So I got to ride in a Civic yesterday

[GXT]

Even the Torrent is at least on par with the CRV

The CR-V interior is in a completely different league than the Torrent interior. I can't say that I've sat in a Torrent, but I've tried out pretty much ever interior part of it in one or more GM vehicles so I have a pretty good idea how it all would feel. :AH-HA_wink:

[regfootball]

The DX is there so Honda dealers can bait-and-switch people onto the lots with a ridiculously low MSRP/lease offer and bump them up to a realistically-equipped car for more $$$.

The steering wheel is too small (I'm driving, not playing OutRun) and nothing beats a real HUD instead of the phony HUD-esque digital speedo readout. Otherwise, a decent compact if you really need a compact. Too bad the far inferior Corolla outsells it.

you are always spot on.

I just hate the civic's styling inside and out and I really don't like peaky engines. honda's are always too peaky. gotta be for the ODE SKOO, bro.

the exterior is atrocious. the front end is reprehensible.

the CRV's new interior has great gap control but the materials and design are not the godsend some of the humpers are making it out to be. Keep in mind the way outlandish prices Honda is charging for a paltry slow 4 cylinder. It says Honda so folks pay it regardless.

Edited April 24, 2007 by regfootball

[inversereality]

apparently quite a few people think that that paltry slow 4 cylinder is worth the outlandish prices considering it is outselling the old model by about 50%. if it isn't already, then it will soon be the best selling SUV

[siegen]

if it isn't already, then it will soon be the best selling SUV

So far this year, it is the best selling SUV.

[siegen]

the exterior is atrocious. the front end is reprehensible.

If I didn't know any better, I would say you were talking about the Aztek!

[regfootball]

it's not the look, or the color choice that I'm comparing. I first sat in the CR-V a month before its official debut, since then I've sat in it once more. Each time I was in it, I was thorough in touching every single material. They got everything right. I had not one single thing I could complain about. In a 25k SUV, that is what impressed me the most.

did you get a room with that material

"In a 25k 160hp, (0-60 in 10 second) SUV, that is what impressed me the most"

not much bang for the buck.

[regfootball]

So far this year, it is the best selling SUV.

goes to show you how many liberal middle aged *cough/intenders* yeah, and up women that are out there buying new cars this year.

[siegen]

did you get a room with that material

"In a 25k 160hp, (0-60 in 10 second) SUV, that is what impressed me the most"

not much bang for the buck.

Obviously you base how good a vehicle is by how big of an engine you get for the money. Maybe if the CR-V was a sports car it might be a little more important.

[regfootball]

Obviously you base how good a vehicle is by how big of an engine you get for the money. Maybe if the CR-V was a sports car it might be a little more important.

nice point, but it doesn't change the fact that the RAV 4 with v6 will wipe that 0-60 by 3-3.5 seconds. you're right, it wouldn't otherwise be a big deal, except that its primary competitor offers that feature for a very similar price.

face it, honda dropped a HUGE ball here by not getting the amp up under the hood on this one.

[siegen]

nice point, but it doesn't change the fact that the RAV 4 with v6 will wipe that 0-60 by 3-3.5 seconds. you're right, it wouldn't otherwise be a big deal, except that its primary competitor offers that feature for a very similar price.

face it, honda dropped a HUGE ball here by not getting the amp up under the hood on this one.

I don't see how they dropped the ball when sales have been averaging 50% higher than last year every month since the new model's intro over 6 months ago.

[CARBIZ]

There's an awful lot of talk about "class-leading" this and "class-leading" that going on. Why does any one product have to be "class-leading?" Why is being "damned good" and "a great value," not equally aspirational?

I'll give Honda credit in that the Civic (to get BACK on topic) is a pretty good effort - even "class leading" in many respects, but to many who actually take their blinders off the engines are too buzzy, the maintenance too expensive, the dealers getting cocky (sort of where GM dealers were 10 years ago) and I think the Civic may have even over shot its mark. The last numbers I saw (about two or three weeks ago), the Civic's numbers were DOWN 20% in Canada this year and the Mazda 3 was poised to overtake it for the #1 selling car. As the Civic, Mazda 3 and Corolla duke it out for Queen of the Rice Ball, the Cobalt may turn out to be the sleeper hit, since it doesn't have any real DOMESTIC competition. The Focus is tired and the Calibre (which I like, BTW) is too boxy. What both the Civic and Calibre have missed this time around is their core oldsters who are being alienated by this newer design.

As the National Post ignored three weeks ago, the Cobalt is also poised to overtake the Corolla (in Canada) for 3rd spot. Not bad, considering the G5 (or whatever the hell they are calling it these days) is exactly the same and the P-B-G dealers are much stronger (at least around here!)

Considering the Civic is the newest entry (and did I hear that the Cobalt was sort of "rushed" because Lutz hated the Cavalier replacement he initially saw?), I would damned well hope it was "class leading." But "expensive" and "tries too hard" also come to mind.

I mean, for GAWD's Sake, the Cobalt SS is about as kick-ass as you can get, has amazing lease and finance rates (around here) and won't bankrupt the 20 year old who dreams of buying one! But let's pee and moan about the Civic!

[The O.C.]

Even the Torrent is at least on par with the CRV

NOT EVEN CLOSE in a million years is Torrent/Equinox even within spitting distance of the new CR-V interior.

Oh, also, btw Oldsmoboi.....that nav system is not integrated in the center stack because I believe it tilts down so you can insert CDs into the CD changer.

[The O.C.]

I still prefer the Cobalt SS/SC to any Honda Civic.

The Cobalt is a better value, better styling inside

& out and to top it all off it's cams are not driven

by an oversized rubber band.

I hate Honda. The more I look at them, the more

I see them in junkyards with their cheap crappy

motors & flimsy chassis and the more I see them

post accident looking like a squished grape I

vow never to buy one.

Dodgefan: So was the 80 mile round trip to Balicky's

Junkyard in my B-59 better or worse than your

experience in the Civic?

The sad thing is....the Cobalt first has to match up to the current offerings from Kia and Hyundai in terms of interior itegrity, quality, and fit-and-finish before they start chasing Honda.....

The last Kia Spectra I was in was definitely more impressive inside than the nicest Cobalt I've been in (and yes, the Kia has the obligatory SOFT-touch plastics on the entire upper dashboard....)

Cobalt is a good-looking little car with a strong powertrain.....that feels decidedly low-rent in every other way.

[The O.C.]

I don't see how they dropped the ball when sales have been averaging 50% higher than last year every month since the new model's intro over 6 months ago.

....plus, I think RAV4 sells something like 80% with the 4-cyl engine......

