Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM General Model View, Market Share & Profit News 
2415 messages, Last post on Feb 12, 2007 at 4:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: louiswei (Jan 19, 2007 6:47 am) I didnt say their job was to promote domestics, but I am saying their job is to be fair and leave their personal hatred out of the equation. didnt you ever hear about the "objective" guy from the LA times who wrote and article about the G6 that was so off base that GM pulled advertising? He barely even talked about the car, he started it off by insulting Lutz and Wagoner and calling for their resignation since they allowed a POS like the G6 to be made. What does that have to do with auto reviewing? "If the editors think the domestic entries are inferior to the imports what do you want him/her to do? Lie just because we should support domestic auto industry? If the domestics are truly on par with the imports or even exceed it why would any American with a common sense not want to support it? " Read my earlier post. As I said, if you have spent your whole career making jokes about american cars and recommending Japanese cars why would you want to jump up and proclaim "The differences between these cars are actually minimal" and encourage people to shop domestics. Generally speaking, domestic models are on par in terms of design, performance and ergonomics. They usually are superior in terms of value for your money and styling. As each deficiency has been addressed, the nitpicks move to something else. Back in the day (5 years maybe) people used to say domestics weren't equal due to panel tolerances, build quality, number of gears in automatics, engine choices, quietness, etc. Now that those issues are largely obsolete the focus has shifted to softness of plastics. This has to be the number one issue complained about and when you really look at it most complaints or non-recommendations come down to look and feel of plastics. Keep in mind that these same vehicles are often thousands cheaper than their competition and have no issues with actual build quality. A classic example of media indiffernce (I'll forego bias if it makes you feel better) is the coverage of the Sebring. I dont even like the car, but it makes a strong case for itself. It is impressively equipped, has unique styling and offers great value. C&D ripped the car because it was too soft (hasnt Toyota made a killing on soft cars) and didnt even mentione its features or value. Edmunds ripped it for not being a sports sedan and having (surprise!!) hard plastics and then basically marginalized its features as gimmicks. I cant see the car getting the same treatment if it was a Honda or Hyundai. In fact, reviews of the car focus more on the old cars status as a rental king than the new car's appeal. I have yet to read a review that treats the car as a general duty family car that would interest people who dont autocross on the weekend. every review of a domestic car ends the same way "a great effort by (insert brand) but we doubt many camry or accord owners would be convinced to buy it". Karl, chief editor here on edmunds has finally come around to admitting that most GM products (especially the recent ones) are basically as good as the imports. You can find minor nits to pick and what not but the differences just arent that big and GM vehicles are often cheaper and better looking than their import counterparts. And now they have a better warranty as well. while it's true that GM's vehicles have improved of late, I was making some of these points to Karl two+ years ago and at the time he was adamant that GM was failing and needed to look to Ford and Chrysler for tips on how to make decent American cars. He totally dismissed all of their offerings (including the Vette, CTS, XLR, etc.) and said he wouldnt recommend any of them. His attitude has definitely changed and I dont think it was merely because he saw the new GM SUVs and pickups. |
|
|
Replying to: 1487 (Jan 19, 2007 9:25 am) "If the editors think the domestic entries are inferior to the imports what do you want him/her to do? Lie just because we should support domestic auto industry? If the domestics are truly on par with the imports or even exceed it why would any American with a common sense not want to support it? " I'll reserve my judgment for Aura, Malibu and CTS for now since I haven't got a chance to see those in person. I will though in March when I am going to the Atlanta Auto Show. There I'll get a chance to compare Aura, Camry and Accord side by side so I'll get a better idea about how much improvement has GM made for its new series of sedans. 1487, inferior grade plastic might not mean much to you but to some others (like me) that could well be the dictating factor for the purchasing decision. So maybe for you when those editors pointing out hard plastic it might sounds like nit picking to you but for me that's a great piece of information. What does that mean to me? It means GM has come a long way since the 90s for its sedans but still, no cigar yet. |
|
|
