GM Inside News Forum banner

Make Chevrolet Great Again!

13K views 100 replies 40 participants last post by  NoStopN 
#1 · (Edited)
All these threads about the possible Opel sale to PSA have me thinking. It's pretty obvious that GM wants to get away from selling cars and sell more CUVs and SUVs in North America, which they deem easier and more profitable to sell.

Why can't GM or more specifically Chevrolet make a killing at selling passenger cars? Me personally, I'm not very happy with what Chevy offers as far exterior design, packaging, and lack of performance options. Sooooooooooooooo much room for improvement, that is so obvious.

Let's take the Malibu for instance. The Malibu - as a product - should be a cash cow for Chevy. I know a lot of you find the car attractive to look at, but if you see one without the 19" wheels, it's just plain butt ugly. And those 19 inchers puts you into a $31,000 car before options. Come on now.Why can't the base $21,000 Malibu look good?

It's pretty easy to load up a Malibu Premier and be in the $35,000 range. Does that make sense? Not to me. So many other choices for that kind of money. Hell, I'd rather spend a few extra bucks and get a base Alfa Romeo Giulia for $37,995.

We can talk about the Malibu or any other Chevy passenger car here. But it's almost as if Chevy is actually TRYING to sabotage it's own passenger car business.

Let me hear how you think Chevy should fix it's passenger car problems.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
The problem with a lot of Chebby's has always been unless you get the top tier, it's pretty "meh". I felt that a lot of Opel's designs were good, like the last gen Regal GS (which failed for a lot of reasons, styling not one of them). Regardless, styling isn't the Malibu or Impala's problem, both are infinitely better looking than the Focus or Taurus. GM charges top tier pricing and doesn't offer anything better than a mid line engine, 2.0T in the Malibu and 3.6 in the Impala. Those should NOT be top engines.

Some of the choices they make on the lower tier ones appear to only be for the benefit of making you want a nicer one.

GM's pricing structure in general is a bit out of whack. That and outside of the Camaro, Corvette and the 6.2L trucks, they don't offer anything with power. Ford and FCA do.
 
#5 ·
For me at 6'-5" and mid-60s there's just no way in hell I want to fold up, fall down and twist my way into the seat of any passenger car when I can comfortably swing into a SUV/CUV with the seat at butt level and an accommodating roof height. My wife just traded her 2014 Cruze for a new Encore that is better equipped, similar MPG, same lease payment and much easier to enter and exit. I think the fading away of the passenger car is about this factor more than any other.
 
#7 ·
Good point. My wife has been in one SUV or another for almost 20 years. There is no going back for her. She is now an SUV/CUV gal. When she rides in my car, she'll usually state that "it feels like my ass is dragging on the pavement". As far as SUVs go, she's "in".


So how can a transportation appliance passenger car compete with that? It can't! Not unless the primary factor is to get one dirt cheap, but most of these cars are actually similarly priced with some options.

So maybe, if we accept this fact, maybe cars need to be a bit more special than they have been. During the 20 years my wife has been driving her SUVs, I've been driving my cars. All of them cool products. All of them with a manual trans. All of them fun to drive and look at. Maybe the key is to create cars that have a little excitement to them. Just a thought.
 
#13 · (Edited)
But that Impala with the "Base" rear bumper looks like poo poo, you need the "dual exhaust" rear bumper to look good. Why? Does it really cost more? It's like they purposely made it look blah for the sake of making you want the nice one.

3.6 is a great engine setup, throw a 9 speed in there and it will continue to be great. But why can't you get anything better? Ford has the (now) dated SHO, FCA's v6 may be a worse setup, but they offer 3 (yes 3) bigger v8's. Now, the Impala doesn't need to be a Hellcat competitor, but why not at least the SHO?
Since "cars" and "suvs" are essentially built off the same chassis, it should not be a question of why this? or why that?

The problem is with management, it always has been and it always will be. GM management strikes me as similar to joints like Red China. Hear me out.
Chairhomie Mao pruned many of his most talented people during his Great Purge. Tens of millions of his own citizens murdered pitilessly.
Why? Because creative, intelligent, talented people are a threat to the established order.

Never mind that the established order has power on its side. Like all bureaucracies it also has CONTROL and tunnel vision on its side.

So. To stick to my own area of experience. I NEVER EVER in a million years (exaggeration; I am not a million years old, nor have I been buying cars for a million years) would have imagined myself in one of those tall boxes. Krikey! I'm a See-Dan Man! Yes I Can!

But the Soul ads, from the original hamster cage ad to the Super Bowl ads to other formidably clever ads, on through the 12 Steps of Creativity, caught my attention. So when I ditched my GXP and 200 I visited the KIA dealer. Keep in mind that prior to 2008, I considered KIA a joke. Not a real car.

Driving the Spectra changed my mind. Sedan. Excellent car, it reminded me of nothing so much as my 1966 Rover 2000, overall probably the finest car I've ever owned.

Anyway, I visited the KIA dealer again because between d-i-l and me we'd had 3 KIAs that were excellent cars, no worries.

I bought a '13 Soul. Excellent car, VERY handy. I traded it--big mistake--for a Charger which I should have Lemon Lawed but didn't.

