16 year olds just want a car, they don't really car too much what it is, as long as it is a car. They have no experience with them and either get what their parents buy or give them, or whatever they can afford. For whatever reason, alot of them do end up in a cavalier. Ask any cavalier owner what they think about their car. They soon learn that it sucks. Hell, I drove a Ford Tempo when I turned 16. Do you think I'm going to do that again?? It's going to take alot to get them to by GM again after that experience.

The acura RSX/Integra is one of, if not the, top car in the younger generations mind. It is well built, holds value, and has developed quite the reputation due to its class leading quality and driving dynamics, especially with the halo effect from the type-S and type-R. This generation is going to grow up and buy acuras/hondas, not Impala SS's

You are operating under the false premise that just b/c Its selling well right now, that it is a good car. That thought is a pitfall for any company, and GM is one of them. People buy cavaliers b/c they don't know any better. It's like all those retards that bought geo metros. Go and ask any of these people what they think of their cars. They learn quickly as it begins to fall apart or when they try to sell it and get some money out of it. I would be interested to see the number of repeat buyers for the cavalier.

My dad used to think these things sold cars. This generation will put in their own stereos and could care less about ABS. Honda's also dont come standard with ridiculously cheap plastic interiors or poor build quality, or even crappy driving dynamics.

With all due respect, guionM, the cavalier DOES SUCK. You can make the arguement that this is just my opinion, buy there are far more people out there that consider this a fact. It doesn't matter how many of these turds they sell, it's still a turd.

But this isn't even my point. GM has NO/ZERO entry level cars that appeal to the younger crowd. The best one is the GA and it still suffers from the "cheap GM" curse.

Bottom line: GM sells sh*tty cars and then wonders why toyota just passed them up as number one in the U.S. in car sales. GM sells lots of small cars but not very many midsize ones. So here is the golden question; where are all of these cavalier owners going after they sell their cars and upgrade????

 

Malibu!

 

GM, late to the ball trying to enter the sport compact market, is trying to pitch the Cavalier as the vehicle to have is just plain wrong in my view.

They need some kind of new, entry-level car to do the job. Cavalier has no heritage other than being a basic, inexpensive, entry level GM car.

I'm a Camaro guy, so the import scene sometimes doesn't make sense to me. However, it seems reasonable that the General should to come to market with a new vehicle, with a new name to make a fresh start.

Trying to take an existing product with a generally poor reputation in your "target market" (best selling car or not) will take a tremendous amount of marketing to make it fly.

Just my $.02

 

slt, a couple of points I feel you missed.

First, Cavalier isn't bought by parents for kids. I cannot think of one 16 year old who had their parents buy a brand new car for them. Second, buyers under 21 are a small portion of new car sales. Less than 5% of total new car sales last I checked (it was actually closer to 2%, but I'll give the benefit of doubt here). When you start with $500+ monthly car payments & $200 or so in monthly car insurence till 21 or 25 years old, it's easy to see why. It's the used car market where this age group goes and this includes the $19K Acura.

Also, car buyers are not a bunch of bumpkins who buy whatever they are told. If that were the case, Yougos would still be around & Oldsmobile wouldn't be on life support. No one is kidnapped, told to buy a Cavalier & commits to 4 or 5 years of payments unless it's a car they want. They base their purchases on what their priorities are. It could be price & what you get for the money, it could how it's put together, it could be something to get from point A to B till that raise or promotion comes up. Just because you may not agree with their reasons doesn't mean they are stupid & buy whatever they are told.

The reason Cavaliers are selling is because Chevy put together a package that people want . Regardless as to if it's because of rebates, value, style, coupons, looks, or a combination or even all those reasons. You think they suck, and you are entitled to that opinion. I wouldn't buy one because I don't want FWD and they are way too slow for my tastes. Yet, my sister liked her's (her 1st new car), and after owning a Mustang for a few years, she copied me & bought a Camaro.

90% of car buyers are not brand loyal. They get what suits them at the moment. I bought my 1st 5.0 Mustang because it was cheap & fast (Z28's cost a bit more than Mustangs in the 80s). I bought a Thunderbird S/C because GM had nothing I wanted (let alone anything like it) at the time. I bought my Z28 because Ford seemed to be going backwards with Mustang. When I am ready to buy a car again, I'll see what's available & fits my priorities. Everyone does it, just different priorities. If a car falls apart, word gets out, & you have Yugo's ending. But Cavalier has been around almost as long as dirt ('82... same difference). If they were truly bad cars, word would have gotten around a few hundred times by now.

As far as quality, Cavalier is about where Camaros & other GM cars are. In my opinion, Cavalier is weak in the powertrain area (economy vs horsepower), sex appeal area (they need a performance version more than Saddam needs a bomb shelter), and they have gone a really long time without a restyle, but as far as basic transportation for the masses, it's not bad.

Besides, the more they sell, the more money & CAFE credits for future V8 Monte Carlos & Camaros!

 

No. Not really. GM loses money on every one they sell. I'd be willing to bet the enormous sum of one dollar that Honda makes a profit on every civic they sell (except the hybrid). Same for toyota and the Corolla.

