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
8272 messages, Last post on Nov 24, 2009 at 5:33 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: circlew (Jul 05, 2009 1:17 pm) 1- Chrysler 300 2- Hyundai Genesis Sedan. Neither is made in USA as far as I know. |
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Jul 04, 2009 10:31 am) Impala really kinda sucks, but that's why it's perfect for fleet-fodder. Make the Chevy LaCrosse a Celebrity or Lumina, keep Impala and make it fleet-only. So here's a novel idea for the "new GM". Dump Buick except in China. Sell the fleet-fodder cars and commercial trucks through GMC! Sell cars for the public at Chevrolet. No fleet sales, just good vehicles. No overlap with GMC. So you would have only the Traverse at Chevy (no more Acadia/Enclave/etc.), and you could have a GMC Impala for fleets. You sell your commercial trucks at GMC as well. So then you don't even need GMC dealers as all sales are commerical (trucks, fleet cars). Chevy and Caddy are your two lines a la Lexus/Toyota or Honda/Acura.
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm) 1- Chevrolet: Mainstream 2- Buick: FWD luxury cars a la Acura/Volvo 3- Cadillac: RWD luxury cars like BMW/Mercedes All vehicles whether they are passenger cars, trucks, or crossovers can fall under these three depending on price and class. Therefore, no more GMC. |
|
|
Replying to: cooterbfd (Jul 05, 2009 8:23 am) Heck, they were able to take it longer than that...the Impala, and Caprice, actually had styling changes every year up through 1981! 1980 was a more aerodynamic reskin of the '77-79, with a lower nose and slightly taller rear deck, and elimination of the wraparound rear window on the coupes. And for 1981 they actually made the effort to change the grille on both the Impala and Caprice, although they didn't bother with the taillights. And then they used the same grille from 1981-85. One reason they quit with the annual styling changes might have been those 5 mph bumpers. Before 1973, the bumper was often more decoration than anything else. As a result, it could be blended into the overall style of the car to make it look good...regardless of how good of a job the bumper actually did in protecting the car! But in 1973, the 5 mph standard was applied to front bumpers, and then the rear in 1974. So now, all of a sudden, instead of just styling the bumper to look pretty, they had to design it to be functional. And if it failed in the function, it had to be redesigned again until they got it right. As a result, once they got a bumper design that did the job, they were probably reluctant to mess with it any more than necessary. Also, aerodynamics became much more important, so that resulted in a more generic look to cars, as there are only so many shapes, creases, textures, etc that will efficiently slice through the wind. And, I'd imagine the rough economic times of the 1979-83 timeframe helped put a damper on annual styling changes. Chrysler and Ford almost went bankrupt (Chrysler would have if the gov't hadn't stepped up with loan guarantees). And even the mighty GM was feeling the pinch. There was one year in there, either 1982 or 1983, that the only reason GM even made money was because of GMAC financing. Without it, they would have been in the red as well. So, with issues like that going on suddenly doing things like changing the grille, taillights, or a crease here and there, seemed pretty petty. Oh, one other thing...I'd imagine those tightening emissions standards in the 1970's probably took money away from the annual styling changes. The auto makers suddenly had to divert money towards more efficient engines, transmissions, fuel delivery systems. Plus, increased safety standards. I do miss those days of annual styling changes, and more autonomy of the divisions, that helped make the cars so much more unique. But, I'm afraid those days are gone for good. 
|
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 9:39 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jul 05, 2009 12:48 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 06, 2009 4:19 am) |
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 06, 2009 5:16 am)  My brother had one of these babies and was cut off out on L.I. and sliced a telephone pole in half as a result. Walked away unscathed but the beauty had to be junked. He got a 1964 Malibu next! Regards, OW
|
|
|
Replying to: circlew (Jul 06, 2009 6:28 am) I've always heard conflicting stories though, on how well-built the '58 Chevies were. On one hand, they had that wasp-waisted X-frame, which you'd think would allow for more twisting, which would make for more rattles. And I'd also think it would fare pretty poorly in a t-bone wreck. But on the other hand, to account for the lack of side protection and the twisting, the body of the car was beefed up. So while the car was still body-on-frame, some Unibody techniques were applied to the body, so the overall result was a bit of a hybrid of the two. I always thought the '58 Chevy was a good looking car. I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer it to the '57.
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 06, 2009 6:35 am) So, GM HAS been building hybrids all along!!!! 
|
|
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
