If the Aura is so much better, why is GM playing games?

[GXT]

I thought I'd take a look at the Aura web page and see how GM is selling this comparison with the Accord and Camry.

http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/index.jsp

The first tactic is to compare the V6 Aura to the 4Cyl Camry and Accord. Of course they never mention fuel economy. Generally they omit all the categories where the aura is not competitive (e.g. Residual value, interior dimensions (accord has more front and back headroom/shoulder room/hip room, and front legroom (not back)), residual value, suspension, fuel economy, etc.). That is smart, and I understand to sell you want to focus on your strengths, but an item such as fuel economy is too important to omit. This is especially true when you are claiming that your product is so much better.

The second tactic is more misleading. If you click on the link that says "Take a Closer Look: Click for complete specs comparison, including interior, exterior and safety features" at the bottom of the page you see a comparison with what I believe is the Accord LX, and not the SE that was implied on the first page. At least, by the price I assume it is the LE... it is never actually stated anywhere that I can see. This page generally doesn't work very well, but it does do some humorous things like listing the sunroof that wasn’t include on the Aura in the front page as a “Saturn Advantage” as it is optional, while showing the sunroof that was included in the price of the Accord SE on the front page as “Not Available”. In general this is all very misleading. Perhaps GM is just incompetent, but one might assume they were being complacent.

The third and most misleading tactic is how they pretend to be comparing equivalently configured models for a given price.

For example, in the "Aura Pocket Guide" at http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/pd...PocketGuide.pdf they list pricing under the heading “Starting MSRP” with a footnote that says, “Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.”!! Can anyone explain that to me? Are they trying to imply that the vehicles are comparably equipped? To get the Aura XR from the shown base price of 24,995 to match the level of the Accord EX-L, they would have to add: - A moonroof for $800 , the “Enhanced Convenience Package” for the power passenger seat for $425, the “Premium Trim Package” for the leather seats, steering wheel and heated seats for $800, and $200 for XM radio. That eliminates the supposed $2,000 price advantage of the Aura. If they were trying to match price and not features, they could have included the Accord SE V6 for $24K instead of the $28K EX-L. The only thing that would have changed in their comparison is that the Accord wheels would be 16" instead of 17". But then the Accord would have been less expensive than the Aura. Much of the same tacticts are used on the Aura XE comparison.

While we are on this page, it is incorrect that the Camry XLE V6 comes with 16" Steel wheels. It comes with Alloy wheels. I'm not sure why GM would lie about this one... the Aura still has it beat. Perhaps it was just a mistake. However when you are being dishonest in multiple places and linking to incorrect 3rd party data you have to be careful about when you are blatantly wrong.

Back to the main comparison page, http://www.saturn.com/saturn/sidebyside/index.jsp, note that the footnote by MSRP has changed. The, "Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.” Wording is gone. I guess this gave them the freedom to add a couple of packages to the Aura to improve some of the listed specs (e.g. Alloy wheels instead of steel) while at the same time omitting ones that they should have added… like the $800 sunroof or the advanced audio package for $725 to get the 6 disc changer to make the Aura as well equipped as the Accord. However if they had done that then they could have included the Accord V6 SE in their comparison as it would have been almost the exact same price. But then the Accord would have had more HP, traction control, etc. and the Aura wouldn't have looked so good.

I’m sorry I can’t comment more on the Camry comparison as I don’t know much about the Camry. But I am assuming that GM is being just as dishonest with Toyota. Anyways, I think the moral here is clear. When you really have a product that is superior you don't need to play games. I almost feel sorry for the hardcore GMers who are about to be rooked again. But I guess if you don’t do your research then you get what you deserve.

[gm4life]

Ah its not a game just another way of looking at things. FYI the Camry is not as good of a car as the Aura or Accord.

[Northstar]

Oh boy... we have someone here who can't do research themselves on one site and ridicules others for not doing research...

Fuel economy is listed, interior dimensions are listed...

