After 8 years on this board...what an ironic time this is...
Super Moderator
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 9,507
From: Okemos, MI
I haven't been on this board as long as you guys have, but I've been here long enough to feel much the same. Sadly, I've never been in a financial situation that allowed me to buy a new car, but I support the domestic auto industry indirectly (by giving my money to people that buy domestic, so that they can buy another). Today, my wife and I own a Pontiac, a Chevy, and two Buicks. I drove a $2000 1993 Civic for a year or so, but other than that, our past has been entirely domestic as well. An Oldsmobile, a Pontiac, a couple Buicks, and one Chrysler.
Consumer Reports is pro-import, and by the nature of their incestuous rating system, they'll stay that way for a long time. So I hardly think that list is a good source.
Point taken, though.
I wish it had a memory seat, too. Dual zone climate control and a power passenger seat would be nice, but those don't disappoint me as much.
This should not happen, this is the reason GM is where it is today. It isn't enough to make a Malibu that is #1 if these cars are going to be at the bottom of the list.
Consumer Reports evaluated Small Sedans:
1: Hyundai Elantra
2: Honda Civic
3: Mazda 3i; Manual Transmission
4: Honda Civic
5: Mazda 3i
6: Subaru Impreza
7: Ford Focus; Manual Transmission
8: Toyota Corolla
9: Toyota Corolla; Manual Transmission
10: Hyundai Elantra; Manual Transmission
11: Ford Focus
12: Suzuki SX4
13: Nissan Versa
14: Kio Rio
15: Hyundai Accent
16: Mitsubishi Lancer
17: Kia Spectra; Manual Transmission
18: Nissan Sentra
19: Kia Spectra
20: Chevrolet Cobalt
21: Toyota Yaris
22: Chevrolet Aveo
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...22-22-a-74683/
1: Hyundai Elantra
2: Honda Civic
3: Mazda 3i; Manual Transmission
4: Honda Civic
5: Mazda 3i
6: Subaru Impreza
7: Ford Focus; Manual Transmission
8: Toyota Corolla
9: Toyota Corolla; Manual Transmission
10: Hyundai Elantra; Manual Transmission
11: Ford Focus
12: Suzuki SX4
13: Nissan Versa
14: Kio Rio
15: Hyundai Accent
16: Mitsubishi Lancer
17: Kia Spectra; Manual Transmission
18: Nissan Sentra
19: Kia Spectra
20: Chevrolet Cobalt
21: Toyota Yaris
22: Chevrolet Aveo
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f...22-22-a-74683/
Point taken, though.
I wish it had a memory seat, too. Dual zone climate control and a power passenger seat would be nice, but those don't disappoint me as much.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Consumer Reports evaluated....
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 172
From: GA
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
No... but that sure hasn't stopped anyone else from comparing them either.
My statement was a little bit tongue-in-cheek... but not completely. I believe (based solely on the specs and reviews out there already) the new Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang, performance-wise. The two V6 versions aren't even close, nor are the new Camaro SS versus the new Mustang GT. And then there's the whole issue of having an IRS suspension vs. not, and how that's going to relate to real performance on actual streets and tracks... let's just say it's not going to be pretty
My statement was a little bit tongue-in-cheek... but not completely. I believe (based solely on the specs and reviews out there already) the new Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang, performance-wise. The two V6 versions aren't even close, nor are the new Camaro SS versus the new Mustang GT. And then there's the whole issue of having an IRS suspension vs. not, and how that's going to relate to real performance on actual streets and tracks... let's just say it's not going to be pretty
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,045
From: Lake Hopatcong N.J
"it's too early in production to know the reliability but based upon toyota's excellent success with internal combustion engines and how the pope himself endourced the similar model, we will recommend it"
OR:
"The New GM_ is too new to know data about, but based upon the previous GM_ we are not going to recommend it at this time"
My family has owned numerous vehicles on their list of vehicles to "avoid" and have no problems that jump out
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 172
From: GA
No... but that sure hasn't stopped anyone else from comparing them either.