I've had my current Soul for 2 1/2 years, somewhat of a modern record outside of the Spectra...hmmm. But I've had that hankerin'. I leased a Chally and decided it wasn't what I wanted. Got rid of it, finally, a couple of weeks ago. But I do want a sedan again. I want the lower profile and better MPG that a sedan does and a ute doesn't. Plus I want more agility than a two-ton car has.

I even dropped in to the Buick dealer yesterday, because I am so up-to-here with the rectum-like no-IQ KIA and Hyundai sales jerks. Verano. Looks nice, feels nice, sits nice. The base 2.4 mill is rated at 24/32. Huh? What year is this?
And they quit making these.
Because the Encore is a runaway success. (Who at Caddy would ever have suspected that? Nobody, that's who.)

And they don't lease Veranos. "They stop leasing around October," the sales guy said. Wuh?:confused:

So...At the Cruz thread, I suggested if Chibby wants to moooo-vvv some Cruz hatches, they do a bit of re-engineering. Raise the roof to 60-61". Raise the seats to 24-25" off the ground. PT Cruiser altitude. Bend the sheet metal again so the car looks OK.

Bingo. You have a compromise--to use the new word hybrid--between sedan (or hatch version) and ute. I think it would be a happy medium. But there seems a hard-and-fast rule, sedans are 57" tall, give or take an inch or two. Honda dropped the Civic. In the Utility Era. Huh?

In summary.
1. Advertising. GM is hopeless here. Other than wholesale dismissal of the decision-makers, GM ads--excepting GMC, which are OK--will remain 6' under for the forseeable future.
Those horrid Chibby oh wow! ads, they are on a level with Zip Recruiter (yes, doing your job is SOOO difficult! Boo hoo snowflake! Don't worry! A bot like Zip will replace you before you're finished whining!) and Liberty Mutual (hey...don't drive your car into a tree or the river, you won't have that problem! Hint: it's not the insurance company that drove your car into a tree!) for the Idiocracy Awards Ceremony.
Great advertising made the Soul. It will NOT make the Chibbys.

2. Give them what they want. Try a couple of years of option lists vs. mandatory packages that force you into a 27 grand Cruz just because you want dual zone and heated seats. And put back the sunglasses holder, it's cheap and it's handy and for some people it's a deal breaker.

3. Unlock your creative people in design, engineering, advertising. The top few layers of suits should be encouraged to retire.

4. Last but not least, fix the sales experience. Almost everyone hates car salesmen and car dealerships. Gee I wonder why? Because car salesmen are 95% A-Holes? Try a few dealerships with some Honda (hahaha!) AI robots waiting on you. As everywhere else, bots will bring costs down and reliability up. The money you save on sales staff can cut car prices or increase warranties or improve training in the service department.
To just respond to one of your points, Verano was a great car that was left to rot. Update the dash, color driver info and put the 2.5 in instead of the 2.4, or just offer the 2.0T across the board (price justifies it), maybe some lighting updates to keep it fresh and BAM, great car again. It had everything it needed when it was released and it sold well, but they never updated it.
 
#10 · (Edited)
***Boiled Down***

GM can't make any money selling an "economical" sedan, so either they entice you to pay-up for a higher-trimmed version or a CUV.

It is much easier to "overcharge" for a CUV than get you to pay-up for a car; look at what Chrysler just did, Dart/200 - GONE.

Try this; base price for a Trax is ~$5,000/30% higher than a Sonic, what does it cost GM another $1,000 to $2,000?

- So if GM breaks-even on a Sonic, they are making $3,000 more on a Trax.


2-cents
 
#17 · (Edited)
***Boiled Down***

GM can't make any money selling a "economical" sedans, so either they entice you to pay-up for a higher-trimmed version or a CUV.

It is much easier to "overcharge" for a CUV than get you to pay-up for a car; look at what Chrysler just did, Dart/200 - GONE.

Try this; base price for a Trax is ~$5,000/30% higher than a Sonic, what does it cost GM another $1,000 to $2,000?

- So if GM breaks-even on a Sonic, they are making $3,000 more on a a Sonic.


2-cents
Because GM and Chrysler/FCA are both bloated pigs when it comes to cost structures. They both need leaders who will actually do the dirty work of going into the corporate structure with a machete and cutting fat.

Isn't GM making record profits? They must be doing something right!
Banks were making record profits before the mortgage crisis. Similarly, subprime lending in autos right now is out of control.
 
#11 · (Edited)
Since "cars" and "suvs" are essentially built off the same chassis, it should not be a question of why this? or why that?

The problem is with management, it always has been and it always will be. GM management strikes me as similar to joints like Red China. Hear me out.

Chairhomie Mao pruned many of his most talented people during his Great Purge. Tens of millions of his own citizens murdered pitilessly.
Why? Because creative, intelligent, talented people are a threat to the established order.

Never mind that the established order has power on its side. Like all bureaucracies it also has CONTROL and tunnel vision on its side.

So. To stick to my own area of experience. I NEVER EVER in a million years (exaggeration; I am not a million years old, nor have I been buying cars for a million years) would have imagined myself in one of those tall boxes. Krikey! I'm a See-Dan Man! Yes I Can!

But the Soul ads, from the original hamster cage ad to the Super Bowl ads to other formidably clever ads, on through the 12 Steps of Creativity, caught my attention. So when I ditched my GXP and 200 I visited the KIA dealer. Keep in mind that prior to 2008, I considered KIA a joke. Not a real car.

