CARBIZ

I'm with Satty on this one, too. What GM needs is a '57 Plymouth type of shocker. When Chrysler announced 'Suddenly, it's 1960,' it literally sent the Chevy design team and others back to the drawing boards to scrap their '58 line ups. In those days, of course, it was easy to react with all new sheet metal in under a year, but my point is that Plymouth (and the rest of Chrysler, for that matter) came out from behind and changed their boxy, boring image over night. Nobody had a clue what Exner was up to until the cars debuted. That is the kind of knock out punch GM needs right now. Not another SSR debacle where they drag a vehicle through the auto show circuit forever, until people are so bored of it that that clinking sound is the sound of cancelled deposits. Oh, yeah, and they might also want to skip the rust/build quality the '57 Mopars had, which nearly bankrupted the company.

I don't pay much attention to these types of awards, but I guess any 'win' for GM these days is a good thing.

I'm allergic to fish.............prefer the artery hardening affects of meat.

But, Enzl, this does not have to be an 'either-or' situation. Nothing in business is that cut and dry. With you, the glass is always half empty (hell, I'd settle for half empty - the glass is bone dry with you). You make me look like an optimist - and, believe me, if you knew me that is saying a helluva lot! We know GM has made a ton of mistakes. I would love to be privy to the legal entanglements, contracts, etc. that GM has obligations to that it is trying to untangle. You've alluded to 'bad' union negotiations, but since neither of us were there, and since GM dragged their top negotiator all the way from Asia to handle these, one can only assume there are extenuating circumstances that we do not know about. GM needs to get rid of probably 30% of its dealer base. I am sure it is working on that. GM needs to amalgamate P-B-GMC. It is doing that, I am sure, as fast as legally possible. GM is replacing or updating model lines at a pace not seen since the '70s. (Malibu '97-03/'04-'07: pretty good.) GM has gone through 3 massive bloodlettings of both the white collar and blue collar workforce to cut costs. GM has divested itself of non-core enterprises to generate cash and focus on its core products. GM is leveraging it's world capabilities: G8, GM-DAT, etc. GM is still leading the pack or at least keeping abreast of technologies: OnStar, 3.6 V6, 6 spd autos, 2.0 ecotec, etc. GM needs to replace the 4 spd auto with the 6. It is doing that. The Windsor plant is slated to close in 2 years. The reviled Uplander is gone. New minivan to follow next year. We know the Cobalt will also be gone in the next 18 months. We know the Impala will be gone in the next 18-24 months. I could go on and on. I am not sure what else you expect them to do. It isn't like Toyota, BMW and the rest are standing still. It would be easier to defend a fort than an entire city - that is the advantage the much smaller companies have had over GM. They can grow from their core strengths, whereas GM (and Ford) have yet to recover from mistakes (both real and perceived) made 20 years ago. I'll tell you what, Enzl, if the replacement Cobalt and the 'new' minivan replacement next year are not 'all that,' I will join your choir. Until then, I am staking my livelihood on the fact that the powers that be can at least arrest the ship from sinking, if not turn it around. With the state of our jaded media, I have no illusions that GM (or Ford) can ever regain their former glory: I would settle for a modicum of respect from the self-appointed experts.

Was there a war or something that I missed? There is way too much hysteria on these issues. Even if oil rises to $150 a barrel, technology will come to the rescue. It always does. As I have said many times, I refuse to support any of these carbon taxes until the UN imposes some form of birth control on south Asia and Asia. Let them buy birth credits when another kid drops out, and then I will pay carbon taxes. Until then, I refuse to feel guilty about running my a/c or driving to work as long as 150 million babies a year pop out of the 'emering markets.'

Well, now for some good news about Global Warming and gas prices: the National Post did a spread today detailing how many companies are looking at moving their manufacturing back from China to Mexico because the cost of shipping a 40' container from China has gone from 1 1/2 times that of Mexco to nearly 4 times. At $150 a barrel, it gets really ugly. Now, that at least gets the jobs back on this side of the planet and might help alleviate your porous southern border.