My statement was a little bit tongue-in-cheek... but not completely. I believe (based solely on the specs and reviews out there already) the new Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang, performance-wise. The two V6 versions aren't even close, nor are the new Camaro SS versus the new Mustang GT. And then there's the whole issue of having an IRS suspension vs. not, and how that's going to relate to real performance on actual streets and tracks... let's just say it's not going to be pretty
My statement was a little bit tongue-in-cheek... but not completely. I believe (based solely on the specs and reviews out there already) the new Camaro is going to dominate the Mustang, performance-wise. The two V6 versions aren't even close, nor are the new Camaro SS versus the new Mustang GT. And then there's the whole issue of having an IRS suspension vs. not, and how that's going to relate to real performance on actual streets and tracks... let's just say it's not going to be pretty
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
I remember CR description of the 4th gen Camaro was something like this, This heavy sport coupe has poor handling, harsh ride, and a thirsty V8. Expected reliability is below average. With that little black circle thing which indicated by their rating system as bad. Every year it was the same and they never actually tested a F-Body.
I can't stand Consumer Reports and do not trust their rating on any type of products.
I can't stand Consumer Reports and do not trust their rating on any type of products.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
The vehicles I mentioned all offer outstanding roadholding and performance value. To do that at a good price, is indeed cutting edge. The Cobalt SS for example, can put a lot of more expensive cars to shame... despite what I'm sure you'd consider Neanderthal FWD 
BTW the new Camaro shouldn't even be compared with the Mustang any more. It's going to utterly dominate it from a performance standpoint. So don't bother mentioning the two in the same sentence.
Also BTW, the only car I listed which can be bought with an A4 trans is the Cobalt. Guess almighty Toyota didn't get the memo on A4's... that's still the auto trans in all new Corollas too.
Follow Rick Wagoner's advice and go test drive a new Malibu. It's a volume seller, and is a runaway hit for GM.
BTW the new Camaro shouldn't even be compared with the Mustang any more. It's going to utterly dominate it from a performance standpoint. So don't bother mentioning the two in the same sentence.
Also BTW, the only car I listed which can be bought with an A4 trans is the Cobalt. Guess almighty Toyota didn't get the memo on A4's... that's still the auto trans in all new Corollas too.
Follow Rick Wagoner's advice and go test drive a new Malibu. It's a volume seller, and is a runaway hit for GM.
Remember when BMW had a poor reputation for quality and weren't considered in the same league as MB? Ever wondered how BMW have grown their market share over the years (even at the expense of GM)? Or how about Audi and VW?
The Germans saw the quality the Japanese were building into their cars and needed to compete with them somehow even if they necessarily couldn't on price. GM needed the same wake up call back then. But instead they thought the brand marketing philosophy was the way to go and hired marketing supremo Ron Zarella... Thus GM's share plummeted from over 40% to just half that number, today.
I know that the period I talk of is greater than the eight years the OP refers to, however, I believe that GM's market share dropped in line with the period when GM stopped being the innovative company that saw them dominate sales. That is the time when consumers genuinely believed them to be the best. Remember, Cadillac was actually the standard of the world at one time.
Innovation, technology, quality and value is key in the automotive market (IMO). Perception is everything and GM's market share has been sliding for over 25 years so I'm not sure if the public's perception of GM will ever be seen in the same light as for other automakers because GM is once again very late to the already crowded party.
Last edited by SSbaby; Feb 22, 2009 at 04:16 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
More boneheaded moves!
We have gotten some great products from GM over the last 7-8 years. Two real big things bother me though.
#1) the Solstice coming out in 2006. GM says they can't build an affordable performance car with a volume of 50,000/year that is on its own unique platform, so they cancel the Camaro and immediately come out with the Solstice
#2) for every absolute fantastic move they make (CTS, Solstice, Malibu, GMT-900, Corvette, LNF, LSx) They make a lot of bone headed moves that hurt the companies image (Aztek, G3, G5, Pontiac SV6 , not updating interiors of Trailblazer & Colorado, etc..)
#1) the Solstice coming out in 2006. GM says they can't build an affordable performance car with a volume of 50,000/year that is on its own unique platform, so they cancel the Camaro and immediately come out with the Solstice
#2) for every absolute fantastic move they make (CTS, Solstice, Malibu, GMT-900, Corvette, LNF, LSx) They make a lot of bone headed moves that hurt the companies image (Aztek, G3, G5, Pontiac SV6 , not updating interiors of Trailblazer & Colorado, etc..)
