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 News, New Models and Market Share
8631 messages, Last post on Dec 06, 2009 at 6:18 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
I keep reading these analyses of buyers based on age. There are more factors involved in choosing a car rather than ones age. But the discussion presumes that age is the only factor. I've read many posts that are insulting in their discussion of older people. I'm not clear about what age someone should have been in terms of youth to purchase a Buick and not be treated as a doddering old person, without teeth as one poster intimated in the past in another topic probably. I always found the sagacity of my elders to be enlightening. On the other hand would we want all our car choices determined by what the youth want in their cars? I could make many direct and indirect inferences as to the characteristics of many of the youth I could picture as choosers of the cars' qualities made for all of us, but I'll spare the reader the insult level given to older people here on Edmunds in _some_ posts as to their incompetence because they chose a car that suited their needs, durability, reliability. If Buick still made the full-sized, comfortable leSabre from '95-05 with the same quality parts throughout, I'd buy my next car today. Sell my older one and buy the kid a Cobalt, used or new. My father-in-law has a new Lucerne in his garage: he's 83. |
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Nov 29, 2008 5:48 am)
|
|
|
|
| The Lambda group is amazingly well-represented in our area in West Central Ohio. The drivers are a wide range in age from 30-up. | |
|
|
|
I spent time Thanksgiving Day with guests of our hosts from Michigan. They said the healthcare benefits from the automakers have had increasing deductible amounts through the last years. When I described the full healthcare, dental care, vision care, legal care, etc., my State Farm agent's mother had as a widow of an autoworker from the Dayton area, our friends said that changed... He has relatives who are still in the auto industry so he gets feedback. He worked for an independent company doing design work for 25 years, so he has a feeling for the auto industry. They live in Lower Michigan--need I say more?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Nov 28, 2008 8:16 pm) From Edmunds long term test of the Accord: Best Fuel Economy: 28.7 mpg Worst Fuel Economy: 14.5 mpg Average Fuel Economy: 21.0 mpg And this for their Enclave test: Best Fuel Economy: 29.7 mpg Worst Fuel Economy: 10.5 mpg Average Fuel Economy: 17.5 mpg Imagine that. Both over 20,000 miles of driving, and a 15% difference in fuel economy for a vehicle weighing almost 1500 pounds more. |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 29, 2008 6:20 am) I say welcome to the real America. Our Teamster health care started cutting coverage in the 1980s. We went from 100% medical, Dental & Eye care to much reduced coverage. It was sometime in the 1980s when they dropped health care for the retirees. It would have bankrupted the Union to continue with those expenses. We also went from retiring with full benefits at age 45 to 57. That is a big jump also. When I retired medical paid 70% up to $4000 out of pocket per year. Dental was 50% with a max of $2000 covered per year. That is a couple crowns. Eye care was $150 covered every other year. We also had 100% free legal and a great health club gym with all the latest equipment. Tennis, racket ball, swimming. I used the legal on a divorce. That was nice. All that is gone since the early 1990s. The Alaska Teamsters like the UAW have lost much of their workforce. They have lost market share. We peaked out during the Pipeline building about 1970 to 1979. If they build a new line across Canada it should provide a lot of good Union jobs for the skilled trades. They will need LOTS of PU trucks for the automakers that survive. Only heavy duty 1 ton crew cabs. No foo foo Tundra trucks allowed. 
|
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Nov 29, 2008 6:38 am) |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 29, 2008 6:15 am) Now, there are exceptions to this, of course. The father of one of my former coworkers was a bigwig for Chrysler, and could get deeply discounted pricing on new cars. I still remember his mother running out one day and buying a brand-new 1999 Intrepid on the spot, because she had some get together with her golfing buddies that weekend, and didn't want them to see her in the same old car...a 1994 Intrepid with around 40,000 miles on it. She didn't like the '99 Intrepid because it was underpowered (i.e., she had never driven an OHC car before where you have to stomp it a bit), so within like two years, she had a fully-loaded LHS. Then when she got bored with that one, she bought a top-line Concorde, a 2003 I think. And then that gave way to a 2005 300C. My coworker had a stroke and couldn't return to work, and moved pretty far away, so I haven't kept in touch, but I imagine that old lady is still changing cars like some people change underwear! If Buick still made the full-sized, comfortable leSabre from '95-05 with the same quality parts throughout, I'd buy my next car today. Just out of curiosity, why doesn't the Lucerne do it for you? It's big and comfy, and IMO seems better finished than the LeSabre. Fuel economy isn't down much. The 3.9/4-speed is rated at 17/26, whereas a 2000 era LeSabre 3.8/4-speed is 18/27 (newer rating system...its window sticker was probably 20/29). The car was getting a bit too big and heavy for the 3.8, but the 3.9 has about 30 more hp and is torquier, so it probably makes up for the extra weight. If I was in the market for something like that, I'd consider a Lucerne. Sometimes, out of curiosity, I'll check the used car listings for them. The main thing that would keep me away, I guess, is that I just don't need something that big any more. It used to be with GM that their smaller cars sucked, and you had no choice but to move up to a larger car if you wanted some quality. However, the Malibu and Aura have shown that GM really can build a decent smaller car. |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Nov 29, 2008 5:13 am) |
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Nov 29, 2008 6:15 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