Okay, but what is your point? The transaction price of a, say, 2001 Venture EWB would have been at least $5k less than the Odyssey, so it would be a wash. That is what I am getting at. Was the Odyssey 'better' than the Venture. Well, I guess it depends on the year. In '99? No. In 2003, yes. The Venture should have been replaced by a new platform in '05, not just warmed over - I think we all agree on that. I can remember leasing Ventures in '02/'03 that were $180 a month less than a comparable Sienna at the time. That's nearly $9k on a 4 year lease. Same equipment. Trust me: leave 'resale' out of this. I won't argue that the Sienna and Odyssey finally became 'better' than the Venture, but by then GM ratcheted up the incentives on the Venture so much that there was an obscene difference in the transaction prices. This is the ugly truth. Even Edmunds.com recently admitted the cheapest car on the road to buy, drive, insure and maintain is the lowly Aveo. If you talk real world numbers, GM is rarely beat - their marketing department sees to that. I would wager a bet that the number of true cash buyers in both our countries number far less than 10-15%. So where is the benefit to Joe Public? As to your Corolla assertion: the Corolla has no better or no worse safety than the Cobalt. Where's your information on that? The market has decided nothing. Unless American figures are significantly different, the G5/Cobalt twins are outselling everything but the Civic so far this year in Canada. You know, GM is not completely stupid. They do recognize that they have to be very creative in keeping their older vehicle lines selling: Uplander, Cobalt, G6, Allure, Equinox, whatever. That is why they are getting so desperately cash starved: on the one hand they are struggling to refresh their product lines with consumers that demand something fresh every week, while on the other hand trying to keep their older lines still relevant through incentives. Like trying to line dance with one leg in a cast and the other in a bucket of cement, I'd think. But we armchair critics think we know so much better! Every manufacturer has a target painted on GM.

:rotflmao: Okay, I promised myself I was going to be a good boy and not sink this to the next level........no remarks about resting them on one's chin first!!! Doh!!

Ah, like it took Mother Nature 100 million years to cook those dinosaur bones and we are using it up in, like, 100 years! I understand your point, but there is no way Mother Nature can keep up with 6.2 billion people's demands. No way.

...except that Rome didn't have as amazing toys that the U.S. does today! Rome only imploded and hurt itself; the U.S. has the ability to take the entire planet down with it. The barn door has already been left open and the horses have bolted. The time for isolationism to have set in would have been sometime after Vietnam. It's too late for that. Even if some kind of Pan-North American alliance was formed, the shock to all 3 of our economies would be devastating for the short term at least. No, the direction is forward, upward (the Moon, Mars) if necessary, but not backward. Britannia ruled the 19th Century because she ruled the waves. Whomever will rule the 21st century will do so because they can collect enough friends (alliances) and rule the skies (space.) Undoubtedly, we are witnessing a heating up of the battle of civilizations of which we have not seen the like since the Crusades. Personally, I think it is a crapshoot as to who will 'win.' The West's greatest strength over the past 600 years has been it's ability to assimilate different cultures and ideas; however, those noble ideals are being twisted and turned against us. In fact, a better comparison would be the way the Greek Empire waned and the Roman Empire rose. The Romans initially adopted a lot of the Greek ideals, but then warped them out of recognition which ultimately led to their own demise.

True, a CTS buyer (who presumably makes a good income and isn't in hock up to his/her teeth) won't be as drawn to the 'deal,' but it may help tip the scales. I am talking more about the Corolla/Cobalt buyers, most of whom are recent grads, newly married couples, etc. They are very concerned about payment. Many of the import humpers on this board keep harping about how GM is a bad deal for Joe Lunchbucket, and I am debunking that with real world figures. A CTS/BMW buyer is more likely going to be impressed by ride/handling and, of course, snob appeal (probably the most over-riding factor in this market.)

First of all, the ugly secret is that certain cultures (and this is incredibly non-PC to talk about, but screw it) are only drawn to the 'deal.' These people won't buy a car unless there is a 'deal.' Secondly, nobody is going to buy a POS unless the car is free, so the 'deal' is more about perception than anything, but in my examples above, would you pay $100 a month more for a Corolla than a loaded Cobalt LT? Or put another way, would you buy a Corolla LE over a Malibu LT1, because their payment is the same around here - and that doesn't even factor in all the 'under the radar' deals like GM visa points, grad rebates and the current "Mid-car" bonus which will give a Camry, Altima, Intrepid, Taurus, etc, owner $750 off. Long term, I will grant you that GM has to get off this 'deal' merry go round, but my points above are to debunk the myth that Toyotas hold their value better. I warrant they only hold their value if you can pay CASH and if that CASH is not borrowed (even against a line of credit.) In fact, unless you are a drug dealer, you should not have any cash, so either way you lose with Toyota. GM's car and trucks are getting more 'desirable,' but until they dispel this Toyota is better BS, the deal will have to do.

