CARBIZ

Absolutely jealous of those mountains! We went up Ontario's highest mountain yesterday - Blue. All of 1000 ft! We hiked along the Bruce Trail. I took nice digital movies of the folliage, but I am driving a Malibu these days - decent, affordable transportation but I am not going to make a poster of it! Great shots!

I was at a J-car show yesterday. These kids are very creative. For a very low price, you could buy an '04 or so GT and customize it. Some of these kids had spent $10 grand on their cars. One girl had a hot pink Sunfire with sparkles in the paint. Guys had their cars lowered. One guy had gull wing doors on a Cavalier coupe. And, hey - in Canada the Pursuit GT will best the Mazda.

HHR Impala 300C I have a dog, so the HHR would probably win out.

The Liberty needs a stick because the V-6 gets the same (real world) gas mileage as the Envoy. That came from an actual customer who traded in her 2002 Liberty for a Cobalt.

Rearden - total biased shit. I rented a Camry in 2003. At the time my daily driver was a 2003 Malibu. When I picked the Camry up at the airport, I asked my friends in the rental with me, if they liked the car. They all looked at each other kind of wierd, knowing that I sell Chevrolet. I laughed and asked for their honest opinion. They said, yeah, the car was okay. We all discussed the look of the car, ride, etc. But after a few days with it - well, the tranny rolled back on hills. The shifts were obvious. The 4 cylinder was okay in normal driving but don't expect to pass anything. After a couple days with the veihicle, I then posed the question: would you pay $5,000 more for this car than my (Malibu) car? They thought I was joking. The (then) price of a new Malibu (V-6, ABS, etc) was $19,999. The Camry was $25,000. They were stunned. HOnestly, I was never a huge fan of the styling of the last generation Malibu. (Partly because in 1997 it looked too much like the current Camry!); however, to say that it is "pathetic" next to the Camry is just asinine and shows your true biases.

If Chevrolet is to return to her former greatness, she needs an affordable, sexy and fun to drive vehicle. The Malibu and Impala are good cars. They deliver exactly what they are supposed to. The Cobalt SS is sexy and fun to drive and affordable. However, how are we going to get and keep the youth market? Just yesterday, a middle aged couple climbed out of their Volvo (?!) and wanted to see the new Impala. Too big, they proclaimed. Parked beside it was a used G-6. "Oh, I like that," the wife exclaimed. Ever enthusiastic, I declared the Maxx is the same platform and a much better value. Hate it. Off they went to the Pontiac store. Well, at least they weren't going to Acura (BTW, in the afternoon I drove a 2002 Alero GL coupe and it reminded me what a great riding/handling car that was. Chevy needs something like that. And an affordable convertible would be nice, too!)

The franchise Agreements cover all aspects of cans and can't dos; however, various competition laws limit what the manufacturers can force dealers to do. I believe that is a serious flaw in the system. IMO, the manufacturers should start buying back their dealer network so that they don't work against one and the other. Get salespeople off commissions and onto salaries with perhaps a bonus contingent, and turn them into advisors. I have seen so many times that the dealers and manufacturer are not on the same page. Additionally, a lot of second generation dealer principles are spoiled brats and storm around their dealership like little babies. Daddy built the dealership back in the time when owning a GM franchise was a license to print money, and now the spawn are running the business into the ground. Times have changed. It takes a professional to run a dealership in these times. If GM is going to survive the onslaught, it will need more control of its dealer networks. A one price system would be nice, but the disclaimer "dealer may sell for less," as mandated federal or state laws creates a dog-eat-dog atmosphere that nobody benefits from. Just my opinion.