Honda basically decided to focus on one engine/powertrain....which represents the vast majority of demand they've encountered. They could have easily have fit a V6 in there, I'm sure, if they felt it warranted it.

[Ravenfreak13]

You are all so touchy feely when it comes to interiors lol.

look, the dashboard can be as soft as it wants to be....if its not attached titghtly enough, it will still rattle. You could have the hardest dashboard, if it is attached tightly, you will never have rattles...thats the case with my aunts PT. The dashboard is all hard, but I have never heard it rattle. And it's not like I caress the thing when I'm in it.

[balthazar]

Nothing you say above, balthazar really disproves my point that the gauges are detailed and expensive looking. Other than Northstar, no one here has argued my points with real solid testimony.

Unlike those that assure others of a vehicle's wonderous features with overwrought, overdramatic & unbelievable adjectives for miniscule differences, I actually bring 18 (11 professionally, 7 part-time) years of graphic design experience to the table for my 'real solid testimony'.

There are established and recognized text formatting and presentation guidelines, practices that enhance and enable clarity, communication and intuitivity of information. I clearly pointed out where honda fell flat in that respect, and it's not personal opinion but industry standard I'm relaying. Go re-read my post and look at the pic: at the very least you should be able to see that white digital numbers on a flat black background is hardly what most would call "detailed" and the inconsistancy and ambiguity of numerous points of design in the center screen primarily conveys uncertainty rather than "expensive" development. Example again- what is the "14.2" or the tiny 'A' indicating?

At least if the fuel/temp readouts had a different color baseline so, as with the fuel reading, you'd know immediately if it was completely full or completely empty, but all the honda driver gets is a fat white line on a flat black background that he has to contrast with the temp reading to discern which it is. It's crap, graphically-speaking.

You can choose not to see these aspects because of the "incredible" 'H' on the hood all you want, but at some point one would think you'd choke on your own saliva and consider for even a split second that the vehicles you favor are not, in fact, touched by the hand of God.

[Camino LS6]

I'm not much of a dash fondler, but I have to say that the CRV interior looks awful plain to me.

Bland even.

I just don't see much there.

Now I wouldn't change my purchase plans because a car had a less than "class-leading" interior (it just isn't quite so critical to me) but that one doesn't look like much to me.

I recently drove a new Rav4, found it to be really small inside but the detail of the interior looked better than that CRV. It also accellerated with serious authority. And you guys all know that I hate Toyota. So I'm not pushing a brand I like here.

[toyoguy]

Honda basically decided to focus on one engine/powertrain....which represents the vast majority of demand they've encountered. They could have easily have fit a V6 in there, I'm sure, if they felt it warranted it.

I think they wanted to keep the RDX exclusive, doesn't really matter since the RDX isn't selling.

[regfootball]

I think they wanted to keep the RDX exclusive, doesn't really matter since the RDX isn't selling.

turbo 4 instead of a six, + the RDX is too expensive...gee maybe that's why. Crap mpg too. But we don't see the press say any of that. The RDX is quite nice aside from those massviely huge flaws.

[ponchoman49]

The driving dynamics may be fine with this car but the silly Star Trek sci-fi interior is childish and the exterior is bland and weird all wrapped up in one.

[The O.C.]

You are all so touchy feely when it comes to interiors lol.

look, the dashboard can be as soft as it wants to be....if its not attached titghtly enough, it will still rattle. You could have the hardest dashboard, if it is attached tightly, you will never have rattles...thats the case with my aunts PT. The dashboard is all hard, but I have never heard it rattle. And it's not like I caress the thing when I'm in it.

I'm "touchy feely" about them because a vehicle's interior is one of the main places where a company's level of engineering and design detail, cost-cutting (or lack thereof) and manufacturing processes are brought to light.

Put a CR-V and an Equinox next to each other, and compare. Let's not even talk about hard/soft plastics. Let's look at the fit-and-finish of all the various pieces. Let's look at the feel of the knobs, switches, and sundry switchgear. It's easy to see that Honda simply sweated the details to a FAR greater degree than General Motors did (or they decided to cut fewer corners.)

[thegriffon]

Cobalt was simply a generation behind upon intro.

Class lagging safety features, 4 sp. auto, mediocre space utilization & mileage and a lack of ind rear suspension tells all you need to know about GM's intentions.

The Civic is clearly not for everyone, but its a nice product for most.

IRS is still rare in the compact class. Corolla, Sentra, Megane, Civic hatch, Golf, Jetta etc. all have torsion beam. Ford, Mazda and the Civic sedan are the main sellers offering IRS (Toyota has a pair of compact sedans with IRS, but only sold in Japan [for less than a Corolla]). Even the new Auris only offers IRS as an option on the top performance model.

[bowtie_dude]

I'm only concerned with touchy-feely because the public and the auto rags care about it. I care more about design than I do about how soft the material I never touch is, as long as it LOOKS good, I'm fine. Which is why, incidentally, I don't like the Civic's interior and prefer the interior of the Mazda 3 or Cobalt.

[pow]

IRS is still rare in the compact class. Corolla, Sentra, Megane, Civic hatch, Golf, Jetta etc. all have torsion beam. Ford, Mazda and the Civic sedan are the main sellers offering IRS (Toyota has a pair of compact sedans with IRS, but only sold in Japan [for less than a Corolla]). Even the new Auris only offers IRS as an option on the top performance model.

Golf and Jetta all have IRS...

[pow]

I'm only concerned with touchy-feely because the public and the auto rags care about it. I care more about design than I do about how soft the material I never touch is, as long as it LOOKS good, I'm fine. Which is why, incidentally, I don't like the Civic's interior and prefer the interior of the Mazda 3 or Cobalt.

Sometimes material cheapness translates into visual cheapness (hence the supernatural ability of some C&Gers to determine interior quality with spypics). Other times, they can be very convincing -- Tahoe, Suburban, Lucerne, etc.

[bowtie_dude]

Sometimes material cheapness translates into visual cheapness (hence the supernatural ability of some C&Gers to determine interior quality with spypics). Other times, they can be very convincing -- Tahoe, Suburban, Lucerne, etc.

Heh, to me a well though out design counts for a lot. I'm sure the Civic's materials are top notch, but I just can't stand the asymetrical design they've had for years. The Accord, TSX, and TL interiors are absolutely gorgeous from just a design POV, not even considering the HQ materials used.

[Intrepidation]

I've actually grown to like the interior design a lot. It spits in the eye of conformity, and is much cooler in person than in pictures.

[fuel_sipping]

I've actually grown to like the interior design a lot. It spits in the eye of conformity, and is much cooler in person than in pictures.