Driving the Spectra changed my mind. Sedan. Excellent car, it reminded me of nothing so much as my 1966 Rover 2000, overall probably the finest car I've ever owned.

Anyway, I visited the KIA dealer again because between d-i-l and me we'd had 3 KIAs that were excellent cars, no worries.

I bought a '13 Soul. Excellent car, VERY handy. I traded it--big mistake--for a Charger which I should have Lemon Law'ed but didn't.

I've had my current Soul for 2 1/2 years, somewhat of a modern record outside of the Spectra...hmmm. But I've had that hankerin'. I leased a Chally and decided it wasn't what I wanted. Got rid of it, finally, a couple of weeks ago.
But I do want a sedan again. I want the lower profile and better MPG that a sedan does and a ute doesn't. And I want more agility than a two-ton car has.

My shootout is now down to Elantra Value Edition, Optima EX/pan roof, and Optima 1.6t.

I even dropped in to the Buick dealer yesterday, because I am so up-to-here with the rectum-like no-IQ KIA and Hyundai sales jerks.
Verano. Looks nice, feels nice, sits nice. The base 2.4 mill is rated at 24/32. Huh? What year is this?
And they quit making these.
Because the Encore is a runaway success. (Who at Caddy would ever have suspected that? Nobody, that's who.)

And they don't lease Veranos.:confused: "They stop leasing around October," the sales guy said. Wuh?:confused:

So...At the Cruz thread, I suggested if Chibby wants to moooo-vvv some Cruz hatches, they do a bit of re-engineering. Raise the roof to 60-61". Raise the seats to 24-25" off the ground. PT Cruiser altitude. Bend the sheet metal again so the car looks OK.

Bingo. You have a compromise--to use the new word hybrid--between sedan (or hatch version) and ute. I think it would be a happy medium. But there seems a hard-and-fast rule, sedans are 57" tall, give or take an inch or two. Honda dropped the Civic's height an inch or two. Or the seats anyway.
In the Utility Era. Huh?

In summary.
1. Advertising. GM is hopeless here. Other than wholesale dismissal of the decision-makers, GM ads--excepting GMC, which are OK--will remain 6' under for the forseeable future.
Those horrid Chibby oh wow! ads, they are on a level with Zip Recruiter (yes, doing your job is SOOO difficult! Boo hoo snowflake! Don't worry! A bot like Zip will replace you before you're finished whining!) and Liberty Mutual (hey...don't drive your car into a tree or the river, you won't have that problem! Hint: it's not the insurance company that drove your car into a tree!) for the Idiocracy Awards Ceremony.
Great advertising made the Soul. It will NOT make the Chibbys.
Because there is NO HOPE for Chibby ads to be great again. Dinah Shore is dead, so is Chibby advertising.

2. Give the customers what they want. Try a couple of years of option lists vs. mandatory packages that force you into a 27 grand Cruz just because you want dual zone and heated seats. And put back the sunglasses holder, it's cheap and it's handy and for some people it's a deal breaker.

3. Unlock your creative people in design, engineering, advertising. The top few layers of suits should be encouraged to retire.

4. Last but not least, fix the sales experience. Almost everyone hates car salesmen and car dealerships. Gee I wonder why? Because car salesmen are 95% A-Holes?

Try a few dealerships with some Honda (hahaha!) AI robots waiting on you. As everywhere else, bots will bring costs down and reliability up. The money you save on sales staff can cut car prices or increase warranties or improve training in the service department.
 
#12 ·
Since "cars" and "suvs" are essentially built off the same chassis, it should not be a question of why this? or why that?

The problem is with management, it always has been and it always will be. GM management strikes me as similar to joints like Red China. Hear me out.
Chairhomie Mao pruned many of his most talented people during his Great Purge. Tens of millions of his own citizens murdered pitilessly.
Why? Because creative, intelligent, talented people are a threat to the established order.

Never mind that the established order has power on its side. Like all bureaucracies it also has CONTROL and tunnel vision on its side.

So. To stick to my own area of experience. I NEVER EVER in a million years (exaggeration; I am not a million years old, nor have I been buying cars for a million years) would have imagined myself in one of those tall boxes. Krikey! I'm a See-Dan Man! Yes I Can!

But the Soul ads, from the original hamster cage ad to the Super Bowl ads to other formidably clever ads, on through the 12 Steps of Creativity, caught my attention. So when I ditched my GXP and 200 I visited the KIA dealer. Keep in mind that prior to 2008, I considered KIA a joke. Not a real car.

Driving the Spectra changed my mind. Sedan. Excellent car, it reminded me of nothing so much as my 1966 Rover 2000, overall probably the finest car I've ever owned.

Anyway, I visited the KIA dealer again because between d-i-l and me we'd had 3 KIAs that were excellent cars, no worries.

I bought a '13 Soul. Excellent car, VERY handy. I traded it--big mistake--for a Charger which I should have Lemon Lawed but didn't.

I've had my current Soul for 2 1/2 years, somewhat of a modern record outside of the Spectra...hmmm. But I've had that hankerin'. I leased a Chally and decided it wasn't what I wanted. Got rid of it, finally, a couple of weeks ago. But I do want a sedan again. I want the lower profile and better MPG that a sedan does and a ute doesn't. Plus I want more agility than a two-ton car has.