I am guessing that a lot of the arguments going back and forth across this board may be falling based on certain demographics. I was raised with American cars: my family owned a couple Chevys, Pontiacs, a couple big Chrysler's. We were never Ford fans, although my father did trade his '69 Chrysler 300 in for a Ford LTD and hated it. Big, heavy American cars. Huge trunks. Big V-8s. Automatics. Power steering. My first car was a (then) 12 year old '67 Dodge Polara. Against this backdrop, my stepfather bought a '79 Datsun 510. Cute, but an oddity. I remember a classmate getting a 200SX for his birthday. Everybody else wanted Firebirds. Anybody who bought a Datsun, Toyota or Honda in the late 70s were either poor, college students or eco freaks. Unfortunately, a lot of those college students are now professionals and base all of their car buying decisions based on certain obvious differences between their 1980 Datsun and their parents' 1980 Buick. Then the snobbery started in the '80s. A friend's parents gave him a 1984 Delta 88 and he was depressed - his friends all had Mercedes! As a Canadian paying $1+ a litre, I understand the need for smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. I don't understand the SUV phase and I own a boat! Even as a younger man, I understood the difference between VALUE and BS. In 1991, I spent 6 months trying to decide what to buy. I looked at the then new Thunderbird SC, the Toyota Previa and even the new Chrysler minivan, because I wanted power, safety and utility. The newly redesigned Caprice wagon won out. Yeah, the Previa had a cooler dash. But the Toyota engine was small and ABS was an expensive option. The T-bird was gorgeous, but the supercharger kind of scared me and the back seat was kind of small. The Caprice had a driver's air bag, ABS, a gutsy V-8 and a plethora of features, like auto headlights. After you have bought quite a few cars, after you have witnessed the ebb and flow of the auto business, after you have lived through dozens of dozens of friends and relatives buying choices, then you are better able to make observations, based on reality and facts, not hyberbole and conjecture. I suspect many younger people have been drinking the Toyota and Honda kool-aid. I am not saying that Toyota's are bad, just that they are not as good as people are led to believe. Ditto for Honda. But Toyota and GM are different. GM is an American car company. It builds cars for Americans. Bigger. "Mushier" power steering. Softer suspensions. Is that a bad thing? No. Does the average consumer give a shit if their car will do 6 seconds 0-60? No. But the car critics do. And they pass their biases down in their write ups and the average consumer is influenced by that. If you are raised on tiny 4 cylinder ecoboxes, maybe you will have more of an affinity for Honda. If not, you will appreciate the strengths and value of GM.

So why isn't GM putting this stuff up on billboards? This is the info that the average consumer need when making their buying decision. "BUY A CAMRY AND SEND YOUR KIDS TO BURGER UNIVERSITY."

Or you could take the real cynical view that once an executive knows where all the bodies are buried they have to be kept in the fold....

Interesting read. Baseless though these stats may be, you can bet Chrysler will get some mileage out of it. I would, if I were they. This is the problem with stats in general: most of them are horsefeathers when taken out of context. If someone was to say "Your grandmother was a whore..." without finishing the rest of the quote ..."for chocolates." Well, you get the idea.

Actually, no....in 2003 the Cavalier was given a major refresh. new engine new rear brakes new nose/fender treatment new steering wheel (?) suspension tweeks tail lights/rear bumper and ABS was dropped. So, it was a big change. But my point is, the numbers (in reality) apply to pretty much all the vehicles. Our company has a Toyota and GM dealer so I deal in reality. Camry, Impala...it works out pretty close. Of course, if you use the mythical "sticker price" then you get the sort of numbers that blue book, etc. are talking about. When is the last time you paid sticker?

Anyone who has followed my posts in the past knows that I am not a big union supporter and I believe that a person should rise or fall based on their own strengths and skills; however, I have to add that I sometimes shake my head when I see what various Boards do. As a group of people hired to represent the owners (shareholders), the Board has sweeping powers over the company that they preside. A case in point: Sears Canada just sold off their credit card division, paid a special dividend and then laid off 1,000 workers. Now I don't claim to know what is going on inside Sears, but if they just sold off their most profitable division for a big chunk of change then paid off their shareholders - what is going to be left over to ward off Wal-Mart? If costs must be cut and workers laid off, why bribe the shareholders? Next, we're going to see Sears going under because Wal-Mart kicked their ass! I don't know. As a layperson on the outside, it just doesn't make sense to me. It certainly doesn't seem fair to the 1,000 workers, but then "fair" has little to do with the free market. Unfortunately, the owners of the company do have the right to run the company as they see fit - no matter how badly the rest of us think they may or may not be doing. The unions have every right to oppose clawbacks or cutbacks also as they see fit. But if somebody doesn't do something soon, both the Board members and the UAW brass will be putting out their resumes.

