BuddyP

GM, Ford can stand proud

30 posts in this topic

Found this on another site but don't have link to original article....

Perceptions Aside, GM, Ford Can Stand Proud

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

By Roger Simmermaker (Commentary)

Ford and General Motors have taken turns besting the Toyota Camry in quality surveys for the past two years, but if you talk to many Americans – especially the ones who would never consider supporting home-based auto companies – you'd never know it.

Last year, the Chevrolet Impala beat the Camry in initial quality, according to J.D. Power & Associates. And Consumer Reports just announced that both the Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan scored higher than both the Camry and the Honda Accord this year.

Even as GM and Ford have accumulated award after award on vehicle quality, you'd almost never know about such quality gains made by American companies.

There's also the mythical perception that foreign automakers produce the most fuel efficient cars and that Detroit only makes gas-guzzlers when the truth is that all automakers – including Toyota, Honda and Hyundai-Kia alike – have allowed fuel economy to slide in the past 20 years since they all now sell bigger trucks and more SUVs.

Perhaps the biggest perception problem is that American automobile companies GM and Ford – Chrysler is now German-owned – squander all their money on plants overseas and foreign automakers build their factories in the United States. Foreign car lovers will surely point to Kia's plans to build its first-ever U.S. plant in Georgia, but they probably won't mention that they received $400 million in tax giveaways to do it, which translates into $160,000 per job.

Among the many benefits for the foreign-owned company, your tax dollars are going to be used for road improvements surrounding the complex, complete with flower beds and other beautification features. Hey, as long as we're going to allow states to bid for private jobs with our public tax dollars, we might as well make it look good, right?

And the foreign car lovers will probably also not tell you (or maybe they just don't know or don't want you to know) that GM and Ford pour more money into existing American facilities than foreign automakers spend on new plants, usually with little or no tax breaks. GM has already spent more than $500 million upgrading two transmission plants this year, and has spent nearly a billion dollars over the last decade, for example, for facility upgrades in Texas.

And what do GM and Ford get for making their existing plants more efficient? It isn't tax breaks. Instead, they get accusations of not being "competitive" enough! Maybe here I should also mention that the average domestic parts content for Kia is 3 percent, while the average domestic parts content of Ford and GM is 78 percent and 74 percent, respectively. This means that buying a U.S.-assembled (or even foreign-assembled, for that matter) GM or Ford supports more American jobs than a U.S.-assembled car or truck with a foreign nameplate.

Fortunately for our benefit, the United States remains the overall global leader in research and development, and a big reason for that is that American automakers. According to the Level Field Institute, U.S. car companies invest $16 billion in research and development annually, outpacing any other industry one could name.

Admittedly, the Level Field Institute counts German-owned DaimlerChrysler as an American automaker, so Ford and GM's combined R&D contribution to America is closer to around $12 billion. But who's counting, right? Certainly not the American auto-bashing media.

Japanese companies do employ 3,600 American workers in R&D, but that still leaves the foreign competition behind in the dust staring at American rear bumpers – 3,600 sounds like a big number until you realize that 65,000 Americans work in R&D facilities in the state of Michigan alone. In fact, two of the top four R&D spending companies in America as reported by the Wall Street Journal are – you guessed it – Ford and GM. The other two are also American companies: Pfizer and Microsoft.

Ford has recently made headlines as the American automaker with the most challenges to its future, but these challenges certainly are not because they "aren't making cars people want to buy." Toyota did outsell Ford in July, but since then, Ford has reclaimed the No. 2 spot.

GM has the highest market share, increasing over 2 percentage points from a year ago, so it apparently can't be accused of not making cars people want to buy either. Ford sales also are up in Europe, and Ford doubled its sales in China, where GM has the highest market share of any automaker.

GM also reported a 3.9 percent rise in August vehicle sales despite high gas prices and a supposedly slowing economy. And even though Toyota reported record sales that month, it couldn't match the non-record setting sales volume of Ford. GM's sales rose 17 percent in October from the year-ago month and Ford sales rose 8 percent the same period.