I agree. I work as a lot tech at my local Honda dealership, so I spend a lot of time in these cars. I try not to be biased and Im not going to rag on anyone. Though, in all honesty ive only sat in/driven one post Lutz GM. It was an 07 Impala that someone traded in. I wasnt to fond of the interior design but fit and all seemed very good.

Anyway, most of the honda interiors are different and some even odd, but they seem to work well with the vehicles. I would say that is a +1 for design. Materials are good and much less plasticy then several of the newer used Hondas ive driven. Though I have notice that even between models lx>ex>ex-l some interior pieces change. In an lx civic the other day I noticed a really cheap plastic in place of a much nicer material. It actually made the car feel cheaper as a whole. Idk, IMHO the civic interior (esp the coupe) is nice and I really dont have many complaints. I think tomorrow Im going to run over to the local GM dealers and look at some cars though for research purposes...

Example again- what is the "14.2" or the tiny 'A' indicating?

At least if the fuel/temp readouts had a different color baseline so, as with the fuel reading, you'd know immediately if it was completely full or completely empty, but all the honda driver gets is a fat white line on a flat black background that he has to contrast with the temp reading to discern which it is. It's crap, graphically-speaking.

To clear that up, the 14.2 would be the mileage on "Trip A" When you push the odometer button thing (bottom right of gauges)

it will switch between 'A' 'B' and the total mileage. Because the mileage grows, the 'A' is offset. I think the 'B' appears above it.

As for the fat bars, I completely agree.

After looking into it too, The upper display changes completly to show oil life, more fuel economy crap, or total milage. Thats probably why they're oddly spaced.

...but at some point one would think you'd choke on your own saliva and consider for even a split second that the vehicles you favor are not, in fact, touched by the hand of God.

You'd be foolish to even consider it.. No matter what brand a car is, you should know you're only buying a car. Edited May 20, 2007 by fuel_sipping

[regfootball]

I'm "touchy feely" about them because a vehicle's interior is one of the main places where a company's level of engineering and design detail, cost-cutting (or lack thereof) and manufacturing processes are brought to light.

Put a CR-V and an Equinox next to each other, and compare. Let's not even talk about hard/soft plastics. Let's look at the fit-and-finish of all the various pieces. Let's look at the feel of the knobs, switches, and sundry switchgear. It's easy to see that Honda simply sweated the details to a FAR greater degree than General Motors did (or they decided to cut fewer corners.)

too bad GM's vue interior is much nicer than the CRV then

the 'high interior quality' of the last gen jetta and golf really foretold the spotless reliability of those cars, didn't they? Assuming anyone could keep one of them maintaining combustion. Really said a lot about VW's engineering, didn't it.

Edited May 19, 2007 by regfootball

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually feature for feature there isn't a GM interior I wouldn't mind spending a hundred thousand miles in.

They have come a loooong way.

Chris

[CARBIZ]

But this is the kind of silliness the drives me nuts..The CR-V interior is nicer than the Equinox? Perhaps it is - IN YOUR OPINION. Plus, the fact is it is the LATEST and NEWEST that Honda has to offer, and other than Acura, Honda doesn't have to worry about another encore next year for a different division. Now the Vue is better than the CR-V? Doesn't this get tiresome? I can only imagine the BS that the actual design/engineering boys/girls have to go through every time a door handle is to be rejigged!!!!

I don't know how many people on this board actually buy (or lease) vehicles every year, but the process of PAYING for the vehicle is far more painful. The Equinox is a solid VALUE. It is decent on gas, low maintenance, has a solid ride and (as of '07) anyway, a pretty pleasant interior. I happen to like the CR-V. I wish the Equinox had its seats, for sure, but I don't think GM needs to scrap the Equinox just because something newer has come out.

Unfortunately, too many vanilla customers heed silly disertations as laid out in CR, MT, etc. that nitpick and complain about every stupid thing. I truly believe that most of the Equinox's (and Malibu, to name another) strong points only come out after living with the vehicle.

After 4 years of ownership, it won't be the soft, feely plastics or the gee-whizz dash lights that you remember, but the $400 trips to the dealership, the $1,500 door ding and your neighbor being laid off because you bought a CR-V.

Or Civic, to get back on topic.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually you make a good point. Not so much Honda but esp. Koran cars seem to realy fall apart with time.

And as for my neighbor, Civics are built here in Ohio so buying one would be putting my neighbor to work.

But then again so would buying a Cobalt as it is made right here also.

Chris

[Intrepidation]

But this is the kind of silliness the drives me nuts..The CR-V interior is nicer than the Equinox? Perhaps it is - IN YOUR OPINION. Plus, the fact is it is the LATEST and NEWEST that Honda has to offer, and other than Acura, Honda doesn't have to worry about another encore next year for a different division. Now the Vue is better than the CR-V? Doesn't this get tiresome? I can only imagine the BS that the actual design/engineering boys/girls have to go through every time a door handle is to be rejigged!!!!

I don't know how many people on this board actually buy (or lease) vehicles every year, but the process of PAYING for the vehicle is far more painful. The Equinox is a solid VALUE. It is decent on gas, low maintenance, has a solid ride and (as of '07) anyway, a pretty pleasant interior. I happen to like the CR-V. I wish the Equinox had its seats, for sure, but I don't think GM needs to scrap the Equinox just because something newer has come out.

Unfortunately, too many vanilla customers heed silly disertations as laid out in CR, MT, etc. that nitpick and complain about every stupid thing. I truly believe that most of the Equinox's (and Malibu, to name another) strong points only come out after living with the vehicle.

After 4 years of ownership, it won't be the soft, feely plastics or the gee-whizz dash lights that you remember, but the $400 trips to the dealership, the $1,500 door ding and your neighbor being laid off because you bought a CR-V.

Or Civic, to get back on topic.

Actually...this is fact...and here's why...the CRV's interior doesn't do this:

or have badly misaligned panels like this:

[CARBIZ]

But normal customers don't go around looking for things to bitch and whine about...only people with nothing better to do

I listen to real people's opinions every day, and nobody is interested in gaps. They are concerned about leg room, sight lines, fuel economy, PAYMENTS, where to put the baby seat, etc. As long as the interior is comfortable and gives a first good impression, THAT is important. I will concede that the base model 2005 and 2006 Equinoxes were disappointing, but then we didn't sell many of those anyway.

I admire the passion some people on this board exhibit, but really - most people don't have the time to get out a dime and measure gap widths, mewl about engine covers, etc. They just don't care. What is dangerous is that CR and MT, etc, make it their mission to whine about those things and THEN the consumer takes notice.

I used to enjoy watching those car shows on TV or reading Motor Trend, but I just don't any more because they are so damned picky and bitch about the stupidest things - not just the domestics either. I know these fat cats have to justify their jobs, but it just gets silly and it has taken the joy out of reading their so-called critiques.