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Mustang LX 5.0
First of all - don't pine for GM alone. I know it's a GM-based board, but they are all intertwined these days... what happens to one affects them all.
ALL of the US carmakers are hurting... have been for a long time.
Next - I recall some wise-guy on this board about 4 years ago making claims that "in 5 years or less, China would change the game of economics as we know it, and the USA would no longer be the dominant superpower on earth - economically or militarilly". Some agreed, and some fought hard against the suggestion that we needed to "buy American". Well, as sales of Toyotas and Hondas reach record levels... and Chinese makers are not even up to speed yet... well, look at the topic of the thread... you see what happened.
I have doled-out my share of accolades for things done right - no doubt that Cadillac has done a wonderful turn-around in the last few years. Exemplary job by their product manager and absolutely spot-on job in hitiing (and even creating) a niche market with the right product at the right time. There is no reason why Caddy and the line of products won't prevail over this downturn.
I have also tried to demonstrate that fads and trends are NOT the places to invest, but GM seemed to be searching for the "next big thing" in the wrong places. The Aztek is a good example. The vehicle itself really was not a bad ride. The focus groups and marketing research that was done for it was just skewed towards those who wanted something different. No crime in that either, but obviously the public at-large did not have the same feelings as those in the focus groups.
The SSR - another niche.
And while we are at it - let's go ahead and blow the soot out on the GTO...
I literally CROWED about the car and it's capabilities, but I was also the loudest advocate for NOT naming it the GTO - I felt that was a marketing faux-pas that would bite them in the @ss. Well, we now know what history wrote for the books. While the cars performance was stellar, the hype and confusion over the "return of the legend" was a bubble that busted IMO, resulting in a lackluster image for GM on what should have been a GREAT model. I've never said anything on this board because it's not my style to rub salt in a wound, but I wonder how well the car would have sold if it was introduced as "the G8" (or the Monaro - I LOVE the name "Monaro") in the first place and started making it's own rep from scratch.
Which begs another point they ALL are guilty of recently... name pimping.
While I think it's fine to use the equity in a model that you own/control to sell cars, I also think that the name should live up to it's predecessor's reputation if it's going to be used. What Ford did to the Taurus, what GM did to the Malibu, throwing out "GT" and "SS" on everything, etc... it wears thin on folks who expect these models to resemble what they knew from years earlier. Whether justified or not, if those folks are lured into a showroom because of a name they heard, anly to find a whimpy, cheap offering wearing a legendary badge on the fender, they walk out disappointed, and will likely not come back. This HAS happened... I've talked to folks who have said it to me.
Another thought for this post - I keep preaching about the content of cars today, all the crap on them that folks may NOT want, etc. THIS IS HUGE TO ME. I fear that Ford is screwing-up bad with the Mustang, Fusion, and Focus, and I hope the new units (like Fiesta) will get back to roots. Mustang NEVER sold well because it was loaded with content - it was never meant to. Certainly there were lots of features and options - you could choose from almost 20 colors in the first few years - but the CAR was very basic.
IMO, the market for most vehicles today is broken into 3 main categories as follows...
1) Working - these are trucks, vans, and job/working vehicles.
2) Family - these are the 5-7 seaters that go on trips, haul the family to dinner and shopping, etc.
3) Basic - these are vehicles that take you to work every day, run errands, groceries, and generally knock-around in by yourself or with 1 companion.
The first two categories should be obvious to us all as ones that should tout their capabilities, towing capacity, seating capacity, how many cup holders they have, how many DVD's are in the rear, Nav systems, etc. The 3rd category however, is becoming something totally undesireable to many - me included.
I would plop-down my cash in an instant for the right car for me to do my commuting, errands, and joy-riding in. I want a stripped-down, basic car (preferably with a V8 option) - and THAT'S IT. I'm in my car for 9 minutes while I drive 7 miles to work - WTF do I need/want a nav system, heated seats, and tire-pressure sensors for?!?! I don't need it, don't want it, and WON'T BUY IT... PERIOD.
I just looked at a 92 Mustang earlier this week... it's a 4-banger, 5-spd. Airbag on the wheel (not optional). AM/FM/cassette, manual windows, manual remote morrors, PDLs. THAT'S IT. This car is "transportation" at it's best IMO - perfect for running to work, to town for lunch, to teh bank, out for a gallon of milk, etc. It's cheap, economical, and decently fun to drive.
