the niche vehicles & SS trim) to mainstream vehicles. You guys really expect too much from each and every brand. GM is to be all things to all people.... not just Chevrolet. The line has to be drawn somewhere for Chevrolet so the other brands can begin. I'm not talking about suppressing Chevrolet either. The SS trims provide all the attributes of the same vehicle but with a more upscale/sporty finish. That's perfectly in-line with what Chevrolet should deliver. But stop expecting a Chevrolet worthy of a Cadillac Crest but with a bow-tie (such as Avalon to Lexus, or Accord to Acura). The closest thing that comes to this is the Corvette, but even the XLR is a step above the Corvette in many respects. Let Chevrolet be Chevrolet. Once you out-grow Chevrolet and move on towards Saturn, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, GMC, Saab, or HUMMER... be happy for everything Chevrolet offered and provided you over the years.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chevy as passed the revolution test very well. They are a healthy brand. To me the weakest spot has been the Malibu...just too odd for my tastes.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it really iratates me when people open there mouth when they dont know everything..the hhr and the cobalt HAVE won comparison test, the cobalt was even picked over the acura rsx type-s, and it was by one of the biased rags

[post="23228"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


It really irrates me when people open their mouths to tout how OK from GM is good enough. :P How about we demand and expect world class cars from the world larger car company?

To get to your point, the Cobalt SS is getting good reviews, but keep in mind it beat a 4 year old Acura. The Cobalt non-SS has not won one single comparison test I've read.

The HHR has been pitted against the PT Cruiser and I believe won one and lost one that I've read. Not too steller for a new cars vs a 5 year old car.

Mark
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HHR has been pitted against the PT Cruiser and I believe won one and lost one that I've read.  Not too steller for a new cars vs a 5 year old car.

Mark

[post="23421"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

With all do respect to your post, I do believe the only reason the HHR "lost" is due to the "me too" looks that it shares with the PT Cruiser.

Hardly a losing feature if you ask me.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to suplement Josh's comment with the fact that anyone who looks at an HHR and a PT Cruiser and thinks they look the same is doing so with severely impaired vision. The shape, stance, and body details are all very different.....even the "retro" used on the HHR is different from the "retro" used by the PT. Chrysler used generic 1930s paddy-wagon styling cues for the PT, while the HHR sraws heavily from a specific vehicle...it's more like a miniature, FWD, 4cyl 1949 Suburban. Whether or not someone wants to ding the HHR because they see it as a copy of something else, you can't argue with the sales numbers. It is resonating well with comsumers.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chevy as passed the revolution test very well.  They are a healthy brand.  To me the weakest spot has been the Malibu...just too odd for my tastes.

[post="23368"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I agree... consider that the new Cobalt, Impala, & even 2007 Tahoe all have a similar look & feel to them. It makes you wonder if the Malibu was entirely developed separate from the rest of Chevrolet's future projects (especially the interior.)

Hopefully the 2007/8 Malibu replacement will complete the revolution.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being much too kind to the Impala/Monte Carlo. Yes, they have been refined and improved upon, but the fact that they are still W-bodies is a joke. Posted Image Putting V8s in outdated platforms is a poor way to try to stretch a platform a few more years. What happens when the novelty wears off? I give it a C and I'm being kind.

[post="23138"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


Ok, get over the fact that it is a W-body and drive the damn thing! It is a sweet driver, better than the likes of Camry and Accord, which are only on Modified platfoms of previous generations as well!! I guess we should be damning the 2008 Malibu because it is going to be on a modified platform instead of a completely new one!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='VenSeattle' date='Oct 3 2005, 12:34 PM']
Guys... Chevrolet is NOT a "premium" mainstream brand. Chevrolet is a mainstream (catch-all) brand. Chevrolet has some exceptional niche vehicles to spice up its average line-up: SSR, HHR, Corvette, SS-trim, etc... etc...

Hold on for a minute. You can honestly say that the SSR and Malibu/Maxx are exceptional niche vehicles? The SSR is a waste of R&D money and the Malibu/Maxx are a slap in the face to the SS badge.

:unsure:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all do respect to your post, I do believe the only reason the HHR "lost" is due to the "me too" looks that it shares with the PT Cruiser.

Hardly a losing feature if you ask me.

[post="23430"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]


I have to agree with Josh too on this one.

Has anyone driven both? I have. They are both good cars...and HHR is a solid
car that will do quite well.

i would pick the HHR based on the fact that is is more useful, and handles quite
well.

Just depends on what you want it to do..
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said something about the '08 Malibue because "it's not on an all new one." Man.....you're such an idiot. Kirkorean is not buying stock for NOTHING right now!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chevrolet 2006 Cars: Corvette: A+ Aveo: C+ Cobalt: A Malibu: B- Impala: D M/C: D- HHR: B+ Equinox: C+ Chevrolet 2006 Trucks: Silverado: A+ Colorado: A TrailBlazer: B- Tahoe: B Suburban: B SSR: B Overall Chevrolet car division: D (I'd give them an F if it was not for the superb Corvette C6/Z06) Edited by Sixty8panther
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said something about the '08 Malibue because "it's not on an all new one."

Man.....you're such an idiot.

Kirkorean is not buying stock for NOTHING right now!

[post="23644"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]



What? :blink:

Josh- WTF are you talking about? You lost me there.... :lol:

Man, and I thought my late night rants were bad... :P :lol:
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chevrolet 2006 Cars:

Corvette: A+
Aveo: C+
Cobalt: A
Malibu: B-
Impala: D
M/C: D-
HHR: B+
Equinox: C+

Chevrolet 2006 Trucks:

Silverado: A+
Colorado: A
TrailBlazer: B-
Tahoe: B
Suburban: B
SSR: B

Overall Chevrolet car division: D (I'd give them an F if it was not for the superb Corvette C6/Z06)

[post="23652"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]



How come the low overall, 68?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now