Ah yes, the Brits and their love of American cars

[RJB]

Of course they hate it, its American, but of course they have different needs than us. But still its not a Rover so its crap in their eyes!! I never got that about them even though I would never buy a Rover they seem to think it can do no wrong. I could tell you different first hand, anyway here you go.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/first_drive.p...=412&page=1

[AxelTheRed]

Eh, I really couldn't care less what the Brits think of Hummer. Hell, I don't care for Land Rover, but the English aren't going to get up in arms because of that. Of course, I don't think they hate Hummer because its owned by an American company. Remember, Ford owns Land Rover.

[A Horse With No Name]

Pricing due to import taxes must make a real difference though. The car is 31,000 pounds, or about 63k u.s.

I wouldn't pay 63k for an H3 Either.

Chris

[carman21]

Aren't the Brits the only major automotive power that actually is dependent of foreign makes for 90 % or more of their new cars. Thats sad. lol

Thank God for 7/4/1776!

[Oracle of Delphi]

Aren't the Brits the only major automotive power that actually is dependent of foreign makes for 90 % or more of their new cars. Thats sad. lol

Thank God for 7/4/1776!

Hehehehehehe!

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Aren't the Brits the only major automotive power that actually is dependent of foreign makes for 90 % or more of their new cars. Thats sad. lol

Thank God for 7/4/1776!

Don't laugh too hard...

If the yuppies here in americant have it their way, we will be in the same boat.

f@#k, why not? Lets just outsource it all! Screw heritage, national pride and employment!

As for the brits at KA (Car)... Well they're no different than any other journalists. $h!ty.

Edited February 27, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[Robert Hall]

Don't laugh too hard...

If the yuppies here in americant have it their way, we will be in the same boat.

f@#k, why not? Lets just outsource it all! Screw heritage, national pride and employment!

As for the brits at KA (Car)... Well they're no different than any other journalists. $h!ty.

I was thinking...compared to other consumer goods, cars are probably one of the few things we can buy that are made in the US in any volume. Are TVs still made here? Sound systems? Appliances? Clothes? It seems like the vast majority of consumer goods are imported (I do check the labels occasionally).

[ketch]

My in-laws just got an H3. Seems ok, but its way overwieght, horrible gas mileage and smaller inside than my Vue for christs sake. No, they won't ever take it off road. My 'bad' side likes it, but overall its a joke. Buyers like them who buy for the so called image, are even funnier. He in Vegas, its the norm. Of course this place has the highest per capita of DA's with money on the planet, so it fits. I'll take an Outlook or Acadia any day over this.

Edited March 10, 2007 by ketch

[RJB]

Oh, ouch...more bad news for the H3 from the other side of the pond! The H3 is generally hated to such a degree that the latest issue of CAR(April) was so painful to read that I almost had to put the article down. So here read for yourself some of the comments made on their blog about how the Brits feel about Hummer, there are suprisingly a few positive comments.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/post.php?sid=586#comments

Edited March 21, 2007 by RJB

[Sorayna]

Oh, ouch...more bad news for the H3 from the other side of the pond! The H3 is generally hated to such a degree that the latest issue of CAR(April) was so painful to read that I almost had to put the article down. So here read for yourself some of the comments made on their blog about how the Brits feel about Hummer, there are suprisingly a few positive comments.

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/post.php?sid=586#comments

Wow..I've read it.You're right

[Oracle of Delphi]

No one is a bigger fan of GM than me, I mean I actually work here, but you can't blame the Brits to much for not liking it, after all who else would pay 64,000 for what at it's core is just a Chevy Colorado or GMC Canyon. Look at that dash shot, it screams Chevy Colorado, GMC Canyon.

[CARBIZ]

The auto market is so vastly different in the U.K. I don't take any of their reviews seriously. The entire island would fit into a corner of Ontario or Texas. It takes 6-7 days to cross Canada from sea to sea. You can do that in England in an afternoon. Plus, they are paying three times what you Americans are for gasoline (or petrol, as they call it.) Have you seen many of their country roads? They were built hundreds of years ago and are only suited for donkey carts.