And for all the talk about the lack of fuel efficiency of American automakers, it seems three-fourths of all automakers failed to meet Europe's improved fuel-efficiency standards intended to cut carbon-dioxide emissions. Japanese and German automakers topped the list of the study's worst performers, but according to an environmental group's study, GM's Opel division and Ford both "come out well."

In closing, I'll leave some encouraging numbers for those of us who actually like to root for and support the home team. The J.D. Power 2006 Vehicle Dependability Survey reports that Mercury, Buick and Cadillac (in that order) grabbed the No. 2, 3 and 4 spots to beat Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and everyone else (except Lexus) in having the least number of problems per 100 vehicles.

Perhaps someday the American media will give GM and Ford the credit they deserve. And once they do, perception among the majority of the American public will rightfully change. GM and Ford aren't only doing what they should to make gains in the American market to deserve American consumer loyalty; they're also doing what they should to make gains in the markets of China, Europe and across most of the rest of the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's get toyoguy and siegen to post this article at Toyota and Honda forums. Let's post this on every automotive forum we know of, today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"GM has the highest market share, increasing over 2 percentage points from a year ago, so it apparently can't be accused of not making cars people want to buy either."<<

Sure it can; just compare 2006's marketshare to the totally relevent year of 1962 and it all makes perfect sense.

>>"Perhaps someday the American media will give GM and Ford the credit they deserve."<<

{not... holding... breath....}

Oh no! There's no media bias or agenda; many members here have proven that handily. And even if there IS, it's all in the name of "entertainment".

Sometimes I wish I was an immigrant so I could go back home and escape all the BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get toyoguy and siegen to post this article at Toyota and Honda forums. Let's post this on every automotive forum we know of, today.

I don't post on other forums :AH-HA_wink:

Ford has recently made headlines as the American automaker with the most challenges to its future, but these challenges certainly are not because they "aren't making cars people want to buy." Toyota did outsell Ford in July, but since then, Ford has reclaimed the No. 2 spot.

how old is this article?

Ford is now #3 in the US. They won't take #2 again anytime soon.

There's also the mythical perception that foreign automakers produce the most fuel efficient cars and that Detroit only makes gas-guzzlers when the truth is that all automakers – including Toyota, Honda and Hyundai-Kia alike – have allowed fuel economy to slide in the past 20 years since they all now sell bigger trucks and more SUVs.

Honda builds a gas-guzzler? They don't even build a V8 engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post on other forums :AH-HA_wink:

how old is this article?

Ford is now #3 in the US. They won't take #2 again anytime soon.

Honda builds a gas-guzzler? They don't even build a V8 engine.

Honda builds SUVs hence letting the mpg slide in the past 20 years, it did not say they build gas guzzlers. This article is from December.

Edited by -Camaro-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the mythical perception that foreign automakers produce the most fuel efficient cars and that Detroit only makes gas-guzzlers

That's because during 90's suv were popular, majority of them were domestic. Japs auto line up were just a bunch of boring-weak cars and didn't know how to make a decent suv. Most important of all the average US consumer dosen't know much about cars and slow to change it's perception.

Maybe here I should also mention that the average domestic parts content for Kia is 3 percent, while the average domestic parts content of Ford and GM is 78 percent and 74 percent, respectively. This means that buying a U.S.-assembled (or even foreign-assembled, for that matter) GM or Ford supports more American jobs than a U.S.-assembled car or truck with a foreign nameplate.

i love reading this part.

Japanese companies do employ 3,600 American workers in R&D, but that still leaves the foreign competition behind in the dust staring at American rear bumpers – 3,600 sounds like a big number until you realize that 65,000 Americans work in R&D facilities in the state of Michigan alone.

100% :pokeowned:

Ford has recently made headlines as the American automaker with the most challenges to its future, but these challenges certainly are not because they "aren't making cars people want to buy."

yeaaa..... a lot of people wants to buy a brand-new-out-dated Crown Vic, or Ranger. oh, and i forgot to mention that there's a waiting list for the Five Hundred :rolleyes:

GM and Ford aren't only doing what they should to make gains in the American market

Ford is reducing it total production of cars and trucks. Half of Gm new cars are replacing 2 or 3 old cars (which sells more than the new ones).