But GM has always had to bribe people to take their cars! Are you new around here? Hell, I was drawn to my '91 Caprice because GMAC was offering 9.9% (a good deal at the time), even though I looked at the Thunderbird SC and new Grand Caravan. Chevy knocked Ford off its pedestal in the '50s with styling and PRICE. Don't believe your own press clippings. I laugh every time I see a new 'study' that puts 'price' at 3rd or 4 on the customer's list. That's pure BS and something the marketing people would like us to believe. That's just another pile of BS.

Really? Smart money knows you LEASE what depreciates and BUY what appreciates: Rockefeller, the world's first billionaire coined that phrase. Why would you pay $350 a month for a used Corolla (at 9%) and have half of your 'savings' eaten up by interest? Joe Lunchbucket would be far better off to lease a new Cobalt at 0.9% and dump the car in 4 years. Why should he give a crap if GMAC takes a bath at the auctions? Maybe you should climb out of your Lexus budget (like you accuse Wagoner & Co.) and mix with the plebians for a while. People don't have $15k plus taxes CASH to buy a used Corolla with 25k miles on it that's been beaten up by some car jockey on a rental lot. You show me where paying $4k in INTEREST on a one year old car over 5 years (or try a 72 month term for real laughs!) is of any f'ing benefit to the average Joe? You've been drinking Toyota's kool-aid for far, far too long. Get on the floor and work the numbers for yourself. A new lease (from GMAC, not Toyota credit who is going to screw the client) is a much better deal than a used car. Period. You talk about risk aversion. Where is the downside on a new lease at 0.9???

I'm old enough to remember the original Riviera (which Cadillac decided it didn't want) and the overwhelmingly popular downsized FWD '79 version. Both were the right cars for the right time. This was at a time when GM was still at the top of its game and took no prisoners. Ford and Chrysler scoffed at GM in '77 when they downsized the full-sized Chevrolet lineup, then tripped over themselves to release their own. Chrysler nearly went under because it was too slow to react. There is no reason Buick cannot tackle Lexus without RWD. Many around here wont' accept that, but that does not mean it cannot happen. Someone else pointed out that the '85 'downsized' Buicks and Olds were a resounding success, and they continued to be even as Acura ramped up. You can see the damage that Roger Smith imposed upon GM in the late '80s as the Olds 88 and LeSabre became more and more alike - that left the door wide open for Acura and Lexus to walk right in. The opportunity lost was the Century and Cutlass - both cars which were the darling of the 30- somethings in the '70s, became boring and obese in the '90s. The 88 could have been the 'old geezer's car,' but the Regal should have stayed on the 30-something's radar, which it did not. I should point out that in '87 (at the ripe old age of 26) I seriously considered the Regal 2 door as my 'gotta have' car, but it was out of my budget. I, along with many others, scoffed at the Acura Legend. I guess no one is laughing now. Buick can have an American revival without RWD. I don't think it will be the end of the world at $5 a gallon gas. I have to say that the Enclave is getting a lot of 30 something couples stirred up, so they are moving in the right direction.