What seems to matter most to many people on C&G is to nitpick or whine about every little thing wrong with a car. Perhaps Honda or Toyota do sweat details that are important to (instert name here), but GM sweats details on items that are great when you LIVE with the vehicle, like cost of ownership and useful features even on the lowest vehicles (like automatic headlights.)

I have always thought the seats in the Cavalier were the ugliest on the planet, but I have yet to see a single one that shows signs of wear - not even on a '98 or '97.

[enzl]

But normal customers don't go around looking for things to bitch and whine about...only people with nothing better to do

I listen to real people's opinions every day, and nobody is interested in gaps. They are concerned about leg room, sight lines, fuel economy, PAYMENTS, where to put the baby seat, etc. As long as the interior is comfortable and gives a first good impression, THAT is important. I will concede that the base model 2005 and 2006 Equinoxes were disappointing, but then we didn't sell many of those anyway.

I admire the passion some people on this board exhibit, but really - most people don't have the time to get out a dime and measure gap widths, mewl about engine covers, etc. They just don't care. What is dangerous is that CR and MT, etc, make it their mission to whine about those things and THEN the consumer takes notice.

I used to enjoy watching those car shows on TV or reading Motor Trend, but I just don't any more because they are so damned picky and bitch about the stupidest things - not just the domestics either. I know these fat cats have to justify their jobs, but it just gets silly and it has taken the joy out of reading their so-called critiques.

What seems to matter most to many people on C&G is to nitpick or whine about every little thing wrong with a car. Perhaps Honda or Toyota do sweat details that are important to (instert name here), but GM sweats details on items that are great when you LIVE with the vehicle, like cost of ownership and useful features even on the lowest vehicles (like automatic headlights.)

I have always thought the seats in the Cavalier were the ugliest on the planet, but I have yet to see a single one that shows signs of wear - not even on a '98 or '97.

Textbook example of how you don't 'get' it.

The reason the people in your showroom don't mention the appearance, NVH, ergonomic or build quality issues is because:

a. Not on their radar screens

b. They would buy domestic anyway.

Many people like the perception of quality when they shell out the 2nd biggest outlay (house #1) a consumer can make.

The proof is in the sales figures, my friend. I drive GM vehicles all the time....with the exception of a few products, I would assert that they have NOT sweated details that make a car/truck great to live with.

My beefs:

Seats- rarely better than mediocre....litterally a pain in the ass over time

Radios-again, rarely very good in your average vehicles

Plastics- Lots of fisher-price, too little low gloss, high quality stuff where you'd touch feel and use it daily....

Too few 'surprise and delight' features---you know 'em, the kind your friend riding in the car sez 'that's cool!'

Almost every product, almost every time....its not a coincidence. With few exceptions, the low mileage examples I hop onto only look worse for wear vs. showroom floor examples.

[CARBIZ]

People's biases will effect what they like/don't like or what they feel is important or not. I have the opportunity to drive Toyotas (or any other make, for that matter), but choose GM every time. (Although I did sneak in a couple days in a 300 not too long ago!) Or perhaps you haven't read my postings that our company owns a Toyota store????????????

I agree that people may NOT volunteer what disappoints them about a vehicle they are sitting in, but you are assuming all salespeople (or just me?) don't have a clue what they are doing and don't know how to pry out of people what their "hot buttons" are, or what makes they have already driven and their impressions.

I have never been impressed by imports, nor by BMWs, etc. I didn't grow up with them, and even in my previous free-wheeling, free spending days, I would never have considered them. That is not to say that I have not been in them, or driven them. The fiddly gadgets and viscous-coupled sunglass holders are truly awe inspiring, but people are not buying vehicles in a vacuum. Price is a HUGE factor, which is why leasing in the Toronto area (you stick to your area of expertise, and I will stick to mine) is now well over 60% of the market. (We are paying the highest insurance premiums in North America, after all!)

I, too, would love it if GM could use the finest silk for their interiors, even have Sealy do the dashboards, but until GM figures out what to do with its legacy costs (or waits until Cerabrus paves the way?) we will have to settle with keeping up with the pack. I have lived with the Malibu on and off for 3 years and for $5,000 less than a comparably equipped Camry, it is a huge bargain - even with the cheap looking nylon seats. Even the National Post, whose auto section is paid for by the imports, admits the Malibu is probably the best kept used car secret out there.

If we look at what products have come out in the last 3 or 4 years, it is clear that GM (Lutz?) does "get it" as each new vehicle launch has been dramatically better than the previous. I don't care if the new Malibu is "class leading." That only seems to matter to the auto rags and to YOU. I would SETTLE for damned good, well priced and quality that stands up over the life of the vehicle - those are what has made Toyota and Honda what they are today. Not by being CLASS LEADING in anything.

The sales figures will eventually take care of themselves. Anybody who imagined GM could have held onto 35% or market share in North America when every manufacturer on the planet has this market in its gunsights is smoking very good crack. GM will (IMO) settle out at 20% in North America, with Toyota probably around 15% or so, then the rest closely grouped below that. Is there any shame in that? Is there shame in selling 4.5 million vehicles a year here?

I just wish some Russian oil tycoon would decide to conquer the Japanese market and give Japan Inc a taste of their own medicine.

[CARBIZ]

I missed your beef about the radios.....OH PUHLEASE!!!!!

Maybe you should drive a Corolla and a Cobalt for a day. HOnestly. I don't know where you, Enzl, get this nonsense.

At least the base Cobalt comes with a Cd player - something that cannot be said for your precious base Civic.

[enzl]

I missed your beef about the radios.....OH PUHLEASE!!!!!

Maybe you should drive a Corolla and a Cobalt for a day. HOnestly. I don't know where you, Enzl, get this nonsense.

At least the base Cobalt comes with a Cd player - something that cannot be said for your precious base Civic.

I'm flabergasted by your denial, so I'll lay out the issues, point by point:

1. YOU can believe what you want. It's a free country, but here's the reality: GM cannot charge what it needs to to make a profit on MOST of the vehicles it sells. It needs to change that scenario, and quickly, as its making LESS on the stuff it used to make a killing on (GMT900's specifically).

The day of the half-ass, just good enough product is OVER. You can sell to bargain hunters, those with poor credit & the undereducated only so long until even those people realize what the General's been cooking....

So, when I enter my HHR, a $25k (!) product when new 12 months ago, and my infant son's play toys have nicer plastics....I begin to worry. The vehicle has 18K miles on it, can't get out of its own way on the highway with a relatively light load and the 6CD UPGRADED stereo sounds like sh!t, I become a little more worried. Now let's top that off with a trade-in value somewhere around $15k for this mediocrity AND now you have a customer that's completely irate and out about $10k+ in one model year!