I don't see why your so concerned about the web-site comparison. No one (except perhaps Toyota and Honda humpers) looks at specs online, sees that one car is better than the other on paper, and then goes and buys that car without driving the others it was compared to. If your beloved Accord is better then the people will go and drive them all, see that the Accord is better, and buy it.

[gm4life]

Exactly. **This is the second time in a half hour I have used this!**

[Drew Dowdell]

People generally consider getting a V6 more expensive than getting a 4-cylinder. The Aura offers V6 at the same price as the 4-cylinders in the competition. This is an advantage for those wanting a V6.

But wait there's more. If fuel mileage is more important to you than engine power, there is the Saturn Greenline hybrid that bases at 22k... still well inside 4-cylinder Accord territory.

If absolute cheapest price is your thing... you're at the wrong dealer. Head on over to your local Chevy dealer and test drive a Malibu. Saturn is more premium now days dontcha know.

[Flybrian]

I almost feel sorry for the hardcore GMers who are about to be rooked again.

I feel sorry for you wasting a good half hour if not more of your life by doing exactly what GM wanted you to do by visiting Saturn's website, then opening page after page and a .PDF file, scanning over every piece of minutia while running back and forth through Honda and Toyota's beleagured sites to run their lousy Build n' Price apps to determine that GM engaged in an act of travesty worse than Watergate by incorrectly stating the Camry has steel wheels, all the while ignoring that the non-GM third-party AIC Comparator - an application multitudes of manufacturers utilitze - disclaims that it does not guarantee the accuracy of its information.

And since we're all atoning for our sins, why don't we take a closer look at the disingenuous advertising done by Toyota and Honda. Remember the 280hp Avalon? Remember the 270hp Avalon? Oh, how about the 268hp Avalon? The first lie can be blamed on inaccurately-converted horsepower estimates knowing used by a number of Japanese manufacturers for years and years. The second lie, however, is just that...a lie. But I guess its not quite a lie if its +/-2hp; its just an estimate.

I like seeing the $199/mo Accord Value Edition lease special ads on TV, radio, the 'net, and in papers. But what I'd really enjoy is seeing an Accord Value Edition...anywhere. Have you seen one, you know, the 4-cyl 5spd stripper Accord with manual mirrors and locks and two speakers? I haven't. Its because a handful of these cars actually exist and they're so poorly-equipped that no one would buy one if they could even find one. But, for only $3000 more, we'll be glad to move you up into an LX.

Guess the dishonesty goes all around, doesn't it?

[Drew Dowdell]

As usual, Fly demonstrates why he pwns this site.

[gm4life]

That is why I love Fly. Some monkey got served!

[CARBIZ]

We have tri-fold hand outs that GM supplies us, comparing the Malibu to the Accord and Camry, exposing all the places where the competition "wins." Neither the newer Aura or the older Malibu truly match up to the Accord/Camry in terms of size. The Accord/Camry are slightly larger than the Malibu/Aura; whereas, the Impala is larger than any of them.

Size does not always matter, nor does HP, or fuel economy numbers. However, the sum of all numbers (particularly PAYMENT ) is what may sway one discerning consumer one way or the other.

That is, assuming we have "discerning" consumers, and not just sheeple that gobble up and then regurgitate numbers. As Fly points out, the Japanese lie and lie very well. Hyundai got sued a few years ago for doing a lot less than what both Toyota and Honda blatantly got away with last year.

And for GAWD's sake, can we axe the BS about "residual:" a totally fictional number that is obsolete the day someone dreams it up!

[FAPTurbo]

[deftonesfan867]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Oracle of Delphi]

I'm sorry, perhaps you are lost, but Honda is headquartered in Tokyo. Not on this forum!

[PurdueGuy]

Why is this in GM news...? This isn't news, it's a rant.

