cmattson

..only because they price them ridiculously high in the first place. What's your point?

The significance of a Toyota or Honda recall is largely because they have this mythical reputation for quality. Bringing up a domestic manufacturer's recall notices is faulty comparison. Last time I looked, the domestics didn't charge a premium price for a supposed better vehicle.

Sorry, can't resist: TOYOTA: MOVING YOU FORWARD?

Apparantly stalling (which most commonly happens on highways) isn't enough of a safety issue for to force a recall (WTF?): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686049/ As the article states, the electric motor will allow the cars to safely pull over. What about when I take a left in front of oncomming vehicles? Or perhaps when I'm passing someone? I'm not too keen on this just being a notification and not a recall..

I own an '04 Malibu (base) right now. The car is great for what it is: value transportation. I purchased mine primarily because I put about 18k-19k of mileage on my car a year. It simply doesn't make sense for me to over-purchase when it comes to cars. Yes, the Malibu is ridiculous when it comes to gas mileage. While it's currently rated at 35mpg, if you check out any of the automotive forums, it's not unusual to read about people hitting 38 or 39mpg. My personal best is 36mpg -- which I've hit twice now -- and that's a 75% highway/25%city mix, with about 50% of those highway miles in stop-and-go rush hour traffic -- so 36mpg for that is pretty damn good. As for interior appointments: the Malibu cloth fabric flat-out sucks. It desperately needs an upgrade. The radio/hvac controls for the Impala are much nicer, but I take it for what it's worth: GM is improving it's interiors incrementally. Plus, I don't discount the idea that a more expensive car will get nicer appointments -> you pay for what you get. The light steering is weird at first -- but if you drive it for a week, you'll find that it actually grows on you and you come to expect that "easy-steering feeling" from every car you drive & that other cars are a bit laborious at low speeds in comparison. All in all, if you are looking for a commuter-sedan, the Ecotec-powered Malibu doesn't disappoint. With it's phenominal showings in initial quality and vehicle dependability, you just can't go wrong with this car. I've got 32,xxx miles on my '04 (purchased in Apr'04) and besides the well-known steering-column recall, this car has been rock-solid: not a squeek, not a rattle, not a repair.

How about taking it a step further: maintenance-free for the first x years/xx,xxx miles? You give somebody a no-haggle (Saturn-like) buying experience & promise them that, barring abuse, the car is covered (free) until the x years/xx,xxx miles are complete. You are basically targeting the non-car enthusiasts. My mother is wholly car uneducated. Doesn't know a thing about cars & doesn't care to ever learn. She'd snap at the ability to buy a car, haggle-free, and no their are no surprises down the road -- just reliable transportation for a fixed monthly cost. A no-haggle, no-surprise, problem-free guarantee for a small-premium up-front! As a side bonus, the covered vehicles would be virtually guaranteed to hit all of their maintenance schedules -- and as a result, you'd have fewer problems and higher resale values. All of which would go a long way towards improving GM's image. I'm not saying GM should do this with their entire line, but I think something like this could be considered for at least one of GM's brands (Saturn).

I've got a great idea for a new incentive: Try offering no-nonsense truly-competitive vehicles instead of lukewarm (minivans) rehashes! IMO, GM's biggest problem is that they cannot take the leap of faith that says: offer your best to the industry and the customers will come - and you'll eventually make a profit off of it. Current losses can be considered the "price-of-admission" to regain credibility as a non-budget-car manufacturer. Look no further than the 3-valve pushrods (or the pushrods themselves or 6speed transmissions). Take a look at Toyota's hybrid Synergy system. No question that Toyota initially lost money on each unit sold.. but look at the publicity/good will it generated. GM needs to take a similar approach. Put your best interiors, powertrains, etc. forth and show the public what you've got - show the public how competitive you can be. Or you could just consider taking a half-hearted approach that the public will easily see through, that reviewers will bash. You can continue your discount-of-the-month program, your low resale values, and your ever-slowly-declining automotive sales.