I even dropped in to the Buick dealer yesterday, because I am so up-to-here with the rectum-like no-IQ KIA and Hyundai sales jerks. Verano. Looks nice, feels nice, sits nice. The base 2.4 mill is rated at 24/32. Huh? What year is this?
And they quit making these.
Because the Encore is a runaway success. (Who at Caddy would ever have suspected that? Nobody, that's who.)

And they don't lease Veranos. "They stop leasing around October," the sales guy said. Wuh?:confused:

So...At the Cruz thread, I suggested if Chibby wants to moooo-vvv some Cruz hatches, they do a bit of re-engineering. Raise the roof to 60-61". Raise the seats to 24-25" off the ground. PT Cruiser altitude. Bend the sheet metal again so the car looks OK.

Bingo. You have a compromise--to use the new word hybrid--between sedan (or hatch version) and ute. I think it would be a happy medium. But there seems a hard-and-fast rule, sedans are 57" tall, give or take an inch or two. Honda dropped the Civic. In the Utility Era. Huh?

In summary.
1. Advertising. GM is hopeless here. Other than wholesale dismissal of the decision-makers, GM ads--excepting GMC, which are OK--will remain 6' under for the forseeable future.
Those horrid Chibby oh wow! ads, they are on a level with Zip Recruiter (yes, doing your job is SOOO difficult! Boo hoo snowflake! Don't worry! A bot like Zip will replace you before you're finished whining!) and Liberty Mutual (hey...don't drive your car into a tree or the river, you won't have that problem! Hint: it's not the insurance company that drove your car into a tree!) for the Idiocracy Awards Ceremony.
Great advertising made the Soul. It will NOT make the Chibbys.

2. Give them what they want. Try a couple of years of option lists vs. mandatory packages that force you into a 27 grand Cruz just because you want dual zone and heated seats. And put back the sunglasses holder, it's cheap and it's handy and for some people it's a deal breaker.

3. Unlock your creative people in design, engineering, advertising. The top few layers of suits should be encouraged to retire.

4. Last but not least, fix the sales experience. Almost everyone hates car salesmen and car dealerships. Gee I wonder why? Because car salesmen are 95% A-Holes? Try a few dealerships with some Honda (hahaha!) AI robots waiting on you. As everywhere else, bots will bring costs down and reliability up. The money you save on sales staff can cut car prices or increase warranties or improve training in the service department.

I can just see the product planning meetings.

FIRST DWEEB: "We'll manipulate the option packages so everyone ends up with a $27,000 Cruze, a $32,000 Malibu and $40,000 Camaro"

SECOND DWEEB: "Brillant! We're gonna be rich!!!"
 
#15 ·
GM is almost there with Chevy. Add more diesels, performance trim levels and a SS replacement. All low selling items but good for the brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMERICA 123
#18 · (Edited)
As much as I loved the old Cobalt SS, I really feel that having invested in the Camaro and Corvette is already more than most non-performance brands offer (except for Nissan, with their 370Z and GT-R). What Chevrolet needs to do is focus on reliability on their mainstream sedans like the Cruze and Malibu. I'm not saying that reliability is a problem now, but I am saying that no matter the model, version, or year, you should be able to buy one and drive it 300K+ miles without wondering what are some of the recalls or other issues to look out for (intake gaskets, head gaskets, oil leaks, ignition lock cylinders, etc.).

More than this, Chevrolet needs to ditch the alarmingly stupid and fake "real people" ads, and replace them with a 10+ year run of reliability test ads: "We took a Corolla, a Civic, and a Cruze, and put them on these chassis dyno machines 24/7/365 for 1,000,000 miles. Let's see which one lasted the longest..." This is the reason that these models are such cash cows for Honda and Toyota--because people know they are rock solid choices. This was Chrysler's downfall, as the latest 200 was a great car in many ways, but in all honesty, I don't know if I would have dropped $30K+ on a Chrysler that might not make it to 100K mi without major repair bills. I'm not saying it definitely would, but that is an unknown quantity--and people don't want that in their second largest purchase after their home.

The main reason that the trucks are immune to this, is that they were unchallenged in the market for so long, that they have the upper hand in reputation there. Not so with GM's sedans that have changed names multiple times over to escape sometimes questionable build quality: Cavalier > Cobalt > Cruze, Celebrity > Lumina > Malibu. The interior of the current Impala could use a more modern design--less grampsmobile wide dash and steering wheel, but outside, I actually find the front to be the best interpretation of the Chevy corporate grille. The Malibu is also quite sharp in the right trims. While the engineering improved significantly on the latest Cobalt, the design is a step backwards in almost every way compared to the more three-box shape of the original. It looks like the old Civic. Speaking of which, the Civic is better than the last in most every single way, and will be nearly impossible to beat in every category (including power and economy), so Chevy needs to step up their game, and stop trying to market bad clones of the competition's entry from a few years ago. Hopefully they don't look at the sales as justification to follow Fiat-Chrysler away from cars, which is a shortsighted move IMO.

