Toyota will remain #1 for the near future. The only way GM can ever get the title back is if GM's sales in China and elsewhere grow enough to overcome Toyota's growth in the US. Toyota's design and interior quality are stuck in neutral and yet it doesnt matter because they can do no wrong in the US market. People in this country love Toyota and will turn a blind eye to their recalls, boring designs, Buick-like handling, gas guzzling trucks, etc. all because of resale value and their supposedly large quality advantage. Since Toyota is posting huge sales increases each month I think it is possible for Toyota to come very close to GM's north american share within the next 3-4 years. GM's products and quality are better than ever but it really doesnt matter because a huge chunk of the buying public will not even look at GM products because either a)they had a bad experience with a GM vehicle within the last 20 years or b) they hate GM for making SUVs and feel an environmentally conscious buyer must by a Japanese car. Apparently, as long as you make hybrids people are wiling to overlook your V8 SUVs and pickups.

People have stayed away from GM because of there lack of good product. For years their products were lack luster with poor design and plastic boring interiors. At times the automotive press would hail a new GM product as surpassing expectations, which was merely damning with feint praise. For years now, NONE of the cars have been compelling, and the trucks were praised for their substantive abilities, but their interiors and build quality were still pathetic.
 
I personally believe that MOST Americans don't give a damn about whether a company has a good environmental record or not. I don't care if the company I am buying my car from sells trucks or SUVs, I want a good, no, EXCELLENT product.
 
I have to say that despite some nagging refinement issues with the interior plastic, the Saturn Aura is a great car. The V6 is strong, the transmission smooth and the handling on par with Honda and Toyota for its purpose. That is what is important to family car drivers. But its not selling because the American public want proof. GM will have to commit to making better products and demonstrate that they are willing to continue to refine and update.
 
One of the greatest problems with our domestic products is that our fearless leaders and bean counters run for the hills if a product does not fly off the lots. And if a product is deemed a success (PT Cruiser, Mustang, Camero (early 90's), Taurus they let it languish to squeeze every drop of profitability until the name and reputation are sonomous with antiquated.
 
The Japanese and the Europeans have a commitment to constant improvement. The Corolla name has been around for generations. It is not compelling transportation, but it is one of the most refined automobiles in its segment and its reputation allows Toyota to market something other than the newest fad. The PT Cruiser was a terrific success for Chrysler, but they have done nothing with it. It is an also ran. A lanquishing model that is a shadow of its former self in the eyes of the new car consumer. Most realistically, Chrysler will get bored with it and dump the model only to bring out a new name with all new challenges in the market.
 
It will take more than great product to escape their difficulties. It will take an acceptance that the turnaround will be a long and torturous process. The concept of consulting the stock price every quarter to determine the right track is pure lunacy. The American car companies have to start selling their cars and themselves.
 
Americans really do want to buy domestic, but they are not going to gamble a long term committment on the whims of companies that have nothing more than a 2 year plan with a series of U turns thrown in.

As a general rule companies that are very profitable do not take chances with product; they tend to play it safe. Toyota is doing that now, bland exteriors, nice but boring interiors. They make appliances.
 
Companies that are struggling take chances. The best/break through products are generally born out of desperation, as are total flops.
I expect Toyota to continue to coast. I expect GM, Ford, Chrysler to be much more willing to take risks with their new products. They have to. They must deliver products that change the customrs perceptions or they will cease to exist as we know them.
 
I think GM has started to get it. I don't think Ford has a clue. I think Chrysler got it, then forgot it.
 
1487, you nailed my experience with GM. 2 failed transmissions at 50k miles, cars that died at 70 miles an hour for no apparent reason. From 1978 to 1987 i bought 4 new GM cars. I haven't owned one since. I might consider a GM car for my next pruchase; but I have to say I haven't forgotten the crap they sold in the 80s & 90s

"Americans really do want to buy domestic, but they are not going to gamble a long term committment on the whims of companies that have nothing more than a 2 year plan with a series of U turns thrown in."
 
I doubt that seriously. Most Americans do not care where their cars or made and have no desire to buy American at all. Domestic quality has been improving for quite some time now, this isnt a recent development by any means. On everything from 6 speed trannies to design to pricing there are competitive domestic entries in nearly every segment. The whole "I have to buy foreign to get competence" excuse is just that, an excuse. The general public is uninformed about the recent track record of domestic vehicles, Toyota's quality lapses, the improving resale value of GM and Ford vehicles, the value offered by many domestic vs similar Toyotas, etc. People are using outdated notions to make their decisions and there is little GM can do to change that. Thus Toyota will continue to rise and GM will struggle to maintain its 23% share.

No GM does not have competitive vehicles in every segment. In the most important segments of midsize and compact sedans, the domestics are woefully inadequate. For example, the Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, and Dodge Caliber can not compete with even the Korean makes when it comes to refinement, presentation, design and feature content. Even Hyundai has better resale value than any of these makes. Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, Volkswagen all have more compelling, competitive products in this segment.
 
In Midsize sedans the domestics are better, but far from proven competent. The Fusion, Aura, and upcoming Malibu look better. If the product continues to demonstrate competence the situation will change. But if the domestics, that are easily frustrated by their despiration, give up on the staples of automotive success they will continue to lanquish.
 
This new American quality that you refer to is TOO recent to form a lasting impression. Yes the new 6 speed transmission developed by Ford and GM is a step in the right direction, but it has been placed in cars that are not compelling vehicles. Isolated engineering and mechanical breakthroughs are lost if the whole product is not worth it. People don't buy cars for the engine or transmission, they buy the CAR.
 
GM's design until the last year has been pathetic. The Malibu, the Impala (prior to the clean sheet redraw), the Grand Prix, the Lasabre, the LaCross, the Cobalt, the Ion, the Monte Carlo, the Trailblazer, the minivans. The list of GM designs that have NO compelling nature are one of the reasons the company had no direction.
 
I agree the situation in changing, my point is that the product and the commitment to the product are required.

I think Norm's experience is the norm here in the US. The 1978-1987 period was probably some of the worst for GM as far as product goes, yet he continued to buy 4 during that time. Conversely, I think Toyota's best years relative to their peers were from the 90's to the early part of this decade as far as product goes, yet only in recent history have they overtaken everyone else. Given that the American public moves this slow, GM will need to keep doing a good job for a number of years before you'll see the buying public return to them.
 
From my perspective, the companies that stay at the number 1 position for a long time are the ones that are paranoid. Unfortunately for Toyota, I don't see a whole lot of paranoia on their part.

Being number one doesn't have much to do with your current product, but your last 20 years of products, probably longer in the case of cars. If GM is making good products now, it's assuring itself a future but it shouldn't expect any more than that.. frankly, they've gotten off easy of their decades of sucktitude.
 
Toyota's had a few misses lately, but it's not like their Tundra sales are worse than last generation, or Prius incentives are anywhere close to the industry average. There are companies who would LOVE to have those problems. The recalls are concerning though. If they keep up, then after a few years it'll affect their sales - but only if they keep up. When you have 30 years of good reputation, 2 years are easily forgiven. (Similarly, after 30 years of bad reputation, GM isn't going to earn everyone's trust with 2 good years.)
 
As for backlash, Toyota's as big in Japan as GM was here in the past, but they've kept releasing popular products so there is no backlash. It's simply a matter of performance.

I'll echo 7driver's and carlisimo's comments. Perception is not easily changed. It definitely doesn't happen over night like some people think it should. Those complaining about "Toyota can do no wrong in America's eyes" are missing the point that Toyota, and Honda as well, have been creating quality products for at LEAST the last 20 years. Consumer's remember that kind of thing. The only thing they remember more than 20 years of quality is 20 years of incompetence and, as carlisimo put it, "sucktitude".
 
GM is starting to build better quality products now. The Aura and Lambda vehicles are definitely of a different crop than the Cobalt, Impalibu, and the down-syndrome Suburban (AKA, Uplander). But 2 years of better engineering and design says nothing to any consumer except for the fan-base.
 
I'd take carlisimo's statement a step further and say that 30 years of bad reputation needs FAR more years to garner customer support than 30 years of good reputation needs to lose customer support. I'd attach a number to GM in the range of 15 to 20 years of consistent quality product to regain customer approval before they start selling vehicles like they were in the 60's.

"Yes the new 6 speed transmission developed by Ford and GM is a step in the right direction, but it has been placed in cars that are not compelling vehicles. "
 
Didnt you just say the Aura is one of GM better models? If so, the statement above makes no sense.
 
"GM's design until the last year has been pathetic."
 
That is your opinion. The CTS, Intrigue, Aurora, Vette, etc. all existed more than a year ago. You cant be a Japanese car fan and then offer lectures on GM styling. Toyota's styling has been and continues to be dull. GM has always had more compelling designs than Toyota as fas as I can tell. That wont be changing anytime soon. Gm's worst designs came at times when cars in general where ugly and/or dull.
 
" frankly, they've gotten off easy of their decades of sucktitude. "
 
Interesting viewpoint but I have no idea what it's based on. I would call losing 25% of the market over the course of 30 years a pretty significant blow. Do you honestly believe that GM has gotten away unscathed over the years? I think the public has repayed them dearly for their sins.

flic,
 
"GM is starting to build better quality products now. The Aura and Lambda vehicles are definitely of a different crop than the Cobalt, Impalibu, and the down-syndrome Suburban (AKA, Uplander). But 2 years of better engineering and design says nothing to any consumer except for the fan-base. "
 
OK I think we need to clarify something here. There is a difference between not offering class leading products and offering totally incompetent products that have no positive attributes. While I do agree that GM's recent products are some of their best ever, its a little ridiculous to say GM has only been building nice cars for the last two years. Many GM models of the last decade or so have gotten decent reviews and some have sold well. Some people like to ignore the last 10 years or so and act like nothing happened between the late 80s and last year. The Intrigue, CTS, Aurora (both models), STS, C5, C6, Impala, Alero, last gen SUVs/pickups, Trailblazer/envoy, XLR, Lucerne, Lesabre, GTO, Deville/DTS, etc. are all models that met with critical and/or sales success in this market within the last decade or so. The problem is that GM often offered other older models that were dated and lacking. GM is now turning out good product consistently which is a change, but they are not turning out good products for the first time ever as people are asserting.
 
Hyundai corrected its image problem in 5 years or so and I dont think it will take GM 20 years to correct its image. Part of what people dont see is that most people 30 and under dont really have a lot of GM horror stories. Sure some of them have learned from their parents that american cars stink and others wont buy American for image reasons, but people who owned bad domestic cars are largely 40 and up. As time goes forward we may find that the older segments of the population will be the most loyal to imports since they came of age in the era when domestic cars would leave you stranded. People who harp on experiences from the 70s and 80s and refuse to buy American are kind of like older folks who wouldnt buy imports because of WW2 back in the day. Time goes on, the 80s were a long time ago folks.

1487,
 
I'll attempt to make contact with you on whatever planet you're on, but I doubt it'll be of much use.
 
Of the 15 models that you've listed as "critical sales successes", six of them either no longer exist or are slated to cease, three of which were destroyed when Olds was axed, one of which was an also-ran under the Buick line, one which was a disaster from the start (GTO), and one that despite it's sales success is being executed (DTS). The C5 and C6 Corvettes don't even count. Neither does the XLR. They're niche vehicles and don't matter for volume sales. Nice try though.
 
Hyundai has corrected its IMAGE problems to a point, but they haven't corrected their real problems which lie in reliability and wide-spread consumer appeal. They've also only been in the States for 20 years. GM has been making a bad reputation for themselves for the past 30. It's a much different story between the two. Nice try again.
 
The only thing you have 100% right is that the majority of U-30 Americans haven't experienced the horrors of GM cars. You're right. I'm 22. I've never owned a GM vehicle. My dad hasn't either. Almost every person my age that I talk to about cars feels the exact same way I do and it's because of the same reasons: we've never owned a GM product and our parents have convinced us not to because of bad tastes they've had with GM products in the past. The majority of America feels this way. The ONLY people under 30 that think the way you do are the ones who've either been brainwashed by their GM-loyal parents or read too many Camaro magazines as a kid.
 
Unfortunately, it's going to take another generation coming to driving age to usher in the next wave loyal GM buyers. It's the ebb and flow of the car industry... deal with it.

The Aura is one of their best vehicles and has been on sale for less than a year. Therefore, the point I made as well as several others is that it will take consistency. The six speed is also in the G6 (yawn). The current CTS (yawn). While I agree with you that the Intrique did look good, it was a flash in the pan for GM that ultimately was axed, without a follow up car.
  
Further, competent vehicles also need to be critically acclaimed every once in a while. Your example of the Aurora is perfect. Yes when it came out the critics said that it represented the best American sedan in years. But what did GM do with it. It lanquished for several years from 1997-2002 without any refinement. By the end of the first model run the Japanese and German makes outpaced it in every way. So GM introduced a new model that represented a step in the wrong direction, that was qualitatively no different from the Buicks accross the street. Then within one year they announced that they were getting rid of the brand all together.
  
The Cadillac STS was a similar story. In 1992 it was lauded as a great new "American" sedan. But its front wheel drive architecture and poor build quality meant that the people it was designed to convince remained on the sidelines. The redesign in 1998, while stylistically acceptable failed to address the build quality issues. Cadillac did nothing to change this car until the 2005 model. The current model has had some critical acclaim, but again it does not stack up to the competition.
  
It is pathetic that we can not expect excellence from our domestic brands.
  