2. I cannot comment on selling cars in Toronto, however, to be quite honest, it doesn't matter that much, as that market clearly has its own unique selling environment.

Selling cars in LA, SF, NY, Phoenix and other major cities is important. People aren't entering GM showrooms...they've abandoned the brands--completely.

That's why I can't stand the 'Good Enough' brigade. First, it's a cop-out, since it implies that GM is incapable of building superior product. Second, slowing declining market share will not help GM, the slide must be reversed. 'As good as the Camry for less' or whatever you're spouting above is drivel---GM should be aiming for superiority-in safety, in performance, in economy, in style, in quality. I don't want to hear about union contracts and healthcare...those are excuses.

Perhaps I expect more. I think I have the right to demand it, as someone who's dependent upon GM to do their jobs while I'm doing mine. No team wants to feel sandbagged by their own teammate. That's how many GM affiliates, and even loyalists, feel.

[turbo200]

I'm flabergasted by your denial, so I'll lay out the issues, point by point:

1. YOU can believe what you want. It's a free country, but here's the reality: GM cannot charge what it needs to to make a profit on MOST of the vehicles it sells. It needs to change that scenario, and quickly, as its making LESS on the stuff it used to make a killing on (GMT900's specifically).

The day of the half-ass, just good enough product is OVER. You can sell to bargain hunters, those with poor credit & the undereducated only so long until even those people realize what the General's been cooking....

So, when I enter my HHR, a $25k (!) product when new 12 months ago, and my infant son's play toys have nicer plastics....I begin to worry. The vehicle has 18K miles on it, can't get out of its own way on the highway with a relatively light load and the 6CD UPGRADED stereo sounds like sh!t, I become a little more worried. Now let's top that off with a trade-in value somewhere around $15k for this mediocrity AND now you have a customer that's completely irate and out about $10k+ in one model year!

2. I cannot comment on selling cars in Toronto, however, to be quite honest, it doesn't matter that much, as that market clearly has its own unique selling environment.

Selling cars in LA, SF, NY, Phoenix and other major cities is important. People aren't entering GM showrooms...they've abandoned the brands--completely.

That's why I can't stand the 'Good Enough' brigade. First, it's a cop-out, since it implies that GM is incapable of building superior product. Second, slowing declining market share will not help GM, the slide must be reversed. 'As good as the Camry for less' or whatever you're spouting above is drivel---GM should be aiming for superiority-in safety, in performance, in economy, in style, in quality. I don't want to hear about union contracts and healthcare...those are excuses.

Perhaps I expect more. I think I have the right to demand it, as someone who's dependent upon GM to do their jobs while I'm doing mine. No team wants to feel sandbagged by their own teammate. That's how many GM affiliates, and even loyalists, feel.

sing it sister! [-Jerry Seinfeld]

I can attest to the HHR's crap resale value. Your story is not a stretch, the trade in value on the HHR is ridiculously low. I think crappy fuel mileage has to do with it.

On that note, why hasn't GM installed any freakin hybrid systems in its smallest, supposedly efficient cars? Why do they score amongst the worst for fuel mileage in the small car category, where it matters the MOST? Why are they so behind the times, seemingly forever? Why can't the right decisions be made to pull them into the competitive environment that is today's automotive landscape?

[Intrepidation]

But normal customers don't go around looking for things to bitch and whine about...only people with nothing better to do yes.gif

I listen to real people's opinions every day, and nobody is interested in gaps. They are concerned about leg room, sight lines, fuel economy, PAYMENTS, where to put the baby seat, etc. As long as the interior is comfortable and gives a first good impression, THAT is important. I will concede that the base model 2005 and 2006 Equinoxes were disappointing, but then we didn't sell many of those anyway.

I admire the passion some people on this board exhibit, but really - most people don't have the time to get out a dime and measure gap widths, mewl about engine covers, etc. They just don't care. What is dangerous is that CR and MT, etc, make it their mission to whine about those things and THEN the consumer takes notice.

I used to enjoy watching those car shows on TV or reading Motor Trend, but I just don't any more because they are so damned picky and bitch about the stupidest things - not just the domestics either. I know these fat cats have to justify their jobs, but it just gets silly and it has taken the joy out of reading their so-called critiques.

What seems to matter most to many people on C&G is to nitpick or whine about every little thing wrong with a car. Perhaps Honda or Toyota do sweat details that are important to (instert name here), but GM sweats details on items that are great when you LIVE with the vehicle, like cost of ownership and useful features even on the lowest vehicles (like automatic headlights.)

I have always thought the seats in the Cavalier were the ugliest on the planet, but I have yet to see a single one that shows signs of wear - not even on a '98 or '97.

Panel gaps, creaks and squeaks, and trim panels that are practically falling off (like that A-pillar) do matter, and people will notice. That is why they've been buying Japanese for years. Perception is everything. First we say "oh what it looks like under the hood doesn't matter" now you're trying to tell me interior craftsmanship doesn't matter...the place where we spend most of our time?

As for the J-bodies...I laugh at the attempt at defending their quality. Their seats may be wear-resistant...but that means nothing if they are unreliable pieces of $h!...just ask BV.

I'm flabergasted by your denial, so I'll lay out the issues, point by point:

1. YOU can believe what you want. It's a free country, but here's the reality: GM cannot charge what it needs to to make a profit on MOST of the vehicles it sells. It needs to change that scenario, and quickly, as its making LESS on the stuff it used to make a killing on (GMT900's specifically).

The day of the half-ass, just good enough product is OVER. You can sell to bargain hunters, those with poor credit & the undereducated only so long until even those people realize what the General's been cooking....

So, when I enter my HHR, a $25k (!) product when new 12 months ago, and my infant son's play toys have nicer plastics....I begin to worry. The vehicle has 18K miles on it, can't get out of its own way on the highway with a relatively light load and the 6CD UPGRADED stereo sounds like sh!t, I become a little more worried. Now let's top that off with a trade-in value somewhere around $15k for this mediocrity AND now you have a customer that's completely irate and out about $10k+ in one model year!

2. I cannot comment on selling cars in Toronto, however, to be quite honest, it doesn't matter that much, as that market clearly has its own unique selling environment.

Selling cars in LA, SF, NY, Phoenix and other major cities is important. People aren't entering GM showrooms...they've abandoned the brands--completely.

That's why I can't stand the 'Good Enough' brigade. First, it's a cop-out, since it implies that GM is incapable of building superior product. Second, slowing declining market share will not help GM, the slide must be reversed. 'As good as the Camry for less' or whatever you're spouting above is drivel---GM should be aiming for superiority-in safety, in performance, in economy, in style, in quality. I don't want to hear about union contracts and healthcare...those are excuses.