[Intrepidation]

I feel sorry for you wasting a good half hour if not more of your life by doing exactly what GM wanted you to do by visiting Saturn's website, then opening page after page and a .PDF file, scanning over every piece of minutia while running back and forth through Honda and Toyota's beleagured sites to run their lousy Build n' Price apps to determine that GM engaged in an act of travesty worse than Watergate by incorrectly stating the Camry has steel wheels, all the while ignoring that the non-GM third-party AIC Comparator - an application multitudes of manufacturers utilitze - disclaims that it does not guarantee the accuracy of its information.

And since we're all atoning for our sins, why don't we take a closer look at the disingenuous advertising done by Toyota and Honda. Remember the 280hp Avalon? Remember the 270hp Avalon? Oh, how about the 268hp Avalon? The first lie can be blamed on inaccurately-converted horsepower estimates knowing used by a number of Japanese manufacturers for years and years. The second lie, however, is just that...a lie. But I guess its not quite a lie if its +/-2hp; its just an estimate.

I like seeing the $199/mo Accord Value Edition lease special ads on TV, radio, the 'net, and in papers. But what I'd really enjoy is seeing an Accord Value Edition...anywhere. Have you seen one, you know, the 4-cyl 5spd stripper Accord with manual mirrors and locks and two speakers? I haven't. Its because a handful of these cars actually exist and they're so poorly-equipped that no one would buy one if they could even find one. But, for only $3000 more, we'll be glad to move you up into an LX.

Guess the dishonesty goes all around, doesn't it?

As usual, Fly demonstrates why he pwns this site.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

WAKE UP!

Japan Inc. has been using misleading and deceitful marketing methods for YEARS. What's fair is fair and IMO GM should, eventhough it HASN'T, fabricate all it can to degrade and deflate the artificial value of Japan Inc and it's products.

P.S. I didn't even read your rant because I know it's just another blindly loyal import fan trying to "put GM fans in their places" Just accept that the Aura is a better product and that Toyota and Honda need to try harder next time.

Edited June 22, 2007 by FUTURE_OF_GM

[GXT]

Oh boy... we have someone here who can't do research themselves on one site and ridicules others for not doing research...

Fuel economy is listed, interior dimensions are listed...

Do you have a link?

It isn't on the main page or the pocket sheet. The only place I could find it was on the third party comparison which doesn't really work well and shows the wrong cars.

[Northstar]

Just one click away from your link: http://www.saturn.com/comparator/compareVe...p;msrp=20595.00

[GXT]

I feel sorry for you wasting a good half hour if not more of your life by doing exactly what GM wanted you to do by visiting Saturn's website, then opening page after page and a .PDF file, scanning over every piece of minutia while running back and forth through Honda and Toyota's beleagured sites to run their lousy Build n' Price apps to determine that GM engaged in an act of travesty worse than Watergate by incorrectly stating the Camry has steel wheels, all the while ignoring that the non-GM third-party AIC Comparator - an application multitudes of manufacturers utilitze - disclaims that it does not guarantee the accuracy of its information.

Yes, generally it was a waste of time. It certainly didn't help that I posted it here to be viewed by GM's Biggest Fans.

I don't think I did what Saturn wanted... I'm certainly not going to by an Aura, and I confirmed that their claim of superiority is so weak that it requires games and half-truths to even attempt to substantiate.

As for the lies/inaccuracies on the pocket sheet and the AIC comp that shows the wrong cars and plays games. Sure GM can pretend that they are showing you something, and if you are smart enough to think for yourself they can point to the disclaimer. But it sure shows the Aura's true competitiveness and GM's confidence in it, as well as what they think of their consumers.

And since we're all atoning for our sins, why don't we take a closer look at the disingenuous advertising done by Toyota and Honda. Remember the 280hp Avalon? Remember the 270hp Avalon? Oh, how about the 268hp Avalon? The first lie can be blamed on inaccurately-converted horsepower estimates knowing used by a number of Japanese manufacturers for years and years. The second lie, however, is just that...a lie. But I guess its not quite a lie if its +/-2hp; its just an estimate.