First of all, the financing is through GMAC, and compared to Toyota credit, they do approve a lot of people. I would love to see national figures, but I can tell you from 12 years in the business (and working both ends of Canada's 'richest' city) 80% or more of the people out there do not have cash. Toyota wants to make money on the money; whereas, GM is leaning on GMAC to help it move metal. I have no trouble putting the Cobalt up against the '08 Corolla. The '09 Corolla is supposedly 'all new' so I would certainly hope it is better! In the natural order of things, as a model ages, it needs to be discounted or refreshed to keep its sales up. GM has chosen more of the former over the latter. As far as the ride/handling goes with the Cobalt, it holds its own against all its competitors. As I have said before, I wish GM had spent more money on the interior; instead, it was spent on NVH and amenities like standard split rear seats (Civic base does not have), power trunk (Corolla finally has it for '09) and other comforts. As I have tirelessly said , when you live with the Cobalt, it is a very agreeable car. The new Corolla does LOOK nicer on the inside; outside appearances are purely subjective. But the car is all new, so it SHOULD be. But for $100 a month more? No thanks, for that payment I would take the much better Malibu! BTW, the Cobalt/G5 twins are outselling the Mazda3 and Corolla in Canada. If we were talking about the Acura, then I would submit the 'deal' doesn't matter, which is where GM is trying to place the Astra with mixed success. However, with the Cobalt, price does matter and since the vehicle itself is 4 years old (technically older, since it is a warmed over Ion), it would only follow that the vehicle has to be discounted. Another point you conveniently ignored is Toyota's own website is acknowleding the buy back is only $1,548 more than the Cobalt after 4 years. Hmm, it appears Toyota credit doesn't have as much faith in their resale as you claim. Any bloody accountant will tell you to stick your cash in the bank: even a lousy 4% on $26, 390 is $5,832 over 5 years. That is money your Cobalt buyer can keep in his bank while Toyota gives back a measly $1,548 more at buy back time. These are real world figures. I can tell you from working for a Toyota dealer that if you get $500 off a Corolla, you are doing well. For the Cobalt, you'd maybe get $500 more, but I never used those figures because those depend on the dealer and the buyer. I JUST PREFER THE REAL WORLD.

I can't tell you how many LeSabres and 88s we still see on the road here, or in our service bays, from the early '90s! Most of the LHs, Avalons and others from the same era are long, long gone via rust! Many 'enthusiasts' automatically equate 'exciting' with a 'good' vehicle. Even the reviled Cavalier was a pretty bullet-proof car. Compare that to the Escorts and Shadows of their day. GM was among the first to adopt 4 spd electronic trannies, air bags, ABS on all models and the list goes on, but some people will only remember the bad.

Ohhhh, I just knew you would take the bait, so I had this ready just waiting for the next time you and I butted heads on this one topic that you love so much: Yesterday, I perused Toyota Canada's website, and decided to price myself out a 2009 Corolla LE - the very one I spent the day with about two weeks ago. Just to be fair, I threw in the sunroof package (since it is FREE on the lowly Cobalt) and a spoiler. Total MSRP is $21,495 plus delivery of $1,140 and ' air tax' of $100 (yeah, this is Canada!), bringing the total MSRP to $23,442. Now, according to their website, all other fees are included, but I know that to be patently untrue; however, I will let that slide because I know that leaving out a $3-400 admin fee will still not help Toyota. The Corolla's 'on the road' price is $26,390. For comparison purposes, I am using our most popular Cobalt 1SB package which gives ABS, 16" alloy wheels, free power sunroof, leather steering wheel and spoiler. I also added side air bags, since they are standard on the '09 Corolla. Both vehicles are equipped with automatic, which is the way 90% of them are sold. MSRP on the Cobalt is $ 21,735 plus delivery of $1095 and air tax of $100 for a total of $22,930. But wait: there is a package credit of $1,250 on the LT Cobalt, bringing the price down to $21,680. Since Canada has combined taxes, in Ontario you will pay an extra 13% on both cars, bringing the Corolla to $26,390 and the Cobalt to $25,000 (I threw in an extra $500 on the Cobalt because I do know GM dealers charge at least $4-500 in admin fees.) So, the cash buyer is at least $1,400 better off with the Cobalt. But there really is no such thing as cash, is there? What does Toyota offer? 5.9% finance rate for 60 months, or a lease rate of 6.9% for 48 months. Hmm. The Cobalt is 0% for 72 months on a finance and 0.9% on a lease for 48 months. (But to be fair to Toyota, I will only work out the Cobalt's payment over 60 months, not the much lower 72.) Let's do the math. From Toyota Canada's very own website: 5.9/60 mo = 508 6.9/48 lease = $368 + tx = $416 buy back = $10,439. Total cost = 508X60 = $30,480 416X48 = $19,968 + $10,439 +13%) = $31,812 For a Corolla? What about a Cobalt. Just to be fair, I am not going to discount the Cobalt one dime, even though we do (and they don't) 0/60 = $416, oops, that still equals $25k, doesn't it? 0.9/48 lease = $292+tx = $330 buy back = $8,891. Lease costs 330X48 = $15,840 + $8,891 (+13%)= $25,886 So, the Cobalt is $1,400 cheaper to buy (for those that can), $5,500 cheaper to finance and $5,926 cheaper to lease and then buy out. All around, sounds to me like it is Toyota that is gouging Joe Lunchbucket, don't you think? Enzl, you made the accusation several months ago that GM was stiffing the working class because their cars are crap, they don't hold their value and someone is going to get screwed if they trade them in. You claim to be a numbers man, THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. Working class people don't have cash. Almost half the cars in Canada last year were leased. OF THE ABOVE NUMBERS, WHO IS GETTING SCREWED? Sure, the Corolla has push button start, climate control, 2 glove boxes, woodgrain (yech, I'd take the Cobalt's plastic), a telescoping wheel, an anemic engine, no underhood sound deadening, a prop rod and assist handles on the ceiling - but for $5,000?????? Damn straight the Corolla had better be worth more in 5 years because you just paid FIVE THOUSAND MORE! Now, I understand both companies 'market price' their vehicles. We Canadians know that our cars are overpriced, but both Toyota and GM are stiffing us equally. But the dirty secret is when you look at transaction prices (because Toyota ain't discounting their Corollas just now), the Cobalt is a much better buy. And this is from Toyota's best new effort! Oh, yeah - and the Corolla has a crappy 4 spd auto, too! Oh, and Toyota wants $500 for an 'iPod' interface. Screw that: all Cobalts have an iPod connect for FREE.

