CARBIZ

Nobody is rougher on their cars than Canadians. Our winters beat the crap out of the lifespan of vehicles and Japanese cars in particular suffer because their bodies are made from Japanese beer cans. DesRosiers Marketing (sort of the JD Powers of Canada) initiated a study in late 2000 where they did a break down of pre 1987 vehicles on the road (the year that Acura started up) and post 1987 vehicles still registered and on the road. They compared the initial sales of each make for each year against how many were still registered on the road. In both cases, the domestics fared better. I remember that both Lincoln and Cadillac were at the top, as a percentage of vehicles still being 'driven.' This was published in the Toronto Star. I no longer have the article, but I kept it for years. Jim Kenzie (who is a well-respected writer in these parts) and Dennis DesRosiers were puzzled as to why this was the case. At the time, I speculated that perhaps more Asian vehicles were stolen and 'parted out' because of their higher parts costs, but I doubt that enough vehicles would have been stolen per year with respect to the domestics to skew the figures in any significant amount. I know this study is already 7 years old, but the reason I am revisiting it now is that if the domestics 'outlasted' the Asian brands back in the '90s (when Detroit was supposed to be dishing out nothing but CRAP), then how much further would the spread be by now? I remember at the time Jim Kenzie speculating out loud (and I nearly popped a vein when the Toyota Star actually PRINTED his remarks) that perhaps the reason for the Asian brands' apparent higher resale was an illusion. He went further by adding that perhaps the reason for Toyota's (he singled them out) 'sterling reputation' is (was?) because the vehicles visit the dealer more often. The obvious assumption that he was making (in his vast experience) was that import buyers are programmed to return to the dealer; whereas the domestic buyers weren't. I'm just throwing that out there, is all. It seems to me that if a North American wide registry check was done by some institution, coupled with a cross reference with all 50 states and 10 provinces to vehicles still registered, it would put to bed the notion of which vehicles are 'better.' It would be a big undertaking, but I suspect we may be surprised at the results. A model by model comparison may be misleading, but if there are proportionately more Chevys on the road than Toyotas, it would raise a few eyebrows, don't you think?

.......and in celebration of your birthday, THE FIRST BLIZZARD OF THE YEAR. Drive safe! Happy birthday!

My bad: typo it is a 540i.

I believe resale prices are about to crash around here, particularly for the bigger engine vehicles. We have several BMWs on the lot, including a 2002 530i (with 59k km!) and it is going for $26,900 - people are taking a pass because of the 8 cylinders. At $1.02 a litre ($4.10 a US gallon) people are skittish. There is also the perception (unfounded, I believe) that there are better deals south of the border. I also believe the economy of both our nations is worse than we are being led to believe, which could spell disaster for the prices of high end vehicles: new or used.

I like the CTS. I liked the original one, too. What I resent is the constant bashing by the media of the 'blue rinse' set. These people have money. If GM leaves those customers in the lurch while it nips at the heals of BMW, that would be a mistake, IMO. I am 46 and would not consider myself 'old,' but BMW and Mercedes have never appealed to me. The previous generation BMW at least had the makings of a 'classic' design. The current models (with the possible exception of the 645!) are too overwrought - and I've heard that from BMW-philes. The CTS is a fine vehicle in the 'near luxury' vein, but Cadillac needs to remain true to its roots. If I was going to spend $45k+ for a car, I would want space, presence and heft - not unlike the last generation Lincoln VIII. I don't want 'road feel' when I spend that kind of money, nor do I want to sit 10 feet in the air and block everyone else's view just so I can see the road ahead. Unfortunately for Cadillac, if I was to blow that kind of money on a car, it would be from Barret-Jackson and not a new car lot. Then again, I am not a typical auto consumer and at least I acknowledge that.

I worked for a GM store for 10 years and never 'owned' any GM vehicles while working for them. I had a Blazer lease that ended early in my career, then I just bought a '07 Optra a month or so before our 'dealer' wound down. When you get to drive pretty much anything on the lot, why would you pay for anything? Our GM reps would show up in Tahoes, Acadias, Allures...whatever. Why would Press buy a Toyota? Then again, before Lexus, would he have driven a mere Camry?

No, but what this does prove is that GM has borrowed a page from BMW's PR machine - build a car that the 'enthusiasts' like and it will get all kinds of accolades - but does that still make it a Cadillac? Does it make the CTS even a good car? No. Just one that the car rags like. Frankly, it saddens me. Don't get me wrong: I'm thrilled for GM that they have built a car for the magazines, but I am not a big fan of 0-60 times being the measure of luxury. So now Cadillac has out BMW'd BMW. Can they out-luxury Lexus now, or is that up to Buick? The CTS is a very good looking car. More importantly, it is a 'balanced' design, IMO. There are no 'bad' angles to look at this vehicle. Why are the magazines dictating to the people what they should 'desire' in a luxury car? That is my beef with the media: not a bias against GM in particular, but against 'pedestrian' vehicles in general. If it doesn't do 0-60 in 6 seconds or less, do a G on the skid pad, then it's crap. Bull$h!, I say.