 
#23 ·
So, what you're saying is Chevy has become vanilla? Just like Toyota? And Chevy is enjoying a rise in sales? The enthusiast in all of us is disappointed in the levels of performance, since more affordable models aren't in the cards. But for the health of the company, they are doing the daily grind & bringing home the bacon.
 
#28 ·
Yes I am. I'd also go as far as to say, Chevy has out-vanilla'd Toyota. Enough already. Sometime you want some spumoni.

And if GM is doing so well with passenger cars, why did some unnamed GM execs say to the WSJ that selling more sedans hurts GM's margins and some analysts believe that GM is in the process of "stepping back" from passenger cars?
 
#24 ·
Option packaging has as much to do with logistics and reducing build variation as it does with pricing...it's a strategy to optimize production and profitability simultaneously. GM's current fixed cost structure is actually pretty damn lean, if you think they are still straining under legacy costs it just ain't so. Post bankruptcy there was a very focused effort to offload legacy pension costs through either lump sum buyouts or purchased annuities replacing pensions and the costs of those are behind GM. I get my pension check from Prudential as GM offloaded my pension to them years ago...oh and I like it!
 
#36 ·
They need premium design, inside and out and at attractive price points with impeccable quality. If Honda can do it, so can GM.

You can get a Giulia for $38k and a Malibu for $35k, but the Malibu should have everything the Giulia has up to $60,000 or $70,000 and should be ABOUT as quick as the base Giulia.

If you can sell that Malibu with bulletproof reliability AND premium design, your only excuse for poor sales is the fact that you spent the better part of 40 years shafting people with bad product and cementing a horrific corporate brand for yourself that's synonymous with cheaply made, poorly built garbage that would be better off built and sold by another company and everything wrong with middle America and American manufacturing.

I'm not sure how many people understand and to what degree they understand the reality of how many people flat out dismiss cars because they're built by GM.

Had a friend, drives an Audi now, tried to get her to go for Cadillac. "I like them, but I'll never buy a GM car."

Then there's my dad, who's had 9 Cadillacs. "Every time I think about another one, I remember they're built by GM."

Then there's my mother, who immediately dismisses anything built by GM.

Then there's my sister, who adopted all of my mother's opinions.

Then there's my brother-in-law, who occasionally gets a woody for a GM car, but again trashes GM and buys a Honda.

Then there's my friend and his seven-member household, who all hate GM and will never buy a GM product.

I can keep going. My pro-GM anecdotes are few and far between, and almost solely related to GMI... where GM isn't the most well-spoken of company by more than a smattering of posters.

GM has an image problem, and they do themselves favors by not executing 120% on every single product.
 
#40 ·
They need premium design, inside and out and at attractive price points with impeccable quality. If Honda can do it, so can GM.

You can get a Giulia for $38k and a Malibu for $35k, but the Malibu should have everything the Giulia has up to $60,000 or $70,000 and should be ABOUT as quick as the base Giulia.

If you can sell that Malibu with bulletproof reliability AND premium design, your only excuse for poor sales is the fact that you spent the better part of 40 years shafting people with bad product and cementing a horrific corporate brand for yourself that's synonymous with cheaply made, poorly built garbage that would be better off built and sold by another company and everything wrong with middle America and American manufacturing.

I'm not sure how many people understand and to what degree they understand the reality of how many people flat out dismiss cars because they're built by GM.
Very well said.
 
#39 ·
Yeah, we get a lot of that in California too. I don't expect it is as bad in places like Michigan, where patriotism and union pride mean that American sedans are more than just "the other white meat." You basically have a couple of categories: Older folks who had a GM product back when quality was crappy (but everything was crappy, no matter who you bought it from...). They won't go back, even though there is no connection between today's models and something they drove 40 years ago.

Then you have the "conventional wisdom" folks. I hate to sound racist, but it is usually people with heritage from other countries, especially Asian but also Western European--and I am including Americans with that group, just ones that aren't like 5th generation. It doesn't matter what you tell them, they know better than you, and nothing will ever change their minds. I have countless friends who have had car trouble, where I had to jump start their car, or pick them up in my Trans Am (that has over 200K mi), and they still think their car is more reliable than mine, even when it leaves them stranded. I could tell them to buy American until I am blue-in-the-face, and they would still buy a Mitsubishi or a VW before they would set foot in a Chevy, which they think is a cheap low-rent alternative to better cars, and something that will fall apart on them. My old roommate's Integra was shaking itself apart at 160K mi, but even if it was reliable, it was far from smooth. He had to get rid of it, but still swears it was in great condition.

Heck, even in my family, which is from Israel, I had this conversation with my cousin's husband there: He kept telling me how they all hate American cars in Israel (not that many are sold there). Then a few sentences later, he mentioned that he loves the Mustang (the classic one). So I asked him, point blank, "But you hate American cars?" "Yes. They are terrible." "But you love the Mustang?" "Yes." I am not sure how he reconciled that one in his head, but it just goes to show the infamy that GM is up against. Even when we love it, we hate it. LOL! :rotf:

I'm pretty sure that all of the premium European marques, BMW, Mercedes, Audi, AlfaRomeo, Maserati, all have worse reliability than anything from GM, but it doesn't matter. I remember when Pontiac produced the Vibe with Toyota on the Matrix/Corolla platform. It just so happened, despite the fact that Toyota did all of the engineering and setup the factory, that the Vibe was the #1 most unreliable vehicle in the GM stable. That goes to show that Japanese and American brands were being measured with different yardsticks. But that is bias for you. Only time will erode the discrepancy. And maybe some decent advertising.
 