Yeah, all the 'enhancemens' for '09 are cost effective: Bluetooth capability, USB port in the radio, dropping the 2.4, significant upgrades to the standard 2.2, stuff like that. In Canada, the last figures I saw are that the G5/Cobalt twins are outselling the Mazda 3 and Corolla. Only the Civic outsells them combined. I am hoping that the'10 replacement is breathtaking, but I am not holding my breath.

...........or had burned out the clutch!

I think you get my point. I have long had a beef with the 'imports' in that most of them require a $6-800 timing belt change somewhere between 60k and 80k miles. Frankly, in the 21st Century, that is not acceptable. For the most part, GM vehicles require NO maintenance other than oil changes (maybe twice a year), air filter and gas line filter replacements for FIVE years. How come the imports, in all their 'superiority' cannot match that? I'll tell you why (the dirty little secret): they want you to bring the car to the dealer every 3 months so they can overhaul the vehicle. You know, those nasty little service bulletins that people don't know about. The more of those the imports catch, the more 'perfect' their cars seem in the eyes of the owners. Drive a GM car for 5 years, never return to the dealer once (which is conceivable, considering GM does not insists on dealer maintenance), and the owner may be in for a nasty surprise because those service bulletins never get attended to. Every car ever designed and built is nothing but a series of compromises. The engineers produce their 'dream' car, then the bean counters and marketing guys pee all over it. Honda and Toyota are no different. The difference in decibels between an Impala engine and a Honda engine would be unnoticeable to the layperson - unless pointed out to them by someone with an axe to grind. Nobody I have ever sold an Impala to has complained about it being noisy. As to the 'mushy' suspension: you try driving on our $h!ty Ontario roads with their frost-heaves, potholes, 13 year maintenance cycle and see what you would rather drive around in! The amount of nitpicking on 'average' automobiles will eventually price them out of the 'average' person's budget. I am sure there is no limit to the amount of engineering/sound deadening that can go into a car. Or suspension improvements.

Do you know of a timing belt that does not have to be replaced at 60k miles? (Other than the '09 Aveo, of course. )

Really? At a recent GM test we went to, 40 of us stood beside a brand new Malibu 2LT with the 2.4 (chains and all) while a 4 cylinder Accord sat about 20 feet away, also with its hood open. We could clearly hear the Accord enginer OVER the noise coming from the 2.4. Frankly, this stunned all of us. Honda has been cutting corners (of course, they know that none of their owners would even know how to open the hood!) and the lack of sound deadening on the Accord is, well, deafening. An engine's noise, or lack of, is more than just the engine itself. There is a lot more engineering that goes into making a vehicle quiet these days. I think perhaps people need to be blindfolded and sit in the back of these cars while under power. Too many assumptions and too many preconceptions are showing.

Oops, the computer just gave me $h! and said I was using too many emoticons. Not enough, my friend.