That's gaining the American market share???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post on other forums :AH-HA_wink:

how old is this article?

Ford is now #3 in the US. They won't take #2 again anytime soon.

Honda builds a gas-guzzler? They don't even build a V8 engine.

Just becaues a motor is a V8 doesn't make it a gas guzzler... Ridgeline 16/21 (lightweight vehicle, 6 cylinder), Silverado 16/21 (heavier vehicle, 8 cylinder). So either the Ridgeline is a guzzler or the Silverado 5.3 is not a guzzler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article. God I hate the Ridgeline!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't post on other forums :AH-HA_wink:

how old is this article?

Ford is now #3 in the US. They won't take #2 again anytime soon.

Honda builds a gas-guzzler? They don't even build a V8 engine.

they don't need to. the 4 cyl RDX, and 6 cyl. MDX and ridgeline all suck fuel at a higher rate than a v8 already.

need me to repost those numbers? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they don't need to. the 4 cyl RDX, and 6 cyl. MDX and ridgeline all suck fuel at a higher rate than a v8 already.

need me to repost those numbers? :)

Honda has the highest fuel economy of any automaker. I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe the industry average is 25MPG and Honda is just shy of 29MPG.

As for the article, it is pretty laughable. Anyone who quotes JD Powers numbers is ignorant or biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's trying too hard to prove his point. I'm sure some members can rip the integrity of this column apart. The cherry-picking of data (i.e., using Opel and Ford Europe for fuel economy) is just one example.

I agree with his message that US manufacturers are often underrated, but to be so extreme as to say there aren't any problems, and that declining domestic market share is all due to the media, is absurd.

Edited by empowah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read a claim here from anyone stating they think the declining domestic marketshare is 'all due to the media' (not even from FOG), tho I have read more than one claim that 'there is no media bias'.

Article makes a lot of good points that are undoubtedly hard to swallow for those who subscribe to popular opinion over fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honda has the highest fuel economy of any automaker. I don't have the exact numbers, but I believe the industry average is 25MPG and Honda is just shy of 29MPG.

You mean the numbers that are calculated based on EPA figures and the numbers of each models sold, right? So since the #1 Honda car is the Accord and I thing #2 is Civic that would drive their numbers more in the car direction. While GM builds WAY more trucks and SUVs than Honda builds, because that is what is selling in big numbers now. So looking at the company's CAFE numbers doesn't really work. It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models. Remeber the numbers are skewed by the amount of each model that are sold.

As for the article, it is pretty laughable. Anyone who quotes JD Powers numbers is ignorant or biased.

:lol:

So wait a minute for YEARS import guys fell over themselves to offer JD Power numbers. And now, actually it began years ago, that GM is doing VERY well in JD Power surveys their numbers are unreliable. You do know that JD Powers has VERY accurate numbers on quality right? Much more so than say Comsumer Reports, whose methods are not statstically reliable. Also if we don't use JD Power's numbers, an international automotive forcasting and rating service, whose do we use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the numbers that are calculated based on EPA figures and the numbers of each models sold, right? So since the #1 Honda car is the Accord and I thing #2 is Civic that would drive their numbers more in the car direction. While GM builds WAY more trucks and SUVs than Honda builds, because that is what is selling in big numbers now. So looking at the company's CAFE numbers doesn't really work. It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models. Remeber the numbers are skewed by the amount of each model that are sold.

:lol:

Well I guess I shouldn't have deleted that sentence about how obvious it is that Honda doesn’t sell that many trucks. :AH-HA_wink: 43% of the vehicles Honda sells are "trucks" compared to 57% for GM. So you are correct, but it isn't quite as lopsided as one might initially think.

