![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
I'm utterly shocked at this. I thought for sure the economy would completey turn around and GM would start making products comparable to honda and toyota within the past 6 months.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Saboth:
Your right. GM and US cars in general are not comparable to Japanese or German cars but not in any way here that people hit on.
US cars are UGLY!
Let's just say I'm going though my midlife crisis and I have 30k to spend on any car I want, new or used.
GM seriously? the new malibu or caprice classic?
Compare their line up to basically any BMW. Cadillac should stack up pretty equal to bmw 5&7 series and falls short in terms of looks.
The Japanese cars have a small sporty style. The US has what? I can't even think a a comparable model.
Sports cars/muscle cars. The corvette out performs most anything. When it comes to looks If I have my 30k and I can get a used Targa or a used Corvette it's not even a contest.
Muscle cars, the charger(and I'm not a mopar man) is a US win here. The new Camero at least doesn't suck. The new Mustang ugh, just look at an BMW M3.
I want to like my car and the way I look in it. The us can't do that
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-259013-100x100.png\")
@Techguy1138: Um, appearance is pretty subjective, and by and large I would say that you're in the minority. BMW's Bangle butt and flame surfacing has been very controversial and poorly regarded for quite some time. I would say the Solstice and Sky are both better looking than the Z4, the G8 is better looking than the 5 series, etc... Why would you compare a $20,000 vanilla mid-size sedan to $50,000 luxury cars? The fact that you don't like the new Corvette really shows how little aesthetic sense you have...
The Altima coupe does look pretty sweet though.
@nataku83: You mean the Pontiac solstice? AS in no longer being made?
The sky is nice but I' don't really know much about roadsters.
I can also assure you that I'm not in the minority when it comes to looks. BMW has the lust factor over any GM offering.
The corvette is nice. It outperforms anything in it's price range. It's too small for me ( 6'2\") and I still think the Porsche looks nicer in the same(lower) price range.
You may not like the BWM styling but you didn't come up with any US badged cars that compete in the mid boxy size bracket. There may be great ones I just haven't seen 'em.
@nataku83: Yeah. I'm not a big appearance person. I'm one of those boring people who would have driven the Ford Taurus back in the '80's like my parents did. For that contingent, the basic reliability and value of the car is the most important thing (and my understanding where the most car sales fall, like the Camry).
@Saboth: Hate to break it to you, but GM already DOES make products that are equal to or better than the stuff Honda and Toyota has been tossing out there. Even more damning, GM has also had much more fuel efficient vehicles out there, and have a better MPG rating across all their lines than either of the big Japanese two.
The problem is perception and fact are two different thing. Its a fact that their stuff has gotten a lot better, its the perception that it hasn't.
The biggest issue is GM has done a miserable job of proving to people its stuff is better, especially when you have people out there who are making it their special interest to convince people otherwise for financial and political gain.
No, the problem isn't perception. GM still sells tons of cars. More than anyone in the US, even now. The problem is that they lose money on almost all of them. For some reason people can't seem to wrap their head around this. Changing \"perception\" and making more fuel efficient cars won't change the fact that they lose money on virtually every car they make.
Until this changes, GM is toast. And I've not seen a solution, either from GM or Barry O, that addresses or changes this.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-323201-100x100.png\")
@Jim Topoleski: GM already DOES make products that are equal to or better than the stuff Honda and Toyota has been tossing out there.
The problem with that is that these wundercars are only available in non-US markets. If they started selling some of their smaller European models here they'd be in better shape. Rather than giving the car companies $ to stay afloat, the government could change crash requirements to match those of Europe, and these cars could be available within a matter of weeks. They're already being made; no R&D sink or additional overhead.
@Wireless Joe: That's an interesting point, but not a politically expedient one. No elected official is going to run on a platform \"Making Americans Less Safe On The Cheap!\"
I'll give them 1-2 cars like the Malibu, etc...but honestly...HONESTLY do you think they have anything at all comparable to things like the Civic and Fit? Caval...I mean Cobalt? Lol....
@Saboth: The type of Civic everyone drives as oposed to the souped up models? Easily the Astra, yet it was a misserable seller despite being one of the best cars I have driven.
The FIT? Trust me as the owner of one, its not all the write home about. It does lug shit though and gets great milage doing it, but even in its sport version which my wife owns, its not a \"fun\" car, more like appliance.
@Saboth: The problem with GM is that while the cars may have improved, they are still way too fucking expensive especially compared to the Honda or Toyota equivalent.