It's almost a twin to the one I drove to go look at it - a 93 4-cyl/5-spd coupe that has PW, PL, and factory AM/FM/CD. I have folks after me to sell them my car, or find them one like it all the time. One guy in Maintenance here at my plant asks me every week to sell him mine - no joke. My father-out-law is after me to get him one like mine now (why I was looking at the 92 in fact) for commuting because of my demonstrated 35+mpg and "fun-factor".
So I go back to why/how these little fox-body Mustangs sold so well, why there are so many without PWs, PDLs, CD players, etc. and why I see so many still on the roads today... and here you have it. They were good, basic, fun, economical cars with decent styling, and a possible V8 if you wanted. MAN, do I want Ford to go back to that recipe for the Mustang.
The Mustang LX w/the 5.0 option was another classic example of what is wrong today.Many people didn,t want the ground fx,sunroof,big spoiler.They wanted to carry a big stick but didn,t want to shout about it.The fact that it also weighed less was even more enticing.Even though the option list was a mile long the model had a lot going for it and the Pontiac Formula was another prime example,esp. the 3rd gen. and the early 93-95 models.
Likewise, I think GM, Chrysler, and Ford ALL need to concentrate on basic transportation immediately. I'm not talking Smart cars or Yaris'... I'm talking ponycars. There are LOTS of folks without jobs or with low-paying jobs that would still drop $10k-15k on a good basic unit that looks "cool"- IF one was available. Know who has one on the lot for under $9000USD?
Kia.
At one time you didn,t have to buy the fancy(high priced) model to get the top engine;an example would been the lowly Biscayne w/the 409.
So for me - it's like a trail of tears in beers. We have allowed the big-3 to make some GREAT stuff we want, but not what we NEED, and in many ways we are still going down that path.... more junk, bigger sizes, heavier, and faster. The same mentality that allows so many folks to live on credit cards and live a lifestyle they can't afford has also led them to buy cars with so much junk in them that is not needed or useable.
We need to get "back to basics" IMO, and d@mn soon too. They will sell alot more units at $10-20k for folks to go to work in and "live" with than they will $50-60K units with friggin heated seats, nav systems, and on-star - I guarantee it.
As for GM.. I said 5 months ago that I was scared - REAL scared.
Now, I am moreso.
ALL of the US carmakers are hurting... have been for a long time.
Next - I recall some wise-guy on this board about 4 years ago making claims that "in 5 years or less, China would change the game of economics as we know it, and the USA would no longer be the dominant superpower on earth - economically or militarilly". Some agreed, and some fought hard against the suggestion that we needed to "buy American". Well, as sales of Toyotas and Hondas reach record levels... and Chinese makers are not even up to speed yet... well, look at the topic of the thread... you see what happened.
I have doled-out my share of accolades for things done right - no doubt that Cadillac has done a wonderful turn-around in the last few years. Exemplary job by their product manager and absolutely spot-on job in hitiing (and even creating) a niche market with the right product at the right time. There is no reason why Caddy and the line of products won't prevail over this downturn.
I have also tried to demonstrate that fads and trends are NOT the places to invest, but GM seemed to be searching for the "next big thing" in the wrong places. The Aztek is a good example. The vehicle itself really was not a bad ride. The focus groups and marketing research that was done for it was just skewed towards those who wanted something different. No crime in that either, but obviously the public at-large did not have the same feelings as those in the focus groups.
The SSR - another niche. And while we are at it - let's go ahead and blow the soot out on the GTO...
I literally CROWED about the car and it's capabilities, but I was also the loudest advocate for NOT naming it the GTO - I felt that was a marketing faux-pas that would bite them in the @ss. Well, we now know what history wrote for the books. While the cars performance was stellar, the hype and confusion over the "return of the legend" was a bubble that busted IMO, resulting in a lackluster image for GM on what should have been a GREAT model. I've never said anything on this board because it's not my style to rub salt in a wound, but I wonder how well the car would have sold if it was introduced as "the G8" (or the Monaro - I LOVE the name "Monaro") in the first place and started making it's own rep from scratch.
Which begs another point they ALL are guilty of recently... name pimping.