As to the abdication of manufacturing, I went looking for shoes on Friday and (as per my recent vow not to buy anything Chinese), every single pair of shoes were produced in China. Even major brands like Clark and others. I found two pairs made in Slovakia and one pair made in Thailand. I will be damned if I will pay $100 for a pair of shoes made in China.

England has desperately held onto its shipbuilding industry because she perceives that industry to be of national importance - after all, England is an island.

[Z-06]

The entire GM lineup, save the GMT900 Pickups, Colorado and Canyon, and Corvettes could use a diet pill. These vehicles are at least 200lb heavier than they should be.

[haypops]

These vehicles are at least 200lb heavier than they should be.

me too!

[balthazar]

>>"The entire GM lineup, save the GMT900 Pickups, Colorado and Canyon, and Corvettes could use a diet pill. These vehicles are at least 200lb heavier than they should be. "<<

EVERY manufacturer's lineup could use a diet pill, not just GM's! Especially with more aluminum than ever, and everything you touch being thin plastic, a car the size of --say-- a passat would be 3000 lbs max, instead of reaching over 3800.

[Sixty8panther]

Even Lexuses & &#036;h&#33;ty Acuras with their thin-as-a-Pepsi-can sheetmetal

are way heavier than they should be. Welcome to the world of having

402,764,558,929,315 miles of wiring, dozen airbags & 3 tons of plastic.

[Z-06]

Rightfully agree with you Balthy. Not trying to be rude, but this is a Forum of making GM better and honestly I do not give a F### about other car manufacturers.

It is just that recently GM cars have been heavier than the average weight for the class they compete in. Despite of the huge overhangs, my W body Lumina weighs within 100lb of the V-6 Accord or a Crapry. GM did a commendable job of keeping the weights with in 100-150lbs of the GMT 800's with their new trucks, despite more equipment, better material, and excellent rigidity. The same should have been the case with the Kappas, Vue, Lambdas, CTS, to name a few.

Even if the Germans bring 5000lb Mid-sizer with best handling, I am not going to buy it, but it certainly will make me think about GM when they start bulking up.

[balthazar]

>>"Rightfully agree with you Balthy. Not trying to be rude, but this is a Forum of making GM better and honestly I do not give a F### about other car manufacturers. "<<

Just so long as you realize that harping on GM 'to make them better' simultaneously singles them out and makes them appear worse. I've read countless posts from you where I got that specific impression, irregardless of your intention. If other manufacturers' subsequent generations are ALSO getting heavier and heavier, how is GM doing wrong and everyone else is doing fine?

>>"The same should have been the case with the Kappas..."<<

The Kappa is a 1-generation platform- how did it get 'heavier'? There's nothing to compare it to.

CTS's weight is right in line with what most people (erroneously) compare it to over at BMW- the 5-series. Again: BOTH could lose weight: (overall lengths: 190-ish")- my '64 Catalina at 213" overall weighs right about 3800 with less than 20 lbs of plastic, a full frame and real sheetmetal.

[Z-06]

Just so long as you realize that harping on GM 'to make them better' simultaneously singles them out and makes them appear worse. I've read countless posts from you where I got that specific impression, irregardless of your intention. If other manufacturers' subsequent generations are ALSO getting heavier and heavier, how is GM doing wrong and everyone else is doing fine?

How can asking someone to be better single them out to be worse? Does that mean a parent talks to his kid to improve himself, in person makes the kid look bad? In our case we are talking about making GM better in a site dedicated to make GM better, not a blog post, where everybody reads. And besides that proclaims to be fan as well as a critic of GM, and when a constructive criticism is made about GM it should be taken in the same manner to improve it. I am not here for GM bashing unlike some other people. I love GM and I am proud to be owning GM vehicles and will buy and own them in future.

I for that matter do not consider CTS to be a 5-fighter. I think it is a bigger 3-series fighter, and STS to be a 5-series fighter. For when the STS came out, I remember seeing a commercial made by Cadillac, where 5 series, E class and A-6 are slow-dancing to a symphony in a ballroom, when the STS is driven with jazzy music and in comes the tag-line, "Wanna Dance." That right there tells people what Cadillac wants to perceive as a 5-series fighter. Further when Lutz was talking about Alpha, he was more inclined to call it a 1-series fighter, not a 3-series fighter, which some of us think of.