I'm not here to defend Toyota. I could care less about them. If you want to defend GM's purposely misleading campaign to show the benefits of the Aura by saying that Toyota has played games in the past, that is fine. Just realize that what is being conceded is that the Aura isn't actually better.

I like seeing the $199/mo Accord Value Edition lease special ads on TV, radio, the 'net, and in papers. But what I'd really enjoy is seeing an Accord Value Edition...anywhere. Have you seen one, you know, the 4-cyl 5spd stripper Accord with manual mirrors and locks and two speakers? I haven't. Its because a handful of these cars actually exist and they're so poorly-equipped that no one would buy one if they could even find one. But, for only $3000 more, we'll be glad to move you up into an LX.

I don't know, I've never tried to buy or find one. I'm glad to see that you are actively scouring the lots for them and checking the sales sheets to know the relative percentage going out the door. BTW, the LX is 1,500 more, not $3,000. I can see why you were confused about that. $3,000 is about the amount that you would have to add to the Aura in GM's pocket comparison to make it comparably equipped to the Accord (as they imply).

[The O.C.]

And for GAWD's sake, can we axe the BS about "residual:" a totally fictional number that is obsolete the day someone dreams it up!

Ignorance again.....rearing it's ugly head.....

[GXT]

Just one click away from your link: http://www.saturn.com/comparator/compareVe...p;msrp=20595.00

Yes, it is in the link that compares different cars than what is implied on the main page (with no indication that it is switching models on you... or even any indication of what model is being shown)... the page that doesn't work right with the current version of IE.

But it isn't in the main comparison or the pocket sheet. Perhaps it is me, but if you are really trying to show that your car really is better, then you show the important categories, not just the ones that you are best at.

As I said, I don't blame them. In the end it is marketing (not product).

[GXT]

WAKE UP!

Japan Inc. has been using misleading and deceitful marketing methods for YEARS. What's fair is fair and IMO GM should, eventhough it HASN'T, fabricate all it can to degrade and deflate the artificial value of Japan Inc and it's products.

P.S. I didn't even read your rant because I know it's just another blindly loyal import fan trying to "put GM fans in their places" Just accept that the Aura is a better product and that Toyota and Honda need to try harder next time.

I know you don't actually read my posts, but you should try it sometime.

Or, if you don't like reading my posts, try reading some GM literature:

“Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.”

I'd love to know what it actually means.

[Drew Dowdell]

I know you don't actually read my posts, but you should try it sometime.

Or, if you don't like reading my posts, try reading some GM literature:

“Based on comparably equipped vehicles. Level of equipment varies.”

I'd love to know what it actually means.

meaning that on some vehicles certain features may not even be available, but they get as close as possible.

Neither the Accord or Camry have an Onstar like system available.... but that doesn't make the comparison invalid. Neither the Accord or Camry have traction control available... but that doesn't make the comparison invalid.

Not that I've don't the research, but I'm sure there are features that are only available in certain packages in all 3 cars it's highly likely that those packages don't line up features exactly. NO ONE except Bentley, Rolls Royce and Maybach, have completely ala' carte ordering schemes.

What is so hard to understand about that?

[GXT]

We have tri-fold hand outs that GM supplies us, comparing the Malibu to the Accord and Camry, exposing all the places where the competition "wins." Neither the newer Aura or the older Malibu truly match up to the Accord/Camry in terms of size. The Accord/Camry are slightly larger than the Malibu/Aura; whereas, the Impala is larger than any of them.

Size does not always matter, nor does HP, or fuel economy numbers. However, the sum of all numbers (particularly PAYMENT ) is what may sway one discerning consumer one way or the other.

Totally agree. But in the Aura comparison GM choose to show HP and wheel size instead of HP and MPG. How does a consumer come up with an accurate sum of all numbers from that?

That is, assuming we have "discerning" consumers, and not just sheeple that gobble up and then regurgitate numbers.