As for the vehicle to vehicle comparisons, take the Malibu, which I gather is the jewel in GM's fuel economy crown (all numbers are from CR, fuel economy is real-world):

Accord Hybrid: 25MPG, 0-60: 6.9

Accord V6: 23MPG, 0-60 7.3

Malibu V6: 23MPG, 0-60 8.1

Malibu Maxx: 21MPG, 0-60 8.2

Accord 4Cyl: 24MPG, 0-60 9.0

Malibu 4Cyl: 24MPG, 0-60 10.1

So yes, here is a case where GM can match Honda for fuel economy (although at lower performance). Now consider some of the other vehicles they offer in the class:

Buick LaCross CXL 3.8 V6: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.0

Pontiac Grand Prix 3.8 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 8.3

Pontiac G6 4cyl: 22MPG, 0-60: 9.4

Pontiac G6 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.7

Chevy Impala 3.9 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.8

Aura XE (3.5, 4AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 8.1

Aura XR (3.6, 6AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 6.6

None are comparable to the Accord in terms of fuel economy. The Aura XR is the only car that has better performance.

Consider other classes:

S2000: 28MPG, 0-60: 5.8

Solstice (2.4, 5MT): 23MPG, 0-60: 7.2

Honda Odyssey V6: 19MPG, 0-60: 8.6

Saturn Relay V6: 17MPG, 0-60: 10.2

Honda Fit 5MT: 34MPG, 0-60 9.9

Chevy Aveo 5MT: 27MPG, 0-60 11.2

Honda Fit 5AT: 32MPG, 0-60 12.4

Chevy Aveo 4AT: 28MPG, 0-60 11.7

Honda Civic Hybrid: 37MPG, 0-60: 11.7

Honda Civic EX (5MT): 31MPG, 0-60: 8.6

Honda Civic EX (5AT): 28MPG, 0-60: 10.1

Acura RSX Base (5MT): 28MPG, 0-60: 9.1

Cobalt LS (4AT): 23MPG, 0-60: 8.8

Honda Civic Si (6MT): 27MPG, 0-60 7.0

Cobalt SS (5MT): 23MPG, 0-60 7.3

Acura TL (3.2V6 5AT): 23MPG, 0-60: 6.7

Cadillac CTS (2.8V6, 5AT): 19MPG, 0-60: 8.5

Cadillac CTS-V (5.7V8, 6MT): 17MPG, 0-60: 5.3

Mote Carlo (V8, 4AT): 17MPG, 0-60 6.3

Honda Pilot: 17MPG, 0-60: 8.2

Acura RDX: 18MPG, 0-60: 7.4

Cadillac SRX (V8): 16MPG, 0-60: 6.4

Chevy Trailblazer 4WD, 4.2 V6: 18MPG, 0-90 9.1

Hummer H3: 14MPG, 0-60 11.5

Honda Ridgeline RTS: 15MPG, 0-60: 8.6

Chevy Colorado: 16MPG, 0-60: 9.6

Chevy Avalanche: 13MPG, 0-60: 10.1

Honda CRV: 21MPG, 0-60: 10.6

Pontiac torrent: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.1

Honda Insight: 51MPG, 0-60 11.2

GM: Nothing to compare

Aside from midsize SUVs and trucks (which are close, and which I really don't know enough about to say if I am using comparable modesl), Honda wins in every category.

I have no doubt that GM will show much better once they get rid of their pushrod/4ATs that are so common. Consider the Aura with the 3.5 V6 & 4AT vs the 3.6 V6 and 6AT. Identical fuel economy, but 20% better 0-60 for the 3.6/6AT. In the meantime, it is not true to say that "many GM models will out do competeing Honda models"; "a couple, barely" would be more accurate.

So wait a minute for YEARS import guys fell over themselves to offer JD Power numbers. And now, actually it began years ago, that GM is doing VERY well in JD Power surveys their numbers are unreliable. You do know that JD Powers has VERY accurate numbers on quality right? Much more so than say Comsumer Reports, whose methods are not statstically reliable. Also if we don't use JD Power's numbers, an international automotive forcasting and rating service, whose do we use?