By the way I am not a fan of Japanese styling. You are correct that they are bland, but at least their derivative designs are not detractors from their commerical viability. The Camry while bland has always looked better that the Chevy Malibu from 1997-2007. The Accord has always looked better than the Taurus from 1996-2005. The Taurus was a good looking (but derivative styled) from 1986-1995, but Ford abandoned the tried and true for the aggressive and expressive. When the market abandoned their jelly filled donut sedans, Ford through in the towel and let the Taurus be gored.
  
The American brands have gotton off easy. This goes back to my point that even without a class leading sedan, coupe, wagon, hatchback, or minivan (since 1998), American's want to drive domestic products. The American companies have been great maintaining market share, through incentives and other tricks to show the shareholders that their companies were worth the investment. But for far too long the companies have been run with one eye on the ticker tape and one eye on the golden parachute.
  
No one can argue that GM, Ford and Chyrsler have been overly concerned with developing great cars. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt in arguing that they are capable. If they truely have been trying all this time, then they are in more trouble than even I thought.

Hyundai's turnaround is not a fair comparison to GM's. For one, Hyundai had a shorter period of bad will to overcome. Secondly, Hyundai's turnaround was seriously juiced. They put much bigger bets on the table than GM. I don't see Chevy offering 10/100 powertrain, 5/60 bumper-to-bumper and 5/unlimited roadside. And as flic says, Hyundai's not done yet.

There is a cultural difference in between Americans and Germans and Japanese. As fighters Germans and Japanese will defend their territory until last man stands. And Americans will throw white flag after couple of bruises (see Congress). Blame democracy and impatience.
 
It is almost impossible for American company to claim back lost territory, they just don’t have enough guts and will to do that and Germans and Japanese obviously will not let it happen. Forget about their own territory unless GM or Ford buys Japanese company.
 
Only way for American company to win battle is to come up first with innovations. But with existing lethargic big three it is very unlikely.

I have a friend who says she'll NEVER buy another GM vehicle because her Oldsmobile Intrigue's door fell off when she opened it once.

Hyundai's problem was in the product. You can fix that in one design generation, and they largely did.
 
GM has done a good job on product lately but the other half of their problem is the UAW and that remains an anchor around their neck for the foreseeable future. A great $20,000 car you need to sell at $23,000 to pay off the union doesn't look so great anymore.

Yes, I bought 4 GMs in succession even though each was crap. I'm a slow learner. But after a while even I caught on.
 
Since 1987 my wife and I have owned 5 Toyotas, 3 Fords, 1 Lincoln. I have no serious issues with the reliability of the Ford products, but, for us, the Toyotas have been better. No question about it.
 
Toyota, Nissan, Honda, should thank their lucky stars for Roger Smith.
Just had to get that in; Roger Smith, the only man in the world that could make Michael Moore look smart

Karl listed a bunch of bad things about Toyota, making me wonder where did Toyota increase its sales.
 
At least in the US, the products that had increased sales are Yaris, FJ, Camry, Prius, ES, LS, Rav4, Tacoma.
Sounds reasonable. These are the good products from Toyota.
 
GM's answer in these segments are Aveo, H3, Malibu, G6, Aura, CTS, Lucerne, ?, Equinox, and Colorado.
Except for the Aura, it's reasonable to say the Toyota products are admittedly superior in these segments.
 
The Aura suffers from a critical lack of a gas sipping I4, which is the model real people buy.

Here is a quiz for you. In 10 years:
 
What will Toyota's midsize sedan be called?
What will Honda's midsize sedan be called?
What will Ford's midsize sedan be called?
What will Chevy's midsize sedan be called?
 
As trivial as this seems, I think this situation is the absolute core of the American auto industry's decline. Just about every foreign manufacturer (the Japanese in particular) have a long-term consistency of purpose and commitment to their existing products which demands continual improvement. Domestic manufacturers (Ford in particular) just seem to let their products rot (e.g., Taurus) and after the nameplate has suffered too much to be rejuvenated with an updated model, it's tossed out. Of course, Ford's bungling of the Taurus nameplate goes well beyond the norm, but you get the point. (The fact that the Five Hundred was so badly received that Ford is having to resuscitate the Taurus badge is pretty sobering...)
 
The major thing that holds me back from buying domestic cars is their lack of refinement, especially with regards to the drivetrain. The fact that most domestics are addressing these issues is great, but they are just struggling to get back in the game. Are they willing to push hard on innovation for as long as it takes? That's what Toyota and Honda do. A big jump forward like the Aura or Fusion doesn't count if they don't keep pushing.

"Of the 15 models that you've listed as "critical sales successes", six of them either no longer exist or are slated to cease, three of which were destroyed when Olds was axed, one of which was an also-ran under the Buick line, one which was a disaster from the start (GTO), and one that despite it's sales success is being executed (DTS). The C5 and C6 Corvettes don't even count. Neither does the XLR. They're niche vehicles and don't matter for volume sales. Nice try though. "
 
Reading is definitely fundamental Flic. I never said those models were sales successes nor did I ever claim OLds was still in business. My point wasm, if you read about those cars when they were new they got mostly positive press in terms of design and/or performance. I said SOME of them were sales successes. As we all know (OK maybe you dont) critical success and sales success are not always one in the same. The Aura and Fit are two examples of this fact.
 
By all objective measurs Hyundais has in fact improved its reliability significantly in the last 5-10 years and if you are going to say otherwise you should offer some proof. GM has not been making bad cars for 30 years, that is most definitely an exaggeration. Its more accurate to say GM hasn't been on top of its game (or the US auto industry) in the last 30 years. There have been many GM models that garnered respect in the last 10 years at least but that doesnt mean GM has been where it should be in the last 10 years. As I said, the problem has been inconsistency in design and quality. Toyota has consistently made dull designs and high quality since they have been in the US and that is the key to their success.
 
"The majority of America feels this way. The ONLY people under 30 that think the way you do are the ones who've either been brainwashed by their GM-loyal parents or read too many Camaro magazines as a kid. "
 
The majority of cars sold in the US are domestic makes. GM sells more vehicles than any other manufacturer. Your point is totally invalid but after that last post I do understand why you continue to post the way you do. I guess I cant expect anything more. I don't know where you live or what your parents told you, but I assure you that GM's reputation is not the same in every part of the country. GM's biggest problem is that it cant get consideration in key parts of the US like SoCal and the DC area. If GM got the same % of sales in those areas as it gets in more open minded metro areas they would be in much better shape. Unfortunately, people like youself are arrogant enough to believe that the only reason GM sells any cars in any part of the country is due to the ignorance of the local populace and not GM's actual products. I live in the 5th largest metro area in the US and I see GM cars ALL the time. With the exception of limited edition models like the V series and XLR I see GM models on a regular bases. Interestingly enough, GM's best selling model (Silverado) is the one model I rarely see since pickups are not purchased often for family transport in urban areas.

"It is pathetic that we can not expect excellence from our domestic brands. "
 
What is pathetic is your lack of understanding of how automobiles are developed. It is ridiculous to say that GM let a car like the Aurora "languish" for 5 WHOLE years without changes. That is the normal life cycle for most vehicles and Toyota uses 5 years development cycles. As ususal you are just another person who allows your hatred of American cars to twist the facts around so they suit your perspective. The 2001 Aurora was lauded when it came out and C&D said it was the closest to a Lexus GM had EVER made. I know full well that Olds was killed off but that has no bearing on whether or not the Intrigue and Aurora were good cars. The press recognized the excellence of those cars but the public chose to ignore them. The Aurora was not like any Buick offered at that time. YOu know not what you speak of and a simple look at the Aurora and the Lesabre would confirm that. The cars shared no exterior or interior bits or engines, only a platform. At that time the Aurora's interior was 10 steps ahead of the Lesabre's and the Buick only offered the 3800 V6 while the Aurora had two DOHC engines.
 
"American's want to drive domestic products. The American companies have been great maintaining market share, through incentives and other tricks to show the shareholders that their companies were worth the investment. But for far too long the companies have been run with one eye on the ticker tape and one eye on the golden parachute. "
 
More import lover logic here. Only a person totally disconnected fromt the reality of today's products can make statement like that with a straight face. First of all GM and to a lesser extend Ford, have been cutting incentives. Secondly, there are at least a dozen competitive domestic products out there that are worth buying without heavy incentives. Of the top of my head I would say 300/Charger, Fusion, Tahoe/Yukon, Silverado, C6, Edge, Acadia/Outlook, Lucerne, 500/Taurus, XLR, STS, SRX, Freestyle, Pacifica, Soltice, Aura, Cobalt SS, G6, etc. Within the next few months you could add Vue, Equinox Sport, G8, Astra, CTS and Malibu to that list. To say there are no worthwhile domestics out there is laughable and testament to one's bias towards imports. The same people who will defend the camry's reputation with their life will say only idiots or the financially challenged would stoop buying anything that isnt from Japan. The ONLY thing that Toyota is not mediocre about is reliability. Their styling, handling, performance and ability to innovate (aside from hybrids) is incredibly mediocre.
 
Contrary to popular sentiment on this site, not everyone who plunks down money on a domestic car is doing so solely because it's "made in America". A ton of domestics arent even made here so it's pretty apparent that people arent buying these cars to support American jobs.

Since being number one is purely a measure of marketshare, and since there are so *many* brands in the market (meaning smaller and smaller divisions of the pie), and since there are even MORE coming, I don't see GM gaining more share going forward through the next decades. Likewise, I think Toyota's gonna find its own share stagnating, and eventually beginning to shrink too. But since we're only making guesses as who'll be one and who'll be two, I think it'll stay Toyota for a while, and that GM'll never be there again. It'll be very interesting to see who takes the spot next, because I don't feel Toyota will maintain it for 60+ years!
 
Only one thing to add to the discussion so far otherwise- that's to 1487's list of GM vehicles worth buying without heavy incentives. You forgot the Avalanche! And not just because it's right up there with the rest of the 900's, but also because it's pretty much a unique offering in overall capabilities.
 
And I agree that Toyota has begun slipping. Sadly, I'd rate the interior of the 92 Corollas I've owned on par or a bit better than the current long-term Camry so far as materials and fit and finish are concerned. It seriously lacked design, but it didn't look or feel cheap, unlike the plastics I see in the new car and the misalignment, flashing, and gaps I've observed in 07 model vehicles. Ironically, I'd say that while GM is now mostly on par or better in the materials, fit, and finish area (while being ahead on design) compared to the 92, Toyota is now merely on par with the GM vehicles I've owned during the same decade.
 
Anyway, back to you folks for all the biased drum beating. :D

Flicmod,
 
I've got to say, you've made one statement that has really destroyed your arguement in my eyes. And that is that the C5 and C6 sales don't count, because they are niche vehicles, and don't add to sales volume.
 
Quite frankly, a large part of why the domestic automakers are in trouble is the focus on volume sales. Look at their fleet says, which generate volume, but not profit. In fact, if GM hadn't trimmed fleet sales, then they would likely have retained their number 1 position. But it would have been throwing money away to do so.
 
The corvettes may not be the largest sellers, but they are something that practically anyone would like to have in their driveway. They are, however, a highly profitable vehicle for GM. And profit has to be the bottom line, or else the domestics won't survive.
 
Stating that Corvette says don't matter is like saying that Porsche sales don't matter. Sure, Porche doesn't have a huge market share, but they are a fantastically successful company.

1487 You are delusional.
 
The 2001 Aurora was a pathetic automobile. If in fact C & D said that it was the closest to a Lexus that GM ever produced, that should demonstrate the complete incapacity for greatness GM had at the time. The Lexus was better in every way with the exception of power from the Aurora's V8. And notice that C&D did not say the Aurora was better, just close to as good. (Hope Domestics can aspire to better than that, people at BMW would be fired for a review like that)
 
Your comment in response to my statement of incentive is STUPID. GM right now is running on average over $1000.00 on ALL of their cars, even the critically acclaimed Aura. In addition, Jeep, Chrysler and Ford are giving their cars away. Jeep is giving out up to $7000.00 on a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Right now you can get a Fusion for $250 a month with no money down on a 39 month lease. If these aren't incentives I don't know what is.
 
Your comment in response regarding the lack of refinement in American cars was ridiculous. There is more to refinement than horsepower numbers or the location of cam shafts. GM's four cylinder engines can not compete with Honda. Honda's engines are smoother and quieter. GM only can get there after adding pounds of sound deading material, and they still can not match the smooth refinement found in a Honda four.
 
You brush off the comment regarding the fact that Oldsmobile was axed as if that action alone was not completely illustritive of the VERY problem with the American car market.
 
GM axed the only division (at the time) that was producing cars that were arguably competent (however I disagree with the 2001 Aurora). How did this fit in with their glorious plan? How was this not a move dominated by the bean counters and stock price zealots?
 
"Of the top of my head I would say 300/Charger, Fusion, Tahoe/Yukon, Silverado, C6, Edge, Acadia/Outlook, Lucerne, 500/Taurus, XLR, STS, SRX, Freestyle, Pacifica, Soltice, Aura, Cobalt SS, G6, etc. Within the next few months you could add Vue, Equinox Sport, G8, Astra, CTS and Malibu to that list. "
 
All of the vehicles on this list were only critically given any acclaim within the last two to three years, which goes back to out point that this will have to be sustained. Further, it demonstrates, GM's relative incompetetence prior to this most recent period.
 
I do have to take you to task regarding the Fusion, 500/Taurus, Lucerne, Freestyle, Pacifica, Cobalt SS. All of these vehicles are lacking in one way or another. The Freestyle and 500 engines are pathetic until the 2008 year, and even then no critic that has reviewed them has indicated there is any excellence to be found. The Lucerne is just more of the same from Buick. Is it quiet inside, yes, but have you driven it. I have, twice, rented one in Houston to drive to Galveston. The BIG plastic dash was made of the hardest plastic imaginable. The power was mediocre, but at least the design was clean. The Pacifica is severely lacking and is struggling to say the least. The Cobalt SS in every comparison I have read can not compete with the Civic SI, GTI, WRX, EVO, RSX. Please don't try to justify that.
 
