I think its safe to say that Mr. Redzed does not like General Motors products.

 

And hey, that's ok with me. No one wants to see more competitive products across the board from GM than me, don't get me wrong. But this business of...."Product X is purely rental-agency fodder because, well, it just is".....isn't good enough for me. I want facts. I want knowledgeable, well thought-out, logical comparisons. And I am curious why there are some journalists out there who really do think the new Malibu, for instance, is a good alternative to a Camry.....

 

1. The Malibu is smaller than the Camry. (Less car)

2. The Malibu is lighter than the Camry. (Less car)

3. The Malibu most probably won't have the reliability record of a Camry. (Flying pig alert?)

4. The Malibu won't have the resale value of a Camry.

5. Malibu is a tired name that Lutz wanted to kill.

6. The Malibu is pig ugly; the Camry is handsome in a bland but innocuous kind of wayl.

7. The base Camry has 20hp more than the Malibu. The Camry's new V6 has 30 more horsepower.

8. My local Chevy dealer is a MLA. His service department is a horror show. The Toyota dealer is swell guy.

9. Toyotas exhibit better paint and assembly quality. Compare a RAV-4 to a Cadillac.

10. Chrome mustaches aren't my thing.





It's not my fault if the GTO has not-so-great brakes, dated styling, unproven reliability, questionable build quality, gaudy interior detailing, the same old stupid CAGS skip-shift, undersized tires, a tiny trunk, dubious gas tank placement or a gas guzzler penalty. I'm just sad that GM is continuing its downward spiral.

 

Every vehicle in my driveway is a GM product with a bow-tie badge.

 

Wouldn't some people prefer a lighter car? What does weight have to do with "how much car you're getting", really?

"Probably"

Even if what you say about Lutz is true, the opinion of the Malibu name is just that. Your opinion.

Quote:

6. The Malibu is pig ugly; the Camry is handsome in a bland but innocuous kind of wayl.

I don't think the styling of the new Malibu is bad for what it is. So who is "right", you or me?

Quote:

7. The base Camry has 20hp more than the Malibu. The Camry's new V6 has 30 more horsepower.

Aha! This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for. I'll accept this.

Quote:

10. Chrome mustaches aren't my thing.

There's a great fact about the Malibu.

Quote:

It's not my fault if the GTO has not-so-great brakes, dated styling, unproven reliability, questionable build quality, gaudy interior detailing, the same old stupid CAGS skip-shift, undersized tires, a tiny trunk, dubious gas tank placement or a gas guzzler penalty. I'm just sad that GM is continuing its downward spiral.

Most of the above points (that aren't purely opinion) have already been blown out of the water by guionM and others who have had experiences with the Monaro already, as I have pointed out to you earlier in this thread. I'll take the well thought out, in-depth review of the GTO from the person who drove one for a while at the beginning of this thread any day of the week over rambling opinions from one person who has probably not even sat behind the wheel of one yet.

 

Check out my thread on the GTO's braking performance.

 

So... if the Malibu is a bit lighter than a Camry that has a bit more horsepower... won't it balance out?

Like people who are buying these cars really put a lot of weight on a few horsepower difference anyway

A lot of smack coming about the new Malibu coming from someone who admittedly has not even driven one...

 

You make the argument that because the GTO is heavier than the F4 that extra weight despite more power is a very bad thing. This is the exact same situation but now being heavier and more power is a good thing? Not very consistant

Granted the GTO isn't perfect, but I dont think any car is, and if it were I am sure it would be well out of most peoples price range.

The fact that you are comparing it to cars twice its price actually votes very well to it. (at least if I remember right you did, can't find the origional post where I saw that) I know you are bitter about the discontinuance of the F-bod hurt all of our feelings, but at least give credit where it is due.

 

I guess this makes the GTO "more car" than the F-body. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

So the Malibu is smaller, lighter and lower-powered than the Camry. Hmmm, it looks like the term "Detroit Iron" isn't very appropriate any more.

 

What does this even mean???

Why does Malibu have to be bigger, heavier and more powered to be successful in it's market??

 

But the GTO is criticized (heavily) by you for being too heavy? I'll agree that it is heavier than ideal. Unfortunately, that is the trend today. Have you ever looked at the weights of midsize luxury cars. BMW 5 series? Audis? They all hover in the two ton range. Weight is the enemy, whether you are talking about performance, braking, handling, fuel efficiency, whatever. Sure, having a land yacht can be beneficial in a collision (all else being equal). But I'd much rather see family sedans in the 3000-3500 lb range than the 4500 lb range.

The Malibu stacks up quite well against the Camry performance wise, even with "only" 200 hp.

Oh yeah. How old are you, seriously? Are you old enough to drive? Are you in high school yet?

 

A. The GTO's brakes are about identical to Camaro's in stopping performance.

B. The styling of the Monaro is actually newer than the CTS. If you want to go to the Commodore it's based on, it's no older than the Impala. Coincidentially, both are being replaced in 2005/2006.

C. You mention build quality on a car you have never seen in person from a country you have never visited, and in both instances you are relying on pure cluelessness instead of actually checking into these things yourself....... baaad redzed!

D. CAGS is on the Vette and the 4th gen. I've never heard of anyone slamming either cars because of this. My Z has this bypassed. If it's a big issue, let someone know, & we'll tell you how to bypass this.

E. The 3725 pound GTO runs on 225/50-17s. The 3748 pound (with automatic) 2004 BMW 5 series V8 runs......... 225/50-17s!

F. The GTO's trunk is about the same as the Mustang's, which is pretty good since they are close to the same size & GTO has a vastly roomier backseat (fair tradeoff IMHO).

G. Dubious fueltank placement? I guess you'd rather have it hanging out back like the Mustang, huh?

H. Gas Guzzler penalty? Don't buy an Automatic. 29 mpg on the freeway is better than the Z28. Look it up.

I. GM continuing a downward spiral? You're kidding, right?? Tell me, is this because you are in a small town that doesn't deal with the real world outside, or do you spend most of your days locked up somewhere dark & quiet?

 

GTO is actually running on 245's now.

 

I think ole' redzed does not even own a Chevy like he claims. I bet he just says he does so we don't dissmiss his arguments like a troll because "I own only Chevys".............................I bet there is a nice Civic in the driveway.