1. Let us compare the weights of the entry level luxury cars,

CTS 330(335) G35 C350

NEW GEN. 3874 3593 3532 3505

PREV. GEN 3509 3315 3450 3472

INCREASE 365 278 82 33

% 10 8 2 1

These are base vehicles, sans any packages for an apple to apple comparison. Cadillac was heaviest in the previous generation and still is. Yes all of the cars increased the girth, but look how much Cadillac increased it by, almost 10%, thus increasing the "heavier" compared to other vehicles in its class.

2. Now let us compare, the 7-seater FWD crossovers, all these vehicles are base FWD. For argument's sake, I have included a GL320cdi (Since it is a 7-seater, Unibody, 6 cylinder crossover)

ACADIA VERACRUZ CX-9 HIGHLANDER GL320

4722 4266 4312 3979 5296

Again in the FWD catagory, Acadia is handily overweight. People may argue that it is a bigger vehicle compared to other seven seaters, but the Acadia has about 10 cu.ft of more passenger volume compared to its next largest vehicle (Veracrus 144 cuft, vs. Acadia 154 cuft) that is about 4% offset, that does not justify 11% offset in weight. And to me personally Acadia is a great vehicle. But if comparison comes up in the near future in the car magazines, I know people will bash the Acadia for being overweight, because it is by far. Acadia already has near the top fuel efficieny, imagine, how it would be to be a distict class leader, if those weight saving measures were taken?

3. Let us now compare the Small Size Utes.

VUE RAV4 CRV OUTLANDER ESCAPE

NEW GEN. 3825 3300 3389 3527 3272

PREV. GEN 3207 2897 3318 3241 3180

INCREASE 618 403 71 286 92

% 19 14 2 9 3

I have again included four cylinder base models for all the vehicles barring the newer Outlander which is only avaible in V-6. Again across the board there is a weight gain, but for Vue that is 19% increase. Don't you think it is a lot? For a SUV which was in the middle of the pack to dead last by a large margin? Some one will argue, that is for European safety requirements, but RAV4, Outlander, CRV are also sold in Europe with same specs as they are sold in United States. Even German car magazine that compared those vehicles called the Opel Antara heavy and placed it under those three vehicles. Germans love their Opels and are not biased as our press.

4. Now this comparison is for the ubiquitous mid-size segment. Again, for simplicity, base automatic versions of 4 cylinder engines.

MALIBU ACCORD ALTIMA CAMRY PASSAT SAAB 9-3

NEW GEN. 3297 3250 3055 3263 3246 3230

PREV. GEN 3174 3133 3001 3108 3241 3220

INCREASE 123 117 54 155 5 10

% 4, 4, 2, 5, 0.15, 0.31

Previous generation Malibu was midpack despite of having the among the smallest dimensions and wheelbase compared to other cars. Now since its wheelbase is increased and every dimension has increased, it did increase weight, but now it is the heaviest. To give the benefit of doubt it is still less than the standard deviation of the class. But the standard deviation is skewed towards the lower weight due to the highly light Altima. Your "heavy" Passat, surprisignly gained 5 pounds compared to its previous generation, and I confirmed those numbers through 3 different websites.

5. Now the mid-size luxury.

STS 535 M35 E350 GS350

3973 3660 3832 3703 3704

No question about which one is the heaviest and by far.

6. Let us see the half-ton truck. For comparison, I have done it with Crew-cab 4x2 base V-8, since Dodge does not offer extended cab and &#036;h&#33;san does not offer Regular cab Titan or a base V-6. This is the most important comparison, as it justifies what I am talking about.

SILVERADO RAM F-150 TITAN TURD

5148 5165 5502 5138 5330

The new Silverado is second lightest and that too by less than a percent, despite being structurally the most rigid truck, with lots of ammenities standard compared to its previous generation as well as its competitors. With new Ram around the corner and Titan for a complete change in 2009-10, I can only see GMT-900 Silverado keeping the lightest truck crown.