The American companies are probably dominated by individuals that think like you. That instead of really trying to out perform the competition simply look around and say "WOW, I am doing better than I did last year." That will not cut it. We have not seen EXCELLENCE yet, we have seen catch up that is nipping at the heels of competence.
 
The CTS is my best hope for that excellence, as well as the Malibu (with a much better "looking" interior than the Aura).

heffling,
 
No offense, but I don't see how that statement nearly destroys my argument. Corvette's may make GM money, but it's STILL a niche market. If looking at Honda, do we say that the S2000 is an important part of Honda's success? I don't. I think the S2K is an awesome car and it adds to the lineup and their appeal. Just because Honda makes profit off of a vehicle that they only sell maybe 20K of a year doesn't necessarily equate to a successful car company.
 
Likewise for GM and the 'Vette. I'm not sticking up for sales volume being the driving force of a car company. We all know where that leads to. Allowing fleet sales to make up more than 45% of a vehicles sales number is not successful. I'm not sticking up for that either. What I'm saying is that using the 'Vette as an example of a successful vehicle is skewed.
 
And about the Porsche analogy, Porsche is a niche automaker to begin with. Relative to the number of sales Porsche has, the Boxter makes up a huge percentage of that, the 911 not so much. But overall in the auto market, the Boxter is just a drop in the bucket compared to the Accord, Civic, or even the Malibu. That's not to say the Boxter is unsuccessful, however.

from skimming this exchange of posts I must throw in my 2 cents on why the Aurora failed. The Aurora came out strong when first introduced. BUT Brent is correct in how the 2nd gen was a step in the opposite direction. AUTOMOBILE magazine said pretty much the same thing that you cats are saying C&D did. NICE CAR....NOT NICE ENOUGH... even the styling took a step back. I would LOVE to see the "lauded" reviews of the 2nd gen 1487....please link me up to that.
Plus, how many 2nd gen Auroras were sold? I saw FEW on the road. And those were the V6 model. I dont think I've EVER seen a V8 Aurora on the road.

and 1487....I need to ask what GM vehicles you owned in the 1980-2000 period. (and how new they were) Granted, I never bought anything new during those times....
but me and my friends owned SEVERAL horrible GM products...and we were GM PEOPLE...let me list a few
(assume all cars were only 3-5 years old)
mid 80's Pontiac Fiero 2M4.....dont even get me started...a horrible car
late 80's Cavalier Z24....the 2.8 V6.....that engine NEVER ran right for him
mid 90's Bonneville...electrical problems all the time
80's Trans Am...electrical problems...
early 80's Chevette.....in all fairness....i trashed this car beyond reasonable limits....
90 IROC Camaro..leaked water when you sneezed on it...
 
So you see, I got a bad memory of GM stuff.....whatchu got?

"No offense, but that is nonsense. If you look at road tests and check the noise levels of various cars you will see in most cases the differences are minimal between imports and domestics. Most cars in a particular class are going to be very close in noise levels. As for powertrains I think you should note that Ford (not Toyota or Nissan) uses more 6 speeds than anyone else. Currently, Toyota (not Lexus) has two six speed trannies available on two models. Honda and Nissan do not even make 6 speed transmissions yet. NIssan has gone with CVTs but they offer neglible benefits over 6 speeds and some people do not like them. You are talking about lack of drivetrain sophistication but even Chrysler has gotten a 6 speed auto to market before Honda and Chrysler has them in 3 models already (more than Toyota) and will soon have them in their minivans. I will agree that Chrysler and Ford are lacking when it comes to engines, but that has nothing to with GM at all. GM's 3.6L V6 makes more than the Toyota/Lexus 3.6L without DI. The Lexus version makes more, but the CTS will be right there with its new DI V6. GM has advanced 4 cylinder engines and their 2.4L ecotec makes more power than the Toyota or Honda 2.4L in their mainstream products. The 2L turbo in the Soltice/Sky whips any Toyota four and the VW 2.0T engine. Only the Suburu and Mitsu forced induction engines are better. "
  
I do not question the fact that some of the domestics are good on the numbers, but there is no way that you can compare any domestic 4 cylinder with the Honda 2.4L in terms of NVH. You just can't. As for 5-speed vs. 6-speed transmissions, the number of cogs is less important than nailing the shift points and matching them to engine characteristics...as far as everyday driveability is concerned. All I am saying is that the non-domestic manufacturers have been sweating the details on this for years. I think Detroit is catching up...the Ford/GM six-speed sounds excellent in most of the applications where it is used (I haven't driven it). I DID recently drive a Pontiac G6 sedan with the 3.5L V6 (a rental, of course), and I must say I was not impressed. The throttle response was lame (which surprised me) and it hunted for gears incessantly. Midrange power delivery was just ok. The chassis setup felt pretty good and the steering wasn't bad at all although the oncenter dead spot was a little large. I imagine most people would find it perfectly acceptable, but it wasn't fun to drive at all.
 
Oh and of course, it was a brand new car with a 4A tranny. Your turn.

brett,
 
"The 2001 Aurora was a pathetic automobile."
 
That statement alone ruins your credibility. The Aurora was most likely the best domestic sedan outside of Cadillac offered at that time. I cannot remember ANY negative press about the car when it debuted. Some did say the first car was far more daring styling wise, but that was where the criticism ended. The interior and exterior of that car were definitely class competitive in 2000 and to say otherwise is simply the biased opinion of a seasoned Toyota/Honda fanatic. Give me a break. C&D is known to be one of the most anti-GM publication in existence today and even they had to say the car was pretty impressive. The car was light years ahead of the mechanically similar Bonneville and Lesabre.
 
"GM right now is running on average over $1000.00 on ALL of their cars, even the critically acclaimed Aura. "
 
I said GM is reducing incentives, never said they dont exist. Again reading and comprehension are key to rebutting one's statements. YOu are criticising stuff I never said.
 
" GM's four cylinder engines can not compete with Honda. Honda's engines are smoother and quieter."
 
Opinion, not fact. I'm sure you would say the Fit is better than the Vette but again that is your opinion. GM's fours are powerful, technologically advanced and class competitive. I love it when people like you say "refinement has nothing to do with noise levels" when making excuses for import motors. If the driver cant tell by the noise the engines makes under acceleration I want to know how he can tell if the engine is refined. The ecotec is a match for the Honda 2.4L four, its that simple.
 
"You brush off the comment regarding the fact that Oldsmobile was axed as if that action alone was not completely illustritive of the VERY problem with the American car market. "
 
You're drifting off subject now. I thouht you were trying to explain to us how there are no good domestic cars available today. Now you want me to explain why Olds was shuttered. I never offered any defense of Olds, I just said their cars were highly regarded prior to GM's decision to phase the division out.
 
"All of the vehicles on this list were only critically given any acclaim within the last two to three years, which goes back to out point that this will have to be sustained. "
 
I was talking about cars available TODAY. Chrysler and Ford really dont have much to talk about prior to the last three years. GM had numerous models that were decent to excellent in the last 10-15 years.
 
"I do have to take you to task regarding the Fusion, 500/Taurus, Lucerne, Freestyle, Pacifica, Cobalt SS. All of these vehicles are lacking in one way or another. "
 
WHen did I ever say these cars were perfect? Oh thats right, I never said that. I said they are decent cars worthy of consideration if you are in the market. Give me a list of imports and I'll tell you how they are lacking. Trust me. I am an equal opportunity critic unlike you. I dont see GM cars as "flawless" and imports as crap. I find things I don't like about most vehicles.
 
"The Cobalt SS in every comparison I have read can not compete with the Civic SI, GTI, WRX, EVO, RSX. Please don't try to justify that. "
 
The cobalt SS SC doesnt have enough power to compete with teh EVO, dont be ridiculous. read C&Ds track test from a few months back and see what they said about the SS's performance on the track vs the Si and GTI. You might be surprised. The Cobalt had the best handling at the track and beat those two cars and the Mustang GT in lap times. Edmunds and C&D ranked the Cobalt SS low on subjective things and ignored its price and performance which is typical of those two publications. The Cobalt SS/SC was a beast in terms of acceleration and handling and the numbers spoke for themselves. On the track, it has what it takes while the GTI and Civic console you with soft plastics and 1mm panel gaps. SOrry but, performance cars are about performance first and fo

"I do not question the fact that some of the domestics are good on the numbers, but there is no way that you can compare any domestic 4 cylinder with the Honda 2.4L in terms of NVH"
 
Prove it! That is all I am saying to you and others. Sorry that I dont take your opinion to be gospel but you need to find a way to back up what you are saying. Ford and Mazda use the same four and I have read nothing suggesting its not refined. I've read the new 2.4L used byt HYUNDAI (thats a foreign company) and Chrysler is a little noisy near redline, but so are HOnda fours. GM's ecotec was refined when the CObalt came out in 2004 to be quieter. I have driven a car with it and it is very quiet and vibration free. C&D has something on their website about the fastest cars under $20k and they mention the 2.4L ecotec in the Cobalt SS/G5 GT and say its very refined and smooth, it just doesnt make the sweet noises they want to hear. See, noise "quality" and loudness are not the same thing. Some engines may sound racier or more aggressive, but that doesnt mean they are quieter or more refined.
 
Up until now, Ford was using a Japanese (Aisin) 6 speed tranny, the same company that provides Toyota's trannies. Sorry, but if its good enough for Toyota its good enough for Ford. GM's RWD 6 speeds are flawless in terms of shift quality based on what I've read. I am tired of excuses made to support the "Japan is always better" mentality. When domestic lacked 6 speeds people complained about their lack of sophistication, now I am reading that the # of gears isnt important because shift quality and smoothness is important. If that be the case than GM might as well stick with their 4 speeds. BTW, as far as I know no one does smooth shifting transmissions better than GM, that is usually their strong suit.
 
When you really think about it, Toyota is the only Japanese company that is up to date on 6 speeds. NO Infiniti model has a 6 speed and yet the Sebring, Aura and Fusion do have one. NO Honda or Acura has a 6 speed either. Germans are the farthest ahead on 6 (and now 7 speed) speeds but BMW gets theirs from ZF, they dont even make them. ZF also provides 6 speeds for Ford and Jaguar amongst others. Aisin provides 5 and 6 speeds for Toyota, GM, Ford, Suzuki, Mazda and others.
 
"Oh and of course, it was a brand new car with a 4A tranny. Your turn."
 
The brand new Sonata, sante fe, Rav4, elantra, Corolla, Fit, etc. all have 4A trannies as well.

"So you see, I got a bad memory of GM stuff.....whatchu got?"
 
I got nothing, I bought my first new car in 2001. I was barely walking when you bought some of your GM disasters. I dont doubt that GM made some bad cars back in the day although my family's experience doesnt back that up. Not sure what that is supposed to mean for me in 2007. The people that designed those cars are largely dead or retired and the management that allowed that type of reliability is long gone. If an import comes along that I really want and can afford I will get it, but will NOT be limited to imports just because GM made some junk when I was in elementary school. Toyota is probably the last mainstream brand I would ever consider, I am way too young to be cruising in an Avalon or Camry. Maybe once I retire I will change my mind though.

"The Aurora came out strong when first introduced. BUT Brent is correct in how the 2nd gen was a step in the opposite direction. AUTOMOBILE magazine said pretty much the same thing that you cats are saying C&D did. NICE CAR....NOT NICE ENOUGH... even the styling took a step back. I would LOVE to see the "lauded" reviews of the 2nd gen 1487....please link me up to that. "
 
If its posted on their site, read what C&D said about the Aurora 4.0 when it came out. I am starting to think you didnt read anything about the 2nd Gen cat at all. Styling was a diappointment to some, but thats about it in terms of criticism.
 
As for sales, I have no idea. I dont see why it matters at this point. The first Q45 didnt sell well but was regarded by the press as an excellent sports sedan. Sales dont always prove a product is lacking.

"The Freestyle and 500 engines are pathetic until the 2008 year, and even then no critic that has reviewed them has indicated there is any excellence to be found. The Lucerne is just more of the same from Buick. Is it quiet inside, yes, but have you driven it. I have, twice, rented one in Houston to drive to Galveston. The BIG plastic dash was made of the hardest plastic imaginable. The power was mediocre, but at least the design was clean. "
 
I'm hoping you arent serious with these lame arguments. The primary criticism of the 500/Freestyle has been lack of power. That will be addressed for 2008 and the other positive attributes of the vehicles will remain. To suggest that we cant predict they will be competitive with the much needed power that addresses their main deficiency is a joke.
 
The Lucerne doesnt have hard dash plastics. If you want to see hard plastics check out the CX-9, CX-7, Pilot, Accord, etc. Check out those cars and you'll see what hard plastics are all about. The base Lucerne has a weak V6 and comfort tuned suspention. This is why they offer three models and two engines, my guess is Enterprise wasnt renting out CXL or CXS models with the V8 and firmer suspension. Newsflash: The base altima or Camry arent as sporty as their SE counterparts either and dont represent the best those vehicles have to offer. I would say rental cars are the #1 source of "expertise" for GM critics like yourself but rental cars do not give an accurate picture of an entire model line for a vehicle. Rentals are stripped down with no fancy features, sporty suspensions or large wheels, they are missng all the good stuff. I'm no Lucerne expert but I would bet your salary that the Lucerne CXS is a much better car to drive than the CX with 16" wheels and 3800 V6.

fair enough 1487.....what was that new car you bought in 2001?
still got it? was it a GM?
 