You can buy an auto camry (EX?) or accord LX ith a fairly decent package (air, CD, etc) and it will cost you between 18-19K. That Malibu? Gonna cost you 25K plus (which is about how much a basic, but decently outfitted avalon costs).
The Pontiac Vibe is the exact same car as the Toyota Matrix. Why the hell is it 3 thousand bucks more expensive? It isn't labor costs. It's the fucking licensing fees the domestics are paying because they designed shitty cars and didn't keep up with the imports R&D/development (Toyota actually makes a ton of money licensing its hybrid technology for instance). Sigh.
@Trulymadlyme: Unfortunately, GM's pricing is mostly based on incentives and dealer markdowns - if you actually go into a dealership and attempt to negotiate, you can get a similarly optioned GM vehicle for thousands less than the equivalent Honda or Toyota.
@Saboth: This is fantastic justification... Just because GM doesn't produce a better car in EVERY single market segment, all GM product is shit. Most people who dislike GM product haven't even been in one of their cars in the last 10 years. I personally would pick a Cobalt over a Civic / Fit, mostly because I've gotten quotes on them for 11k whereas you can't walk out of a dealership with a Fit / Civic for less than about 16k, and the Cobalt XFE has higher rated fuel economy (unfortunately, since I don't own one, I can't attest to it's real world fuel economy). Plus, most Hondas I've ever seen use a timing belt, which is a really nasty expense to have to replace every 60-100 thousand miles (not sure what the interval is on those specific cars). The Cobalt uses a timing chain - maintenance free, and should last at least 300k miles.
@nataku83: Yeah this is where GM loses me. I can't stand dealing with dealerships and the whole haggling game. The entire process pisses me off and there's always a wondering pang of thought as to whether I am indeed being fucked over. There's got to be massive disparity in what people are paying for GM cars.
@Trulymadlyme: You kidding me? A decent LX accord is almost 24k. I got a fully equipped Aura for the same amount, with EVERYTHING including leather.
Honda nickel and dimes you every step of the way, they can make a 16 grand FIT equal 20 grand.
@Jim Topoleski: [cars.overstock.com]
Try overstock. I wouldn't walk into a dealership without checking it first.
@Jim Topoleski: Didn't Top Gear reveal the Pruis does more damage to the environment just being created than if it was never built at all? It's like there are some forests out there that have a carbon footprint, but we should plant more trees?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-410094-100x100.png\")
@SpaceBatCowboy_GitEmSteveDave: I love you for referencing Top Gear, and yes, they did reveal that just making a Prius hurts the environment
@Eldritch: @SpaceBatCowboy_GitEmSteveDave: 1) Jeremy Clarkson is generally full of shit. 2) Do a bit of research on this \"study\" that he referenced. It's more commonly (in the US) compared to a Hummer, not a Land Rover, and it was done by a marketing company. They calculate the total lifetime cost of the Hummer as about $500,000 over 300,000 miles, and the Prius as something like $700,000 over 100,000 miles (they neglect to actually use units of energy, and justify this by saying that it will confuse normal people).
One of the fun things they do is say the total cost of the vehicle is the initial sale price PLUS the value of the vehicle each time it is resold, assuming it is resold something like 5 times throughout it's lifetime - so therefore, better resale value means that the vehicle's production had more negative environmental impact!?!?!?! Anyway, this is just an example, there are plenty of sites debunking the study, and it's pretty shameless that Mr. Clarkson brought up such a baseless attempt to discredit the Prius, on the air.
Also, I would like to point out that the acid rain causing nickel mining facilities were cleaned up in the 70s and have a much smaller environmental impact today.
Finally, Top Gear did do a comparison between the Prius being driven at full throttle around a race course, and an M3 following it, and found the M3 got about 10-15% better fuel economy at that pace. He then used this to justify that it's not the car, it's how you drive it, which is again, only a half truth. Driven sedately, the Prius will achieve much higher fuel economy (duh) than the M3, they were just operating it much farther from optimal conditions. While Top Gear is a very entertaining show, please don't base your opinions on it - it's entertainment only, it is not factual and Jeremy Clarkson really is an ass who's willing to manipulate any facts to try to support his viewpoint.
@nataku83: Uh, no. Top Gear analyzed the resources used and their toll on the environment. Batteries sadly don't grow on trees yet, so the toxic materials used to create them take a toll to be mined/processed/disposed/etc... Did you even read my comment? I in no way mentioned \"costs\", I mentioned damage to the environment.