While I think it's fine to use the equity in a model that you own/control to sell cars, I also think that the name should live up to it's predecessor's reputation if it's going to be used. What Ford did to the Taurus, what GM did to the Malibu, throwing out "GT" and "SS" on everything, etc... it wears thin on folks who expect these models to resemble what they knew from years earlier. Whether justified or not, if those folks are lured into a showroom because of a name they heard, anly to find a whimpy, cheap offering wearing a legendary badge on the fender, they walk out disappointed, and will likely not come back. This HAS happened... I've talked to folks who have said it to me.
Another thought for this post - I keep preaching about the content of cars today, all the crap on them that folks may NOT want, etc. THIS IS HUGE TO ME. I fear that Ford is screwing-up bad with the Mustang, Fusion, and Focus, and I hope the new units (like Fiesta) will get back to roots. Mustang NEVER sold well because it was loaded with content - it was never meant to. Certainly there were lots of features and options - you could choose from almost 20 colors in the first few years - but the CAR was very basic.
IMO, the market for most vehicles today is broken into 3 main categories as follows...
1) Working - these are trucks, vans, and job/working vehicles.
2) Family - these are the 5-7 seaters that go on trips, haul the family to dinner and shopping, etc.
3) Basic - these are vehicles that take you to work every day, run errands, groceries, and generally knock-around in by yourself or with 1 companion.
The first two categories should be obvious to us all as ones that should tout their capabilities, towing capacity, seating capacity, how many cup holders they have, how many DVD's are in the rear, Nav systems, etc. The 3rd category however, is becoming something totally undesireable to many - me included.
I would plop-down my cash in an instant for the right car for me to do my commuting, errands, and joy-riding in. I want a stripped-down, basic car (preferably with a V8 option) - and THAT'S IT. I'm in my car for 9 minutes while I drive 7 miles to work - WTF do I need/want a nav system, heated seats, and tire-pressure sensors for?!?! I don't need it, don't want it, and WON'T BUY IT... PERIOD.
I just looked at a 92 Mustang earlier this week... it's a 4-banger, 5-spd. Airbag on the wheel (not optional). AM/FM/cassette, manual windows, manual remote morrors, PDLs. THAT'S IT. This car is "transportation" at it's best IMO - perfect for running to work, to town for lunch, to teh bank, out for a gallon of milk, etc. It's cheap, economical, and decently fun to drive.
It's almost a twin to the one I drove to go look at it - a 93 4-cyl/5-spd coupe that has PW, PL, and factory AM/FM/CD. I have folks after me to sell them my car, or find them one like it all the time. One guy in Maintenance here at my plant asks me every week to sell him mine - no joke. My father-out-law is after me to get him one like mine now (why I was looking at the 92 in fact) for commuting because of my demonstrated 35+mpg and "fun-factor".
So I go back to why/how these little fox-body Mustangs sold so well, why there are so many without PWs, PDLs, CD players, etc. and why I see so many still on the roads today... and here you have it. They were good, basic, fun, economical cars with decent styling, and a possible V8 if you wanted. MAN, do I want Ford to go back to that recipe for the Mustang.
The Mustang LX w/the 5.0 option was another classic example of what is wrong today.Many people didn,t want the ground fx,sunroof,big spoiler.They wanted to carry a big stick but didn,t want to shout about it.The fact that it also weighed less was even more enticing.Even though the option list was a mile long the model had a lot going for it and the Pontiac Formula was another prime example,esp. the 3rd gen. and the early 93-95 models.Likewise, I think GM, Chrysler, and Ford ALL need to concentrate on basic transportation immediately. I'm not talking Smart cars or Yaris'... I'm talking ponycars. There are LOTS of folks without jobs or with low-paying jobs that would still drop $10k-15k on a good basic unit that looks "cool"- IF one was available. Know who has one on the lot for under $9000USD?
Kia.
At one time you didn,t have to buy the fancy(high priced) model to get the top engine;an example would been the lowly Biscayne w/the 409.So for me - it's like a trail of tears in beers. We have allowed the big-3 to make some GREAT stuff we want, but not what we NEED, and in many ways we are still going down that path.... more junk, bigger sizes, heavier, and faster. The same mentality that allows so many folks to live on credit cards and live a lifestyle they can't afford has also led them to buy cars with so much junk in them that is not needed or useable.