It seems to me GM is banking on NOT having "discerning" consumers in this comparison. I don't think MPG is the meaningless number that you are implying.

And for GAWD's sake, can we axe the BS about "residual:" a totally fictional number that is obsolete the day someone dreams it up!

Really? Because the lease on my wife's Accord as compared to the Malibu that we looked at certainly seemed to be affected by something. I thought for sure the car's value at the end of the lease had some effect on it.

[Northstar]

I think you should ask Saturn why they made their comparison how they did, and not us. This thread is pointless.

[GXT]

meaning that on some vehicles certain features may not even be available, but they get as close as possible.

Neither the Accord or Camry have an Onstar like system available.... but that doesn't make the comparison invalid. Neither the Accord or Camry have traction control available... but that doesn't make the comparison invalid.

Not that I've don't the research, but I'm sure there are features that are only available in certain packages in all 3 cars it's highly likely that those packages don't line up features exactly. NO ONE except Bentley, Rolls Royce and Maybach, have completely ala' carte ordering schemes.

What is so hard to understand about that?

So, given that, would you say that if the Accord and Camry being compared both had a moonroof standard, and that was available as an option on the Aura, then should it have been included in the Aura's price?

Edited June 22, 2007 by GXT

[GXT]

I think you should ask Saturn why they made their comparison how they did, and not us. This thread is pointless.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know why Saturn made the comparison that they did. Just curious as to what GM's Toughest Critics have to say.

Someone should probably mention to Saturn that out of the two dozen or so facts they had to check on their pocket sheet they got at least one wrong. I'm not sure what kind of legal liability could result from that.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GXT

[Oracle of Delphi]

Who cares, I will never buy a Hon Duh or a Saturn, so what does it matter to me?

Edited June 22, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[Drew Dowdell]

So, given that, would you say that if the Accord and Camry being compared both had a moonroof standard, and that was available as an option on the Aura, then should it have been included in the Aura's price?

No... because you can add a moonroof if you wish. The Onstar and traction control aren't even options for the other cars. If you *have* to include the moonroof on the Aura.... then you must include the V-6 on the Accord and Camry.

[gm4life]

And if you included a V6 they would still be competive because you would add the option motor on the Aura (the 3.6L) too, your are comparing "base" level models with "base" motors.

Edited June 22, 2007 by gm4life

[siegen]

I didn't even read your rant

Then why are you replying to it?

I read the whole thing, but don't really care to comment on it, because all manufacturers twist the truth when it comes to comparisons. If you went to Toyota or Honda's site and ran their comparisons, you'd find plenty of omitted stats, with the advantages of each make being bolded while the disadvantages being hidden away or written in light gray.

Toyota and Honda need to try harder next time.

While I can't defend the Toyota, you do realize that the Honda is 5 years old and came out before the Aura, right? It doesn't need to try harder, unless the new model coming out later this year isn't as good. Arguably the Aura needs to try harder next time as it hasn't managed to hurt Camry or Accord sales.

[aaaantoine]

The business calls this sort of tactic "marketing".

Of course, if you don't agree with their stats, you can always go to the Saturn dealership and test drive the three cars on the spot. And if that's not convincing, you can go to the Toyota and Honda dealerships and test drive the cars there.

In fact, that might be easier because you stand less a chance of having to wait in line. Camry and Accord customers are too busy signing contracts to test drive cars. (had to say it )

Edited June 22, 2007 by aaaantoine

[CARBIZ]

Totally agree. But in the Aura comparison GM choose to show HP and wheel size instead of HP and MPG. How does a consumer come up with an accurate sum of all numbers from that?

It seems to me GM is banking on NOT having "discerning" consumers in this comparison. I don't think MPG is the meaningless number that you are implying.

Really? Because the lease on my wife's Accord as compared to the Malibu that we looked at certainly seemed to be affected by something. I thought for sure the car's value at the end of the lease had some effect on it.