(haha I had mistyped and almost posted was it a MG?...would have been funny)

1487,
 
This is most definitely stating the obvious here, but you and I are on extreme opposites.
 
What are you? Like 18? 19? We're both in the same demographic, my friend... at least as far as age is concerned.
 
What do your parents do for a living? Anything related to automobiles? I'd wager not unless your old man owns a Chevy dealership in Philly.
 
My dad has been a mechanic for over 20 years. He's worked on everything from Ford's to Chevy's to Saab's to Honda's to Toyota's to... As I've said before on this blog, my dad was a HUGE Ford fan since he came out of the womb. Needless to say, I was brainwashed as a child to like only Ford. Imports were the incarnation of evil itself... that is until I was about 15. My dad started working on Toyota's in the early 90's which was his first experience with them on a large degree. While he didn't like some attributes, he quickly found what the Jap cars had over the domestics. Simplicity of design yet technologically on the cutting edge, better build quality, better design characteristics. He started working on Honda's in the late 90's when I was in high school. The more and more he talked about what he liked about the Japanese products, the more I became convinced of them.
 
I guess my question for you is why such a rabid devotion to GM? You know my story about why I like what I like. How 'bout your turn?
 
Furthermore, how many vehicles have you even driven, let alone own? I'm 22 and I've DRIVEN no more than 15 different cars in my life. I've only owned two. Are all your views on cars based on what you read in magazines and the internet and you sitting in a few cars at auto shows? Honestly, that's all I have to go off of. How many times do you go out and test drive a brand new vehicle? Personally, I don't have time to do it as much as I'd like to. I can't imagine, at your age, you have that ability or time to do so either.
 
Unless, like I've said before, your father owns a Chevy dealer in Philly...

I can't argue with what probably amounts to a child pecking away on his Macintosh. The fact that you think a Cobalt SS is in the same league as a Civic SI is all you need to say. I know of NOONE that would pick a Cobalt over the Civic or GTI for that matter.
 
You want to pick apart arguments with "I never said that," but the fact of the matter is that GM cars are not competitive with the others. They don't have lines of people to buy them like the others.
 
And despite your "educated" analyis on the Lucerne. I did drive a CXL and the 190 hp V6 is outclassed by every engine in its class. A Camry, Accord, VW.... all have more power and refinement. The Dash is composed of primarily hard plastic. The Accord is nothing like this. The Accord has give on all of their interior panels with few insignficant exception. But you keep believing. And watch as GM continues to fall down the drain unless their cars are composed of the CTS, Tahoe, Malibu, Aura and the trucks. Everything else can't really compare. Maybe if you stopped comparing hp and torque tables and actually drove the cars you would know the difference.

Like it or not the market has spoken and is still speaking. Toyota is better.
 
I have driven a Lucerne, recently. Honestly, I wouldn't buy it. Nothing stood out except the horrible seats. .
I found nothing memorable about the car, except the worst seats I've sat on in 20 years.
Bland with uncomfortable seats.
 
My wife's Camry has bland styling, but it is comfortable. Our past experience with Toyotas indicates it will be more reliable and have a higher resale than the Buick.
Wishing GM, Ford and Chrysler made better cars won't make it so.
Making better cars will make me wish I had one.
 
"Sales dont always prove a product is lacking." Yes it does. All cars are made to sell. If they don't sell, something IS lacking.

Ugh! I thought 1487 had posted this comment twice, so I deleted one of them. Then I went back to look and BOTH were gone. But it's a good comment so I'm putting it back in. It was originally in slot #21.
 
Posted by 1487:
 
"The major thing that holds me back from buying domestic cars is their lack of refinement, especially with regards to the drivetrain. The fact that most domestics are addressing these issues is great, but they are just struggling to get back in the game. "
  
No offense, but that is nonsense. If you look at road tests and check the noise levels of various cars you will see in most cases the differences are minimal between imports and domestics. Most cars in a particular class are going to be very close in noise levels. As for powertrains I think you should note that Ford (not Toyota or Nissan) uses more 6 speeds than anyone else. Currently, Toyota (not Lexus) has two six speed trannies available on two models. Honda and Nissan do not even make 6 speed transmissions yet. NIssan has gone with CVTs but they offer neglible benefits over 6 speeds and some people do not like them. You are talking about lack of drivetrain sophistication but even Chrysler has gotten a 6 speed auto to market before Honda and Chrysler has them in 3 models already (more than Toyota) and will soon have them in their minivans. I will agree that Chrysler and Ford are lacking when it comes to engines, but that has nothing to with GM at all. GM's 3.6L V6 makes more than the Toyota/Lexus 3.6L without DI. The Lexus version makes more, but the CTS will be right there with its new DI V6. GM has advanced 4 cylinder engines and their 2.4L ecotec makes more power than the Toyota or Honda 2.4L in their mainstream products. The 2L turbo in the Soltice/Sky whips any Toyota four and the VW 2.0T engine. Only the Suburu and Mitsu forced induction engines are better.

flic,
 
I wish I was your age, but alas I am not. I've been out of HS for over a decade unfortunately. If my logic and writing acumen suggests I am only 18 or 19 than I really need to step up my game quiet a bit. I guess I should be offended.
 
"I guess my question for you is why such a rabid devotion to GM? You know my story about why I like what I like. How 'bout your turn?
 
I have no story for you buddy. Sorry to disappoint. I have no rabid devotion to anything but fairness and honestly. People who deem themselves "experts" on cars cannot really have that title if they use selective facts and memory to make clear black and white statements. I can usually tell who knows about cars and who doesnt based on what they write. When people come on here making broad, innaccuate generalizations that basically end up being "domestic cars stink and the Asians lead in every way and always have" that is usually a big hint that that individual is extremely biased and out of touch with reality. See, reality doesnt prove that the domestics are as bad as you think or that the Asians are as good as you think. The only thing we can say definitively is that the Japanese were on the quality bandwagon long before the Big 3 and their reputation and resale value has benefitted accordingly. When we get into design, engineering advancements, power, handling, engines, etc. it gets a whole lot more complicated than that.
 
I've only owned two vehicles (one Japanese and one american) and I've driven 30-40 different vehicles over the last 6-7 years.

flic,
 
I wish I was your age, but alas I am not. I've been out of HS for over a decade unfortunately. If my logic and writing acumen suggests I am only 18 or 19 than I really need to step up my game quite a bit. I guess I should be offended.
 
"I guess my question for you is why such a rabid devotion to GM? You know my story about why I like what I like. How 'bout your turn?
 
I have no story for you buddy. Sorry to disappoint. I have no rabid devotion to anything but fairness and honestly. People who deem themselves "experts" on cars cannot really have that title if they use selective facts and memory to make clear black and white statements. I can usually tell who knows about cars and who doesnt based on what they write. When people come on here making broad, innaccuate generalizations that basically end up being "domestic cars stink and the Asians lead in every way and always have" that is usually a big hint that that individual is extremely biased and out of touch with reality. See, reality doesnt prove that the domestics are as bad as you think or that the Asians are as good as you think. The only thing we can say definitively is that the Japanese were on the quality bandwagon long before the Big 3 and their reputation and resale value has benefitted accordingly. When we get into design, engineering advancements, power, handling, engines, etc. it gets a whole lot more complicated than that. GM is, and has been, the best of teh Big 3 and by and large if GM didn't exist right now the domestic auto industry would be far worse than it is right now. I like choices and thus I like GM. They make and sell more cars in the US than anyone and give the consumers lots of options. MOst import people dont get that because their logic is that why buy anything but Accord/Camry/Altima since those are the established brands. I don't subscribe to that logic at all, the more options the better. An auto industry without GM means no C6/Z06, no 2008 CTS, Escalade, Silverado, XLR, CTS-V, AUra, Outlook/Acadia, SRX, etc. and to me thats not a good thing at all. In the small car, midlevel luxury car and $70k+ luxury car segments imports dominate and that may not change. In every other segment of the market there are strong domestic entries that deserve some consideration.
 
I've only owned two vehicles (one Japanese and one american) and I've driven 30-40 different vehicles over the last 6-7 years.

mnorm,
 
YOur post is way off base. First of all, its not a matter of "wishing" for better domestic products, they are here and more are coming. Please, research some recent domestic vehicles before commenting here. A rental Lucerne tells you nothing about domestic cars in general. You say the car wasnt memorable, but what large sedan in that price range would be memorable? Are you saying an Avalon would be exciting? A base model camry? Toyota is the world's leader in unmemorable cars, people buy them because they see a car purchase like an appliance purchase.
 
Toyota is the world's leader in car sales for one quarter. They are not the sales leader in the US so you are correct in saying the market has spoken. The US market says they like GM better than Toyota to put it in simple terms. GM also sells more cars than Toyota in Europe and China.
 
"Sales dont always prove a product is lacking." Yes it does. All cars are made to sell. If they don't sell, something IS lacking."
 
So that means the Mazda6, Sonata, Fit, Lexus GS, Passat, Jetta and all the other imports that arent lighting up the sales charts are undesirable vehicles right? Oh course not, the sales= competence argument only makes sense when bashing domestic products. If the 7 major foreign automakers have about 45% of the market and the Big 3 have about 55% what does that say about the "market" and how it's speaking? Just curious. Also curious as to how an automaker than sells nearly 1 in 4 vehicles in the US can be considered completely out of touch with what consumers want. GM is only considered a failure because they had such a ridiculous share in the 60s, 70s and 80s. That wasnt sustainable and no other automaker will ever reach those marketshare positions again. Not even Toyota, the market is just too fragmented.

The purpose of a BLOG is to discuss generizations and concepts. To say that in order to make an argument in a generalized forum you have to pinpoint every potential exception is fruitless. There is no doubt the American companies are not in tune with the American consumer on key attributes that they find attractive. Resale value, build quality, reliability, performance, styling, overall value. In these categories, GENERALLY, the Europeans and Japanese are more competent. (Still to this day)
 
There are a lot of consumers that treat buying a car like any other major appliance. They go to the same dealer and buy the same brand unless they have reason not to. Some people buy on what is "hot" right now in styling or performance. Some buy based on what incentives are available and what is the best feature content they can get for a set monthly payment. Therefore, I agree with 1487 that sales numbers are not the most important criteria to judge a car's relative worth.
 
However, if you were to have people same a broad spectrum of vehicles, American, Japanese, European, and Korean (not intending to leave any other worthwhile nationality or region out of this analysis) and told people that they could have anyone of the cars for the same price. The European and Japanese vehicles would probably win hands down.
 
With the exception of the Aura and new Malibu, which American sedan would beat the Accord, Passat or Camry? We know not many because these three outsell the American sedans without any incentives. Who amoung us would want a new Taurus over a V6 Accord? While the Fusion is compelling are you going to take it for even money over a V6 Accord?
 
If you would, then good for you, for the Domestics I hope your numbers grow, but I suggest that the majority of Americans that is not the case.
 
Don't get me wrong. Despite the characterization of me as an import lover, I really am hoping the Domestics continue to turn it around. But you have to understand, that they have been saying they were "turning" it around for 20 years. Saturn was created for the direct purpose of turning it around. And while you may point to 6 speed transmissions and DOHC engines, until they put together complete CARS that can demonstrate a compelling choice they will continue to be an also ran in the sedan and coupe market.

brett:
 
"The fact that you think a Cobalt SS is in the same league as a Civic SI is all you need to say. I know of NOONE that would pick a Cobalt over the Civic or GTI for that matter. "
 
This statement alone shows you are disconnected from reality. The Cobalt SS is a DIRECT competitor to the civic Si, in fact its the MOST direct competitor there is. The Cobalt is faster, corners harder and has much more usable torque. It also has 18" wheels and stickier tires. There is no way the two cars do not compete, even if you believe they arent in the same league. As I said, instead of making baseless arguments try reading C&D's feature from a few months back and report back to me. The Cobalt was the best at the track and smoked a 300hp Mustang GT along with the FWD competition. They said the Si felt soft on the track and wasnt ready for primetime. Hey, they said it, not me. I dont like the Viper but you wont catch me saying "there is no way the Viper is in the same league as the vette" just because I am not a fan. Such a statement would make me look foolish.
 
"They don't have lines of people to buy them like the others. "
 
Maybe in CA or Boston or some other import heavy corner of the US. In my area you would be a fool to pay near sticker for any mainstream Japanese car. Camrys and Altimas are routinely $1000+ off MSRP to start. There are no lines waiting to buy a Camry. Toyota is going to keep the car #1 in sales even if they have to keep $2k on the hood to keep them moving.
 
"But you keep believing. And watch as GM continues to fall down the drain unless their cars are composed of the CTS, Tahoe, Malibu, Aura and the trucks. Everything else can't really compare. Maybe if you stopped comparing hp and torque tables and actually drove the cars you would know the difference."
 
I am willing to bet I've driven more cars than you have in the last decade. I like you statement above though: everything GM makes except the CTS, Tahoe, Aura, Malibu, GMT900s, etc isnt competitive. TO that list you might want to add the lambda SUVs, C6, 2008 Vue and Soltice/Sky. Wait a minute, thats most of their recent lineup which sort of means they are doing things right. See, if you really break down which models are completely uncompetitive your list would be pretty short. Why dont you provide me with a complete list of GM vehicles that are totally uncompetitive instead of making generalizations while simultaneously excluding about 75% of their lineup. Whenever you have to include a dozen exclusions that kind of proves your generalization isnt all that "general" afterall. I dont call a company with more good products than mediocre products an abject failure, that is illogical. As time goes on GM's stable of mediocre products is dwindling big time. A few years ago the press was all over GM for cheap interiors and now their interiors are at least on par with toyota and Honda and probably better than Nissan/Hyundai. Just one example of the progress. The proliferation of 6 speeds is another, for 2008 GM will have 6 speeds available on at least 8 non-luxury products which is probably right up there with Ford. This from a company that made nothing but 4 speeds until the CTS came out in 2002.
 