My purely subjective ranking of large SUVs, based on looks: 1. Suburban 2. Yukon XL 3. Expedition - sort of 4. Armada 5. Durango 6. everyhing else The only SUV Toyota makes that I would be caught dead in is the FJ Cruiser - and I'll probably get flamed for saying that, but at least it makes an attempt at looking different and interesting.

Coming on the eve of the Acura Legend, this is the car that GM should have geared up to hit the upcoming Japanese 'luxury' brands head on. Talk about an opportunity missed. GM managed to estrange the true Toronado fans (who happened to like big, bold sport coupes) and convince future import humpers NOT to consider GM. As with the Cadillac line of the same era, it is easy to see now (looking back) that this truly was the beginning of the end.

The trouble is, the 'market' tried that once and it only worked for a while. The rest of the world gets it. Drive anywhere else and you will see people driving 'sensible' vehicles. But in North America we feel it is our God given right to drive a 6,000 lb behemoth to pick up groceries. That may be an individual's perogative, but as a nation we are killing ourselves. It is going to take $5 a gallon to get the point across - and the price will have to STAY at $5 a gallon. There will be an immediate effect on people's lifestyles, but Europe and Brazil have been coping with gas priced much higher than that and they aren't suffering.

I can read it, I can understand it if spoken slowly, but I would not go so far as saying that I can speak it! Well, enough to order food at McDonald's in Sao Paulo or 'Bob's in Jaoa Passoa! The Montana would certainly sell in Canada, but I am through 'wishing' for vehicles that we never get.

Well, good for you. I'm always happy to oblige people when they whine and bitch that they can't get what they want. Two Chevrolet dealers have closed in Toronto in as many weeks, more are on the chopping block and Lexus/BMW sales are at a standstill. While YOU are at it, why don't you bring the entire Canadian economy down on its knees? We can just give up our healthcare, our public schools, ESL classes and everything else and just join Brazil, India and others at the bottom of the struggling pile of economies. There is a reason tariffs and duties were erected at borders centuries ago. That was to protect investors who have INVESTED in a country from being hosed by unfair advantages that other countries have. The U.S. has the biggest advantage due to the size of its market. China has a huge manufacturing advantage due to the size of its labor force. If Canadians do not stick together, we will simply sink into Third World Status. But GXT, your 'choice' is more important than people's jobs, right? If everyone shops south of the border, manufacturers their products in China, who the f@#k will have the money to buy anything anywhere? YOU JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU? I, for one, would rather pay DOUBLE for a toaster or pair of jeans made in Canada, then imported from China. I would also keep my business in Canada, in Toronto if possible, to support my local economy. But, hey, - that's just me. I happen to care about my neighbors and what is happening around me.

I've had the same argument with a (former) co-worker who is from Portugal. When I was learning Portuguese 4 years ago, he argued with me that I was learning 'Brazilian' and that isn't 'real' Portuguese. Really, I countered. Hmmm. 170 million Brazilians and 11 million Portuguese: I wonder who is influencing the language today? Particularly considering you watch a lot of Brazilian TV in Portugal. To the 'layperson', Brazilian is much 'smoother' to the ear. My partner is Brazilian (so I am biased, of course!) but when I hear 'real' Portugese it sounds like fingers on a chalkboard.

We are into the 3rd full generation born since WWII, who have grown up with television and the consumer culture. It isn't so much that our grandparents were smarter, but that they didn't have as many choices as we do today - nor did they have the constant bombardment since birth to 'buy this or buy that.' How do you tell your 10 year old that he/she does not need the latest $75 video game? Or $120 pair of Nikes? Television has opened the door and shown us how the other half lives - and we all want a piece of that. Even if we have to borrow the money. The banks are just as responsible for this mess. I just love it how they 'package' their 'products.' Everything is a commodity and everything is for sale. I lost $60k on my last house, during the previous 'correction' in the market in '89. Did we not learn our lessons then?

....and you'd buy a Malibu, right?

Bite your tongue! As oil surges near $100 a barrel, minivans and (God forbid!) 4 cylinder minivans may make a comeback. Or do we all forget what made the original Chrysler minivan such a hit in the first place? That being said, we have had no problems selling Uplanders; in fact, they have been our #1 selling truck for a very long time - then before that the Venture. Now that Chrysler has departed the mini-minivan market, GM is alone in the $18k minivan market. The Sienna is $13k more, as is the Odyssey. I am not saying I am particularly proud of the vehicle, but it cost the same as a Cobalt LT - and offers a helluva lot more for the same money.

Having driven the 2.2 extensively on and off over the past few years, I can say without a doubt that the 2.4 is a VAST improvement. The power is smooth, the noise level well below acceptable and acceleration is quite decent. In the Land of $4 a Gallon Gas, the 2.4 will be the big seller. The LS as equipped is a sure-fire hit. Even the fake alloy wheel covers look good. Considering the level of equipment, refinement and the price, GM has gotten this one right. I wonder what the real world mpg numbers will be, though. One of the main reasons I kept going back to the 4 cyl Malibu in the past is that it was giving me better fuel mileage than either the Cobalt or Optra. Go figure.