I dunno, the problem with these so-called "blue books," "black books" or whatever is that they are obsolete the day they are printed. The auctions move much quicker than that. The other aspect that doesn't sit well with me is how can these so-called experts ever know the actual original selling price of any given model? Those of us who deal in the real world realize that the "stellar" resale value of the imports is largely smoke and mirrors. Using an example that I know well, a brand new 2005 Cavalier was selling for $12,000 plus freight, taxes, etc. only a few months ago. The same 2005 Corolla, with air and automatic, was (reality) selling for $18,000 plus freight, taxes, etc. If you look at the actual wholesale prices for 2000 Cavalier (normal mileage) at this time, they are fetching about $4,000-4,500; the same equipped and mileaged Corolla will fetch about $7,500. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? So, you pay $6,000 more up front, pay more for insurance, pay more for maintenance (dealer trips to a Toyota dealer are quite the experience!) and then the car is only worth $3,000 more after 5 years? What about the cost of money? Oh, yeah, and in Ontario you pay 15% tax on that 6,000, resulting in another $900 out the window. I know this is but one example, but those of us who deal in reality get sick and tired of these fabrications and myths out there.

.....uh, the Epica is an inline 6, although I am sure many aficionados won't consider the Epica a true Chevrolet. I lament the demise of the hardtop, too, because they resulted in some of the most beautiful designs out there. I am not an engineer, but aren't hardtops more expensive to build and could they meet current crash test standards? The last generation Camaro became too expensive and didn't sell. Body on frame? How many people still tow a boat or big trailer anymore? Manual transmission? Kills resale. Look at how many manuals Toyota and Honda really sell against their automatics. Bare in mind, our automatic is much better than theirs, too. I understand your pain, Sixty8, but being all things to all people costs money. There is only so much developmental money to go around. Although I believe not having a RWD platform could be hurting Chevrolet, I am not convinced it would sell. With gasoline prices where they are, I think the future is a little more cloudy than it was looking even 6 months ago. I, too, which GM would stop juggling names and then bringing them back. I think there is an inherent value to having a lineage, such as the Malibu or Impala had with their past. What romance is there in a G-35 anyway?

All of this is depressing but inevitable. The heady days of America's industrial might are over. The '50s and '60s are gone. Either America will adjust to the New Economy or perish. I believe America will flourish, but there will be pain. Blue collar (and I am talking about non-skilled jobs, not plumbers or electricians!) are not worth $30 an hour, plain and simple. They never were, but as long as productivity increases masked those inflated wages, and the marketing might of the Big Three convinced the consumer to buy their products at any price, everything was okay. I don't know how America will get through this. If she loses most of her industrial capacity to the emerging markets, it would spell disaster in another armed conflict. Sadly, Chapter 11 may be the only solution to prove to the Union that GM is serious. Sort of a dress rehearsal to UAW contract negotiations upcoming!

Bowtie, you may have started the thread but it long ago took off on a life of its own. I was commenting on what Oldsmoboi had said about a 4 cylinder Jetta versus the Impala. His comments are valid even against the '05 Impala. Not everyone wants to make love to their dashboard! I do agree and have agreed that nobody LOVES the '97 to '03 Malibu's interior (or the latest one, either), but the Accord didn't set the world on fire, either. And the Accord was $7,000 (Can) more. PUT A CUSTOM DASH IN, IF IT IS THAT IMPORTANT, AND BUY A PLASMA TV WITH THE DIFFERENCE. Now, it would be safe to say that a younger person wouldn't want to buy a Malibu, but then they probably wouldn't buy an Accord either. I agree that GM should spend a little more time and money on their interiors - and I believe they ARE. The new Impala more than holds its own against the Accord and Camry in terms of fit, finish and appearance. Besides, truth be known, it isn't GM or Honda who is leading the way on interiors, IMO, it is Mazda and Chrysler.