Any child making these types of arguments would be one smart child. I am fully aware of whats on the market and I have sat in almost every car we are talking about and have driven many of them. The Lucerne doesnt have hard plastics and a quick review of articles about the car will confirm that. That statement is totally false and cannot be supported. I suggest you take a good look at the CX-9 (or any Mazda) and Pilot if you want to become familiar with hard plastics. The 3800 is weak and should be replaced. Oddly enough, the car still outsells the Avalon so people looking for this type of car must not be concerned with winning drag races. The CXL has more luxury features than base model, but the CXS has magneride (you probably arent familiar with this), a

Your comment about the domestics having 55% of the market are dependent upon truck sales. If you back out the F150, Silverado, Sierra, and Ram, the domestics would be in full free fall.
 
The Camry and Accord independently outsell the ANY domestic competition. These are the two best selling cars in the WORLD and the US. GM and the other domestics are sweating bullets because they know as gas prices go up, demand for fuel economy goes up. The last time this happened in the late 70's through the early 80's the Japanese had ZERO true midsize competitive cars. ZERO large cars. And performance and sports cars were limited to the 280ZX, Celicas, and RX-7 (None of which with more than 150 hp). Even trucks got decent gas milage because most of them sold with V6 engines. Additionally most cars and trucks weighed demonstrably less, therefore needing less power to perform. (Despite this, I am still shocked how little performance was to be expected in this time in history).
 
The Domestics this time will have to survive in a more fractured market with heavier cars and regulations that will drain performance. Given those choices which (GENERALLY) do you think are more prepared to handle a potential paradigm shift? Ford is in such a critical condition, some industry experts are expecting bankruptcy within the next couple of years. Chrysler is so bad off that Mercedes has given up and is looking for another buyer. GM with all their baggage is in the best shape, but most of their market appeal is performance (V8 Impala, V6 Aura and Malibu, C6, GMT 900's, CTS and STS) None of these cars are known for their value or efficientcy.
 
The last two oil shortages gave the Japanese a window, the next one may kick the doors down in Detroit.

Your ridiculous statement about the dash of the LUCERNE is unbelieveable. I have driven all of the Lucernes. The dash is marketly the same as in the Impala. The section in front of the Passenger is qualitatively bad with a hollow sound with just the slightest touch. You would know this if you had driven one and ever closed the glove box.
 
While I give that you are an intelligent child, your arguments are based on what you have read in an article rather than the real world experience. Anyone that has driven a Civic SI would rather have one for everyday driving than a Cobalt SS. I haven't seen the article you are refering to, but if the handling critics of the SI were limited to some TRACK modifications like better tires, then so what. The percentage of people that buy these small cars to go straight to the race track is small. In fact, go to the race tracks in California and the rest of the country. What are most people driving? Civics, Subarus, Evos, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
My dad has a Pilot, and while the plastics are not perfect, it is not trying to compete with a large front wheel drive sedan. The plastics in the Pilot are MILES ahead of the GM version, what the Trailblazer. Potentially most dangerous and ill suited vehicle made in the last 10 years. For that matter compare the interiors of the CRV and the Equinox. I am telling you GM still has miles to go.

I saw your article in C & D on the web site. Was it titled "Quickest Cars of 2007 under $20,000"
 
If it was they did not compare the Civic SI to the Cobalt, but rather a Civic LX sedan, with the 140 hp engine. PLEASE get your FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE hitting others over the head with your ignorance.
 
Additionally, in their article titled "Quickest Cars of 2007from $20,000 to $25,000" They did not even include the Civic SI, but the COBALT SS Supercharged finished Second to LAST. In so doing C & D stated
 
"But the Cobalt is also pockmarked by a few of the Ion’s pimples—artificial steering feel, a heavy clutch, and an edge to its 205-horse 2.0-liter Ecotec, which leans toward thrashiness above four grand and wants to hang onto revs a little too long when you jump off the gas. Then there are those long doors, which aid ingress but are quick to remind of their length in tight parking spaces. Remember the Camaro?
 
In this group, the Cobalt SS is solid and friendly, but it lacks the visceral feedback of the Subaru or the sporty steering of the Mazda or the Lexus-like refinement of the Camry or the look-at-me styling of the Mitsubishi. A car has to do at least one thing really well to become an all-star. As it is, the Cobalt SS is just another competent player, resting its huge rear spoiler on the vehicular bench."
 
The only cars it beat are the Aura XR and the G6 which tied for last. Way to GO GM.

In fact, what does Edmunds say about the Cobalt SS.
In their model review it states:
Pros
Respectable acceleration from all powertrains, smooth and quiet ride, good crash test scores.
Cons
Cheap interior plastics, cramped backseat, lack of interior storage, dull handling, mediocre fit and finish
 
And they finish by saying:
The SS models offer tighter handling through the turns and rapid acceleration with the supercharged engine, but still fall short of the class leaders in terms of refinement.
 
Thank you that's all folks, thanks for coming.

Loved the Chrysler 300 Touring (rented, as was the Buick). The 300 is a memorable big car. No doubt. I prefer to drive it over the Buick any time. With a hemi, I have no doubt I would like it better than the Lincoln LS V8 that I drive now.
1487, I will repeat what I have stated in prior posts, Toyota makes bland cars. That is my opinion. They are bland, they are reliable, they have good resale. In general, individual consumers find them to be way more desirable than cars from GM, Ford, Chrysler.
I like my Lincoln, but check the sales volumes (when it was in production). Check the resale. Check the reliability. It is not a desirable car compared to any number of others.
 
I have researched Domestic and Import vehicles. You just object to my conclusion, apparently because it's different than yours.
My conclusion is - Japanese companies generally make better cars, US domestics are better than European cars, excluding luxury brands like M-B, BMW.
 
If you exclude light trucks and fleet sales, what is the market share of the used to be Big 3.

Camry is probably the most boring car produced, ever. Still it is runaway success. Accord is okay car, nice engine, but nothing to crow about, even European version. Ford Mondeo beats both easily. But American public did not welcome Mondeo, so what can you do?
 
My prediction is - until GM, Ford and Chrysler get red dots and good reviews all over Consumer Reports – nothing will really happen. Red dots – that’s what American public wants to see. Style, engine, chassis, all that crap is secondary - red dots rule. If you look at Honda and Toyota and EVEN Nissan (wow, how is it possible?) – all red dots, in each and every model and every years – except may be one-two half-black circles first production year. That’s how the West was won.
 
Of course if you do not have 98% red dotted car and PLUS it is boring with horrible interior, then you (taxpayer) better get ready to bail out UAW.

Hey 1487 Why don't you tell us the truth about your occupation.
 
On left lane news you have been posting under the name 1487_GM_Sales. Please, now all your "analysis" makes sense. You need to believe. You will have to pardon my harshness at what at times seemed to be obvious obtuse arguements. But now I know that you and your job are determined by your blind belief that everything will be ok, it has to be ok.
 
I personally hope it will be for you and for employer. But at the same time you need to be aware that the majority of Americans buy your cars because they are discounted, obligation to a bygone era, or to satisfy their patriontic desire to have a car designed, built and sold by their countrymen.
 
Good luck to you and GM, for now I know that you are one and the same.

brett,
 
"Resale value, build quality, reliability, performance, styling, overall value. In these categories, GENERALLY, the Europeans and Japanese are more competent. (Still to this day)"
 
Do we really want to get into European reliability? European automakers' marketshare in the US is quite small compared to the Big 3 or the Asian companies. Generally speaking they are niche players in this market. They have not mastered reliability by a long shot and they routinely fair worse than domestic makes in reliability. Spare me.
 
"If it was they did not compare the Civic SI to the Cobalt, but rather a Civic LX sedan, with the 140 hp engine. PLEASE get your FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE hitting others over the head with your ignorance. "
 
Please read what I wrote. There was a C&D special article several months back where they took numerous vehicles to a track to compare them. The vehicles were separated by price and the Cobalt SS was compared to the Si, GTI, Mustang GT, etc. since they were all under $25k or so. I know exactly what I am talking about. Please read the CORRECT article before commenting further.
 
"Anyone that has driven a Civic SI would rather have one for everyday driving than a Cobalt SS. I haven't seen the article you are refering to, but if the handling critics of the SI were limited to some TRACK modifications like better tires, then so what. "
 
The Si and SS SC are both sports coupes. One would assume that their purpose is to be competent handling small cars that wouldn't be out of sorts at a track. The Cobalt was superior at its mission while the Si was exposed as a poser that is more about style than performance. I would not prefer the Si over the Cobalt because the Cobalt has far more torque. If you compared he 5-60 acceleration times of the two cars you will understand what torque can do for you.
 
Thanks for repeating Edmunds' comments even though I read that comparo. Edmunds rates sports compacts on plastic quality and space (the cobalt is a coupe and thus lacks interior space, if utility was a concern the car shouldn't have been compared to wagons and sedans) but I think performance is key with these types of cars. The Cobalt is a better performer than the GTI, Si and Mini Cooper S.
 
Its actually pretty simple, but I believe your arrogance is blinding you. When all else fails and you can't criticize a car for its bang for the buck its always safe to slam it on plastic interior parts. I mean, most people in this segment are looking for padded dashboards first and foremost because thats what really gives your car an edge in performance. I'll take the Cobalt's engine and handling over the Si's soft plastics and space age cockpit anyday.
 
"The only cars it beat are the Aura XR and the G6 which tied for last. Way to GO GM."
 
Um, Brett I think you should know C&D ranks those vehicles based on 0-60 times and nothing else. See the point of a "quickest cars under $25k" list is to rank the quickest cars under $25k. If you look at their quickest under $20k list you will see the Mustang V6 came in first and the Cobalt SS/G5 came in 2nd. Got it?
 
BTW, regarding the cobalt SS SC and C&D I would recommend you read their initial test of the car. I can tell you now their finding then were MUCH different than what they wrote when it was compared to the WRX and RSX. They were very impressed by the engine, brakes, steering and handling. Read and give us some quotes if you like. See the thing about C&D is that they are notorious for liking a car when its alone and then changing their tune when its compared to some of their longtime favorites. In this case they didnt want it to beat out their beloved RSX and WRX so they suddenly had all types of complaints about the steering, shifter and everything else. BTW, the Cobalt and Ion RL had the best overall performance in the comparo you mentioned.

"On left lane news you have been posting under the name 1487_GM_Sales. "
 
I saw that on there once, but that's not me. Wrong again. I guess that number means something to that person. I do not work in the auto industry, although it would be nice if I did. I know its hard for you to conceive, but there are people out there that do not have blind loyalty to Toyota and Honda and contrary to what you believe they dont have to work for any of the Big 3 to be in that category. I work in construction management in Phila., PA.
 
It's hard to believe I work for GM since my first car was a used Suburu.
 
Nice try though, that was almost funny.

"If you exclude light trucks and fleet sales, what is the market share of the used to be Big 3."
 
I love when people make statements like that. Thats like me saying "If we subtract the camry and corolla, Toyota really wouldnt be the 2nd largest automaker in the US". Its pointless to try and separate certain vehicles from their manufacturers to change the marketshare picture. Its kind of like fleet sales. Import fanatics love to go on and on about fleet sales but my question is simple: If the Big 3 go under who is going to sell to fleets? Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai are already doing fleet sales big time and I suspect they will get a larger share of fleet business in the future. No one says "if you subtract Hyundai's fleet sales they arent doing so great" because no one criticizes fleet sales unless they are domestic sales.
 
norm,
 
As for your assertion that most people prefer imports I refer you to my earlier post when I mention that the Big THREE have about 55% share the big SEVEN foreign companies (three German, four Asian) have about 45% share. Can you please explain to me how those numbers prove that the majority of Americans prefer imports? Even though the Big 7 may soon have more than 50% of the sales we have to remember that is still SEVEN companies occupying the same share as THREE companies.
 
brett,
 
"My dad has a Pilot, and while the plastics are not perfect, it is not trying to compete with a large front wheel drive sedan. The plastics in the Pilot are MILES ahead of the GM version, what the Trailblazer. Potentially most dangerous and ill suited vehicle made in the last 10 years. For that matter compare the interiors of the CRV and the Equinox. I am telling you GM still has miles to go."
 
FIrst off the Equinox interior was revised for 2006. I suggest you go to chevy.com and look at the pics before commenting further. The Equinox interior is better than the Rav4 and competitive with the CR-V. Again, lets talk about whats on sale NOW. The Trailblazer is one of GM's oldest products and its interior is dated. That said, it's not much worse than the Pilot's. I dont understand why you are saying the Pilot doesnt need soft plastics because its not a large car like the Lucerne. The Pilto goes up to $35k and its plastics are way too hard for a vehicle in that price range. I would also like to know why the trailblazer is "dangerous" as you suggested. care to explain?
 
BTW, since you are so good a finding quotes I was wondering if you could post a few backing up your inaccurate statements about the Lucerne's dash being full of hard surfaces. The only part of the Lucerne's interior that is hard is the center stack section around the radio and climate controls. The dash, door panels and armrest are soft touch. To say anything other than that is totally untrue.

Construction, Philly, Pa. Enough said. C&D are biased. Great analysis. "The Lucerne has no hard plastics" (although I haven't driven one I have seen one on TV)
 
You go ahead and drive the plastic wonder Cobalt SS. And you may be able to beat out a few poseurs on the road. But for my money I would buy a Civic SI with better resale value, better build quality, better handling dynamics, better steering, better feature content, and overall better value.
 
