How can asking someone to be better single them out to be worse? Does that mean a parent talks to his kid to improve himself, in person makes the kid look bad? In our case we are talking about making GM better in a site dedicated to make GM better, not a blog post, where everybody reads. And besides that proclaims to be fan as well as a critic of GM, and when a constructive criticism is made about GM it should be taken in the same manner to improve it. I am not here for GM bashing unlike some other people. I love GM and I am proud to be owning GM vehicles and will buy and own them in future.
I for that matter do not consider CTS to be a 5-fighter. I think it is a bigger 3-series fighter, and STS to be a 5-series fighter. For when the STS came out, I remember seeing a commercial made by Cadillac, where 5 series, E class and A-6 are slow-dancing to a symphony in a ballroom, when the STS is driven with jazzy music and in comes the tag-line, "Wanna Dance." That right there tells people what Cadillac wants to perceive as a 5-series fighter. Further when Lutz was talking about Alpha, he was more inclined to call it a 1-series fighter, not a 3-series fighter, which some of us think of.
1. Let us compare the weights of the entry level luxury cars,
CTS 330(335) G35 C350
NEW GEN. 3874 3593 3532 3505
PREV. GEN 3509 3315 3450 3472
INCREASE 365 278 82 33
% 10 8 2 1 These are base vehicles, sans any packages for an apple to apple comparison. Cadillac was heaviest in the previous generation and still is. Yes all of the cars increased the girth, but look how much Cadillac increased it by, almost 10%, thus increasing the "heavier" compared to other vehicles in its class.2. Now let us compare, the 7-seater FWD crossovers, all these vehicles are base FWD. For argument's sake, I have included a GL320cdi (Since it is a 7-seater, Unibody, 6 cylinder crossover)
ACADIA VERACRUZ CX-9 HIGHLANDER GL320
4722 4266 4312 3979 5296 Again in the FWD catagory, Acadia is handily overweight. People may argue that it is a bigger vehicle compared to other seven seaters, but the Acadia has about 10 cu.ft of more passenger volume compared to its next largest vehicle (Veracrus 144 cuft, vs. Acadia 154 cuft) that is about 4% offset, that does not justify 11% offset in weight. And to me personally Acadia is a great vehicle. But if comparison comes up in the near future in the car magazines, I know people will bash the Acadia for being overweight, because it is by far. Acadia already has near the top fuel efficieny, imagine, how it would be to be a distict class leader, if those weight saving measures were taken?3. Let us now compare the Small Size Utes.
VUE RAV4 CRV OUTLANDER ESCAPE
NEW GEN. 3825 3300 3389 3527 3272
PREV. GEN 3207 2897 3318 3241 3180
INCREASE 618 403 71 286 92
% 19 14 2 9 3 I have again included four cylinder base models for all the vehicles barring the newer Outlander which is only avaible in V-6. Again across the board there is a weight gain, but for Vue that is 19% increase. Don't you think it is a lot? For a SUV which was in the middle of the pack to dead last by a large margin? Some one will argue, that is for European safety requirements, but RAV4, Outlander, CRV are also sold in Europe with same specs as they are sold in United States. Even German car magazine that compared those vehicles called the Opel Antara heavy and placed it under those three vehicles. Germans love their Opels and are not biased as our press.4. Now this comparison is for the ubiquitous mid-size segment. Again, for simplicity, base automatic versions of 4 cylinder engines.
MALIBU ACCORD ALTIMA CAMRY PASSAT SAAB 9-3
NEW GEN. 3297 3250 3055 3263 3246 3230
PREV. GEN 3174 3133 3001 3108 3241 3220
INCREASE 123 117 54 155 5 10
% 4, 4, 2, 5, 0.15, 0.31 Previous generation Malibu was midpack despite of having the among the smallest dimensions and wheelbase compared to other cars. Now since its wheelbase is increased and every dimension has increased, it did increase weight, but now it is the heaviest. To give the benefit of doubt it is still less than the standard deviation of the class. But the standard deviation is skewed towards the lower weight due to the highly light Altima. Your "heavy" Passat, surprisignly gained 5 pounds compared to its previous generation, and I confirmed those numbers through 3 different websites.5. Now the mid-size luxury.
STS 535 M35 E350 GS350
3973 3660 3832 3703 3704 No question about which one is the heaviest and by far.6. Let us see the half-ton truck. For comparison, I have done it with Crew-cab 4x2 base V-8, since Dodge does not offer extended cab and $h!san does not offer Regular cab Titan or a base V-6. This is the most important comparison, as it justifies what I am talking about.
SILVERADO RAM F-150 TITAN TURD
5148 5165 5502 5138 5330 The new Silverado is second lightest and that too by less than a percent, despite being structurally the most rigid truck, with lots of ammenities standard compared to its previous generation as well as its competitors. With new Ram around the corner and Titan for a complete change in 2009-10, I can only see GMT-900 Silverado keeping the lightest truck crown.This brings me to the argument, that yes, across the board the new vehicles are heavier than the previous generations, but GM has seen more offset compared to its competing vehicles and have been now heaviest in their respective categories. But, if you look at the GMT 900, GM can achieve a better vehicle without offsetting a significant weight increase, I cannot see a reason why they cannot do that in other categories? What is different in metal used in trucks, and cars? Now if you still think that I am blindly bashing GM as per your impression, then I think I am sorry that you feel that way. Those numbers are justifying and not made off the rearend like some GM bashing members make them out.
Look at the Corvette
C5 C6 C6.5
3214 3179 3217 The C-6 is actually better vehicle when it comes to refinement, sound deadening material and substance when compared to C-5, yet it lost weight. People may argue, that it is a performance vehicle, and given the development cost GM allocates for Corvette, they can use exotic material and save the weight, which cannot be done to their bread and butter cars. But when C6 was introduced, the price of a 2005 C-6 Corvette was about $1300 less than the outgoing C5, which means GM achieved the weight saving without a significant development cost and thus not causing a significant increase in price. The real reason I think is negligence on GM's part. For trying to turnaround in a hurry, GM stepped on too many rocks at one time, and they neglected some details and one of them is weight. Most of the newer vehicles are 98% there, but there is a 2% BUT... And GM should remove that 2% BUT...There is no denying for the fact that GM vehicles do not have fuel economy comparable to its competitors, most of it is lower about 5-7% compared to its competitors, if you assume that given the same horsepower class, it is weight which directly offsets the gain in fuel economy which GM has made. Shave that weight off and GM fuel economy will be comparable to other vehicles in its class.
Yes GM vehicles now are far more desirable than their previous generations, but don't you think they should be even more desirable? And if I am looking through that perspective, am I bashing GM?
You are right, I should not have included Kappa as a "heavier" compared to previous generation. With regard to Kappa, I meant it was heavier compared to the Miata, which it competes with.
If you have doubt with my numbers go to
carsdirect.com
edmunds.com
autos.yahoo.com to compare along with respective manufacturers' websites, because that is where I took those numbers from, just like regular consumers will. Almost all of my numbers were from carsdirect.com to keep any bias off and keep one source, because I think they are a website without any agenda and they have very accurate and comprehensive numbers right down to the trim levels. But if I doubted their numbers I cross checked with other websites.
I am not here for a fight, but if you think I am then I am sorry, I made you feel that way. Peace