We need to get "back to basics" IMO, and d@mn soon too. They will sell alot more units at $10-20k for folks to go to work in and "live" with than they will $50-60K units with friggin heated seats, nav systems, and on-star - I guarantee it.
As for GM.. I said 5 months ago that I was scared - REAL scared.
Now, I am moreso.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
I'm not disagreeing with you (entirely). But it's something GM should have realised a mere 25 years ago. It could be too late for GM for anybody to take any notice, that's the problem.
Remember when BMW had a poor reputation for quality and weren't considered in the same league as MB? Ever wondered how BMW have grown their market share over the years (even at the expense of GM)? Or how about Audi and VW?
The Germans saw the quality the Japanese were building into their cars and needed to compete with them somehow even if they necessarily couldn't on price. GM needed the same wake up call back then. But instead they thought the brand marketing philosophy was the way to go and hired marketing supremo Ron Zarella... Thus GM's share plummeted from over 40% to just half that number, today.
I know that the period I talk of is greater than the eight years the OP refers to, however, I believe that GM's market share dropped in line with the period when GM stopped being the innovative company that saw them dominate sales. That is the time when consumers genuinely believed them to be the best. Remember, Cadillac was actually the standard of the world at one time.
Innovation, technology, quality and value is key in the automotive market (IMO). Perception is everything and GM's market share has been sliding for over 25 years so I'm not sure if the public's perception of GM will ever be seen in the same light as for other automakers because GM is once again very late to the already crowded party.
Remember when BMW had a poor reputation for quality and weren't considered in the same league as MB? Ever wondered how BMW have grown their market share over the years (even at the expense of GM)? Or how about Audi and VW?
The Germans saw the quality the Japanese were building into their cars and needed to compete with them somehow even if they necessarily couldn't on price. GM needed the same wake up call back then. But instead they thought the brand marketing philosophy was the way to go and hired marketing supremo Ron Zarella... Thus GM's share plummeted from over 40% to just half that number, today.
I know that the period I talk of is greater than the eight years the OP refers to, however, I believe that GM's market share dropped in line with the period when GM stopped being the innovative company that saw them dominate sales. That is the time when consumers genuinely believed them to be the best. Remember, Cadillac was actually the standard of the world at one time.
Innovation, technology, quality and value is key in the automotive market (IMO). Perception is everything and GM's market share has been sliding for over 25 years so I'm not sure if the public's perception of GM will ever be seen in the same light as for other automakers because GM is once again very late to the already crowded party.
It's absurd to compare BMW with GM. BMW is a high-price niche maker. They have made their fortunes by being the high-priced and high-profit cars of snobby lawyers. That's now how most markets work for new cars.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
x2. But I think that we're a minority. There are people who feel that they can't possibly live with a car unless it's got every bell & whistle ever conceived by man. Look at the people who complained about GTO not being available with a sunroof, nav, & Onstar! Some actually said they wouldn't buy it because of that! Now these same people are saying similar things about the G8. Well, that's their choice & I suppose that they did need to be offered as options, but if they were you would've had to order 1 to be able to get 1 without all of that stuff on it as dealerships always order loaded up cars as those sell alot easier than unloaded cars do. As I said, we're a minority.
Lots of folks wanted a GTO with sunroof, nav, and OnStar?!?!
Seems to me that not enough people wanted the GTO in ANY configuration or it would have sold better... couldn't have been too many wanting it.
And GTO is a pure-performance coupe anyhow... there was no base V6 or lower-powered V8 available in that car... it was meant to appeal to the performance-oriented crowd only, making it a niche unit. Mustang and Camaro should appeal to all kinds of folks from first-time car buyers, to thirty-somethings to retirees to hot-rodders to folks wanting a fun-to-drive commuter car and anything else. But one thing they should NOT be is luxo-barges and/or technology mules.
As for other folks still advocating heated seats and other goodies... I would only concede your requests as FSO's (factory special orders) that could be added to your cars after dealer delivery. Sorry... and I know this sounds lame... but it's not my fault you live in the arctic circle. I don't need/want heated seats that I will use 2 months/year if that, and not even that much if it's kept in the grarage, nor do I want to pay for the extra wiring and connectors and crap that go along with it, nor do I want the weight of it, etc.