Again I am not a Japanese car apologist, but I know what is the best value for the money.

Interesting comments about hard plastic dashes and quality. Point of fact- the Trailblazer has quite a bit of padding on the dash and elsewhere. The parts fit and finish is sketchy (or was, on the 03 I owned), but the material was extremely soft touch in many areas that the imports being heralded in comparison are ALL hard materials. Worse, recent Toyota Camry interiors appear to be moving in the direction of the TB interior with design, materials, and fit and finish. And it's just smoking some serious weed to attempt to say that the current Equinox, Impala, Lucerne, or any other recently all-new or significantly updated GM vehicle is low quality. The materials are relatively hard by comparison to that dashpad from the TB, but are extremely durable, very well designed, fit excellently, and actually have a pleasing texture that feels soft to the touch (hey, even Karl agrees- check out his comments on the material in one of his other blog entries concerning the Tahoe). True, if you rap on the dash you can tell that it's not a thick foam pad over other structures (that's what was in the Trailblazer, btw). But it's still a much nicer material and fit and finish than I've seen in the 07 Camrys I've checked out.
 
Interestingly, Honda has poor interior designs in many of their vehicles imo (two level Civic dash, squared-off 80ish Isuzi design in the Ridgeline). But the assembly quality still seems good in them. Also of note- the materials I felt when I checked out that Ridgeline in the showroom were as hard or harder than anything in the aforementioned GM products, as well as having a relatively cheap silver-model-paint painted-plastic look to some of it.
 
And I'm waiting with baited breathe to hear the reply as to how the Trailblazer is (was?) such a dangerous vehicle. While there seemed to be lots of owners with problems, the issue wasn't with safety. It was reliability. And I wasn't one of that group either, though I traded mine before it hit 20k miles because we needed something with a truck bed. Otherwise we'd still have it. My wife regrets the decision to trade it more than I do, as it would've been *her* daily driver. (drove good, OUTSTANDING 4.2L inline six engine, paired up with an extremely smooth shifting 4L60E 4A transmission with AutoTrac part time 4WD). Which brings me around to another point- more smoking going on to criticize the actual operation of *any* GM 4 speed automatic, unless you just happen to be driving an unrepresentative lemon sample. GM has always been lauded for the intelligence, smart shifting, and smoothness of their transmissions. It's probably a big reason companies like BMW used GM trannies too. The main reason GM is moving up to 6 speed transmission now has more to do with constant criticism of lack of gears than anything, too. So the comments that more gears aren't better now that GM actually HAS more are in direct contradiction to the same crowd's comments when the competition started offering 5 and 6A trannies while GM stuck with 4s for a while..
 
The improved interiors, exteriors, engines, transmissions, build quality, incomparable warranty (no, Hyundai / Kia aren't really competitive, unless you're gonna keep those cars until the warranty expires- they're not transferrable, unlike the GM powertrain warranty), new focus on profitability rather than volume, attention to improving image (reduction of fleet sales fales into both of the last two), and general reduction in timespan between new model makeovers all add to my trust that GM is doing the right thing. This still doesn't mean they'll ever be number one again. On the other hand, I think Chevrolet will *always* be #1 in the US market, and the above attributes for the new Chevy product will tend to ensure this, as the current majority of Chevy buyers and owners see the new products on the streets.

I think GM is on its way back. But today ask yourself these questions?
 
For even money which would you prefer?
 
Lucerne CXS or Lexus ES350
 
Cobalt SS or Civic SI
 
Chevy Impala or Honda Accord
 
BMW 335i or CTS
 
Chevy Equinox or RAV4 or CRV
 
Civic or Cobalt
 
Malibu or Camry
 
Some of these answers may start to favor GM but for right now, I would postulate that most Americans if given a head to head comparison would more likely than not chose the import.
 
When you put more than $20K dollars on the line you want the most car for the money. And that means the entire car not just 0-60 times, or a fancy radio.
 
1487,
 
The article in C&D that you say was sold on the Cobalt SS, is not on their website. So if they did make such statements then it is not for public viewing at this point. I have a subscription and do not remember the article you are referring to. So please do some due diligence and let us all know the date of the article and I will look it up in my library.
 
And I have looked at the Chevy Equinox interior. I have driven one in the last three weeks. My mother in law needed a new car so we went and drove one. I personally am not impressed. While it "Looks" good in the pictures it is something else to behold. NO one that I know will tell you that any of the competition in that field can match the CRV's interior, but on the other hand I will fully admit that they are underpowered.
 
The Trailblazer crash test scores both from the Government and the IIHS are HORRIBLE. They have the worst safety rating of any vehicle on the road. Check out the crash test data on this site (while you aren't on Left Lane News).
 
Go sit in a Lucerne and open and shut the Glove Box. Then place your finger on the dash on top of the glove box, below the passenger airbag and tap. Hollow and hard.
 
Automobile Mag says almost what I am talking about.
"Slide into the Lucerne's driver's seat, squint at the creamy, finely stitched leather and the close tolerances of the interior trim pieces, and you might actually think you're in one of those cars. Run your hands over the plastics, though, and you'll realize that the materials are, alas, not quite as rich as the Avalon's." Rusty Blackwell was the writer, if you want to look it up.

Taking out fleet sales will tell you what the individual consumer is buying. In the past domestics have used rental car companies and other fleets as a "dumping" ground to keep volume and market share.
I think this has hurt the domestics by driving down the resale, providing a disincentive to purchase domestics.
Numbers need context to provide insight.
 
Some of these posts generate, so much heat with so little light.

Thank you Norm. Additionally taking out Truck Sales tells you how the American public values different aspects of the individual product. Further, if you look a when those vehicles were purchased you can surmise if they were purchased in response to an incentive or not.

"Lucerne CXS or Lexus ES350 "
 
I would certainly buy Lucerne.

brett,
 
"You go ahead and drive the plastic wonder Cobalt SS. And you may be able to beat out a few poseurs on the road. But for my money I would buy a Civic SI with better resale value, better build quality, better handling dynamics, better steering, better feature content, and overall better value.
  
Again I am not a Japanese car apologist, but I know what is the best value for the money."
 
Actually the Cobalt offers better performance, feature content and handling for your dollar. As for build quality, you have no proof that the civic is better in that regard but it sure sounds nice to say it's superior. Civic is better in resale value and..........well thats really about it. The si is the perfect car for posers who want to put Japanese lettering in the front windsheild, lower the car 2", add an annoying muffler on the back and put neon lights underneath the car but its not the best sports compact for $22k.
 
You are the epitome of a Japanese car apologist.
 
I said I work in construction management, I didnt say I'm a construction worker. I'm not in a building trades union if thats what you were suggesting. MY check would be fatter if I was though.

brett,
 
your comparisons above are a complete joke. Why would you compare the Accord to Impala instead of Aura when most people believe the Aura is GM's best midsize sedan? The CTS is about to be replaced and the 335 is about two years old so its obvious the BMW is better. Same applies to Malibu. Make some realistic comparisons if you want reactions from people here.
 
I would take the Aura/2008 Malibu over the Accord or Camry.
 
I would take the 2008 CTS over anything else in that class with the G35 coming in a close second.
 
I would take the Tahoe over the Sequoia
 
I would take Escalade over GL450
 
I would take Sky redline over Miata
 
If I was concerned with gas mileage I would take the ES350 over the Buick, but otherwise its Lucerne CXS all the way. It looks better, has 18" wheels, magneride, costs less and has a larger trunk.
 
I would take the RAV4 over the 2007 equinox, but not the 2008 equinox with 263hp and 6 speed auto. The Chevy has more space and a better interior. Oh, and it offers navigation. I would also take the new Vue over the Rav4.
 
I would not take the Cobalt over the Civic if the two cars were priced the same. If the Chevy was $2k cheaper I would reconsider though. The civic whips the cobalt in mileage but the Chevy has more engine choices and options.
 
The Cobalt SS was written about twice in C&D back in 2004 and 2005. First they did a first drive with no road test results and had nothing but positive things to say. Later they did a short test (one page) with testing and were nearly as impressed. Check out your back issues, you will see "cobalt SS SC" written right at the bottom of the issue with the short test.
 
That quote from automobile doesnt prove that the Lucerne is cheap or full of hard plastics. It just says he felt the Avalon had "richer" plastics....whatever that means. Its completely subjective. Read C&Ds road test and see what they said. I have been in the CXL and CXS models so I am familiar with the interior materials. They are not hard, in fact few of GM's newer vehicles have hard dash materials.
 
norm,
 
Thanks for the lecture on fleet sales but I am well aware of the damage they do. This is why GM has been cutting them steadily in the last year or two. They have reduced fleet sales by 83k units this year alone to shore up resale value and brand image. Most of GMs recent sales reductions can be traced to lower fleet sales. You are making statements as if GM hasnt figured out the same things you have. Fleet sales can cause problems and that's why GM is reducing them. WHy dont you give us the fleet sales %s for Nissan, Hyundai and Toyota? As far as I know they NEVER separate fleet sales to give us an idea of how much they use them.

"As for build quality, you have no proof that the civic is better in that regard but it sure sounds nice to say it's superior. "
 
You have to be kidding right. Is there anyone out there, any credible auto writer, that has written anything other than praise for the build quality of the Civic? You wanted quotes to support my points, cowboy up!
 
You are like the little kid that says "I know you are but what am I" everytime someone makes a point. According to your mysterious C&D article the Cobalt handles better, which I still don't concede exists. (Probably no doubt to different tires). But the Civic is more predictable with less understeer and greater communication (hense the better steering).
 
As for your racist comments concerning Asian modifications, I don't appreciate. Any one buying the Cobalt would probably modify the car in much the same way if he/she really wanted to race, which according to you is the only measure of greatness.
 
Well continue to look at your charts and try to measure objective greatness, but at the end of the day the Civic SI will me more popular than the Cobalt SS. It will have more available modifications available on the market. GM put a powerful engine in a pig and expects it to fly.
 
Hey I forgot in your world Pigs do fly.

1487
 
"The Cobalt SS was written about twice in C&D back in 2004 and 2005. First they did a first drive with no road test results and had nothing but positive things to say. Later they did a short test (one page) with testing and were nearly as impressed. Check out your back issues, you will see "cobalt SS SC" written right at the bottom of the issue with the short test."
 
ARE YOU KIDDING. The Civic SI did not even exist in 2004 or 2005. So the TRUTH comes out. You lambast me for comparing the CTS to a 335i but you are using "articles" that don't exist for comparisons that don't even exist. MAN you have some nerve.
 
Oh by the way. It is probably a good thing you picked the Lucerne. That BIG trunk will come in handy for that flying pig (cobalt) of yours.
 
The comparisons I provided were not meant for your evaluation. It is obvious which of the choices you would have made. (Domestic unless I can find a compelling reason not to).
  
I have argued that the Aura is a compelling choice time and time again in this tread. At the same time the new 2008 Accord with A-VTEC will again make any advances by the Aura yesterday's news.
 
In fact C&D in February 2007 the Aura XE came in fourth place in a comparison with the four cylinder Accord. The Aura by the way was $2000 more than the Accord SE. Specifically, they found:
 
"Honda has the formula so nailed that there can be no place for this car but up front. After finding faults in all the others — some picayune, we’ll grant you — the Accord simply elicits one big “Ahhhhh.�
 
First off, it drives as if made out of titanium and carbon fiber, with a center of gravity just below the catalytic converter. The delicate steering wheel, dimple-patterned for grip, is light and precise, the body motions clipped, the turn-in sharp, the chassis rigid. Even the doors feel featherweight as they swing on super-lubricated hinges. A fingertip touch is enough to latch them."
 
Although this was not the XR the chassis and suspension are roughly the same. Additionally, the interior is not much different and for that C&D said.
 
"As we said, almost right, until the sponges in GM’s Cheapness Department got to the project. Although styled well, the interior is executed with hard plastic, glaring panel gaps, ragged mold lines, and the scrape-scraping of a gear selector that slides through its range like a screwdriver through sand. Have GM’s cheapness freaks ever sat in an Accord?"
 
Man, unlike yourself I am not making my analysis up. I have driven both the Accord and the Aura. While I love the power and smooth transmission of the XR, C&D's comments are dead on and should be taken into consideration before the 2008 Aura. Oh and by the way the Aura XE finished behind the Kia Optima, Nissan Altima 2.5S (the cheapest four cylinder model), and the Accord SE.
 
The fun doesn't stop there. The Aura XR has some problems of its own. And these aren't my words, but C&D:
 
"Some shoppers might head for a Toyota store after spending time in the Aura’s interior. It’s a shame Saturn didn’t copy the Vectra’s interior as closely as its exterior. The controls and the gauges are well laid out, and the multiadjustable seat yields a comfortable driving position. The problem isn’t so much with the design, although the Opel interior still strikes us as the better of the two. Rather, it’s the build quality: Several parts weren’t aligned, the trunk-release button came loose from the door, plastics ranged from good (dash top) to bad (shiny door-panel grab handles with fake stitching), and mold part lines were in evidence. The word flimsy comes to mind."
 
Flimsy. Wow, kind of echos what I have been saying about domestic interiors (with few exception) all along. Kind of echos your arguments this entire thread.
 
Your turn.

At this time the 2008 CTS, Malibu, Equinox are vapor ware (to borrow a software/programing phrase). Karl may have driven prototypes of these cars and have some idea how good or not so good they are. I don't think any one else here has. Judging them as world beaters based on GM hype and marketing is just talking through your......
lips.

