Edmunds CarPool

In the Wagon under $30k, me thinks that having Legacy and Outback as separate candidates will split the vote on that chassis.

Same thing with the Solstice and the Sky

I voted........yes i did
In an expression of the loyalty I am known for, I voted for the MATRIX/VIBE in WAGONS under 20k.... I adore my strictly utilitarian car...
 
VOTE UP PEOPLE!

I'm willing to bet 80% of the picks people make will lineup with Edmunds choices due to the demographics of those who regularly visit this site. Most winners will be BMW, Honda and Mazda.

Guess you better rally the troops then, 1487. GM is counting on you.

Hey 14....
I'm willing to bet that 80% of the people who regularly visit this site are very knowledgable about what separates a really good car from a shoddily assembled also-ran. And if BMW, Honda and Mazda get the most votes, it's because they are the best cars out there. AS VOTED BY US
 
What are you trying to say about the people who visit this site? (Of who you are one let me remind you)

We'll definitely combine the Solstice/Sky votes. Probably do the same for Outback/Legacy.

My guess for most significant vehicle: Saturn Aura. Moreso than the Sky, it defines the complete, fast, and utter redo of Saturn.

I voted for some GM SUVs and trucks, being of the school of thought that the only reason you should have an SUV is to tow, haul, or go off road so RWD primary/4x4 vehicles with heavy frames and big torquey engines are what you want.
 
I had a tough time with most significant vehicle. I picked the Acadia. I almost picked the R8. There were some others I was eying up.
 
As noted by others there are multiple errors as far as vehicles fitting into x price category.

The most difficult area for me was choosing a coupe under $30K, as most of the cars on the list didnt really compete against each other. I ended up picking the most sensible (for me), user friendly choice that was available.

To bring the vote into balance I went and voted for the least desirable cars in each category. And accidentally it happened to be BMW, Honda and Mazda.

flicmod,
 
I didn't vote for all GM vehicles. I know it's shocking. Just because I don't worship Japanese brands doesn't mean I am stupid enough to say GM makes best in class vehicles across the board. I would say I voted for 4 or 5 GM mdoels out of 32 categories. Of course this is till far more than the average Edmunds visitor so that probably makes me a "fanboy" to most regulars here.
 
I too picked Acadia for most significant vehicle.

1487,
 
Just because I don't worship American brands doesn't mean I am stupid enough to say Honda makes best in class vehicles across the board. I picked several GM and Ford models. I guess that makes me an "average Edmunds visitor".
 
In fact, my "most significant" choice was the Aura.

Does the fact that Saturn has fielded an extremely competitive vehicle in the midsize segment really make it the most Significant of the Year? How does it change the category? Does it offer a unique powertain? Best in class standard safety features? In my opinion, it doesn't out-Accord the Accord (handling, efficiency, resale, reliability), out-Camry the Camry (Hybrid efficiency, safety features/scores, ride, reliability, V6 power) or offer the mix that the Altima does. I'd choose all three before it, and in fact, I'd take a Fusion AWD before the Aura as well.
 
A damn fine vehicle, indeed. A GREAT GM entry - finally. Game changer? Not at all.
 
~alpha

I think my view of "most significant" is different than yours, alpha. In my mind, the Aura revolutionized the Saturn brand. It's the poster-child for GM's turning point. I think that 20 years from now when our kids (well... my kids, anyhow) are analyzing automotive history, the Aura will be brought up as a crucial piece in GM's turnaround plan. That makes it significant to me.
 
What'd you vote for, BTW?

I'll leave you guessing, but I feel that as far as GM goes, the Silverado/Sierra are WAAAAAAAY more significant than the Aura, especially from a bottom line POV. THOSE are vehicles, IMO, whose inherently strong design and product differentiation distinguish it from peers and place GM in a good place to fend off the threat (named Toyota). The Aura just catches up to where Honda-Toyota-Nissan have lived for the past (in some cases ) decades, where as the Silverado continues to fight for best in class.
 
