Last post on Nov 25, 2013 at 11:27 AM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan
Apr 29, 2005 (5:23 pm)
"They are banking on cars like the Solstice to bring in sales & dollars, but when you go and aim for a September introduction date for a convertible you have to wonder if they are purposely trying to put themselves out of business!!! I mean...who in their right mind introduces a convertible in September???"
The BMW Z4 was introduced around September of 2002.
GM isn't banking on the Solstice for sales and dollars.
They are working on the new 2007 pickups and SUV along with other new products for bigger sales and more dollars.
GM should put the 4.2 liter 275 hp I-6 in the new 2007 pickups and SUVs.
The Chrysler 300 has staying power. Its styling, retro (1998 Chrysler Chronos concept car and 1957 Chrysler 300), is bold and is what they needed because they were stagnating with the previous fwd 300.
The new Dodge Magnum has generated more sales and excitement about a STATION WAGON than just about any other station wagon ever sold here in North America.
Apr 29, 2005 (5:32 pm)
"BTW, I thought the Jaguar V8 was totally seperate from Ford? We've had this discussion in the Jaguar topic on the News and Views board and they're saying its a Jag V8 not based on anything from Ford?"
Jaguar likes to say that, but the truth is that the Jag 3.0 engine is EXTREMELY close to the Duratec 3.0, and while the 4.2 doesnt share quite as many bits as the 3.0, its still very closely related to the Lincoln LS V8. Displacement is identical, and power is very close. They've replaced parts with "Jag spec" parts that are largely the same, but it allows them to say that a huge percentage of the V8 is Jaguar specific when it really isnt. The V8 Vantage shows what the engine can actually do when somebody REALLY works it over. The fact that the Jag version is THAT close to the Lincoln proves they didnt really do much of anything to it.
Jaguar's V-8 is NOT a Ford V-8.
It came out in the 1997 Jaguar XK8 with a 4.0 liter displacement.
The 4.2 liter V-8, which came out for the revised 2003 S-Type and XK8 and the aluminum 2004 XJ, doesn't have the potential timing chain tensioner or nikasil problems of the 4.0 liter V-8 from the 1997-2000 XK8.
check this link
Apr 29, 2005 (9:40 pm)
I disagree about the 300. I dont even like the car, mostly because of the styling, but I think its sales will last where other flash in the pan cars have failed because it doesnt DEPEND on its unusual styling to generate interest like the PT Cruiser or VW Beetle. Like the Mini Cooper, there's actually a great car underneath the unusual skin, and thats what equals lasting sales, rather than a great two years or so. Besides, where else can you get a 425hp sedan for that kind of money?
#1923 of 10348 Re: Chrysler 300, GM [lexusguy]
Apr 30, 2005 (7:31 am)
You may be right about the 300. I don't know much about the car and have little interest in it. I had an instant dislike of the car because it seemed like a throwback to the road locomotives Detroit produced in the 1950s, all power and style. Consumer Reports, by the way, actually preferred the Ford 500 to the Chrysler 300.
As for 425hp. When gas hits $3 a gallon, let's see how appealing these gas guzzlers are. Detroit is making the same mistake they made in the '70s when the price of gas skyrocketed, trying to sell the same old land yachts to a public that needed economy. These guys will never learn.
GM's timing is exquisite, by the way, bringing out a whole new line of huge SUVs and trucks now as the price of gas soars. And with a straight face, Lutz says these are going to sell well. Detroit has a death wish and it's going to come true.
#1924 of 10348 Re: Maserati as an LPS? [richcream]
Apr 30, 2005 (8:40 am)
That is some collection of cars! It is of some relief to know that someone sees that not all those things are the car's fault. I mean trying to drive a CL55 in the snow is a no no. Way too much power and the wrong footwear.
The bent/cracked rim thing is pretty much the price for such footwear also. The wholesale eating of tires seems to be a big problem too, especially when luxury car buyers opt for a "sport" package and then find out that their tires aren't going to last anywhere near what they did previously. On sports cars its even worse, just ask any Nissan 350Z or 911 owner.