What was racist about 1487's civic comments? I see them all the time with ridiculous mods, no matter what race is driving them. I rarely have seen a modded cobalt because they already have loud rims and a biplane attached to the trunk. And I've read the article he was talking about with the cobalt ss sc review.

"You have to be kidding right. Is there anyone out there, any credible auto writer, that has written anything other than praise for the build quality of the Civic? You wanted quotes to support my points, cowboy up! "
 
Never said the civic had poor build quality. I said you have no proof the Cobalt is poorly built. I know for a fact the exterior of the cobalt has godo fit and finish. I have only been in the inside at autoshows but I dont recall any glaring issues. I do recall being in a 2007 civic and seeing a defroster diffuser separating from the dash. See, people like you throw around fit/finish insults all the time because its acceptable to do so in the friendly confines of a like-minded group but the bottom line is you have no proof. Come to me with some gap tolerances or something if you are going to keep making these statements.
 
"According to your mysterious C&D article the Cobalt handles better, which I still don't concede exists. (Probably no doubt to different tires). But the Civic is more predictable with less understeer and greater communication (hense the better steering). "
 
You are being completely immature and unrealistic. Anyone who gets and read C&D knows the Cobalt SS/SC was written about THREE times. Its amazing that you only saw the comparison when it finished 4th and mysteriously missed the issues where it was tested alone. Dont be stupid and suggest that C&D didnt test the car just because you chose not to read those reviews. The car was tested and it put up great numbers and C&D was thoroughly impressed. In case you forgot, they were also impressed with the standard car when they road tested it in 2004. They said it was very refined and reminded them of the Jetta in many ways. Of course you probably will deny they ever tested the Cobalt LT as well. I suppose anything you didnt read was never written in C&D. I am starting to wonder if you even get the magazine.

clace,
 
dont mind Brett, he is desperate at this point. My comments were strictly about what civic fans do to their cars. Last time I checked people of various races like to customize their civics with ridiculous add ons. I guess where Brett lives that is an "Asian" thing or something. I suppose he's never seen the Fast and the Furious. Every race was represented.

"ARE YOU KIDDING. The Civic SI did not even exist in 2004 or 2005. So the TRUTH comes out. You lambast me for comparing the CTS to a 335i but you are using "articles" that don't exist for comparisons that don't even exist. MAN you have some nerve. "
 
Dude, you are losing it. I said C&D LIKED the Cobalt SS/SC. I didnt say it was better than the Si back in 2005 when the Si didnt exist. Are you for real? Maybe you are just playing around to get a reaction out of me. I wanted you to read the road tests so you could understand that C&D was a fan of the Cobalt before they did that comparo and made up all types of complaints in order to rank it 4th.
 
"Oh by the way. It is probably a good thing you picked the Lucerne. That BIG trunk will come in handy for that flying pig (cobalt) of yours. "
 
What? Dont get it.
 
"The comparisons I provided were not meant for your evaluation. It is obvious which of the choices you would have made. (Domestic unless I can find a compelling reason not to). "
 
No actually, as I stated before the imports are clearly better in certain segments. Those being $70k+ luxury cars, B class cars (Yaris, FIt) and "medium" pickups. In those segments I would go import. If I had to get a entry luxury car today and couldnt wait for CTS or G8 I would get a G35 or 335. See, you are wrong again. I like all types of cars and I'm very realistic when it comes to evaluating whats on the market. The the midsize sedan, midsize crossover, large crossover, large SUV, large sedan, sports car and luxury SUV segments there are strong domestic entries. Everyone except you will acknowledge that, but then again you are still stuck in 1995 or something when it comes to talking about domstic offerings.
 
"I have argued that the Aura is a compelling choice time and time again in this tread. At the same time the new 2008 Accord with A-VTEC will again make any advances by the Aura yesterday's news. "
 
You can predict the future now? Remember, people said the same thing about the Altima when we learned it had 270hp but in the real world the Altima 3.5 CVT is slower than the Aura 3.6. If the Accord gains weight (I bet it will) it's power increase will be negated. Even if it's not, I dont need a car thats faster to 60 than the Aura. Sorry, but 0-60 in 6.2secs is fast enough for me. The 330i with 5A is slower than that.
 
"Oh and by the way the Aura XE finished behind the Kia Optima, Nissan Altima 2.5S (the cheapest four cylinder model), and the Accord SE. "
 
Saw the test. C&D's opinion totally contradicted what others said about the car. read R&Ts first drive and various other reviews done by newspaper writers. Also see what Motorweek said and NCTD.com. None of them felt the same way as C&D. Even the idiot car reviewer from the import loving LA Times was impressed by the Aura. I think you can find his review on cars.com. Who am I going to believe? C&D or the other 10 reviews I've seen? C&D didnt like the Aura from the start and actually had the temerity to say GM should've used the Vectra's interior on the Aura. The Aura's interior looks far better than the sea of black Vectra's interior. The Aura's interior isnt best in class but its still better than the Fusion and Camry. Its about on par with Accord and Altima. All of them have hard plastics in some areas.
 
As for the XR, I heard that Lutz asked a journalists who criticized the interior to show him the part lines he mentioned and he refused to do so. I have sat in the XR and I did not see any mold lines or pieces of the interior falling off. Did you? C&D made those comments after driving a pre production XR and did not repeat those criticisms in the comparison test with the XE. When they tested the XE they said the plastics were cheap and the trunk didnt pop up far enough so they put the car in 4th place. They are idiots.
 
norm,
 
"I don't think any one else here has. Judging them as world beaters based on GM hype and marketing is just talking through your......

norm,
 
"I don't think any one else here has. Judging them as world beaters based on GM hype and marketing is just talking through your......
lips."
 
Please apply come common sense here if you can. The Malibu will drive like the Aura. The Aura is well liked and the Malibu will have all of its attributes. The PRESS, not GM, has praised the Malibu's design and the PRESS has sat in the car and pronounced its interior to be class competitive at the minimum. The CTS has been thoroughly examined by the PRESS and THEY have said this looks like a quantum leap over the old car and a potential world beater. If you take a nice car and improve its only two glaring weaknesses (interior and power) you are going to end up with a really impressive car. Stop making excuses and give credit where it's due. This whole "we dont know if its worth anything because its not on the market yet" line of reasoning is garbage. Dont be mad at me of GM, get mad at all the journalists who were impressed by GM's newest offerings at Detroit.
 
Let me guess, we cant be excited about the G8 either since its not for sale yet and we dont "know" anything about it. NEver mind the fact its on sale in Australia and MT and others have driven the car and LOVE it.

Notice that 1487 didn't respond to the fact that the Aura was panned in C&D, and that I gave you the quotes.
 
Also notice that his mysterious article he is referring to involves comparisons that don't even include the Civic Si that has been out for the last two years.
 
Also notice that when asked to provide quotes (like he asked for) he dismisses my challege as despiration.

brett,
 
I cant wait to see what excuse you'll give after I prove that C&D did review the Cobalt SS SC.
 
August 2005
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/9753/chevrolet-cobalt-ss-supercharged.html
 
here's a quote: "With that many horses on tap, Chevy made sure the SS Supercharged could keep them corralled. Compared with a standard Cobalt coupe, the SS Supercharged features unique strut valving, stiffer springs, larger anti-roll bars, a quarter-inch-lower ride height, bigger brakes with high-performance linings, and 18-inch forged alloys wearing 215/45 Pirellis. Our tester also had the $1500 Performance package that adds Recaro front seats and a Quaife limited-slip differential. Around our local handling loop, the Cobalt displayed minimal body roll and understeer, as well as impressive front-end grip that felt enhanced by the LSD. There is noticeable steering-wheel tug to deal with when exiting a tight turn under hard throttle—two hands on the wheel are a must. Otherwise, there's little to harp about, dynamically. The steering features a medium-heavy feel for optimal feedback, the brakes are fade-free and easy to modulate, and the ride is tolerably stiff."
 
February 2005
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/9020/chevrolet-cobalt-ss-supercharged.html
 
here is a quote:
 
"As it happens, it's astoundingly good—an Olympic long jump for GM, from dead last to the head of the class, right up front with the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. You may have already gleaned that from our first Cobalt preview last July. We alluded to superb interior trim that mimics a Volkswagen's; the fancy hydroelastic rear-suspension bushings that pacify the ride (and cost GM $30 extra per car, according to vice-chairman Bob Lutz); a cabin soundproofed to luxury-car stillness by multiple door seals, molded acoustic pads, and 37 pounds of laminated "quiet steel"; and the Euro-'spensive Continental and Pirelli tires."
 
AND
 
"Over the twisting trails of Santa Barbara County, a Quaife-equipped SS laid the power down smoothly and ate the apexes with fast reflexes and stable course control. The Dodge SRT-4 supplies more horsepower and torque for a few hundred bucks less, but it's a rough-and-tumble street fighter. The Cobalt SS Supercharged trades on its refined civility, two words we don't normally associate with a GM economy car. But then cobalt isn't a metal we normally consider precious."
 
You are so right, I was just making this stuff up. You have no clue what you're talking about. Bring on the lame excuses.

1487, a couple of Days ago
 
"As I said, instead of making baseless arguments try reading C&D's feature from a few months back and report back to me. The Cobalt was the best at the track and smoked a 300hp Mustang GT along with the FWD competition. They said the Si felt soft on the track and wasnt ready for primetime. Hey, they said it, not me. "
 
This was in reference to an article for which was dated according to him, "The Cobalt SS was written about twice in C&D back in 2004 and 2005."
 
Now what he said a few minutes ago.
 
"Dude, you are losing it. I said C&D LIKED the Cobalt SS/SC. I didnt say it was better than the Si back in 2005 when the Si didnt exist. Are you for real?"
 
Read the comments and judge for yourself. I am tired of being lectured about what 1487 did or didn't say. Please read your own trash before re-writing history.

Oh my crap!!! 1487 IS, indeed, capable of citing sources instead of just talking! That pig is really flying now!

I have never said that the Cobalt SS could not be fast or make a turn. But they never compared it to the CIVIC SI, and that is what you said they did.
 
Further, I have never doubted that C&D reviewed the Cobalt. I expressed said that they had and posted quotes from the 2007 article. Yes C&D liked the Cobalt SS, but they never said it was better than its Japanese competition. Since this review, The CIVIC has a credible SI, the VW's interior is light years ahead of the Cobalt and GM is still churning out the same stuff. BUT WERE GETTING BETTER.

Why is everyone so gung ho about civics? Am I the only one on earth who thinks they look funny and have a disaster for a dash? Besides, can you really compare a VW GLI or GTI to other sport compacts when they can get up to a cool 30k when you add the good stuff to them?

brett,
 
I will try and make this as simple as possible. There are FOUR different cobalt SS references in C&D. ONE real comparison test, two short tests alone and ONE special feature they did where the car was on the track with many others but (read carefully) this is NOT the same as the individual road test of the car from 2005. If I'm not mistaken you said you had never heard of these reviews with positive things to say about the SS/SC. This last article is quite recent and if you didnt see it I would assume you dont get the magazine in the first place. go to their site and look it up, it should be on there. In that test the Cobalt out-handled the Si and GTI, its that simple. Again, dont shoot the messenger. If you dont like what they wrote than write them. The article was the cover story for that particular issue so it was hard to miss. Many cars where involved. Just ask anyone who actually reads or subsribes to the magazine, in fact someone wrote them a letter complaining about their criticism of the Si on the track.
 
BTW, I did address the C&D test with the XE. They love the Accord and dont like the Aura. I dont know what else to say. I suggest you read what autoweek, R&T, Automobile and others had to say and get back to me.
 
"Also notice that when asked to provide quotes (like he asked for) he dismisses my challege as despiration."
 
It must be hard to get your foot out of your mouth so soon after making a silly statement.
 
flic,
 
You are hilarious!!! Ok, not really. Just wondering, what sources have you cited for ANYTHING you have said thus far? You need to separate the fact that you are anti-GM and hate everything I say from assuming I'm stupid. Not everyone who doesnt agree with you (smart as you are) is stupid or confused.

Brett,
 
Oh boy, let the excuses start anew. Cant wait to hear how this is twisted around.
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11755/the-lightning-lap.html
 
Maybe I just made this up. See, if you actually READ C&D you might have some clue as what I'm talking about. I read it every month.
 
Since you dont believe me, maybe you will believe C&D since according to you they are the ultimate authority when it comes to the incompetence of GM products. Enjoy!

A quote for Brett:
 
"With their nose-heavy weight biases, none of these cars was stellar in the braking department, but the Cobalt SS had the strongest and most reliable binders. Next best was the GTI, although our car’s brakes showed evidence of previous heavy use and made grinding sounds that didn’t inspire confidence. Nor was the pedal feel very firm. Weakest were the Civic Si’s brakes, which faded greatly after two laps.
 
The Cobalt was also the most settled of the three, with excellent body control through the high-speed esses. The GTI felt soft, but its body motions remained fairly stable. The Civic was the floppiest.
 
The Civic was also the slowest, owing to gearing that required several extra shifts each lap and a less-than-strong engine. The GTI was 1.4 seconds quicker. With its DSG, it was best to select manual mode and perform your own downshifts with the left paddle, leaving the twin-clutch transmission to upshift on its own. The Cobalt SS’s supercharged Ecotec engine collaborated with an excellent gearbox to charge down the straights with authority. The result was a maximum speed of 117.1 mph and a lap time of 3:20.6 — four to five seconds quicker than the other front-drivers, the GTI and the Civic.
 