Not very many people WANT cavaliers. That's why they always have rebates out the *** and their resale value drops like a rock (with no air drag slowing it down).

Where's the variable valve timing?
Where's the rear disk brakes?
Is that still a beam axle out back?
How about the cheap interior materials?
How about the crummy fit and finish?
How about the sub par driving dynamics?
Where are the magazine awards?
How many red dots has consumer reports given it?
How about the structural ridgidity of that 1982 platform?

But at a cut rate price, they sure sell a lot of them - at the expense of GM's reputation. Does that make them a success story? I don't think so.

 

I again say the market is not there,you can say mustang, z, etc, just proves my point, there is too much competition and the market is not there. The market is there for the mustang, but it is not there for the f-body.

As for a Z under $20k, there is such a thing as ordering a car with no options, there were factory rebates all year not just at model end, and there was a $1000 special f-body rebate. I think you grossly missed my point, while everyone is getting excited over a $34k mustang and Nissan Z, you could have gotten a nicely equipped Z for $24k...10k cheaper, and sales still sucked!!!! people just do not want this car bad enough.

 

Exactly, then people go on to by hondas and toyotas when they move up. Isn't this the hole Hyundai is trying to dig themselves out of?

 

If that's true, it's really pathetic! GM has one car that's doing very well, & they loose money on it. That seems extremely odd for a car whose chassis dates to 1982, and the body is over 5 years old.


I am under no curcumstances trying to say that Cavalier is the best, most desireable car on the market. But all the points you made about Cavalier's shortcommings can be said about all f-bodies as well (except subpar driving dynamics) expecially when compared to imported sports cars (Camaro & Cavalier both depriciate about the same percentage over the first few years according to prices in Kelley's bluebook).

My point (under the.....false?..... assumption that GM made a profit on Cavalier) was that high Cavalier sales are good, people want it for whatever the reason (Yugos, Huyndais, & Dawoos are cheaper, Mitsubishi is better made, and Focus is more "cool", but Cavalier still outsells them), and it helps with CAFE numbers, meaning more room to bring back more performance in other models. I still believe they are decent cars because of the experences of my sister & other owners I know (though they aren't exciting enough for me). I also confess that I think the coupe is the only small FWD car that actually looks good .

But, I'll concede that I probally have the minority opinion on this subject. I respect your opinions Werm, slt, and everyone else on this subject. I agree to disagree with ya.

 

"(Yugos, Huyndais, & Dawoos are cheaper, Mitsubishi is better made, and Focus is more "cool", but Cavalier still outsells them)"

No, they haven't made Yugos in years. Point was they were sold at firesale prices & they still couldn't sell for more than a year before people stopped buying them because of poor quality.

 

Originally posted by guionM If that's true, it's really pathetic! GM has one car that's doing very well, & they loose money on it. That seems extremely odd for a car whose chassis dates to 1982, and the body is over 5 years old.

Hard to believe, yet true. They lose more than $2,000 on every one they sell. Multiply that by how many they sell...

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/GM-Goal-More-SUVs.htm


They may be decent cars, but decent doesn't cut it anymore in today's market. "Good" is the cost of entry into todays car market. And as far as Camaro, you could easily make an argument that the market perception of this car (poorly built, poor handling dinosaur, unreliable, gas guzzler, etc.) hurt GM as much as it helped. GM wasn't willing to pump up sales by incentiv-izing the hell out of them (or redesigning them - those batards! ), so they were discontinued. Most people here know the truth about the cars, but market perception is another story.

 

GM lost a generation years ago, and it's still happening. GM's continuing refusal to connect with youthfull buyers by building budget performance cars, both traditional RWD, and FWD has come to an all time low. ford continues to evolve the mustang and can't build them fast enouph. The focus successfully captured an entire gen. of young buyers. ford continues to build high performance trucks while GM has none. Today you can't dig up a teenager driving a GM product, i wonder why.


2000 Ram Air T/A
92 Firebird
79 Z/28

 

Everyone is picking on the Cavalier, and although I agree with a lot of points about it (DESPERATLY needs a new platform and interior) the quality issue as it relates to bringing in new buyers could be applied to the Focus as well. The Focus hasn't exactly been the zenith of quality since it was introduced, but I guess since it has the "coolness" advantage and SVT version it will attract and hold those young buyers to Ford products(?) That doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Read that article Werm. Seems alot of what's in there is obsolete. Just 2 examples: Zarella saying that GM wouldn't push for 30% of the market anymore, and that they were going to decrease production of Cavalier.

But I also see a sort of twisted logic that still seems to be playing out. It seems that GM is working on their vehicles via trickle down method. It seems they are working on their most profitable vehicles first, & working down the line from there:

1. Trucks
2. Cadillac & Corvette
3. Buick & Pontiac
4. Chevrolet
5. Specialty cars, like Camaro & Monte Carlo (& GTO?)..

 

True it is dated, but I my point was that they lose money on the cars. I bet they aren't making any more money on them now, with increased rebates and 0% financing.

 

Unfortunately, its becoming the norm in affluent suburbia.

I live next to a high school. The student parking lot is absolutely filled with new Sunfires, Cavis, etc.