I can't speak for what the "import guys" did for years. I do know that the "domestic guys" tend to dismiss CR and quote JDs. I also suspect that is due to GM's relative performance between the two. I gather from your post that you are one of those people.

But allow me to correct some misconceptions on the quality of the IQS, and also to point out that GM is actually no longer doing so well on the IQS. It does not change my view of the IQS; it was bad before and it is bad now (although it is interesting that the movement in the IQS seems to be tending towards the CR results). But I wonder how it will affect your views? So please, read the rest of this post in detail so that you can correct others who might also believe as you do.

First, I guess it is important to stress that CR is measuring reliability and JD Powers is measuring "quality". How JD Powers measures "quality" involves questions that catch a limited subset of all "quality" issues. They revamp their methodology from time to time. When they do so, their scores change radically. It shows the limitations of their system and indicates that the results are not really accurate.

Take, for example, the changes in 2006. They added a metric involving design and layout. This made the results even less about reliability than they were before. BMW went from 3rd to 28th. So let me ask you, which was right? Is BMW one of the best or one of the worst in terms of initial quality?

Who knows? JD Powers certainly doesn't. If you look at their methodology, JD Powers misses a lot of issues due to targeted questions. The 2006 methodology does improve on the ability of their survey to catch issues (now 217 questions instead of 135), but the fundamental problem still remains. And now that the design and layout metric has been added, the perception that the IQS measures reliability is only further confused.

If you don't like that example, how about these:

Buick went from 4th to 23rd.

Hummer went from 10 to 35 (3rd worst).

Mercedes went from 5 to 26.

Buick's initial quality may have gone down because their old buyers were confused by the power windows. Or maybe the seats were too hard? Who knows. You don't, unless you pay JD Powers for the results (that is why they exist, after all). All you can say for sure is that what the IQS told you in 2005 could be the opposite of 2006. At least one of them is wrong, and likely both are.

I'm not sure why you think the CR's "methods are not statistically reliable". From the criticisms I have seen it is more true to say that they are statistically reliable but the average person cannot understand statistics. CR is by no means perfect, but JD Powers makes it appear so.

I would like to see the warranty information provided to the NHTSA for recall purposes was made public. But that will never happen. So in the meantime, it is CR.

Edited by GXT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find interesting is that more and more, sheeple are depending on these somewhat useless surveys to make their buying decisions in a time when these surveys are more and more irrelevant. This is an age of 5 year warranties. Twenty years ago when you were stuck with a 1 or 2 year warranty it would have been damn nice to have some idea as to which vehicle may last longer than the next, but with many vehicles covered for 4 or even 5 years, does it really matter any more?

Most of the so-called quality measurements are purely subjective (where I think the radio should go and where you think it should go are completey different) and the longevity issues can be subjective. People tend to exaggerate when trying to recall an incident: if they like their car, they will tend to gloss over bad incidents, and if they don't like the car, they will blow them out of proportion. I've seen it happen many times. The mpg tests are also unreliable. A higher torque engine with a flat torque curve will benefit someone like me who tends to be aggressive behind the wheel, while a lower torque engine would benefit my great aunt (who is dead, BTW).

So you get some survey in the mail and it is 217 questions! I've filled out other surveys, online usually, and after 30 or so questions, I log off. It is too long.

We on this board, who I would hope would be a little more informed than the average consumer, bring with us all kinds of prejudices and biases. For the sheeple it is worse. They are being pulled every which way by "facts" and don't know what the hell to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honda builds SUVs hence letting the mpg slide in the past 20 years, it did not say they build gas guzzlers.

yes it does.

There's also the mythical perception that foreign automakers produce the most fuel efficient cars and that Detroit only makes gas-guzzlers when the truth is that all automakers – including Toyota, Honda and Hyundai-Kia alike – have allowed fuel economy to slide in the past 20 years since they all now sell bigger trucks and more SUVs.

This article is from December.

well then the author should have known Ford's own future estimates were below Toyota's existing US market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it does.

well then the author should have known Ford's own future estimates were below Toyota's existing US market share.