If you so want that option, push for it as an FSO option and pay for it at the dealer, but leave the other 150k units/year as light and inexpensive as possible for the rest of us!
Sorry guys - I'm a stick in the mud on this one and not likely to change my mind about it - I've pined over this for many months already. I simply don't like the way everything is so heavily contented and loaded with gizmos and crap that are useless for everyday use.
* EVEN IF I HAD an Ipod and could use it in my new commuter car via a port, I could not listen to 2 songs on my way to work! It's not worth hooking it up for that. My drive is 7miles FCS.
* NAV?!?! The vehicle I spend 95% of my time in is the one I drive to work, drop off my kid at school, take her to soccer practice, run to the grocery store, go out for a quick bite at McD's, run to lunch in from work, drive over to my parent's house, run errands, go to the bank/ATM, go to the mall, etc, etc. I know where all these are - painfully so. So WTF do I need a nav system for in this car?!?! Buy a TomTom, put it in the vehicle you choose to drive, plug it into the power port, and use it... WHEN you go on a long trip or are going somewhere you've never been. It's the better option IMO.
* Power seats? Memory? Again, it's MY car and I drive it to work and out for errands every day. My wife has her own car. Sure we swap once in a great while, but rarely, so it's no big deal to readjust the seat once a month. And once I have it set for me - well, it's set for me. It's not like I adjust it every time I sit my @ss in it, four to six times/day?!?! Why pay for it just to haul it around?
I can go on and on about these features, but my point should be clear by now. Gadgets and gizmos are great in upper level vehicles and upscale models intended for hauling the family or when you can only have 1 vehicle. That's fine put them there, not in the basic cars.
Ther needs to be a basic ponycar available for the first-time buyer, the kid who actually saved money and wants a sporty-looking car to drive to college or work, the kid that just got out of college and wants to reward themselves but not bust the bank, the twenty-somethings that are trying to start their lives and need reliable transportaion but don't want to max their budgets, the thirty-somethings that want a new version of the used car they had in school - something to drive to work and the golf course, etc. Heck, I know folks in their 50s and 60s that drive V6 Mustangs as daily drivers, and leave their Suburbans, Yukons, and Expeditions in the garage for weekends and nights-out.
GUYS, this type of car and the market for it MUST be recognized. It's a HUGE one that is being foreited to the likes of Kia and Hyundai, with their $9 - $12k offerings. Shame is, I'd like to see the Mustang as the first choice for basic rides based on money alone, as opposed to the Fiesta or Fusion which both start less than the Mustang. Same goes for the Aveo and Cobalt in Chevy's camp. Kids should WANT the Mustang and Camaro from the day they start thinking about driving, AND be able to afford one - at least a used one. Today, that's just not often the case. Instead it's the Scions, Accords, Corollas, Rios, Spectras, Accent, Elantra, Sonata, and a dozen other offerings.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
problem is theres not enough people that would buy those "basic" cars to make it worth while. sure i would and so would you but i don't think ford would build 1 "basic" mustang and gm build 1 "basic" camaro.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,376
From: Sarasota FL
As I was driving in to work this morning, I was thinking about this very idea that Branden just brought up. To think how excited I was, back at BG in '03 and '05...not to mention NAIAS '06. I still to this day think the world of Scott for organizing and getting all of us together for the concept unveiling...that shows right there that in a good market, GM is very in tune to its customers. I'm still honored to have been part of that.
I know I've been extremely critical on here of both the new Camaro and Pontiac. Pontiac is Dead Man Walking, which is an extremely angering thing for me. The only non-Pontiacs I've ever owned have been 3 Camaros and my current Ram. Every girl I've ever dated bought a Pontiac from me
My mom made a joke once that driving a Pontiac is almost like a pre-requisite for dating me 
I had only been dating my wife for 2 months before I got her in the Comp G she has now!!!
And through all of those cars (Me = '89 Formula, '95 Grand Am SE Coupe, '98 Grand Am SE Sedan, '01 Grand Prix GT Coupe, '02 Grand Am GT Coupe, share the Comp G with wifey: Ex g/f #1 = '94 Grand Am SE coupe, Ex g/f #2 = '99 Grand Am SE Sedan), the things I always loved about the various Pontiacs were...