Amazingly enough, that performance made the Cobalt SS 0.3 second quicker than the 300-hp Ford Mustang GT. The Mustang was actually a couple mph quicker than the Cobalt on the straightaways, but the Ford suffered from weak brakes and a floppy chassis. After only two laps, the brakes started to give ground and the soft suspension allowed the car to move around too much to go quickly through the high-speed esses of Sector Two. The Cobalt averaged 4.7 mph faster through that part of the track. On the plus side, cornering grip and balance were decent. With more suspension control, the Mustang would have taken better advantage of these attributes."
 
And yes, I did just make up that entire article. But you have to admit, it does SEEM real.

I'm wondering right now why 1487 has constantly bashed C&D in the past (ie. saying "those idiots over at C&D" on the other blog) for being the - and I paraphrase - "most anti-GM, anti-American auto rag writers in the biz". But NOW he's quoting it left and right like it's the Bible. Why the change man? Do you only use it when it fits your point of view or is this just another one of your conversational manipulation tricks that you pull?

It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. But I had real reasons to doubt the veracity of what you were saying.
 
When you do a search on the website ( and I tried four different ways) this article was not popping up for me. I personally don't like racing. So when this article came out I probably skipped it.
 
With that being said, I would still like the Civic better for all the reasons that I have said before. Build Quality, Steering, Resale Value, Styling, Interior Quality, which I believe and the sales figures bear out are better than the Cobalt.

The Aveo sells more than the Fit but I dont think that proves its a better car. Same with F150 vs Tundra. Do you disagree? Sales do not prove much. On top of that I'm not aware of any place that breaks down sales of the Si vs the civic line as a whole nor have I ever seen Cobalt SS/SC sales listed separately.
 
If YOU believe the Civic has better steering and interior quality that is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Just remeber its nothing more than an opinion. Since the Cobalt and Civic have both been praised for steering feel I fail to see why you keep saying the civic has superior steering as if it's fact. The civic probably does have better resale value and styling is subjective of course. I think both cars look OK on the outside but the civic's interior is over the top and it lacks the Recaro buckets available on the Cobalt.

Sales based on price don't mean much in comparing relative worth of the automobiles. However, no one is buying the Cobalt SS or the Civic Si on price considerations. Otherwise they would buy a lesser equiped model.
 
The Si and the SS are specialty vehicles. Therefore I would postulate that the market sales numbers are very important in making qualitative conclusions. The Civic Si probably outsells the SS because all around it is a better car. Is it a better RACE car, I don't know. But for the purpose that most of these are used the Civic is Better.
 
I still insist despite your article that most people would agree with me on that.

Sorry brett. I disagree with you and side with 1487 on this one. Sales of that Civic are based more on image than ability. The Si / SS are both designed to be small performance cars (aka compact rockets). Si's in the past have lead the pack, and established an excellent reputation. The Cobalt SS/SC far and away eclipses both the last gen Si and the current one in the areas the Si used to lead in. However, the Cobalt has some things against it:
 
-It's from Chevrolet. Unlike Honda, GM's current reputation isn't all that hot. Therefore a LOT of the folks from the age group likely to identify with this class of car think about the previous (now defunct) Cavalier when they see 'Cobalt'. Bad.
-Si was the leader for many years in this class of vehicle. GM really didn't have anything close. Bad for GM.
-Cobalt SS / SC hasn't been around long enough to gain the same 'cred' as the other players. Sadly, if something I read somewhere else is true, I guess it's going away, so it may never get it. Here's fingers crossed that the SC is only going away because the new turbo direct-injected Ecotec is going to be offered to take its place.
 
flic, I usually find your posts pretty fair. That last comment doesn't seem to be though. It's pretty obvious to most of us that the reason 1487 is posting these positive quotes from C&D is (especially) because they're coming from a traditionally import-friendly (and GM unfriendly) source (excepting the vette, and even there they haven't always been as warm to the car as they should've for what it offered). When they make statements about a domestic vehicle such as those he's quoted, it should make your eyebrows go up. Even so, his point about their bias is backed up when you consider that there wasn't ONE area the Si won out in during this comparo, and yet they'd go along with the blind majority (perhaps influencing the same) and choose the Si over the SS if that was what they were shopping for.
 
I can't personally say I'd choose a non-SS Cobalt over a non-Si Civic, because I most likely wouldn't. I find the Civic's exterior more attractive than the Cobalt, and both would suit my needs fine. Likewise there are glaring interior issues with both that would bother me, basically making both equal. I've been in and driven both. I dislike the look of the center dash audio / HVAC area (especially the material surrounding the controls) in the current Cobalts, while I hate the two-tier layout of the Civic. However, both seem equally well assembled and equally rattle-free, at least during the duration that I have experienced them. Fit and finish is comparable, design favors the Cobalt in general, but materials selection tends to go back toward the Civic a bit.
 
If I were truly looking for a performance vehicle from this class, I'd choose the Cobalt SS/SC in a hearbeat over the rest of the field, no questions asked. It's clearly a far superior vehicle no matter how you slice that pie, as evidenced by the article at C&D. If on the other hand I intended to be a poser, and only wanted to look like I wanted to go fast, I might consider the Si first, as it's name and reputation have long well established 'street cred' that would make me look cooler to other boy-racers' eyes. Not to mention that it *is* a better looking car on the outside anyway. I can see me standing in the driveway admiring it from time to time, where I doubt I'd do the same for the Cobalt, especially with that nasty wing out back. But when driving down some twisty road, or going light to light, I can imagine being far more engaged by the Cobalt than the Civic.
 
I guess a lot depends on *why* you're buying the car. But to say the SS / SC is inferior would be dead wrong. ;-)

jerry,
 
I think they dont have enough energy to attack you at this point. Your post is 100% logical.
 
Any objective person that reads C&D knows that they tend to disregard performance and price when those things to tilt towards the vehicle of their choice. GM isnt the only one that gets the short end of this type of behavior, but they are probably the most frequent victim. R&D comparos are 100% based on real ratings and hard to argue with. C&D place the most importance on subjective ratings like "gotta have it factor" and "fun to drive" which are left to the whims of the editors. UNsurprisingly, the cars they like from BMW, Honda, Acura, etc. always do well in those categories and make up lost ground in the standings.

C&D is for people that love "cars" not necessarily race cars. If you guys want to drive computers, then fine.
 
While the Cobalt may be able to perform certain tasks quicker and objectively better (faster, more g's, or whatever) there is the something great to be said for the subjective.
 
I personally don't like turbo engines. I don't like the non-linear power delivery. It is not just the lag, but the unpredictable nature to their react to downshifts or during hard acceleration.
 
When you guys bemoan the subjective evaluation, you take away evaluations on all characteristics that most individuals find appealing about their cars.
 
Styling, Interior, comfort of the seats, the feel of the shifter, the reaction of the engine, the ability to heal and toe, and countless others. How are these evaluations any less REAL than 0-60, g forces, 1/4 mile, etc.
 
For my money the "fun to drive" factor is the MOST important. To say that C&D overevaluates that is the Reason C&D has a ciruclation 10 times greater than Road and Track.

A "fun to drive factor" isn't as valuble as it could be because people may value different handling characteristics. For example, a TSX may corner exceptionally well, but if it lacks the low end torque to put me back in the seat after a corner then it wont be as fun to drive to me. Plus, in C & D the gotta have it factor(AKA the porshce/BMW/import factor) always seems to give a car that was thoroughly outperformed or overpriced just enough points for a magical last second buzzer beating comeback.
 
BTW, I've only driven one supercharged engine before, but do they have unpredictable lag and surge, I didn't feel any?

"While the Cobalt may be able to perform certain tasks quicker and objectively better (faster, more g's, or whatever) there is the something great to be said for the subjective. "
 
Just give it up dude, you lost. Enough with the excuses for C&D. They are and always will be biased towards certain brands. Its really simple and a quick look at the facts will prove that. C&D loved the Cobalt and Cobalt SS/SC until they compared it to their much worshipped RSX and WRX. In the comparo they found all types of flaws that were never mentioned in the first two tests. C&D wasnt going to let a lowly Chevy beat an Acura or Suburu and it didnt. Dont give me a bunch of crap about "numbers dont mean anything' because that type of rubbish is only mentioned when an import car gets it rear kicked in terms of performance. When a BMW wins a test and posts great performance numbers I never hear anyone saying "numbers are one thing, but subjective feel means much more". Please.
 
"For my money the "fun to drive" factor is the MOST important. To say that C&D overevaluates that is the Reason C&D has a ciruclation 10 times greater than Road and Track.
 
You have proof of that? I'm sure you dont so I dont know why I even asked. Fun to drive means nothing because they can put any number in there they want to. If you can explain to me how a car that had two positive reviews under its belt suddenly tanks in the Fun to Drive category once compared to cars they like better than let me know. As I said the subjective categories are used to ensure the cars they want to win will always win. Do you know how many times the car with the best or even 2nd best performance doesnt win in C&D? It happens all the time and they are left to make excuses. Whats even better is that in many cases (such as when BMWs win) the winning car is often the most expensive and performs no better or worse than other lower ranked cars.
 
Since C&D is an enthusiast magazine and not an interior plastics evaluation magazine, I would prefer if the cars with the best peformance tended to finish near the top of the rankings. To place the Cobalt SS near the back of a comparo because they didnt like the dark interior color scheme or some plastics even though it smoked the RSX in every performance category is absurd, but typical. Of course most of C&Ds readers are Honda and BMW fans anyway so its like preaching to the choir and people love it. I guess a lot of import fanboys would cancel their subscription if Hondas, acuras and BMWs didnt win everytime so C&D has to give the people what they want.

1487
 
Man you just go on and on and don't say much. I realize that you put alot of value on the test numbers and you have a healthy sense of conspiracy. But ifyou believe that a majority of people don't consider subjective characteristics of their automobiles before purchase, you are wrong.
 
People evaluate all aspects of a car's nature. It is obvious that most people that drive these cars agree for the most part with C&D because the sales numbers bear it out (for the most part). And these cars are being purchased by people that are not value shoppers.
 
So rant and rave all you want that GM really has the best vehicles on the planet, but no one knows because its a secret. The press is out to get them, Americans that have abandoned them are unpatriotic, or whatever reasoning that lets you sleep while grinding your teeth.

"We eat, breathe and dream automobiles, and in many instances, this love for the car overruled common sense during our selection process. But that's the great thing about the Edmunds.com Editors' Most Wanted list: it's guided by passion, not science (much like the majority of car purchases)."
 
This quote from this cite, demonstrates what I am talking about.

"It is obvious that most people that drive these cars agree for the most part with C&D because the sales numbers bear it out (for the most part). "
 
You honestly dont have any idea what you are talking about. With the exception of the vette, Accord and 3 series few C&D favorites are successful saleswise. Keep in mind that C&D has loved the SRX from day one and that model has been a huge disappointment for Cadillac. C&D HATES the camry and doesnt have much positive to say about it and it outsells their beloved Accord every year. C&D also pans the Impala and it is a huge sales success. C&D routinely places the Vette behind more expensive porsches in comparos and yet the vette outsells the Boxter and 911 combined. C&D's tastes are rarely in sync with sales numbers. The Mazda6 is another example of a vehicle they loved which didnt do well in the market.
 
"So rant and rave all you want that GM really has the best vehicles on the planet, but no one knows because its a secret."
 
Never said that but you have to make statements like that since you have little else in the way of rebuttals. I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I like various types of cars. You want me to agree with your opinion that GM makes nothing competitive and on that we will never agree. How hard can it be to understand the difference between what I'm actually saying and what you THINK I am saying?
 
for the record I like the G35, M35/45, 335, A4, CX-9, Mazda6, TL, E550, S550 and several other imports. My list of preferred vehicle is much more diverse than yours. The fact that I dont worship the civic and its spage age two level dash doesnt mean I said GM makes the best vehicles on the planet.
 
The weaker your arguments get the more you lash out with ridiculous accusations that have little connection to anything I've actually written. And where did this unpatriotic nonsense come from? I am the least patriotic person you know. If I was into "mad in the USA" I would be a Toyota owner.

I do think GM makes competitive models. I have great respect for the Aura and other vehicles. But I don't think they have many class leaders, or that their Best, is the best the market can provide.
 
My point in this whole discussion is that we have waited decades for GM to be in the position that you now think they are in. And I am routing for them, but I am not willing to anoint their comeback yet.
 
When GM has a host of class leading vehicles that routinely demonstrate not only their competence but their excellence, then we can have further discussions. But as long as you have to come up with excuses why the automotive press did not like something (like your ridiculous statements about C&D), or why the sales of a car are not up to par, then it demonstrates that GM still has miles to go.

clace- that's correct. "Turbo" charged cars typically have some turbo lag, though that's been dealt with (with varying levels of success) by many manufacturers of vehicles using this technology. And you are also correct- neither of the current Cobalt SS versions uses a turbocharger yet, so talk of turbo lag doesn't apply (superchargers are always working, thanks to a direct drive from the engine itself). Not sure why brett brought it up, except maybe in response to my hope that *if* the SS/SC is going away that the new turbo DI engine (Solstice GXP, Sky Redline, maybe the upcoming high performance HHR) with around 260 hp makes it in as a replacement.
 
I haven't kept up with reviews of the current vehicles with that engine, other than a general feeling of more than enough power. So I don't know if reviewers of the Sky / Solstice consider that turbocharged powerplant peaky or unpredictable. (Last time I read about one that was that way, it was a Porsche, which I'll *never* be able to afford).

I brought up the turbo as an example of technology that may give an auto more power and thus better track numbers, but whose subjective qualities were not my taste.
 
This was not meant to be specifically appled to the Cobalt

Car and Driver circulation 1,300,000
Road and Track circulation 730,000
 
Sources; respective web sites, verified at Media Week web site.

Since when is 1.3million equal to 10 times 730,000?

Base 2 notation maybe? (binary)