No it just says they everyone let it slide by building more trucks and SUVs and not only American vehicles have gas guzzlers. Also as mentioned above the Ridgeline V6 gets the same mileage as a V8 Silverado. Gas guzzler isn't restricted to V8.

Edited by -Camaro-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buick LaCross CXL 3.8 V6: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.0

Pontiac Grand Prix 3.8 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 8.3

Pontiac G6 4cyl: 22MPG, 0-60: 9.4

Pontiac G6 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.7

Chevy Impala 3.9 V6: 20MPG, 0-60: 7.8

Aura XE (3.5, 4AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 8.1

Aura XR (3.6, 6AT): 20MPG, 0-60: 6.6

None are comparable to the Accord in terms of fuel economy. The Aura XR is the only car that has better performance.

Want to try the Impala 3.5 V6 in the economy debate?

Check out the Solstice GXP. It gets better mileage and performance than the regular model.

The CTS-V uses the 6.0 LS2 not the 5.7 LS6. And why do you even bother to have the Monte Carlo on there? It is a large 2 door coupe vs 2 sedans???

Honda Pilot: 17MPG, 0-60: 8.2

Acura RDX: 18MPG, 0-60: 7.4

Cadillac SRX (V8): 16MPG, 0-60: 6.4

Chevy Trailblazer 4WD, 4.2 V6: 18MPG, 0-90 9.1

Hummer H3: 14MPG, 0-60 11.5

The Pilot and RDX are much more similar to the Theta SUVs. The SRX is a 3 row RWD car based sports wagon. The H3 is an offroad climber and is geared for that. The TB uses a 291 hp I6 vs the Pilot which has what 260 hp. Also the TB would destroy either Honda product in towing since it is BOF with a SRA. Maybe the Lambda SUVs would be a better comparison.
Honda Ridgeline RTS: 15MPG, 0-60: 8.6

Chevy Colorado: 16MPG, 0-60: 9.6

Chevy Avalanche: 13MPG, 0-60: 10.1

The Ridgeline is on par with the the Silverado Crew Cab moreso than the Av. The Av is available with the midgate which the ridgeline has nothing comparable. Also do you really think the Ridgeline will survive offroad comparably to the Av Colorado or Silverado?

Honda CRV: 21MPG, 0-60: 10.6

Pontiac torrent: 18MPG, 0-60: 9.1

And your point? One sacrifice MPG for performance and the other visa versa. What would the Torrent GXP look like in this comparison?
Honda Insight: 51MPG, 0-60 11.2

GM: Nothing to compare

Your right GM doesn't make a 2 seat only Economy car. BTW how is the Insight selling?

Aside from midsize SUVs and trucks (which are close, and which I really don't know enough about to say if I am using comparable modesl), Honda wins in every category.
In your opinion.
I have no doubt that GM will show much better once they get rid of their pushrod/4ATs that are so common. Consider the Aura with the 3.5 V6 & 4AT vs the 3.6 V6 and 6AT. Identical fuel economy, but 20% better 0-60 for the 3.6/6AT. In the meantime, it is not true to say that "many GM models will out do competeing Honda models"; "a couple, barely" would be more accurate.

No many GM models as per my changes. Also the GM models will compete at a lower price point, which to me and many others is very important.

I can't speak for what the "import guys" did for years. I do know that the "domestic guys" tend to dismiss CR and quote JDs. I also suspect that is due to GM's relative performance between the two. I gather from your post that you are one of those people.

But allow me to correct some misconceptions on the quality of the IQS, and also to point out that GM is actually no longer doing so well on the IQS. It does not change my view of the IQS; it was bad before and it is bad now (although it is interesting that the movement in the IQS seems to be tending towards the CR results). But I wonder how it will affect your views? So please, read the rest of this post in detail so that you can correct others who might also believe as you do.