And, again, IMO, the turnaround at Cadillac has proven more pivotal and dramatic that the Saturn turnaround (has it turned around yet, really? Still have the ION, and old-Vue, and we don't know exactly how the replacements will fare, so the verdict may still be out). I think the most significant GM vehicle in recent history, accordingly, would be the CTS (def. the most significant SEDAN in GM's recent history).
 
~alpha

Ironically, I feel the same about the Aura that you feel about the Silverado.
 
Well, agree to disagree...

Oh, absolutely, disagreement makes the world go round. I guess I'm just missing how theres best-in-class anything about the Aura? And the Aura isn't exactly fending-off the Camry/Accord/Altima as much as begging for those owners to give it a chance.
 
~alpha

alpha,
 
how many "game changing" vehicles are really introduced in today's market? Not many. You are not the first to make the argument about the Aura not being worthy of awards since its just an average midsize car and has not set the segment on fire. The same could be said for the new camry, altima or any other new car. It's hard to do "game changing" these days because cars are so competent. The 300C was a game changer, but I cant think of many vehicles since that deserve that distinction. And no, the Fit doesnt deserve that title. I have yet to figure out how the Fit has done anything besides introduce fancy fold down seats to its segment. Very few cars are good enough upon introduction to send competitors back to the drawing board so you could take issue with almost any "most significant" pick.

I would definitely put the Aura over the Silverado for most significant, given Edmunds description of most significant. The Silverado already leads the class (depending on who you ask), so what is the significance? No news there, just consistent competence, which is great. The Aura however, is a defining vehicle for GM in the mid-size sedan segment (even though it's not class leading), because it's the first one in years that won't get you laughed at by people like us for considering it. Perception is reality, and this vehicle with improve auto shoppers' perceptions of Saturn and GM.

I think most significant belongs to the Tundra. It's the first REAL truck made outside of the big 3. Sure, there are some issues with aluminum v iron blocks, and fully boxed v semi boxed frames; valid concerns that will be ironed out over time...and then there's the styling. But remove the big T from the front and start looking numbers and, well, this thing is pretty competitive.
 
It's doing the same thing the Aura is; not setting any real benchmarks, but bringing its maker somewhere new in a competent way.

Well, except that the Tundra has best in class acceleration and standard safety features (4 star NHTSA is disappointing, though).
 
And seriously-
 
"the Aura however, is a defining vehicle for GM in the mid-size sedan segment (even though it's not class leading), because it's the first one in years that won't get you laughed at by people like us for considering it" ?
 
So GM deserves kudos for getting it right after three decades and countless iterations of X cars, A cars, W bodies, etc? That's kind of embarassing, don't you think? To a lesser degree - it took Toyota three tries with the Tundra as well, though certainly the company learned quicker than GM.
 
And another argument - if we're going the Aura route and that logic is sound, what of the very impressive and potential turn-around inducing Enclave and Acadia (lesser degree, Outlook)? Buick is dying and the Enclave may give it a needed swift kick in the arse. Why not this trio as most significant, for the same reason that people are calling the Aura significant?
 
Bottom Line in all of this: GM has finally brought it's A-game ON. That's great news for consumers, and I look forward to the continued success of their designs, and move away from mediocre vehicles like the Impala, Cobalt, Colorado/Canyon, etc.
 
1487, I'd argue that the Camry Hybrid is reasonably game changing. Toyota seized an opportunity where Honda goofed up abit with the performance oriented Accord Hybrid as model flagship. The Camry Hybrid can hit sixty in 7.7 (C/D) to 8.5 (CR) seconds and manages 34 MPG in mixed driving, while still being every bit a Camry- and a seemingly large number of people love their Camrys, for all the critique of the model's blandness. That's impressive. I haven't seen similar numbers posted by the Altima, (in fact, C/D's tester was slower than the impressive 4 cylinder AND returned lower MPG).
 