#41 · (Edited)
Trans Am? What year?

Speaking of Israelis....an Israeli wanted to buy my '83 Z/28 last year and ship it to Israel. It would have supposedly been the first Camaro in Israel. His agent came to see it, and we couldn't agree on price. A week later, a German bought it and had it shipped to Germany.
 
#49 ·
You must be a young person who doesn't know the "old" GM products. The base Chevrolets have always looked like garbage when compared with their higher lines. The old 210 models of the late 40s and 50s didn't have a piece of chrome on the outside other than bumpers, door handles and grilles. The interiors looked like a taxi. The Special Deluxe and Bel Air were the attractive ones with nice chrome and interiors. When they introduced the ugly 58 Chevrolet, they went to the limit and put one rear light on each side for the base Biscayne, two on each side for the Bel Air and 3 on each side for the newly introducted Impala. I thought that was the ultimate insult to people who couldn't afford the "fancy" one.

I thought GM did better with the base models when they introduced the FWD Impala. You had to pay attention to know if it was a LS base, LT mid-trim or LTZ top of the line. You had to look inside the car to see if you had the bargain basement model or the fancy one (unless you noticed the steel wheels).

I think GM does better now with the base models than they have ever done. Today's base model is yesterday's fancy one.
 
#48 ·
The reason the Malibu is not a cash cow is not because it's not a good car. It's because it doesn't have a 30 year history of excellence. Accord and Camry do. Years of Lumina and some bad Malibus mean there are people that left GM and never came back.

YES the Malibu could use some improvement. A base Malibu LS that looks good with decent wheels and a full dash at a decent price would be nice. That said >>> GM has to build a reputation with this Malibu and the next Malibu to move sales higher and that's tough in a market that favors CUVs.
 
#51 · (Edited)
GM is not good at crafting a brand the way Honda and Toyota have been with the Accord and Camry. GM just doesn't get that. They may say they do, but they don't. If something is disappointing with Sonic/Cruze/Malibu/Impala, GM simply renames it's successor something else, and feel that they have brilliantly dodged a bullet. What they've actually done, is keep a brand from flourishing.
 
#52 ·
Maybe I'm an idiot, but I think that Spark-Sonic-Cruze-Malibu-Impala is one heck of a car lineup. Plus Camaro and Corvette. I don't know that Chevy has ever done better or can do a whole lot better, outside of adding compact and midsize FWD coupes.

Car just don't sell very well these days.
 
#55 · (Edited)
Saying the new Malibu looks like garbage unless it's a premier with the 19's is a huge stretch and not accurate. The actual stripper base trim level L Malibu comes with 16" fascia wheels which look rather cheap but not nearly as cheap as Toyota's base LE Camry plastic bolt on covers or the Nissan Altima's bolt on covers.

Also take note that all 2017 Premier Malibu's now thankfully come with smaller but very attractive bright 18" alloys as std fare with the previously std 19" wheels now part of the sun and wheels group. The 19" wheels destroy the ride quality as do the massive 20" on the LaCrosse and Impala. The best all around alloy wheel for the Malibu is the LT 17" but they look kind of plain.

I could write a book on what is wrong with Chevy and GM's cars these days. Every car they make has built in deficiencies and flaws and the public is noticing. Here are the obvious highlights:

1) Stop/Start- There is no on/off button like in most every competitor. You have to play games with letting off the throttle or putting the car in neutral. Refusal to listen to what the public wants is costing sales.
2) "I didn't even know that existed"! Poor advertising has been a staple at GM for many many years.
3) Shortened warranty periods. Following the heard will get you nowhere you need to do as Kia/Hyundai have and lead by example if you want to attract customers.
4) Fire the cookoo at Cadillac- he is killing the company slowly each year and it's painful to watch
5) Get a "car" guy back at the helm, especially in the decision department. Fiscal responsibility is important but pen pushers need not be running the show
6) No more 9-10 year product cycles and engines like in the Equinox/Terrain. There is no excuse whatsoever that the base 2.4 is still exactly the same as it was when introduced back in 2009 as a 2010
7) Interior storage on your cars is poor. No storage for sun glasses, eliminating the clever behind screen space on the Malibu are all no no's.
8) Quality control- It's still hit and miss and iffy on many models
9) Where's the beef? Other than the Camaro, Corvette and a soon to be defunct SS there is not a single performance entry at Chevy or Buick. (The Regal GS is close but an engine short of greatness)
10) Dealership experience- Yes it still sucks in many cases. Big fancy cookie cutter buildings are not nearly enough. When I bring in my car for service in the morning and the same service advisor acts like he never saw me before a few hours later there is a huge problem. When a car has to be brought in a half dozen times until the problem is fixed that is a huge problem. When an issue like the famous Silverado shake rattle and roll can't be fixed that is a huge problem.
11) Your option packages suck in plain english. It is so obvious that your trying to get everybody into the highest trim level to get something as simple as a leather wheel or a simple safety feature. Ditto on refusing to offer simple things like cruise control on lesser Cruze L and LS models as an example.
12) Last but not least- sticker shock. The majority of your cars have higher sticker prices than most any competitor. Yes there are always the proverbial GM discounts but it's the first impression that counts the most. It's human nature
 