First, I guess it is important to stress that CR is measuring reliability and JD Powers is measuring "quality". How JD Powers measures "quality" involves questions that catch a limited subset of all "quality" issues. They revamp their methodology from time to time. When they do so, their scores change radically. It shows the limitations of their system and indicates that the results are not really accurate.

And CR polls their readers and recieves abot 5% of their surveys back. And of that the public decides what is a problem and what isn't. A squeak in the eyes of the surveys is just as big of a problem as a broken trans mount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to try the Impala 3.5 V6 in the economy debate?

Check out the Solstice GXP. It gets better mileage and performance than the regular model.

The CTS-V uses the 6.0 LS2 not the 5.7 LS6. And why do you even bother to have the Monte Carlo on there? It is a large 2 door coupe vs 2 sedans???

The Pilot and RDX are much more similar to the Theta SUVs. The SRX is a 3 row RWD car based sports wagon. The H3 is an offroad climber and is geared for that. The TB uses a 291 hp I6 vs the Pilot which has what 260 hp. Also the TB would destroy either Honda product in towing since it is BOF with a SRA. Maybe the Lambda SUVs would be a better comparison.

The Ridgeline is on par with the the Silverado Crew Cab moreso than the Av. The Av is available with the midgate which the ridgeline has nothing comparable. Also do you really think the Ridgeline will survive offroad comparably to the Av Colorado or Silverado?

And your point? One sacrifice MPG for performance and the other visa versa. What would the Torrent GXP look like in this comparison?

Your right GM doesn't make a 2 seat only Economy car. BTW how is the Insight selling?

In your opinion.

No many GM models as per my changes. Also the GM models will compete at a lower price point, which to me and many others is very important.

And CR polls their readers and recieves abot 5% of their surveys back. And of that the public decides what is a problem and what isn't. A squeak in the eyes of the surveys is just as big of a problem as a broken trans mount.

:pokeowned:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Want to try the Impala 3.5 V6 in the economy debate?

I don't see it in the CR stats. Wouldn't it be similar to the 3.5 on the Aura?

Check out the Solstice GXP. It gets better mileage and performance than the regular model.

Again, CR hasn't rated it. Unfortunately I can't find any sites that have reviewed it and the S2000. (Car and driver got 18MPG, but as I am sure you know they are generally pretty hard on the vehicles they test.)

But it is the same engine as the Cobalt, right? The Cobalt SS gets 23MPG with the turbo 2.0. So yes, the Solstice GXP could probably get a few more MPG. But I really doubt it could get 28 MPG or more.

The CTS-V uses the 6.0 LS2 not the 5.7 LS6. And why do you even bother to have the Monte Carlo on there? It is a large 2 door coupe vs 2 sedans???

It weighs 3625 lbs. The TL weighs 3565. The CTS 3,725. I threw it in as it was kind of interesting that even though it lacked the luxury features of the other vehicles, the performance was in the same ballpark and the fuel economy was relatively poor. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Feel free to ignore it, it really doesn't change the outcome.

And your point? One sacrifice MPG for performance and the other visa versa.

I believe you said, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models.". This is yet another competition where the GM vehicle does not out do the Honda.

In your opinion.

In the sedan category GM has one vehicle that matches the Accord (if you ignore the hybrid), and over half a dozen that are 10% or more behind. I'm going to call that a win for Honda. Honda also wins the mini-van, roadster, compact, subcompact, near-luxury, and small SUV. The large SUV is a bit of a wash. GM wins the pickup by 1 MPG.

"Opinion" is when someone writes, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models." and is unable to back it up with facts. I have provided numbers to the best of my ability.

No many GM models as per my changes. Also the GM models will compete at a lower price point, which to me and many others is very important.

I guess I missed that part in your original claim, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models."

But let's not get into a discussion about whether the price of a car is the cost of a car.

And CR polls their readers and recieves abot 5% of their surveys back.

As I said, most of the criticism is from people don't understand statistics.

And of that the public decides what is a problem and what isn't. A squeak in the eyes of the surveys is just as big of a problem as a broken trans mount.