#1925 of 10348 Re: Chrysler 300, GM [bartalk3]
Apr 30, 2005 (8:47 am)
What's interesting about the 300 is that (ignoring the original 300 series that Chrysler featured 40 years ago), the two most recent iterations are about as different as can be. The 300M was a front drive car with an overhead cam engine--a car that attempted to compete with mid-lux import "Euro-Asian" cars of the late 90's. The current 300C is a rear drive car, styled like something Al Capone would have driven, with a 5.7L pushrod "Hemi" engine. (Yes, the 3.5L SOHC "touring" version may actually outsell the Hemi, but the identity of this car is the hemi version.)
There is little synergy or evolution between the M and the C. The letters stuck on the end are basically meaningless. The two models look nothing like each other, and probably appeal to different demographics. How often does a particular Acura, BMW, Benz, etc. from model year to model year appeal to a different type of customer?
Is the 300C destined to be another "flavor of the month" car? Hard to say. But I don't believe future versions of the 300 will necessarily look like mafia staff cars with pushrods with fat power bands. This car happened to hit a perfect niche, and appeals to the traditional domestic customer who typically would not cross-shop this car against imports. It's image is that of a macho, take-no-prisoners, all-American, meat-and-potatoes sedan that is currently kicking the tails of the more "effeminate" and less-endowed Ford 500 and anything GM has to offer.
#1926 of 10348 Re: bartalk3 [lexusguy]
Apr 30, 2005 (8:48 am)
I agree with your point about the 300. I see quite a few non "C" models too which tells me the car in general is pretty popular not just the Hemi model. With the Charger it looks like they're going to do it all over again, big time. The Charger SRT-8 even looks better than the 300C SRT-8. These are without a doubt the hottest American cars going right now.
I don't know what else can be said about GM at this point. Push back a convertible until Sept, like someone else said, is a less than smart move, but reportedly they're having problems with the top. The same thing has been said about the G6 convertible. Top problems. Time for GM to get Porsche (Car Top Systems) or Toyota (SC430) to do their tops if the good old boys in Detroit's supplier community can't do them.
#1927 of 10348 Re: Chrysler 300, GM [cstiles]
Apr 30, 2005 (8:51 am)
"It's image is that of a macho, take-no-prisoners, all-American, meat-and-potatoes sedan that is currently kicking the tails of the more "effeminate" and less-endowed Ford 500 and anything GM has to offer."
Plus GM just killed the new Zeta RWD platform that would have given them something to combat the new Mopars with. Talk about a kick in the gut. They did this to concetrate on the next generation large trucks/SUV. I can understand this decision to a point, those trucks are such big money makers, but how much longer do these vehicles have when gas prices are seemingly never going back down?
Apr 30, 2005 (9:03 am)
Well, the 300M was in Chrysler's Concorde, LHS "cab forward" days of space ship looking cars that they arent doing anymore. I wouldnt expect the new 300 to be anything like the old one. If it was, it certainly wouldnt have the kind of interest that it does now. Like you said "It's image is that of a macho, take-no-prisoners, all-American, meat-and-potatoes sedan that is currently kicking the tails of the more "effeminate" and less-endowed Ford 500 and anything GM has to offer."
The reason why I think is because it DOESNT just try to copy what Toyota and Honda are doing. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan have nothing like the 300. You can never be the best just by copying the top players. It appears Chrysler has figured that out, but Ford and GM still have not. It will be interesting to see what Chrysler rolls out in the future. With the exception of the 300..and I guess Pacifica, the rest of their line-up basically sucks. Will lightning strike twice? Or will they continue to have the 300 and then a fleet of rental cars?
#1929 of 10348 Re: Chrysler 300, GM [bartalk3]
Apr 30, 2005 (9:08 am)
Your are right on. People want to spend $75 a tank filling up their gas guzzlers. It's my G-d given right as an American to buy expensive automobiles and pay through the nose for gasoline.