And someone who is seriously considering a new CTS is also going to look at the new Malibu, right? Get real. Different markets. Different people. If the new Impala doesn't have available Nav, I'd be concerned, but the Malibu is the wrong market. And I can't believe this thread is still going on and on about the Nav system!!!

The fact that the Cadillac held its own in such a distinguished crowd is saying something. The 'anything imported is better crowd' will still buy their favorite import, but at least the diehard domestic buyers can feel proud again. (Not that many of them gave a damn in the first place, I'd wager.) Personally, going sideways in a slalom was never a prerequisite for my considering a vehicle. It's clear that GM has turned the corner. More and more, comparisons are having to resort to nitpickiness to find flaws in GM's newer offerings. Although it is unlikely Cadillac will ever own the luxury market like it did 35 years ago, it is becoming increasingly apparent with each new generation of Caddy that its future looks bright.

Ah, but the Malibu LS I am talking about is about $9k less than the Accord you have pictured here! The LTZ Malibu looks a lot better than this Accord interior.

Well, I've looked at the lease and finance numbers for our market and GM is doing the right thing: lease rate of 2.75% and finance rate of 3.3%. Those are outstanding numbers for an introductory vehicle. With a high residual value, the LS Malibu is about the same as a mid-level Civic.

I agree. We finally have a contender. If the only beef the usual suspects can come up with is the lack of available DVD nav, this vehicle will be a hit. I just took the LS for an extended tour. Even at 3/4 throttle, there is very little noise intrusion into the cabin - and that is the 2.4! They have even managed to disguise that crappy nylon material. Everything in this car looks like more $$$. I know the usual suspects don't like the electric steering in the base model, but I am a fan of it. Once you are used to it, you will find the normal hydraulic steering very heavy. I would opt for an uplevel stereo, though. This is a good looking car. It also has a lot bigger 'look' to it than its real size would indicate. It has none of the odd-looking angles that the Camry does. It's funny, both with '04 Malibu and the '00 Impala I had to warm up to their looks, but with this Malibu it has been love at first sight.

We got our first Malibu today: a base LS in antique bronze metallic with the cocoa interior. I gotta say: WOW. Having driven the Aura (in which I wasn't overly impressed), I have to say that the Malibu is a huge improvement over the Aura. My only complain is the trunk opening is small, similar to the Cobalt concern. But the over all impression when one sits behind the wheel is shock and awe - especially considering this vehicle is about $1,500 cheaper than the base Accord. The two-tone interior works very well - and I am not a big fan of brown! I hope GM doesn't get greedy just yet. Keep the programs and incentives aggressive. We may still be forced to sell a bit on price/value for the time being until the word is out what a truly impressive car this is. I think GM has a winner with this one, but how they handle the advertising remains to be seen.

Toyota and Honda are doing nothing wrong. I am serious in this. Again, the media has put them on an undeserved pedestal and now that the truth is coming in an overwhelming avalanche, the media can no longer ignore the cracks in the foundation. Managing more than one brand and dozens of models is bound to be challenging. To really look at it, neither Honda or Toyota have been full line car companies until recently. In fact, it could be argued that HOnda still isn't (no serious pick up truck.) Welcome to the big leagues, Toyota.

Exactly. Lutz is only stating the obvious. Increasingly, the auto market is global and the ROW is unerringly becoming a larger portion of the vehicle market than North America. Wouldn't it be deliciously ironic that while Japan Inc has (apparently) won the battle in conquering Detroit on its own turf, ultimately it loses the battle because GM (and to a lesser extent) Ford has greater successes in the ROW. And this tired Fleet sales argument has reared its head again. Having clean, 8 month old used vehicles to sell may be exactly the lifeline a dealer needs to get through tough times. At the end of the day, if an Impala is 'fleeted' out (and we are obviously talking 'daily rentals' here) and then re-sold as a used vehicle 8 months or a year later, it is still a sale. I'm in new car sales and there are advantages to the customer for a brand new Impala at 0% for 60 months and advantages for someone buying a 'nearly new' Impala with 30k km on it for a $6-7k savings. The key thing is that it depends on the customer. Some people love almost new vehicles that have been daily rentals, while others are nervous about how the vehicles were treated during the time they were rented out and will shy away. But choice is always good, right? There are always those who will pay a premium for having the 'latest and greatest' and those who will wait a year. As for GM's position on this, well, I am sure they mostly look at it as a sale is a sale. The impact on resale value while certainly not a positive one, is probably not as negative as all the 'incentives' available. The reality is, all manufacturers are faced with a dilemma when sales goals are not met or the economy downturns or a target market unexpectedly changes: what to do with the factories? Getting out from under the ludicrous union contracts where workers are paid 80% to stay home is an absolute must for GM. I just rented a Mustang convertible a few weeks ago. The experience was a positive one. Living in a northern climate where convertibles are only practical 3 or 4 months a year, the experience changed my atittude about the possible negatives of owning a convertible here. I feel better about Ford, the Mustang and convertibles. How is that a losing situation for Detroit?