I also differ with you on the Fit, and wonder if perhaps your sentiment would be differnent if it was Chevy's Aveo that was efficient, flexible, fun to drive, and offered a full compliment of safety gear and high crash scores along with resale and reliability. But I guess thats not new in the class of minicars, right?
 
Thanks for a great discussion,
~alpha

alpha,
 
The Acadia and its twins are great additions to GM's lineups. But, honestly, I haven't seen one on the road yet and I don't think the marketing is even in full swing for them either. The Enclave MAY save Buick, but we don't know. It hasn't happened yet. If Edmunds re-did this test 8 months from now, maybe the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave would win the most significant. It may even get my vote. Personally, when I think of "GM turnaround" the first thing that comes to me is Saturn Aura. Why should a family of SUV's be honored in an aleady SUV-dominated world? I think a practical, applicable family sedan is more important in American than another SUV. But maybe that's just me.

Flicmod, get away from LA and you will see Acadias and Outlooks everywhere. In my state dealers have sold everyone they get before it gets on the lot, and I am starting to see 1$-2$K markups on Acadias. My wife (who HATES SUVs) sat in one at a car show and fell in love. She has to have one, so she has me constantly looking for and pricing them, even though it will be a year or more before we can buy one. Me, I am holding out for an Enclave, hopefully an Enclave Super.
 
These Lambda cars are what will turn GM around in my opinion, not the competant but hardly outstanding Aura, of which I have seen only two on the road.

For the record, I'm not from LA. I'm not even from the west coast. Rather I'm from the other extreme, the north east. Pennsylvania to be exact. I haven't seen any yet. I see at least one Aura on the road per day. I guess it's the difference in the demographics.

alpha,
 
spare me the Fit praise please. Most cars in the Fit's class are about the same. They all have small engines, high roofs, small wheels and boxy styling. The Fit isn't doing anything revolutionary last time I checked. Fun to drive? I dont think a car can be all that fun to drive without decent power. I'm sure the Fit Sport (which isnt the standard fit) handles well for the class but no one outside of the Honda loving press cares. People buying in that segment are not looking for sports sedans last time I checked. My opinion of the Fit wouldnt change if it was a Chevy or Ferrari, I dont think the car is that special. I find the "B" segment to be full of efficient, dull vehicles that fail to interest me. The Fit is not a vehicle that is special enough to change people's perception about Honda or convince the owners of similar cars to want to rush in for a trade. The Aura and Lamdas (and Tundra) are vehicles that have the power to totally change opinions about their brands.
 
I dont care if the Aura is most significant or not but your argument that its the first competent GM sedan in 30 years is a joke. I guess you never heard of the Intrigue, CTS, Aurora, STS, Impala, etc. The Impala that you are deriding is a very successful car and no worse than a Camry in objective measures. The only thing it lacks is a hybrid model so the camry has a clear advantage there.
 
flicmod,
 
I live in Philly and have seen three lamdas so far, not including the autoshow. I have seen MANY Auras though.

' "the Aura however, is a defining vehicle for GM in the mid-size sedan segment (even though it's not class leading), because it's the first one in years that won't get you laughed at by people like us for considering it" ?
  
So GM deserves kudos for getting it right after three decades and countless iterations of X cars, A cars, W bodies, etc? That's kind of embarassing, don't you think? To a lesser degree - it took Toyota three tries with the Tundra as well, though certainly the company learned quicker than GM.
  
And another argument - if we're going the Aura route and that logic is sound, what of the very impressive and potential turn-around inducing Enclave and Acadia (lesser degree, Outlook)? Buick is dying and the Enclave may give it a needed swift kick in the arse. Why not this trio as most significant, for the same reason that people are calling the Aura significant?'
 
You're right, it is embarrassing, but hey, they finally did it. Can't we be happy for them and support the home team for doing well and truly turning around (unlike Ford and Chrysler, for the most part)?
 