That is just plain incorrect, but in a very ironic way. What you wrote is true of JD Powers, not CR. Don't you remember the stories of how poor the scions did in the IQS and then it turned out that the major complaint was that the ride was too stiff, there was some interior noise, and the AC took too long to get cool? According to JD Powers, that is equivalent to if the engine, transmission, and brakes all failed.

CR breaks out their complaints into categories and does weight an engine failure more heavily than a squeak.

JD decides what a problem is and isn't by the questions that they ask. I took a JD Powers survey on dealership experience. I had a bad experience on which I was looking forward to nailing the dealership. But I couldn't because the survey didn't ask questions that allowed me to show my dissatisfaction. By the end of the survey I had actually filled out a positive review of the dealership. I never sent it in.

Can't you see how strange it is that you continue to defend JD when they are in fact guilty of the complaints that you attempt to use to villify CR? But the point is really moot, JD has already demonstrated beyond a doubt that their results are inconsistent to the point of being meaningless. If you continue to defend JD over CR, it may become apparent that you favour it only because of the results. Perhaps now that CR rates Buick higher than JD you might change your mind? Or do you think it is true that Buick is one of the poorer automakers as JD (now) contends?

Edited by GXT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it in the CR stats. Wouldn't it be similar to the 3.5 on the Aura?

According to Edmunds the 3.5 Impala gets 31 on the highway while the 3.5 Aura gets 29 mpg and the 3.5 Malibu gets 32 hwy. The 3.0 V6 Accord gets 29 as well. The 4 cylinder Accord gets 34 and the 4 cylinder Malibu gets 32.

Again, CR hasn't rated it. Unfortunately I can't find any sites that have reviewed it and the S2000. (Car and driver got 18MPG, but as I am sure you know they are generally pretty hard on the vehicles they test.)

You could use more than 1 source you know.

But it is the same engine as the Cobalt, right? The Cobalt SS gets 23MPG with the turbo 2.0. So yes, the Solstice GXP could probably get a few more MPG. But I really doubt it could get 28 MPG or more.

No it isn't. The Cobalt uses a SC 2.0 Ecotec. The Solstice uses a 2.0 DI Ecotec. The Solstice head and block are newer, based on the 2.4 Ecotec. The Cobalt also weighs in about 300 lbs more than the Solstice, even as a vert. I don't think you should be doubting the General's ability to get performance and gas mileage together, remember the 505 hp 7.0L LS7 powered Z06 doesn't have to pay the gas guzzler tax! Not only that but the 400 hp 6.0 V8 LS2 powered Corvette 6 speed gets better highway mileage than the S2000 to boot!

It weighs 3625 lbs. The TL weighs 3565. The CTS 3,725. I threw it in as it was kind of interesting that even though it lacked the luxury features of the other vehicles, the performance was in the same ballpark and the fuel economy was relatively poor. Perhaps I shouldn't have. Feel free to ignore it, it really doesn't change the outcome.

I will ignore it as it was not the right car to pic.

I believe you said, "It IS true the that Honda's corp. avg. is lower than GMs but many GM models will out do competeing Honda models.". This is yet another competition where the GM vehicle does not out do the Honda.

In the sedan category GM has one vehicle that matches the Accord (if you ignore the hybrid), and over half a dozen that are 10% or more behind. I'm going to call that a win for Honda. Honda also wins the mini-van, roadster, compact, subcompact, near-luxury, and small SUV. The large SUV is a bit of a wash. GM wins the pickup by 1 MPG.

Chevy has the Impala, selling around 250k per year, limited sales this year as GM's budget large sedan. The Lacrosse which is both quieter and likely more smooth on the highway than the Accord, but much less sporty. The Grand Prix GXP will outperform the Accord no problem, sure the interior isn't quite as nice but hey it is cheap and fast. Pick your piority and GM has a car to fit your needs. The Accord is a middle ground runner whereas GM has differently tuned versions which can all outdo the Accord in certain categories. Lets also not throw things like the SAAB 9-3 into the mix because it will certainly beat the Accord but at a higher price point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.