This brings me to the argument, that yes, across the board the new vehicles are heavier than the previous generations, but GM has seen more offset compared to its competing vehicles and have been now heaviest in their respective categories. But, if you look at the GMT 900, GM can achieve a better vehicle without offsetting a significant weight increase, I cannot see a reason why they cannot do that in other categories? What is different in metal used in trucks, and cars? Now if you still think that I am blindly bashing GM as per your impression, then I think I am sorry that you feel that way. Those numbers are justifying and not made off the rearend like some GM bashing members make them out.

Look at the Corvette

C5 C6 C6.5

3214 3179 3217

The C-6 is actually better vehicle when it comes to refinement, sound deadening material and substance when compared to C-5, yet it lost weight. People may argue, that it is a performance vehicle, and given the development cost GM allocates for Corvette, they can use exotic material and save the weight, which cannot be done to their bread and butter cars. But when C6 was introduced, the price of a 2005 C-6 Corvette was about $1300 less than the outgoing C5, which means GM achieved the weight saving without a significant development cost and thus not causing a significant increase in price. The real reason I think is negligence on GM's part. For trying to turnaround in a hurry, GM stepped on too many rocks at one time, and they neglected some details and one of them is weight. Most of the newer vehicles are 98% there, but there is a 2% BUT... And GM should remove that 2% BUT...

There is no denying for the fact that GM vehicles do not have fuel economy comparable to its competitors, most of it is lower about 5-7% compared to its competitors, if you assume that given the same horsepower class, it is weight which directly offsets the gain in fuel economy which GM has made. Shave that weight off and GM fuel economy will be comparable to other vehicles in its class.

Yes GM vehicles now are far more desirable than their previous generations, but don't you think they should be even more desirable? And if I am looking through that perspective, am I bashing GM?

>>"The same should have been the case with the Kappas..."<<

The Kappa is a 1-generation platform- how did it get 'heavier'? There's nothing to compare it to.

CTS's weight is right in line with what most people (erroneously) compare it to over at BMW- the 5-series. Again: BOTH could lose weight: (overall lengths: 190-ish")- my '64 Catalina at 213" overall weighs right about 3800 with less than 20 lbs of plastic, a full frame and real sheetmetal.

You are right, I should not have included Kappa as a "heavier" compared to previous generation. With regard to Kappa, I meant it was heavier compared to the Miata, which it competes with.

If you have doubt with my numbers go to

carsdirect.com

edmunds.com

autos.yahoo.com to compare along with respective manufacturers' websites, because that is where I took those numbers from, just like regular consumers will. Almost all of my numbers were from carsdirect.com to keep any bias off and keep one source, because I think they are a website without any agenda and they have very accurate and comprehensive numbers right down to the trim levels. But if I doubted their numbers I cross checked with other websites.

I am not here for a fight, but if you think I am then I am sorry, I made you feel that way. Peace

[balthazar]

Good post, and I will not challenge those numbers (even tho I used Edmunds in the other thread where the '08 CTS's weight was discussed, only to have it proclaimed "wrong"... and BTW- I find edmunds site to be F-ing ponderous to navigate). You have made your point well, even tho I personally could not care less about vehicle weight.

GM vehicles have been broadly maligned in numerous forums for being uncompetitive.... is not a great portion of the increased weight found in such generational 'upgrades' as moving from 4-spds to 6-spds, adding VVT-esque hardware, more soundproofing, more ammenities, more safety features, etc, etc, etc? Naturally, this alone would not explain differences between very dimensionally-close competitors... unless the GM vehicles were in fact also more stoutly built and had more features. Isn't that what everyone has been clamoring for- more lux, more gadgets?? Or does the competition just use thinner plastics & sheetmetal & lesser chassis'? I don't know the answer (assuredly it's complex), but I will not condemn GM for 'stupidity' just because the CTS is 350 lbs more than the G35. If economy & performance are comparable, there is no disadvantage.