Has everyone forgotten the Titan? It's a "real truck", and it has been around longer than the new "real" Tundra. It's showing its age a bit now, but when it came out, it was running right with the big three. So why the big buzz about the Tundra?
 
As to your final argument about the Acadia, I agree, and that's why I voted for it.
 
I live in the same relative area as flicmod in "real" life, and I've seen some Outlooks and Acadias tooling around, but would have to agree with the fellow PAers that the Aura market is speeding past.

1487-
 
The CTS, Aurora, and STS are NOT of the same ilk as family cars such as the X-cars, the A derivitives of that chassis, and the mainstream W bodies.
 
The Intrigue was indeed very competitive, but it too suffered from VERY inconsistent quality (Long Term reports from the rags ranged from defect free.. [see C/D] to in the shop 1/2 the time.. [see edmunds.com]) it was positioned as a premium midsizer and priced accordingly, and that vehicle certainly didn't do anything to, in your words "totally change opinions about that brand" [see GM's euthanization]. But still, I'll give you that one. OOOOOH 1 potential class leader in 30 years.......
 
The Impala no worse than the Camry in objective measures? Are you talking about objective measures like acceleration, ride, handling, braking, fuel efficiency, safety features, safety scores, technology availability, resale value? Just curious.
 
It's a very successful car, indeed... with rental fleets, where what ?35-40% of Impalas land. (Last Gen, final year of Camry was at 14%, FWIW).
 
And finally, the Fit has been discussed ad nauseum. I agree it won't change perception about the Honda brand, but I think it has the ability to change perception about this class of vehicle. And for me - and I suspect others- there's something to be said of exploring a car's potential at 9/10ths while still be able to fly under the radar. It's got 109 hp and can hit 60 in about 9-10 seconds with the 5MT. (This couldn't be said for the Honda Civic just 10 years ago [DX, LX] and that was in a class higher.)
 
~alpha

My parents have an Intrigue with about 90k miles that had about 2 minor repairs under warranty and has been largely problem free since. I dont know about Intrigues being in the shop "1/2 the time". Hasnt been my experience at all.
 
The Impala has good quality scores, good crash scores, good performance (with 3.9 and V8 engines), more space than camry, larger trunk than camry and excellent build quality. And it has a better warranty. Yes, I would say it can hold it's own vs. the camry and since it sold about 30k units last month I think it's doing pretty well. I don't know how you measure "ride" but I think the Impala does OK in that department. Technology? Only the XLE and hybrid models have technology. Other than nav/bluetooth I dont know what tech the Camry offers that the impala doesn't. Of course 90% of camrys dont have those features so it really doesn't matter. BTW, Impala retial sales were up 65% last month and they have reduced fleet sales dramatically since the current model launched. Check it out for yourself. Impala is probably 75%-80% retail now.
 
I fail to see how the CTS, STS (including FWD version), DTS, Aurora, Alero, etc. do not count as competent GM sedans in the last 30 years. I didnt know your comment was limited to midsize sedans for under $25k, I thought you said SEDANS.
 
Almost all the cars in the B segment can hit 60 in under 10 secs with a manual. This is nothing special. The Fit is a high roof, small engined car with small wheels and tires. I'm sure it's handling is better than the Accent or Aveo, but that doesn't say much to me. The Camry is sportier than most B cars. The sales of the Fit suggest it isnt making the impact on the marketplace that so many predicted. The Yaris and Aveo are outselling it handily.

I think the fit is changing perceptions (and expectations) of that class of car. My parents' neighbor bought one to replace his CIVIC and likes it better. He's a very practical fellow who likes to drive 7/10 and row his own gears.
 
On the subject of the Fit, I have a question. Why don't they offer the R18 (Civic) motor in the Fit? More power, better mpg. Is it a cost thing? It is to prevent the Fit from outclassing the higher priced Civic? If the Fit was RWD and had the Civic motor, I would be driving one, even though it is slightly goofy looking.

I think we may be reprimanded from moving off-topic, so this will be my last post.
 