Perhaps I expect more. I think I have the right to demand it, as someone who's dependent upon GM to do their jobs while I'm doing mine. No team wants to feel sandbagged by their own teammate. That's how many GM affiliates, and even loyalists, feel.

The same goes for Ford and Chrysler. Just "good enough" Doesn't cut it. They have to aim to be the best not for the current best. They can't build a great car but stop 3/4th of teh way. The Fusion could be a class leader if Ford would stick the new 3.5L in it and a Nav system...but they don't.

The Avenger could be great if the interior had better materials, the engines had better transmission options and all models had the R/T's suspension.

[CARBIZ]

Enzl, your biases have reached a new LOW. I have driven the HHR extensively. The low-range stereo is not crap, the upgraded one is simply amazing. WTF are you comparing it to? The system in a X5? Good grief! They put F$#ing Pioneer speakers in it, for GAWD's sake! Perhaps it is your music taste?

I have driven the HHR, both new and "previously enjoyed." I wouldn't touch the LS because IMO the 2.2 doesn't cut it, but the 2.4 is quite peppy when pushed; in fact, me and the service foreman went for a "spirited" drive on Saturday in a LT.

My beefs with the HHR are to do with the high belt line (but then the 300 is also guilty of that one, too) and the poor visibility, which is also a result of the high beltline. I should point out, based on numerous customer remarks, that the visibility issue is also open to interpretation. At 6'2", I find the ceiling high, but the windshield low, plus both the A and B pillars are very thick. Roll-over protection or a design issue? The 2007 refresh has helped. I have been harping on the GM seats (Equinox/Cobalt/Malibu/HHR) for 3 years now. That nylon material must go. Whomever is responsible for that one should be fired, for sure. However, the graphite interior now finally available makes a helluva difference (especially in the Colorado) and I am hoping they get rid of it altogether.

Fit and finish on the HHR may be spotty, not sure about that one. I looked at a few that we have and they seem to be all bolted down tight. Perhaps you had a bad one, Dodgefan.

Personally, I am not a big fan of the HHR and they are not selling very well in Canada. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that currently a base LS HHR is the same prices as a much better equipped base Uplander - no kidding: $18,995.

I am not fond of having to sell VALUE all the time, but I can say that in its final year the J-car outsold the Civic by quite a margin up here. At $12,999 (about 7,000 less than a Corolla), we couldn't get enough of them. I remember we had 60 Cavaliers (two years ago) and thought the manager had flipped out. We sold them all real quick and wished we had 200 more. I doubt GM could have kept banging them out at that price, but we loved it. And our customers did, too. I keep in touch with mine, and most of are very happy with their J-car. MOre than most. IN case you think they are operating in a vacuum, a lot of people have more than one car in their driveway and are comparing their "crappy" Cavalier to their wife's Accord.

Anecdotal testimonials are always of questionable reliablity, but at least mine are based on thousands of personal sales, not a few friends.

[enzl]

Enzl, your biases have reached a new LOW. I have driven the HHR extensively. The low-range stereo is not crap, the upgraded one is simply amazing. WTF are you comparing it to? The system in a X5? Good grief! They put F$#ing Pioneer speakers in it, for GAWD's sake! Perhaps it is your music taste?

I have driven the HHR, both new and "previously enjoyed." I wouldn't touch the LS because IMO the 2.2 doesn't cut it, but the 2.4 is quite peppy when pushed; in fact, me and the service foreman went for a "spirited" drive on Saturday in a LT.

My beefs with the HHR are to do with the high belt line (but then the 300 is also guilty of that one, too) and the poor visibility, which is also a result of the high beltline. I should point out, based on numerous customer remarks, that the visibility issue is also open to interpretation. At 6'2", I find the ceiling high, but the windshield low, plus both the A and B pillars are very thick. Roll-over protection or a design issue? The 2007 refresh has helped. I have been harping on the GM seats (Equinox/Cobalt/Malibu/HHR) for 3 years now. That nylon material must go. Whomever is responsible for that one should be fired, for sure. However, the graphite interior now finally available makes a helluva difference (especially in the Colorado) and I am hoping they get rid of it altogether.

Fit and finish on the HHR may be spotty, not sure about that one. I looked at a few that we have and they seem to be all bolted down tight. Perhaps you had a bad one, Dodgefan.

Personally, I am not a big fan of the HHR and they are not selling very well in Canada. One of the reasons for that, IMO, is that currently a base LS HHR is the same prices as a much better equipped base Uplander - no kidding: $18,995.

I am not fond of having to sell VALUE all the time, but I can say that in its final year the J-car outsold the Civic by quite a margin up here. At $12,999 (about 7,000 less than a Corolla), we couldn't get enough of them. I remember we had 60 Cavaliers (two years ago) and thought the manager had flipped out. We sold them all real quick and wished we had 200 more. I doubt GM could have kept banging them out at that price, but we loved it. And our customers did, too. I keep in touch with mine, and most of are very happy with their J-car. MOre than most. IN case you think they are operating in a vacuum, a lot of people have more than one car in their driveway and are comparing their "crappy" Cavalier to their wife's Accord.

Anecdotal testimonials are always of questionable reliablity, but at least mine are based on thousands of personal sales, not a few friends.

Finally, I at least got you to admit there might be an issue!

Look, I'm driving around in the HHR and the stereo is awful. Did the last guy blow out the speakers? I don't know, I just know it sounds muddy, regardless of music style or talk. But that's a small issue compared to the other things that bug me about this particular product---not only are the touch and feel of materials mediocre, the whole product (despite Mr. Lutz' denials) is a blatant ripoff of the PT---and its not even demonstrably superior to that mediocre, 7 yr. old product!

How cool would it have been to have a Cobalt-based small CUV?---the RAV4 has abandoned that market. Instead, we get uninspired rehash...the Malibu could have been much more like its euro cousins, instead we get a dumbed down version for our 'American' tastes. The Impala, while reliable, is a snooze on an old platform....how many more would Chevy sell if it was state of the art?...perhaps looking to the old LH's for inspiration, if they wanted to crib something from Chrysler.

There's literally dozens of examples of GM completely missing the mark all over my showroom...it's depressing. It doesn't matter what the competition is doing if you're not going to make a concerted effort to keep up.

Another pet peeve: Think of the Billions GM squandered on Fiat, Subaru, Isuzu & Saab. How many wonderful, modern, competitive platforms were completely washed out in that morass? How can Toyota engineer the Yaris for a global presence, yet the Corsa isn't here for 2 more model years? There's noone at GM who thought "Mmm, Mideast conflict might = oil supply issues" or "Jeez, China is consuming alot more autos, where are they gonna get the gas to power these millions of new vehicles?"