Replying to: 1487 (Jan 19, 2007 9:03 am) My, touchy, ain't we? CTS beat the 530, E320, S80 and A6 Well - I've driven the 530 and E320, but not the S80 or the A6. Having said that, here's my spin: 530: I like BMW, but don't care at all for the new 5 series. Unlike many people, I actually kind of like the styling, but I hate the 'disconnected' feel of the car. Idrive is a pain. I spent the whole drive playing with it to figure it out. Bah. This car is in no way what I think a BMW should be. E320: No thanks. It's solid as a vault, but only accountants want to spend much time sitting on a bench in the vault. My impression of the interior was of a well furnished waiting room. My general impression of the E class is that it'll go as fast as you like, but won't leave much of an impression doing it. Additionally, my uncle learned a lot of bad German words before he dumped his. S80: If accountants drive E class Mercedes, who does that leave to drive Volvos? Actuaries and safety-paranoid housewives. I miss the old "Vermont Farmer" 240's when Volvo's weren't that fancy but were safe and durable. A car you could see parked at the opera with a Gore bumper sticker, but one that might also be used to transport a (small) cow in the backseat. I'm not a Volvo guy. A6: As much as the magazines and the owners love these cars, I've never been able to shake my superstitious belief that an Audi is a repair-bill waiting to happen. This silly belief comes from my impression that I've spent many years of watching friends happily pay dearly for the Audi experience. No thanks there. CTS: If I must choose one of the cars listed, I might try the CTS on a lease-lark where I'd know I would walk away without wounding my wallet. The styling looks like a 65 caddy on Jupiter where the atmospheric pressure has squeezed the car into a smaller space - I don't like it much. The interior is plain but good enough. The driving dynamics are supposed to be good. If the the reliability is OK and the dealer experience is good, I might consider it. However in the end, I'd prefer a 330i, which isn't one of my choices above. The caddy would have to underbid the 330 by quite a bit to win that toss.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: louiswei (Jan 19, 2007 6:39 am) Just for reference the LaCrosse door trim is all soft vinyl that is molded with the plastic substrate with the "padding" molded in. This adds about $100/car in costs and would raise the price of the car by about $200. That is a lot of money. In fact the LaCrosse is probably the last car from anyone in the midsize market that has soft feel materials used almost throughout the entire interior. neither Camry nor Accord have as much. The Pickups and SUVs from GM have been highly hailed for their interiors yet they are all hard platic. They just look good with tight gaps, low gloss, nice graining and good design. The Toyota Tundra is also all hard plastic. Not one soft part in the interior. No padding, no vinyl, no soft touch paint. Unfortunately the interior does not look that great. They have a lot of gray painted looking trim plates that look cheap. Now there is a difference in soft feel technologies. Cheapest is soft touch paint which gives a velvety feel and used on trimplates on some vehicles like the LaCrosse. Then there is a vinyl coating with no padding and then a vinyl with foam backing that was used throughout the Century and Regal. The CTS uses a lot of soft vinyl w/o padding and some may think this is hard if they are used to padding like the old Buicks. That thick foamed stuff is pretty much gone everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lokki (Jan 19, 2007 7:41 am) Camry interior. It seems that article isn't online yet, but they did have a Aura review back in Oct 06. Here's what they said: Once inside, we noticed our enthusiasm fade. It's not a bad interior, in fact compared with previous Saturn models the Aura benefits from nicer materials and better fit and finish, bar none. But it still doesn't stand up against the best interiors in the class, like the Toyota Camry*, Honda Accord, and Kia Optima. Aura XE Review *Note that this was before the comparo where they panned the 2007 Camry. By the way the KIA Optima finished higher than either the Camry or the Aura. Bit confused. They said the Camry had a great interior, then they said the Aura was better than the Camrys but was not a great one, and then they said the Camry had a bad interior.
|
|
|
My last GM car was a 1982 Chevy Citation. It died on me the first day on the road. It had more problems with it than there is space to write here. I bought a 1984 Camry and I've been in one ever since. When we had to settle for schlock cars because that was all you could buy...so be it. Toyota changed the scenery. Maybe the domestic cars are on par today but they lost my confidence a long time ago. 
|
|
|
|
This give a good summary of GM last year and some goals for this year. Sorry about all the data and facts. I know it slows down the discussion.  https://clacc.gmadmanager2004.com:443/am/media_review_eshow2.asp?b=1&l=80206 |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lessachs (Jan 19, 2007 11:10 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 19, 2007 11:07 am) Sorry for my failure to write clearly. Let me try again In the October 2006 review of the Aura only (without any other cars at hand) they compared the Aura's interior unfavorably to the 2006 Camry's. This quote is available on line. In February? (latest issue at home) they complained about the interior in the 2007 Camry, and stated that among other things, the rear cupholder fell out, leaving a ragged looking hold in the upholstry where it had been. This article does not seem to be online yet. So, 2006 interior, Jah, Liebe! 2007 interior ist nicht so gut!
|
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 19, 2007 11:21 am) Maybe the domestic cars are on par today but they lost my confidence a long time ago Maybe, even quite likely they are on par, or in some cases better. But for right now, I'll let others test out that theory with their money. When I feel confident, I'll test it with mine.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM General Model View, Market Share & Profit News