#60 ·
9) Where's the beef? Other than the Camaro, Corvette and a soon to be defunct SS there is not a single performance entry at Chevy or Buick. (The Regal GS is close but an engine short of greatness)

I don't think you can ever have enough performance vehicles. But with two (forgetting the SS), Chevrolet is ahead of most brands. "Other than the Camaro, Corvette..." is a pretty big caveat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AMERICA 123
#56 ·
Honda's Accord and Toyota's Camry are their cash cows. Part of the reason, and I can tell you from working on them up close, is that there are parts of those cars that haven't changed one bit in 30+ years. Things like the accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals are the exact parts, tool and die sets, and assemblies as they were in 1980. Same for items like internal components, accessories, wiring harnesses...... things that don't need to be changed on those cars never are. So the cost to produce them today is zero or negative. You look at every time GM releases a new car there's stuff on there that's changed that doesn't have to be. Who cares if a brake pedal is a new design or a 30 year old design? It's a brake pedal.
 
#57 ·
Kind of funny to hear in the same thread (though not necessarily from the same posters) people saying that they'd buy a Giulia instead of a Malibu. But then other people talking about Chevrolet not having a strong reputation for quality (apparently not having read anything on the topic in the last decade) so they can't buy one. Yeah, go to the Alfa Romeo. Alfa, Fiat, and Chrysler have such a sterling reputation for product quality.
 
#68 ·
Bring back a full size RWD car and I'll buy. Stop building passenger sedans with incredibly stupid insanely angled front and rear glass. I'm 6'2" and I have to contort my body just to get in one of these modern sedans. With modern engines I just don't think coefficient of drag is really that important anymore. It might eke out 1 mpg?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 377Z
#75 ·
Drag coefficient will always be important because drag is drag. (Note: Orville, please don't confuse drag and crossover and trannie--9-speed or otherwise--and other topics here. Just sayin.)

Soul, Elantra, and Forte all use the same basic powertrains. The Soul maxes out at 30 or 31 EPA highway MPG. Cd is .44 last I heard.
The Forte and Elantra Cd run .27 to .30 or so. EPA highway MPG run up to about 38. How much air you push around makes a huge difference. Go ride a bicycle and see.

I think in 10 years (maybe even less than that) we'll witness the death of the passenger car. Crossovers are just becoming too prevalent to be calling them a trend. It's not the end of car enthusiasm, though. Companies can easily make these tall-bodied vehicles very appealing if they wanted to.
I think you greatly exaggerate that death. Many people will NOT buy a utility vehicle no matter what.

The industry should just go back to making tall-bodied sedans instead of producing cringe-worthy vehicles called "crossovers". The Rolls-Royce Phantom is the only modern sedan like that, and it's close to 65 inches tall. The popular Equinox crossover is 65.4 inches tall.
Just as I suggested. SOMEONE will figure this out and take a shot at it. A 60"-61" high see-Dan roof is not a big stretch from the standard 57". Your wind tunnel people can probably keep aero down to .30 or so. Krikey, my 2gen Concordes were .28-.30~ IIRC. So aero is not a modern mystery.

The evolution of passenger cars over the last 40 years and the growth of the SUV/CUV market at the expense of passenger cars is a complex phenomenon, but the key root cause is CAFE and now GHG regulations. Passenger cars evolved in the directions they did under the pressure of passenger car CAFE standards, while SUVs/CUVs/etc. had other options under less stringent truck CAFE standards.

Make sedans taller and the aero losses, which are proportional to frontal area x drag coefficient go up as both of those factors grow. As always there ain't no free lunch and the unintended consequences of regulations can lead to surprising ends decades later.
Hopefully with a new, non-delusional/fanatic group taking charge of EPA we can take a look at dismissing myths like Killer GHG, which I had to look up.


1. Mazda CX-5: 35 miles per gallon

Topping Edmunds’ list of crossovers and SUVs with the best highway fuel economy is the Mazda (MAZDY.PK) CX-5. This crossover is truly the whole package, with excellent fuel economy, cargo room, and interior features, all at a sticker price of under $22,000. Topping all other SUVs and crossovers with 35 miles per gallon on the highway, the CX-5 is the perfect fit for drivers with a lengthy commute or sizable family. A charming and sleek SUV, the Mazda CX-5 makes the ultimate choice for eco-conscious consumers who want the most out of their vehicle.

2. BMW X1: 34 miles per gallon

BMW (BAMXY.PK) has put together a very impressive and efficient small SUV with its X1. Showcasing staples of BMW engineering like precise steering, fantastic suspension, and optional turbocharged engine, the X1 truly exemplifies what it means to be a sport utility vehicle. On top of all the great features, this crossover also achieves 34 miles per gallon on the highway. For luxury SUV lovers, the X1 is only rivaled by the Mercedes GLK-Class Diesel when it comes to fuel efficiency. For a comfortable and sporty ride, the X1 is a solid candidate.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/11-crossovers-and-suvs-with-top-fuel-economy.html/?a=viewall

Interesting because I know quite a few individuals that would buy a Verano but wouldn't buy an Envision.