Other tech not available on the Impala
- Stability Control
- Advanced transmission (5, 6 sp, CVT)
- Keyless Ignition/Entry
- note Bluetooth is available on all Camrys except CE, and does not require NAV
- electroluminescent instrumentation (largely regarded as classy/lux... after all, Caddy uses them...)
 
Safety misses of the Impala
- Only vehicle in all of midsize OR large class not to acheive "Good" in IIHS frontal offset
- Thoracic side impact airbag unavailable
- Knee bolster airbag unavailable
- ABS not standard even with a base MSRP of $21,600.
 
Sales
- 25% Fleet Last month only doesn't mean thats where the vehicle will land for the year.
- Incentive spending is significantly higher on Impala
 
My statement regarding GM which spawned this debate:
"So GM deserves kudos for getting it right after three decades and countless iterations of X cars, A cars, W bodies, etc?"
 
Don't get me wrong, the Impala is a good car. But it's not an A-list competitor.
 
bbechtel- I agree with you. I think the Fit is indeed changing perceptions and expectations of that class of vehicle.
 
~alpha

The camry doesnt have stability standard on any model. The Impala does lack seat mounted airbags but it doesnt seem to affect sales. pushbutton ignition on the camry is for the hybrid model. The camry does have more stuff (as it should since it costs more) but the Impala is a strong competitor and its sales support that. It was the 3rd best selling car last year which counts for something. Impala fleet sales have been down ever since the new model came out, not just for one month. Unless you have stats to support your 40% fleet argument I would drop that argument. You dont sell 30k units of a car that isnt "A list" in one month. The Impala offers features that many buyers think are important even if it lacks bluetooth adn knee airbags. It will get stability control and ABS standard on all but base model for 2008.
 
Impala also offers Onstar, remote start, non instrusive trunk hinges and a V8 engine, 18" wheels, flip/fold rear seat and fold down seat on ALL models....... all things Camry lacks.
 
what are the Impala's NHSTA test ratings? You dont mention them so I assume they are good.

Stability is standard on Camry Hybrid, and available on ALL models. Keyless ignition standard on Camry Hybrid, available XLE. I don't quote NHSTA because I think the tests are dated, but the Impala trails the Camry in the side impact. 60/40 flip rear is a Camry CE/LE feature, replaced by segment only reclining rear seats XLE and enhanced bracing SE models. Camry doesn't need a V8 to hit 60 in 6 seconds (or 5.8 according to Car and Driver)....

Replacing fold down seats with reclining seats is ridiculous. Fold down seats are one of the best innovations in the last 10 years or so and the Camry doesnt offer them on the SE, hybrid or XLE models. That is stupid. The idea that the SE cant have them because it needs a structural brace for extra rigidity is a joke. Plenty of sports sedans manage to be rigid and offer a fold down seat.
 
Very convenient that you dont quote the crash test results that are better for the Impala. I dont quote the other results because they are generated by an organization that supports insurance companies and has a specific agenda. This is the same agency that said small cars are unsafe and doesnt recommend people buy them.
 
Try comparing the 5-60 times of the Camry V6 and Impala SS and you will get a better idea of how they stack up in the real world. Magazines use brake torquing and other launch methods that benefit higher revving engines that have little torque. In a stoplight race the Impala SS would be faster.
 
It's great the stability is offered on ALL models, but its standard on the smallest volume model. Impala will have it standard on all but base LT model for 2008. LTZ will also get 18" wheels.

Ok, seriously, please get the facts straight. I didn't quote the NHTSA results because I don't agree with the antiquated tests.
 
My statement was: "I don't quote NHSTA because I think the tests are dated, but the Impala trails the Camry in the side impact."
 
IN OTHER WORDS, the Camry OUTSCORES the Impala in side impact, not vice versa, read more carefully, check nhtsa.gov or do something so that you don't misrepresent me or the facts.
 
Is the 2008 Impala on sale today?
 
~alpha