As a Malibu owner, I agree with you completely that the Malibu interior isn't anything to brag about; but is the Malibu considered a premium vehicle and does the Malibu command a premium price? Does the running-jdpa initial quality AND vehicle durability-running Malibu have the vaunted reputation the Camry carry? No. It just furthers my point that perception is king. BTW, here's where the Malibu finishes for jdpa initial quality: 2005: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=984 2004: #3 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=854 2003: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=736 2002: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=625 2001: #2 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=517 * = in case you are interested, the Malibu finished behind the Sonata and the Alero in 2004, and behind the Altima in 2001. And for vehicle durability: 2005: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=996 2004: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=860 2003: #1 - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=749 2002: #x - http://www.jdpa.com/studies_jdpower/pressr...asp?StudyID=692 2001: information not available. * - 2002 winners were: Cirrus, Altima, Breeze (Malibu did not place) Anybody see the Camry or the Accord in there for the last half-decade? The current model Accord/Camry simply are NOT the industry benchmarks they once were! The Malibu has excellent hp/torque/gas mileage and unbeatable initial quality/durability rankings. Lastly, if you price out the Camry: 4cyl: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/cam...tmv.1.1.Toyota* 6cyl: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyota/cam...tmv.1.1.Toyota* In comparison to the Malibu: 4cyl: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/....1.1.Chevrolet* 6cyl: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/....1.1.Chevrolet* You'll see that the Malibu would save you an average of $2k up front. If you finance your purchase - as most people do, you'll spend roughly another $200 in interest if you finance @ 5% over 5 years - which appears to be the most common going rate. Now let's check out kbb resale values for the '04 models ('04 is the oldest year for the current model Malibu): http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ur?kbb....0Malibu&2;CH;A1 http://www.kbb.com/kb/ki.dll/kw.kc.ur?kbb....amry&2;TO;B0&&& Hmm.. $16685 - $14670 = $2015.. roughly the same spread as the initial purchase price. See what happens when GM skips the discount & directly discounts the price? The resale value myth is completely busted. Quite simply, GM's Malibu is one of the industries best values. Period.

Toyota is a brand built around perception. The Camry doesn't have to have the best horsepower, handling, safety, price, feature-set, or economy. It has to have the perception that it does. The Camry hasn't been a leader in any of these categories in it's current form -- yet it's still the sales leader. Next year will mark a full decade when the Camry was last mentioned in jdpa for either initial quality or long-term durability. That's a hell of a reputation they've milked. All this being said, the Camry isn't exactly a laggard in any of these categories either. I do expect the next-generation Camry to be remakably better than the current generation -- which is getting long-in-the-tooth rather fast. Frankly, when you look at benchmarks, the current Camry is quite uncompetitive. The Malibu flat-out spanks in for gas mileage. Heck, even the Malibu's 3.5l produced more hp than the 190hp Camry V6. Yes, I know that the Camry get's a larger, 210hp V6 -> and I'll then refer you to the Malibu SS's 3.9l. As for interior appointments, check out the interior photos of the current Camry in all it's rental-car-like brilliance. Stunningly ordinary/unspectacular, huh? Perception is king! It's what Toyota has in spades and what GM desperately is trying to reclaim!

What makes you so convinced that these personnel are so worth retaining? They were all on-staff when the company filed for bankruptcy -- so they mustn't be all that great..

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but what market segment is the Cadillac BTS targetted towards? I thought it's purpose was to target the small-lux market. Anyways. If you look at the European market, with Opel/Vauxhall in the middle, and Daewoo/Chevy on the entry-level, that would leave both Saab & Cadillac competing for the same market segment. GM needs to pick a direction & run with it. Personally, this is just another reason why GM needs to divest itself from Saab. Saab is clearly getting GM "leftovers". The 9-3 was one of the first to use the new Epsilon platform. After that they got what? Warmed over Subarus and a also-ran GMT SUV? GM isn't exactly pouring money into Saab right now. Besides the 9-6, does anybody know anything firm for details on Saab future product? Saab appears to be dying on the vine -- all because GM is being treated as an also-ran to their core brands. The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced that GM will divest themselves of Saab. I hate to say it, but seeing how little GM is investing in Saab, perhaps Saab will be better off under someone elses umbrella. Lastly, GM purchased 50% of Saab back in 1998 for $600m + $100m in "investment/infrastructure" costs. They purchased the remaining 50% in 2000 (I'm not sure how much). So, if GM were to get equal dollars back for Saab (very questionable), they'd roughly need the future value of 1998's $1.2b-$1.3b.

These are my sentiments exactly. Saab doesn't bring anything unique to GM's table -- they only take from GM's already-scarce resources. The sale of Subaru really highlights how thin Saab's US offerings really are. I'm not sure Saab is exactly what Renault is looking for, but at least we know they are interested in buying something. If I'm @ GM, I'd be fishing right now and seeing what I can hook..