Exactly. An Impala LTZ with leather, power roof and OnSTar, or a base HOnda Accord V-6. Oh, and the Impala has a 1% lease rate. Honda never has that. The Impala rates higher in the quality rankings (JD Powers, of course). Even the Toronto Star said it was better than the Accord. I drive Camrys and Impalas nearly every day. No contest. And I do this for a living.

I used to stuff my GI Joe (back in the days when he was a big doll, not those girlie GI Joes they sell now!) into my remote controlled Jaguar and crash it all over the house. I also would sometimes steal my younger sister's Skipper doll (she was deprived - hers didn't have the growing bosoms that came later) and put her in the driver's seat because she fit better. Then again, I also would put a cape on Skipper and throw her off the top bunk, much to my sister's chagrin! Point? OH, well, I still have most of my Hot Wheels and Dinky (??!! could that be why I'm gay?) toy cars from the late '60s. I had a Big Bruiser tow truck in 1970 which helped me when I bought my '87 Dodge Shadow. Does anybody remember Super City - or were they only sold in Canada? They were square plastic construction pieces that snapped together to build skyscrapers, etc.

It is amazing that the car critics can get through an entire (glowing) run down of a new import without once mentioning anything from GM, Ford or Chrysler. Yet, every time they breathe or fart in the direction of the Cobalt, Focus or whatever... they just can't wait to get their digs in about how much better the imports are. Bias? Hell, no!

Interspersed with the Rankin Family and Sylvia Tyson.....but no Celine - PLEASE!

DesRosiers marketing did a study in 2000 that proved just that point. There were more pre-1987 American cars on the road than as a percentage sold in any given year than corresponding Japanese imports. Even they admited they were surprised, although they didn't offer up any explanations as to why.

Yeah, Chrysler's stow-n-go seating has cost quite a few sales, for sure. The van market is a little bigger north of the border so we are hoping the new GM vans (due in, what, 2008?) are a home run. The Uplander is a vast improvement over the Venture, but everyone is ahead of us now, except maybe the Freestar. (Does Ford still sell those?)

The Canadian market has long ago reflected the reality of higher gas prices because we have been paying over $3 a gallon for a very long time. The Tahoes and Suburbans don't have the same market penetration here that they do south of the border. I think GM has reacted quite well to the market. Witness the Aveo, Optra, HHR, Equinox, etc. All are well positioned to handle the gas shock. The Malibu and IMpala get great gas mileage for their size and power.

How much are you willing to pay for better looking knobs? The Malibu you are talking about was available for $20k (Canadian), easily $7k less than a comparably equipped Accord of the same era (V-6, ABS, etc.). HOw many times does the Malibu have to kick the Accord and Camry's ass (JD Powers, which takes into account plastics and aesthetics!) before critics get off GM's back? I was never a huge fan of the look of the Malibu, but it was a great seller and proved to be a reliable, cheap to maintain car. I delivered an Uplander to a customer on Saturday. The guy paid $21k, with a DVD, ABS, power everything. He made a few cracks about the fabric around the seats, the way the door slid shut and added that it was nowhere near the Sienna. Agreed, I said, but how much nicer do you want the fabric and door slider to be for TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS more(again, Canadian)? The Crapalier, you so affectionately refer to, was being sold for $12999 for about 18 months. The same Civic would have been $5,000 more. Is that worth it to you for a gutless motor, smaller interior and - oh, nice looking knobs and plastic? I doubt anyone here would argue that GM has been cutting edge in the small and mid-size car segments for five to ten years. The "truck bubble" of the 90s obscured the fact that our cars were starting to lag behind. I think the Cobalt, HHR, Impala, etc. are showing GM's renewed commitment and energy. I am a huge GM fan, but I also have been a big critic of our interiors for the last few years. I nearly wept at the Auto Show in 2001 when I looked at the Civic or Corolla interior, then at the Cavalier. But that doesn't make the car inferior. Chrysler has long proved this by spending the money on the cloth, buttons and door handles while producing some of the sh*ttiest cars on the market! Personally, I find most of the GM supporters on this site to be pretty balanced; it is the Asian car baiters that foam at the mouth whenever their precious Toyota is criticized or whenever someone chastizes them for buying an imported product.