1) Styling that stood out. Nice cladding...aggressive wheels...fog lights...spoilers etc.
2) Engines that were above average in performance. Sure, the 175hp in an '02 Grand Am GT sucks today, but back in '02, the 0-60 of 7.5 seconds kept up with or was faster than everything in its class, aside from a WRX.
3) Interiors that were cool looking. Its true that Pontiac's interiors were not the best for some time. But I always loved the aggressive bolstering on the seats of my earlier Grand Ams...the red dash lighting...the great feeling seat fabrics they used in the early-late 90s.
Pontiacs weren't *****-out performance cars. They were Chevys with more style, better handling, and an edge. I think if they'd done their job right, that would still be the case today. The Malibu could still be the great car it is, while the G6 (named GRAND AM!!!!!!!!!!) could be a more aggressive version of that very car. We aren't even close to where Pontiac was today.
Years ago I called it on here when I saw this whole Saturn thing exploding in their face. They killed Olds because they dumped a ton of money in it, re-doing the whole image thing and giving it great product, and got nowhere. They said it competed too much with Buick and Pontiac. Now, they were making Saturn a new Olds.
DID WE NOT LEARN A LESSON HERE????????????????????
This is where GM royally p!sses me off. I'll have to find the post where I said Saturn would now intrude the way Olds did, and it would die. I saw it, and they don't even pay me for this crap.
As for the Camaro, its a gorgeous car. Its just too bad the interior is so weird. I can deal with the weight...not an issue. But the interior is just, well, bad. And as the Malibu and CTS prove, world-class interiors can be GM's forte...
8 years from now, where will we all be? That's what scares me right now...
I know I've been extremely critical on here of both the new Camaro and Pontiac. Pontiac is Dead Man Walking, which is an extremely angering thing for me. The only non-Pontiacs I've ever owned have been 3 Camaros and my current Ram. Every girl I've ever dated bought a Pontiac from me
My mom made a joke once that driving a Pontiac is almost like a pre-requisite for dating me I had only been dating my wife for 2 months before I got her in the Comp G she has now!!!And through all of those cars (Me = '89 Formula, '95 Grand Am SE Coupe, '98 Grand Am SE Sedan, '01 Grand Prix GT Coupe, '02 Grand Am GT Coupe, share the Comp G with wifey: Ex g/f #1 = '94 Grand Am SE coupe, Ex g/f #2 = '99 Grand Am SE Sedan), the things I always loved about the various Pontiacs were...
1) Styling that stood out. Nice cladding...aggressive wheels...fog lights...spoilers etc.
2) Engines that were above average in performance. Sure, the 175hp in an '02 Grand Am GT sucks today, but back in '02, the 0-60 of 7.5 seconds kept up with or was faster than everything in its class, aside from a WRX.
3) Interiors that were cool looking. Its true that Pontiac's interiors were not the best for some time. But I always loved the aggressive bolstering on the seats of my earlier Grand Ams...the red dash lighting...the great feeling seat fabrics they used in the early-late 90s.
Pontiacs weren't *****-out performance cars. They were Chevys with more style, better handling, and an edge. I think if they'd done their job right, that would still be the case today. The Malibu could still be the great car it is, while the G6 (named GRAND AM!!!!!!!!!!) could be a more aggressive version of that very car. We aren't even close to where Pontiac was today.
Years ago I called it on here when I saw this whole Saturn thing exploding in their face. They killed Olds because they dumped a ton of money in it, re-doing the whole image thing and giving it great product, and got nowhere. They said it competed too much with Buick and Pontiac. Now, they were making Saturn a new Olds.
DID WE NOT LEARN A LESSON HERE????????????????????
This is where GM royally p!sses me off. I'll have to find the post where I said Saturn would now intrude the way Olds did, and it would die. I saw it, and they don't even pay me for this crap.
As for the Camaro, its a gorgeous car. Its just too bad the interior is so weird. I can deal with the weight...not an issue. But the interior is just, well, bad. And as the Malibu and CTS prove, world-class interiors can be GM's forte...
8 years from now, where will we all be? That's what scares me right now...
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,597
From: oshawa,ontario,canada
there are some really cool things i love about the camaro and its a shame the interior is a let down.