I priced out a Cobalt SS-SC for a customer the other day. He has the old Acura coupe coming off lease soon and wanted to do a comparison. So, I worked out a lease with $2,000 on delivery, then we went to Acura's Canadian website and worked out the Civic, er I mean Acura coupe that he wanted. Interesting, they were both using a 38% residual. The SS had a list price of about $27k (this is Canada) and the Acura was $35k. Strike one. Sure, the Acura had the DVD nav system, but I could have equipped the Cobalt with OnStar. Anyway, the Acura was almost exactly $200 a month more - even with their supposed better value.

Oh, and the Acura has 65 lb ft of torque less. The import humper was quite shocked at the power of the Cobalt, the payment bowled him over.

The Malibu LS is less money than a base Civic these days, on a lease. Besides, at the end of the day: who gives a crap about residuals? All you care about is payment. Unless you plan on keeping the vehicle at the end of the lease, in which case you should NOT be leasing - oh, that's right: the Accord is, like, $700 a month to finance. (I am comparing 6 cylinders and Canadian prices.)

We could play this hide-and-seek with websites all day, but I LIVE these numbers.

Again, residuals are BS - they only matter to banks. And who the hell would be leasing from a bank? Don't they make money on money?

[Flybrian]

You arrogantly blind GM fans need to listen to folks like The O.C., GXT, and siegen, just to name a few. They are the ones that see the forest for the trees.

Arrogance is registering on a General Motors forum only to make cocky statements and take potshots at the 'blind.' And as much as I disagree with GXT and his above formulations, at least he did make a contibution. In fact, so have the other members you've mentioned; they do so frequently and with a modicum of rational thought. That's why we - GASP - do listen to them...and not to you.

[siegen]

Just compared a Fusion to an Accord on Ford's website, and I thought it was funny as they listed the Bore X Stroke (in.) :

Fusion: 3.50 X 3.10

Accord: 3.39 X 3.39

And it had a little "Ford Advantage" icon next to the Ford... I guess because the Ford engine is oversquare and that makes it inherently better than the square Honda engine. Sure generally oversquare engine layouts are capable of revving higher, but just looking at the bore and stroke alone only tells you one small part of the story.

This is the kind of garbage that every make does... the average consumer isn't going to know what bore or stroke are, let alone how they effect the engine, they just see that Ford says their engine is Advantageous because these numbers are different from those numbers, and some people fall for it. Bleh marketing.

[Flybrian]

This is the kind of garbage that every make does... the average consumer isn't going to know what bore or stroke are, let alone how they effect the engine, they just see that Ford says their engine is Advantageous because these numbers are different from those numbers, and some people fall for it. Bleh marketing.

I'm betting that comparison application is derived from AIC's. I forgot to make mention of it, but AIC's comparator often makes odd and specious determinations for 'advantages,' such as overall height and the bore and stroke figures you mentioned. That's why I never really preferred it to the other ones. Cars.com, for example, has very detailed breakouts of options, etc. and they at least attempt to explain what certain things are, like 60/40 split rear seats vs. pass-thru vs. (one whole big) folding rear seats.

[regfootball]

let me toot some ford horn here for a bit.

1-residuals.....its all crap. but take advantage of them when you can. my 500 had a 51% resid on the lease but i know its not gonna be worth that much in 3 year...on the flip side the new taurus....i'm sure they will come close to a 50% resid which is very comparable to any starch brand car. funny thing is the 06 taurus resid was likely terrible.

point is, like carbiz says, it don't matter. when all these 07+ camrys get sold at auction in about 18 months, your beloved camlee will have crap for resale.