These things keep me up at night, as with the long lead time autos require means that a vision must be in place to get from point A today to point B tomorrow. I agree that Lutz has upped the ante...and as a product Czar, he's doing the best he can....But, as he showed at DCX and, especially, Exide, he may not be a visionsary from an industry perspective. And I've never seem more corporate patience for more of a failure than Rick W. You and I do that poor a job, we get canned. This guy gets a bankruptcy proof golden parachute.

[CARBIZ]

Well, well, the gulf that separates us ain't so big after all! I, too, lay awake at nights, wondering how things have become so unravelled in the past five years or so! Playing armchair critic can be so exhausting, eh?

I don't think the new reality is all that bad, as long as both GM, the UAW/CAW and the dealer body can accept that 20% market share is the new reality and plan for that. If the hurdle of contract negotiations are handled well this Fall, then I think GM is on the right track for a renaissance. I, too, wish more could be spent on product design and execution, but with the $1,700 a vehicle disadvantage, that isn't easy, is it?

I don't know Rick Wagoner. Never met the man. I don't know if a change of captains is such a good idea, but then we will see what good or damage Mullaly acheives over at Ford.

We have wandered way, way off topic, but perhaps the Civic is a good place to return to topic: it is a good car, but it is also the only small car Honda has to focus on. (Well, I guess the Fit would make two.) GM has the Cobalt/G5 and the Ion, plus all the European & Australian small cars - that is the greater issue: too many nameplates chasing a diminishing market. Honda and Toyota have the advantage of newer factories, younger and cheaper workers, plus they have not burned as many bridges behind themselves with the media.

Sometimes I wish I sold cars in the '60s when there was half as many makes and models to worry about! I sure hope that the consumer really appreciates all this "choice," because my BIGGEST fear is that, regardless of the root reasons, we are selling our futures, and both America and Canada will become "has-been" backwaters in the not too distant future.

[enzl]

Well, well, the gulf that separates us ain't so big after all! I, too, lay awake at nights, wondering how things have become so unravelled in the past five years or so! Playing armchair critic can be so exhausting, eh?

I don't think the new reality is all that bad, as long as both GM, the UAW/CAW and the dealer body can accept that 20% market share is the new reality and plan for that. If the hurdle of contract negotiations are handled well this Fall, then I think GM is on the right track for a renaissance. I, too, wish more could be spent on product design and execution, but with the $1,700 a vehicle disadvantage, that isn't easy, is it?

I don't know Rick Wagoner. Never met the man. I don't know if a change of captains is such a good idea, but then we will see what good or damage Mullaly acheives over at Ford.

We have wandered way, way off topic, but perhaps the Civic is a good place to return to topic: it is a good car, but it is also the only small car Honda has to focus on. (Well, I guess the Fit would make two.) GM has the Cobalt/G5 and the Ion, plus all the European & Australian small cars - that is the greater issue: too many nameplates chasing a diminishing market. Honda and Toyota have the advantage of newer factories, younger and cheaper workers, plus they have not burned as many bridges behind themselves with the media.

Sometimes I wish I sold cars in the '60s when there was half as many makes and models to worry about! I sure hope that the consumer really appreciates all this "choice," because my BIGGEST fear is that, regardless of the root reasons, we are selling our futures, and both America and Canada will become "has-been" backwaters in the not too distant future.

How about that, common ground?

[Flybrian]

Hug time!

[Intrepidation]

Just to let ya know CARBIX...that was an Equinox I was talking about not an HHR

[Ravenfreak13]

Thank god my dad didnt buy an hhr! I've always been and always will be a PT fan. Even the base PT has 6 performance speakers which sound great...That's one of my major things about cars. The stereo.

[The O.C.]

Finally, I at least got you to admit there might be an issue!

Look, I'm driving around in the HHR and the stereo is awful. Did the last guy blow out the speakers? I don't know, I just know it sounds muddy, regardless of music style or talk. But that's a small issue compared to the other things that bug me about this particular product---not only are the touch and feel of materials mediocre, the whole product (despite Mr. Lutz' denials) is a blatant ripoff of the PT---and its not even demonstrably superior to that mediocre, 7 yr. old product!

How cool would it have been to have a Cobalt-based small CUV?---the RAV4 has abandoned that market. Instead, we get uninspired rehash...the Malibu could have been much more like its euro cousins, instead we get a dumbed down version for our 'American' tastes. The Impala, while reliable, is a snooze on an old platform....how many more would Chevy sell if it was state of the art?...perhaps looking to the old LH's for inspiration, if they wanted to crib something from Chrysler.

There's literally dozens of examples of GM completely missing the mark all over my showroom...it's depressing. It doesn't matter what the competition is doing if you're not going to make a concerted effort to keep up.

Another pet peeve: Think of the Billions GM squandered on Fiat, Subaru, Isuzu & Saab. How many wonderful, modern, competitive platforms were completely washed out in that morass? How can Toyota engineer the Yaris for a global presence, yet the Corsa isn't here for 2 more model years? There's noone at GM who thought "Mmm, Mideast conflict might = oil supply issues" or "Jeez, China is consuming alot more autos, where are they gonna get the gas to power these millions of new vehicles?"

These things keep me up at night, as with the long lead time autos require means that a vision must be in place to get from point A today to point B tomorrow. I agree that Lutz has upped the ante...and as a product Czar, he's doing the best he can....But, as he showed at DCX and, especially, Exide, he may not be a visionsary from an industry perspective. And I've never seem more corporate patience for more of a failure than Rick W. You and I do that poor a job, we get canned. This guy gets a bankruptcy proof golden parachute.

Let me just add some comments from an updated "road test" of a 2007 Impala LT 3.9L rental car......(and by the way, Enzl, you have hit it on the head.)

First.....the body was extraodinarily tight and the suspension showed a nice lack of float and wallow (I'm sure partly due to the upgraded suspension components that supposedly go with the 17-inch wheel/tire package.)

Secondly.....the interior fit-and-finish was actually superior to the last few Camrys that I've been in (however, the hard shiny plastic was decidedly inferior.)

Thirdly....at 1/4 throttle or even 1/2 throttle, the 3.9L engine was amazingly quiet and smooth.

NOW.....here is a monster list of the things that continue to keep GM from making up for lost ground: (and I know some of these have been hashed away many times on here)

* Why does this car still use a 4-speed automatic?