I have still yet to see an Envision on the road. Starting to see the updated Encore pop up everywhere as well as the new Lacrosse here and there.
Lots of Encores. No pun intended. Wonder when the Wunderkidz @ Caddy will figure this out?

Saying the new Malibu looks like garbage unless it's a premier with the 19's is a huge stretch and not accurate. The actual stripper base trim level L Malibu comes with 16" fascia wheels which look rather cheap but not nearly as cheap as Toyota's base LE Camry plastic bolt on covers or the Nissan Altima's bolt on covers.

Also take note that all 2017 Premier Malibu's now thankfully come with smaller but very attractive bright 18" alloys as std fare with the previously std 19" wheels now part of the sun and wheels group. The 19" wheels destroy the ride quality as do the massive 20" ones on the LaCrosse and Impala. The best all around alloy wheel for the Malibu is the LT 17" but they look kind of plain.

I could write a book on what is wrong with Chevy and GM's cars these days. Every car they make has built in deficiencies and flaws and the public is noticing. Here are the obvious highlights:

1) Stop/Start- There is no on/off button like in most every competitor. You have to play games with letting off the throttle or putting the car in neutral. Refusal to listen to what the public wants is costing sales.
2) "I didn't even know that existed"! Poor advertising has been a staple at GM for many many years.
3) Shortened warranty periods. Following the herd will get you nowhere you need to do as Kia/Hyundai have and lead by example if you want to attract customers.
4) Fire the cookoo at Cadillac- he is killing the company slowly each year and it's painful to watch
5) Get a "car" guy back at the helm, especially in the decision department. Fiscal responsibility is important but pen pushers need not be running the show
6) No more 9-10 year product cycles and engines like in the Equinox/Terrain. There is no excuse whatsoever that the base 2.4 is still exactly the same as it was when introduced back in 2009 as a 2010
7) Interior storage on your cars is poor. No storage for sun glasses, eliminating the clever behind screen space on the Malibu are all no no's.
8) Quality control- It's still hit and miss and iffy on many models
9) Where's the beef? Other than the Camaro, Corvette and a soon to be defunct SS there is not a single performance entry at Chevy or Buick. (The Regal GS is close but an engine short of greatness)
10) Dealership experience- Yes it still sucks in many cases. Big fancy cookie cutter buildings are not nearly enough. When I bring in my car for service in the morning and the same service advisor acts like he never saw me before a few hours later there is a huge problem. When a car has to be brought in a half dozen times until the problem is fixed that is a huge problem. When an issue like the famous Silverado shake rattle and roll can't be fixed that is a huge problem.
11) Your option packages suck in plain english. It is so obvious that your trying to get everybody into the highest trim level to get something as simple as a leather wheel or a simple safety feature. Ditto on refusing to offer simple things like cruise control on lesser Cruze L and LS models as an example.
12) Last but not least- sticker shock. The majority of your cars have higher sticker prices than most any competitor. Yes there are always the proverbial GM discounts but it's the first impression that counts the most. It's human nature
IMHO the Big Wheel Trend has gone way overboard. A 2800-3000 lb. car does NOT need 18" wheels. In fact, I kind of like the look of the 2017 Elantra Eco (apparently now out of production) 15" wheels. But that's me, always ahead of trends by years.:drive:

1. Irritate your customers! They appreciate it on a subliminal level!
2. Twelve random people at GMI could produce better ads than 90% of the pathetic drivel GM produces.
3. 2/24 will save $300 per year!
4. Cukoo is right. DeBlazio could probably do better. As well. Almost as well. Never mind.
5. OK.
6. LOL. Someone actually thinks this SAVES money! :think::spit::rotf::rotf::rotf:
7. Europeans figured this out decades ago. What does this save, 50 bucks per car? :fall:
8. Yes We Can!
9.
10. Car saleshomies are apparently collected from a large pool of rectal canals who have no other skillset. What will they do when the Hondabot AI sellers replace them?
11. Someone should wake up to this. First maker who goes back to individual options vs. sock-it-to-them "packages" will reap rewards.
12. I still remember watching a couple of old gaffers, at least fitty year old each, checking out a new (IIRC) Malibu around 2009 at the Spokane Auto Show. "Look at that, Earl. Twenty-five thousand dollars!"
"Yeah, but they'll discount it to about 17-18! No worries, you old basturd!"

Honda's Accord and Toyota's Camry are their cash cows. Part of the reason, and I can tell you from working on them up close, is that there are parts of those cars that haven't changed one bit in 30+ years. Things like the accelerator, brake, and clutch pedals are the exact parts, tool and die sets, and assemblies as they were in 1980. Same for items like internal components, accessories, wiring harnesses...... things that don't need to be changed on those cars never are. So the cost to produce them today is zero or negative. You look at every time GM releases a new car there's stuff on there that's changed that doesn't have to be. Who cares if a brake pedal is a new design or a 30 year old design? It's a brake pedal.
Shucks. I get so excited by new gas and brake pedals!:eek:

I don't think you can ever have enough performance vehicles. But with two (forgetting the SS), Chevrolet is ahead of most brands. "Other than the Camaro, Corvette..." is a pretty big caveat.
I don't think you can ever have enough utility vehicles. Ask JdN.

Don't worry, JUST AROUND THE CORNER, YES WE CAN!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top