2-as far as value goes, go price out a new taurus vs. a camry or an aura. yes the aura is sportier and the camry is 'japanese'. but if the this thread has turned into a let's compare value thread i find it hard to see where a quadruple five star crash safest car in USA largest interior largest trunk great mpg proven top reliability 263hp 6 speed quasiairbag car wouldn't prove out to be a better overall value right now than just about anything on the market. A front drive SEL w/ lthr and roof for 28500 vs a camry is a sick comparo. there is no way to say the camry is the better buy. vs. the aura, you can just say the taurus offers more space and stuff....even if the aura has better drive dynamics. if the taurus holds 50% or better resids off the bat, then any resale argument vs. camry is lost by toyota because toyota is the one fleet dumping and the one you'll lose your ass on owning.

as good a buy as the impala is, i don't even see how anyone can say any version of accord or camry is a value proposition, except for some low feature 4 cylinder models. with the volume the accord and camry whore themselves out at now, there's no way they can continue to keep the resale like they did 10 years ago. all the college yuppies who bought toyohondo have now been joined by the non social elite, who beat on cars and never change oil or spend 1000 bucks at the dealer service bay because some slick service manager talked them into it.

Edited June 22, 2007 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

let me toot some ford horn here for a bit.

1-residuals.....its all crap. but take advantage of them when you can. my 500 had a 51% resid on the lease but i know its not gonna be worth that much in 3 year...on the flip side the new taurus....i'm sure they will come close to a 50% resid which is very comparable to any starch brand car. funny thing is the 06 taurus resid was likely terrible.

point is, like carbiz says, it don't matter. when all these 07+ camrys get sold at auction in about 18 months, your beloved camlee will have crap for resale.

2-as far as value goes, go price out a new taurus vs. a camry or an aura. yes the aura is sportier and the camry is 'japanese'. but if the this thread has turned into a let's compare value thread i find it hard to see where a quadruple five star crash safest car in USA largest interior largest trunk great mpg proven top reliability 263hp 6 speed quasiairbag car wouldn't prove out to be a better overall value right now than just about anything on the market. A front drive SEL w/ lthr and roof for 28500 vs a camry is a sick comparo. there is no way to say the camry is the better buy. vs. the aura, you can just say the taurus offers more space and stuff....even if the aura has better drive dynamics. if the taurus holds 50% or better resids off the bat, then any resale argument vs. camry is lost by toyota because toyota is the one fleet dumping and the one you'll lose your ass on owning.

as good a buy as the impala is, i don't even see how anyone can say any version of accord or camry is a value proposition, except for some low feature 4 cylinder models. with the volume the accord and camry whore themselves out at now, there's no way they can continue to keep the resale like they did 10 years ago. all the college yuppies who bought toyohondo have now been joined by the non social elite, who beat on cars and never change oil or spend 1000 bucks at the dealer service bay because some slick service manager talked them into it.

EXACTLY! The lowly J-car outsold both the Civic and the Mazda 3 in its last year, so obviously there will be more of them dumped in trades over the next few years. But as Toyota continues to whore out the Camry in their quest to be #1 in the World, resale will have to drop, too. We've already seen a marked decrease in the amount of Impalas and Malibus at the auctions these days, and the wholesale prices have risen over $800 because of that.

As GM and Ford recover their product lines (finally) and Toyota/Honda arrogantly push their own prices upward, demand for used Toyota/Hondas will temporarily increase, as import humpers realize they can't afford to buy new any more. It is a pendulum, my friends.

[mustang84]

Thank you GXT for exposing the Aura for what it really is. A half baked effort by a corporation arrogant enough to put an Accord and Camry in the showroom for comparison. The nice part about that is most will see those for what they really are, and head down to their Toyota/Honda dealer. Besides, when the 08 Accord comes out, it will completely crush the Aura in sales. That, I guarantee.

You arrogantly blind GM fans need to listen to folks like The O.C., GXT, and siegen, just to name a few. They are the ones that see the forest for the trees.

Kindly go back under the rock you crawled from. Judging by your first two posts, clearly you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to this site unlike Seigen, the O.C., and GXT. Edited June 23, 2007 by mustang84

[plane]

WHAT A RIPOFF!

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE SUBTREFUGE!