Ok, Ford declined offers to sell Volve to Renault. The word is that Renault was looking for an established presence in Europe for which to launch the Infiniti nameplate onto the European market. See article: http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/11-10-05_3 If Volvo is not-for-sale, perhaps Saab is.. What does GM have invested into Saab that it cannot live without? I can't think of one thing. Saab is yet another constraint on GM's pocketbook. What if GM could sell Saab, thereby ridding itself of a cash-drain and putting some money in it's checkbook at a time (ahem, Delphi) when it looks like it needs it. Seeing that the stillborn Saab 9-6 was to have been Subaru-based and that GM has diverged itself of Subaru, perhaps selling Saab is a foregorn conclusion? It's not like GM had an identity carved out for Saab. As a matter of fact, Saab (by outsider appearances) appeared to be just stumbling along; a view that would only be encouraged by the knee-capping of the 9-6 by the sale of Subaru. Thoughts? Personally, I like the idea of GM shedding Saab. Saab just doesn't bring enough sales in return for GM's money spent on marketing, engineering, etc.

I wholeheartedly agree with you; and in the order of making US-based businesses competitive again, we need to get the whole healthcare crisis undercontrol. The escalating premiums of healthcare coverage and prescription drugs are a large portion of the costs to these legacy workers. I'm afraid that any solution left up to politicians to decipher and institute isn't comming anytime soon.

I don't care how competitive the pay is -- for either the salaried workers or the hourly workers. I'm just saying that it's downright piss-poor management to add to the companies debt-load (for self gain) when the company is sliding into bankruptcy, all the while bitching about how the hourly workers are sucking up too much money. Kind of ironic how the corporate brass can piss and moan about payroll costs, but will jump at the chance to increase their own take. So what if they are underpaid in comparison to their companions -- nobody held a gun to their head to take the job -- they willingly took their positions. And when the company falls on tough times, they ask everybody else to take less, while not hesitating to add to their own personal wealth. That's a fine example of the great fiscal responsibility that heads most of these companies down the road to bankruptcy in the first place. I can't blame the unions -- they'll take as much as they can -- just as you or I would -- or, as in this example, the corporate lackeys did. If Delphi mgmt had the foresight, they would've stopped about 3 contracts back and said "no -- our company can't afford this contract". That makes them personally responsible in my book. They went ahead and signed the poor contracts that lead the company into bankruptcy -- and that's where the fault lies: with top management.

Just a note before we go down the union bashing road (yet again): Did anybody else catch how the Delphi brass upped their severance packages the day before the bankruptcy filling? I'm not saying that union labor isn't part of the problem -- they certainly are.. but they aren't the only problem.

With yesterday's sale -- is this the end of the Subaru sub-topic here at CNG? If so, I'm gonna get my post (this one) in now, before it's too late!

I'm with SoCal on this one: GM is looking at the global picture. Where can it put low-cost assembly points in place for it's world-wide brands. If it can pick up a halfway-modern factory on the cheap, staff it cheaply and export from the country cheaply, then GM will have itself a nice bargain.

When looking at Cobalt vs Cavalier numbers, don't forget about the Aveo's influence. It's much more established this year and the Aveo takes some small car sales that it wouldn't have last year. If you compare "Chevrolet compact car sales" as a whole (Aveo+Cobalt+Cavalier) between this year and last year, the spread is about 38,500 units.

[sarcasm]Yeah, that engine could really use improvements on both of those fronts[/sarcasm] :blink:

29,000 sticker?!? What kind of options are you putting on the car? Assuming you are paying sticker (and who does that on a GM car?), the G6 sedan GTP starts @ $24,8xx. GM currently has a $1000 rebate on top of that, so, in reality, GM's G6 GTP starts at $23,800. To get to a $29,000 pricetag, you'd not only have to pay sticker, but you'd have to add $5,200 in options to the G6's top trim level. Visit www.notgonnahappen.com for details on that one. The 3.9l is adequate in it's current form. For a 240hp engine, it gets equal, if not better gas mileage than Nissan's 6cyl's. It's got a nice, broad, flat torque band to boot. It gets better gas mileage than it's comparable 3.6l DOHC engine -- and here's the kicker: it's cheaper to build and it's potential hasn't even been fully tapped yet! 3valves/cyl and DOD are still sitting on the shelf for this engine! Factor in the engineering costs saved by developing the 3.5l and the 3.9l as variants and you have yet another additional benefit. How about component sharing (i.e. starters, alternators, water pumps, etc). Yup -- all the same -- and that should garner some cost savings as well: less to engineer, outsource, build, troubleshoot, part-stock, etc. As a side benefit, this engine burns regular octane -- not the premium stuff you need on the high-compression DOHC engines of some Asian manufacturers. While I would love for this current-gen 3.9l to have better gas mileage (I think it's torque/hp #'s are just fine), I can't find fault with GM for the path that they pursued here. BTW, 0-60 times aren't just a measure of hp/torque. Factor in weight, factor in gearing. Does anybody know if the 3.5l G6 has different gearing than the 3.9l G6? Lastly, here are specs for comparable v6 sedans: Auto G6 3.5l 201hp@5600/222ft-lbs@3200: 21/29mpg G6 3.9l 240hp@6000/241ft-lbs@2800: 18/26mpg Camry 3.0l 190hp@5800/197ft-lbs@5600: 20/28mpg Camry 3.3l 210hp@4400/220ft-lbs@3600: 21/29mpg Accord 3.0l 244hp@6250/211ft-lbs@5000: 21/30mpg Altima 3.5l 250hp@5800/249ft-lbs@4400: 20/30mpg No question that the 3.9l is a bit more thirsty, but check out where peak torque is achieved compared to every other sedan.. the Camry @ 5600rpm? The G6 is HALF that. The Accord isn't much better @ 5000rpm.

From what I hear, you guys are going the wrong direction. I'm hearing 2008 will bring a 6.2l supercharged 'vette to the showrooms. Why the 6.2l? The 7.0's cyl. walls are too thin to support the boost. Anybody with anything more current?

Some speculation on my part: Perhaps GM's original strategy was something along the lines of: Small: Colorado/Canyon Medium: Lambda-based truck Large: Sileravado/Sierra We know that a Lambda-based truck has at least been discussed. I'm not sure if it's progressed past that & if it has, how far along it is. Being that the Lambda platform is primarily intended to spawn the a new crossover series of vehicles, I'm guessing a mid-size truck would certainly be possible. It would absolutely reinforce GM's decision on why "only" the 3.5l I5 is available in the Colorado/Canyon twins. On truck terms, the negative-side of that speculation is the idea that if a Lambda-truck is produced, it'll be far more likely to be more car-like than truck-like -- so if you are looking for a mid-size truck for pure truck potential (i.e. hauling), a Lambda truck probably isn't going to deliver it. Again, pure speculation. Perhaps one of our educated, informed sources can clear some of this up...

I disagree: GM's protecting it's highest profit-margin vehicles first. It's far easier (& less costly) to retain a customer than it is to attract a new one. Who do you think are purchasing the Civic/Accord/Prius hybrids? GM current customer base, or Toyota/Honda loyalists? I'd bet that a high percentage of current hybrid sales are to import-loyalists. GM's hybrid isn't going to appeal to these people unless it severly outclasses the current hybrids -- something that current technology just isn't going to support. As for GM's hybrids, it's interesting to see the multi-pronged GM's approach is: 1) Dual-mode hybrids that should be cheaper to build (smaller elec. motors) and whose range (max. speed) should surpass current hybrids -- all without sacrificing vehicle specs. Take a peek in the Prius. Drive one. See how crude the interior materials are & hear how unbelievably loud and buzzy the gasoline engine is. The Prius makes compromises to achieve it's mpg. GM's dual-mode won't. GM has an additional advantage in that engineering costs are being shared between BMW and DCX. 2) GM's BAS (belt-alternator-starter) system takes another interesting approach. GM appears to have designed this flexible enough to fit it under virtually any hood on it's lineup. Sure, it doesn't offer the advantage of a full hybrid -- but because of it's simplicity, it's engineering costs and it's component costs are tiny in comparison to Toyota designing an entire vehicle around their Synergy system. Can you think of the great PR GM would have available if GM became the first manufactuer to offer it's complete lineup with a hybrid option? It might be enough of an event to start changing people's perceptions about GM's greenness. BTW, I sincerely doubt that GM is going to offer a hybrid option on all of it's vehicles. The cost would be enormous. The bean counters would never allow it.

Honda's execution on the Element is far better than the Aztec -- but Honda does get a pass on things GM used to get criticized for. The heavy use of plastic cladding is just one of them. The interior of the new Ridgeline is one unbelievably bad in terms of low-grade, hard plastics. Lastly, when GM used the high-mount rear-tail lights on the dust-buster vans, it was widely panned. Honda uses them on the CR-V and you don't hear a peep. Plain and simple: Honda's reputation lets them get away with things that GM can't. GM has made their own mess -- and only repeated execution over time can pull them out of it.