* Why does this pushrod engine turn from smooth and quiet to downright rowdy and thrashy if you push it past 3.500 rpms (like merging onto a freeway, etc)

* Why does this car have such poor packaging in the rear seat....? (hint.....W-car architecture)

* When sitting in the rear, why can't I slide my feet underneath the front seats?

* Why is the trunk SO huge that I can't reach stuff that's slidden towards the front of the car? (hint.....W-car architecture)

* Why couldn't GM trade a few cubes in the trunk for a roomier back seat that's moved rearward some (hint....W-car architecture)

* WHY IS THERE NO PRNDLE ON THE CENTER CONSOLE? (hint.....cost cutting)

* Why is it that even in upgraded LT trim or SS trim this car STILL looks like a rental queen?

* Why is there no auto-up on any windows, and only auto-down on the drivers window? (hint.....cost cutting)

* Why is the recliner on the driver side power.....but on the passenger side it's manual? (hint....cost cutting)

* Why is the steering wheel pulled SO FAR out towards the driver, with no telecoping function? (hint.....W-car architecture and cost-cutting)

Don't get me wrong. I'm being harsh for a reason here. The car was entirely pleasant to drive. Unfortunately, it doesn't come close to offering any inspiration. This "new" Impala is the ultimate expression of "old" GM-think. Let's hope that the new Malibu drastically changes what the public thinks of a GM car.

Regarding the Civic mentioned in the original topic.....Honda doesn't ask it's consumers to accept the same sort of compromises that GM does....and that I've listed above. The styling may be "like-it" or "hate-it".....but I hope everyone understands why DodgeFan actually was impressed with the car.

Edited May 25, 2007 by The O.C.

[Flybrian]

* Why is the trunk SO huge that I can't reach stuff that's slidden towards the front of the car? (hint.....W-car architecture)

* Why couldn't GM trade a few cubes in the trunk for a roomier back seat that's moved rearward some (hint....W-car architecture)

Once you live with a car for an extended period of time where you can carry ungoldly amounts of items and don't have to fold down the rear seats to accomodate long and irregularly-shaped things, you understand the benefits of a large trunk. P.S. That's what a cargo net is for. My car, huge as it is, has 'only' 16 cubic feet due to its tapered rear styling. The fact that a car like the Avalon with its largish exterior dimensions and malformed rear shape can only claim 14.4 cubic feet of trunk space is downright criminal. What's its excuse? My car is also roomy in rear (G vs W, I know), but is over 10 years old, so I don't get how Toyota can fail in this regard. Again, this is shown in the Avalon's limp performance in the marketplace.

I'd argue that since most midsize cars aren't family cars, rather personal cars used predominately for two people, cargo space is valued over rear seat comfort. Personally, I'd rather have more trunk space for things I want to carry rather than more 'comfort' for two additional people that will likely never be there.

However, I do not disagree with the rear seat issue in the Impala, though I venture to say this is more an MS2000 issue than a general W-body flaw. Regal/Century never suffered from this issue, yet the LaCrosse/GP do. I think the sportier 'pancake' flattening and sweepback of the revised MS2000 edition is to blame for this.

Some of your complaints, I don't care about (auto up windows, pass manual recliner - most cars in its class also have a lever), other I completely agree with. The lack of a gear indicator on the console is pretty inexcusable simply because it violates common sense. GM has been known to 'forget' certain lights or indicators from time to time (the Bonneville line, for example, has no CRUISE lamp), but this was a purposeful omission that I still don't understand. Worse yet, the preceeding '95-99 Monte Carlo had indicators, yet the Impala/Monte of today do not.

But looking back at your complaints, realize they center around problems that will effectively disappear in a year or so's time as the new models roll out. Apparently, the chassis composure, interior materials, and powertrain are above average or excellent.

[A Horse With No Name]

People's biases will effect what they like/don't like or what they feel is important or not. I have the opportunity to drive Toyotas (or any other make, for that matter), but choose GM every time. (Although I did sneak in a couple days in a 300 not too long ago!) Or perhaps you haven't read my postings that our company owns a Toyota store????????????

I agree that people may NOT volunteer what disappoints them about a vehicle they are sitting in, but you are assuming all salespeople (or just me?) don't have a clue what they are doing and don't know how to pry out of people what their "hot buttons" are, or what makes they have already driven and their impressions.

I have never been impressed by imports, nor by BMWs, etc. I didn't grow up with them, and even in my previous free-wheeling, free spending days, I would never have considered them. That is not to say that I have not been in them, or driven them. The fiddly gadgets and viscous-coupled sunglass holders are truly awe inspiring, but people are not buying vehicles in a vacuum. Price is a HUGE factor, which is why leasing in the Toronto area (you stick to your area of expertise, and I will stick to mine) is now well over 60% of the market. (We are paying the highest insurance premiums in North America, after all!)

I, too, would love it if GM could use the finest silk for their interiors, even have Sealy do the dashboards, but until GM figures out what to do with its legacy costs (or waits until Cerabrus paves the way?) we will have to settle with keeping up with the pack. I have lived with the Malibu on and off for 3 years and for $5,000 less than a comparably equipped Camry, it is a huge bargain - even with the cheap looking nylon seats. Even the National Post, whose auto section is paid for by the imports, admits the Malibu is probably the best kept used car secret out there.

If we look at what products have come out in the last 3 or 4 years, it is clear that GM (Lutz?) does "get it" as each new vehicle launch has been dramatically better than the previous. I don't care if the new Malibu is "class leading." That only seems to matter to the auto rags and to YOU. I would SETTLE for damned good, well priced and quality that stands up over the life of the vehicle - those are what has made Toyota and Honda what they are today. Not by being CLASS LEADING in anything.

The sales figures will eventually take care of themselves. Anybody who imagined GM could have held onto 35% or market share in North America when every manufacturer on the planet has this market in its gunsights is smoking very good crack. GM will (IMO) settle out at 20% in North America, with Toyota probably around 15% or so, then the rest closely grouped below that. Is there any shame in that? Is there shame in selling 4.5 million vehicles a year here?

I just wish some Russian oil tycoon would decide to conquer the Japanese market and give Japan Inc a taste of their own medicine.

Carbiz, Brian and the rest of us reading this. Do yourselves a favor. Go sit outside of an Autozone or an Advanced Auto parts store and see what rolls into the lot on a Saturday or Sunday morning. Watch what they buy.

There are lots of 10, 15, 20 year old domestics chugging along just fine and lots of times their owners are just buying spark plugs and a set of wires or five quarts and a filter.

What Carbiz is saying makes sense. The Malibu is a great used car bargain.

Sadly, resale is a real issue if you do buy a new domestic as they depreciate heavily at times. However, given the lower purchase price you still can come out ahead.

Back to the Civic topic, however...

Chris