GXT HAS CAUGHT GM REDHANDED!!!!!!!

FOR EXAMPLE -

Where's the comparison that shows the Aura 6-speed going up against 5-speed competitors????

Why would anyone choose a six-speed when that old-trusty 5-speed works well, except during Honda recalls?

I feel really gipped right now.

It's probably worth a call to my Congressional Representative.

Maybe even an anonymous tip or two to the FBI.

[Intrepidation]

Considering the Aura made car of the year, and beat the Camry, GM isn't full of crap.

[daves87rs]

As far as the marketing-I agree with seigen. If you want a good laugh, read some of the ads in Motor Trend.....

I think much of it depends on two things:

1. What your needs are.

2. Whether you buy or lease.

Pretty much that simple.

If you are buying a car-you really shouldn't need to worry about resale-as stated by the many reasons above.

Most people aren't worried about an extra 500 bucks anyway.

If you lease, you are either looking for the best deal-or you are looking for a car to suit your needs.

For example:

If I leased (picking these three)- I would lease an Accord. Payments aren't bad-good gas milage-could beat on it with no worries...

If I bought-my choice would be the Aura. The looks, Onstar, the fact it's pretty zippy, and my family's GM discount are just a few reasons....

Granted everyone is going to be different...

[thegriffon]

What does work with IE? It's non-compliant with internet standards and Microshaft doesn't give a s— because the sheeple are too lazy to download a free alternative that is.

[gm4life]

I agree with Dave if I were to lease it would be an Accord and to buy an Aura.

[FloydHendershot]

Thank you GXT for exposing the Aura for what it really is. A half baked effort by a corporation arrogant enough to put an Accord and Camry in the showroom for comparison. The nice part about that is most will see those for what they really are, and head down to their Toyota/Honda dealer. Besides, when the 08 Accord comes out, it will completely crush the Aura in sales. That, I guarantee.

You arrogantly blind GM fans need to listen to folks like The O.C., GXT, and siegen, just to name a few. They are the ones that see the forest for the trees.

It's completely ridiculous that someone who goes by the name harry the honda head or whatever is talking about blind loyalty and seeing the trees from a forest.

How do you really feel Harry? You like Honda?

Anyone so flippant to dismiss GM is living in a very limited past. I like to think the best years are still ahead. And that's saying a lot. it's been a long past.

[Oracle of Delphi]

It's completely ridiculous that someone who goes by the name harry the honda head or whatever is talking about blind loyalty and seeing the trees from a forest.

How do you really feel Harry? You like Honda?

Anyone so flippant to dismiss GM is living in a very limited past. I like to think the best years are still ahead. And that's saying a lot. it's been a long past.

If a tree falls on a Honda in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound?

[gm4life]

Gee Custom I don't know...

[K.C.]

It's completely ridiculous that someone who goes by the name harry the honda head or whatever is talking about blind loyalty and seeing the trees from a forest.

How do you really feel Harry? You like Honda?

Anyone so flippant to dismiss GM is living in a very limited past. I like to think the best years are still ahead. And that's saying a lot. it's been a long past.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What really shocks me is why would someone troll around at competing automaker message boards when they should be spending their time doing something constructive on a Honda sight.

[Satty]

What really shocks me is why would someone troll around at competing automaker message boards when they should be spending their time doing something constructive on a Honda sight.

Point-counter-point is at least interesting, far more than constant GM humping. Its like politics, you listen to two candidates from the same party and nothing really gets said, you listen to two candidates from different parties, and the opinions differ, it actually makes people think.

[daves87rs]

Point-counter-point is at least interesting, far more than constant GM humping. Its like politics, you listen to two candidates from the same party and nothing really gets said, you listen to two candidates from different parties, and the opinions differ, it actually makes people think.

Very True. And I like to think!

And as long as it is not straight out bashing or nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking-then it is fine with me.....

[ToniCipriani]

Why didn't I see the name earlier? I shouldn't have even clicked this thread.