@SpaceBatCowboy_GitEmSteveDave:
Man, you should have your gold star revoked for believing everything you hear. Also, why don't you try reading MY comment instead of skimming it and picking up a few details. I WILL PUT THE MOST IMPORTANT SECTIONS IN CAPS SO THAT YOU CAN TRY TO FOLLOW.
Top Gear at no point analyzed the resources used to build a Prius and their toll on the environment
). They did not present numbers showing how many KW-H were required to manufacture the car, mine the nickel for the batteries, transport it, etc... - they referenced a STUDY done by a MARKETING firm, and then pointed to a map and said \"boy, I bet it costs a lot of energy to do all this\" without actually providing any evidence whatsoever. When I was talking about costs, I was referencing the same study as Top Gear. As I said before, IN THIS STUDY, THEY REPRESENT ENERGY COST WITH DOLLARS, NOT UNITS OF ENERGY. The sale price and resale values are used to calculate ENERGY COST.My point was that this study is COMPLETELY INVALID, was not generated by engineers or anyone who is even remotely familiar with math and science, and has subsequently been used by every anti-Prius douchebag out there to claim that the Prius is an environmental disaster when it is not. THERE IS NO MERIT TO THIS STUDY!!!
And if you want to read the study yourself, just to see how much bullshit it contains:
@Techguy1138: Um, Pontiac G8 is pretty much a 5-series competitor and it looks great. The Caddy STS and CTS are also both nice looking. It's kind of ridiculous to base a claim that all GM vehicles look bad simply by looking at the mid-size, boxy luxury car bracket... The Solstice is still being made as far as I'm aware, and yes, GM is going to be discontinuing its best cars (including the Solstice and the G8) due to the restructuring because they're the most niche (Toyota sells a lot more ugly-ass Camrys than BMW does 5 series) vehicles, and they don't make enough money on them. It's a shame that car companies have to be judged by non-enthusiast morons, or else GM would be doing a lot better right now... Also, the base Boxster costs $3k less than a Corvette, while the Corvette outperforms a 911 that starts at $27k more.
@nataku83:
\" Um, Pontiac G8 is pretty much a 5-series competitor and it looks great.\"
\"GM is going to be discontinuing its best cars (including the Solstice and the G8)\"
I really liked the Pontiac badge. It's dead. All my previous cars have been Pontiac's I learned a lot about auto repair from them.
\" It's a shame that car companies have to be judged by non-enthusiast morons, \"
They're called customers. You must be a GM marketer or executive.
\"Corvette outperforms a 911 that starts at $27k more.\"
I drive on the street and my nerves only go up to 120mph. After looking at the 09 vette they did a great job. I was only looking at cars I could get for 30k or less though. It'll be a few years before that filters down to reality.
@Techguy1138: STS-Vs look like they're going for right around 30k. I don't work for GM, I just think they make great daily drivers. I own a Saturn wagon, an '85 BMW E30 and a '90 Miata. Fun cars are great, I just like to have something cheap, reliable and efficient for when I need to get stuff done, and my experience has been that Japanese cars are not any more reliable and the parts cost a whole lot more.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
@Jim Topoleski: You mean putting Howie Long on TV vs. a ridiculous straw man and have him act like a dick isn't effective marketing?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343837-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-439678-100x100.png\")
@wgrune: I think it only works for so long and that campaign is starting to go downhill.
I don't have any numbers but I like Microsoft's counter-campaign. It's like in a political campaign where people get sick of the negative campaign. The MS ads don't directly attack Macs and unless you've seen the Mac Vs PC campaign you wouldn't know that they're digging at them.
@wgrune: Because they didn't use Howie Long and they made \"Mac\" nice. But I think you're totally right in the inspiration.
The biggest difference is that the Mac guy makes fun of MS and Howie Long makes fun of potential customers. Hell, Apple's PC character comes across better than Howie.
@KyleOrton: Yeah, GM's marketing blows, but once a car company loses people's trust, it's almost impossible to get it back. GM has been making great products, but there's nothing they can say or do to convince people to buy them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-307161-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-936444-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-917643-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52435-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-449069-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469349-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22998-100x100.png\")
Well, I've got $4.25, a button and some pocket lint... come on everyone... if we just all give a couple of bucks we can save GM!
@Thaddeus: or we wait a month and we will be forced into \"saving\" GM!