Malibu will 'take over' the digital world on Oct. 17th

[CARBIZ]

Let's see if Nav screens are still around in 5 years. It's just another fad. The marketing boys/gals have figurd out how to squeeze $2k out of suckers who want to have the latest and greatest.

The same snobs who have to be in a BMW are the ones clamoring for a Nav screen. Makes me wonder if they have any clue how to use it, though. Just lots of flashing lights on the dash. Pretty cool, huh?

[enzl]

Oy. GM makes a boneheaded move and the rush to defend the indefensible is on!

The bottom line is the bottom line...some people will not consider a vehicle without Navi (& BT, but to a lesser extent.)

GM wouldn't be providing the option in ANY vehicles if they really felt that it wasn't needed. The MARKET demands the availability. There are many other ways to throw your money away with dumber options--chrome wheels, spoilers & metallic paint upgrades come to mind--but those options remain available.

If GM can pocket the $, who cares?

[Lamar]

Well, there you have it, folks....Someone please contact every car company on Earth and let them know the market has spoken. Oh, and don't forget to tell all the after-market Nav companies to go ahead and close their factories too. I mean, jeez. "LastMercury" is right, everybody plans every second of every day before they leave the house...DUH!

Right, 'cause we know no one's plans have ever changed while they were away from a computer...

[Lamar]

Let's see if Nav screens are still around in 5 years. It's just another fad. The marketing boys/gals have figurd out how to squeeze $2k out of suckers who want to have the latest and greatest.

Well, they've already been around for at least 7 and are only recently appearing in non-luxury cars. I'd say it's a good chance that they'll be around considering they even show up in econoboxes these days (read: Scion).

[CARBIZ]

Oy. GM makes a boneheaded move and the rush to defend the indefensible is on!

The bottom line is the bottom line...some people will not consider a vehicle without Navi (& BT, but to a lesser extent.)

GM wouldn't be providing the option in ANY vehicles if they really felt that it wasn't needed. The MARKET demands the availability. There are many other ways to throw your money away with dumber options--chrome wheels, spoilers & metallic paint upgrades come to mind--but those options remain available.

If GM can pocket the $, who cares?

We missed you.

[CARBIZ]

Well, they've already been around for at least 7 and are only recently appearing in non-luxury cars. I'd say it's a good chance that they'll be around considering they even show up in econoboxes these days (read: Scion).

And still a whopping...what? 5% of the market? Like, it's so hard to find it from home and to work and back. The trouble is, leave the city and they are useless. Don't get the updates, and they are useless. Go to a strange city (where you could really use help) and....they are USELESS. At least OnStar Turn by Turn follows you everywhere, even to places where you've never been and could use guidance.

Just like the bouncing graphs that were oh so popular on Technics and other FINE stereo systems 15 years ago. Funny how that fad died, too.

While we're on the subject, the Malibu doesn't have Xenon lights, heated rear seats or digital dash..........

[Ravenfreak13]

Nav is useful, especially if you get lost. In that case you can easily buy aa nice $500 high tech after market nav for those few times when you REALLY need it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Nav is useful, especially if you get lost. In that case you can easily buy aa nice $500 high tech after market nav for those few times when you REALLY need it.

"OnStar, how can I help you today Mr. Dowdell?"

[Northstar]

I heard that the Epsilons were not designed to have NAV from the beginning. I don't understand how you would have to design the area different, but I heard something is not wired correctly. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

As for the Malibu ads, has anyone else seen them? I think they're rather dumb. First, a lady is running and simply runs into an old (2 gens ago) Malibu, gets up and runs into it again. Then it shows the '08 Malibu and says "The new Malibu, a car you can't ignore." Then there is one about robbing a bank (which is admittedly kind of funny) and the robbers are in the same old Malibu when the cops pull up in front of the bank, but the cops run by the car and then you see the '08 Malibu and it says the same thing at the end.

Not terrible ads, but I think they could do better.

[Drew Dowdell]

I heard that the Epsilons were not designed to have NAV from the beginning. I don't understand how you would have to design the area different, but I heard something is not wired correctly. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

As for the Malibu ads, has anyone else seen them? I think they're rather dumb. First, a lady is running and simply runs into an old (2 gens ago) Cutlass, gets up and runs into it again. Then it shows the '08 Malibu and says "The new Malibu, a car you can't ignore." Then there is one about robbing a bank (which is admittedly kind of funny) and the robbers are in the same old Cutlass when the cops pull up in front of the bank, but the cops run by the car and then you see the '08 Malibu and it says the same thing at the end.

Not terrible ads, but I think they could do better.

fixed

[pow]

I heard that the Epsilons were not designed to have NAV from the beginning. I don't understand how you would have to design the area different, but I heard something is not wired correctly. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

As for the Malibu ads, has anyone else seen them? I think they're rather dumb. First, a lady is running and simply runs into an old (2 gens ago) Malibu, gets up and runs into it again. Then it shows the '08 Malibu and says "The new Malibu, a car you can't ignore." Then there is one about robbing a bank (which is admittedly kind of funny) and the robbers are in the same old Malibu when the cops pull up in front of the bank, but the cops run by the car and then you see the '08 Malibu and it says the same thing at the end.

Not terrible ads, but I think they could do better.

The 9-3 and Vectra have available nav.

[Intrepidation]

I like the "We're tired of being a foreign car in our own country" tagline much better. The TV ads are retarded...they are poorly thought out IMO.

Not having a true NAV system is a serious omission IMO. I've used turn-by-turn and while it's usually fine, there are times when it helps to see where you are and where the streets are in relation to your position. Some people have an easier time with visual aids as well.

Where the Malibu really lacks is on the techno goodies. No bluetooth, no true Nav, no file storage system. Chrysler's MyGig is awesome, and would be a serious determining factor if I were shopping in this segment, as I would be looking at top-tier models anyway. Chrysler also has available AWD...I think that's an excellent feature that much of the midsize segment lacks. Living in the snow belt, it's very handy.

As others have pointed out, it's also about perception...knowing you can get a Nav system in a Mazda3 but not in a more expensive, larger Malibu is not helping perception.

I still like the car alot, but GM's refusal to have a proper Nav system as an option has long irritated me.

[bowtie_dude]

Turn-by-turn is tied to OnStar's directions and connections service. So not only do you have directions that are constantly updated <what built in NAV does that?>, you also have concierge service. So not only can you get directions to that hot new Italian restaurant that you can't quite remember the name of, Onstar will make reservations for you.

Try that in your NAV that you haven't bothered to pay for updates on in 3 years.

But... Ooo look... pretty screen.

Turn-by-turn + iPod input jack + ipod + $1500 cash in my pocket FTW.

Apparently you don't understand the part where I said ITS AN OPTION. Just because its an option doesn't mean you have to buy it. Its PERCEPTION.

Its like you're f@#king retarded...

[bowtie_dude]

Oy. GM makes a boneheaded move and the rush to defend the indefensible is on!

The bottom line is the bottom line...some people will not consider a vehicle without Navi (& BT, but to a lesser extent.)

GM wouldn't be providing the option in ANY vehicles if they really felt that it wasn't needed. The MARKET demands the availability. There are many other ways to throw your money away with dumber options--chrome wheels, spoilers & metallic paint upgrades come to mind--but those options remain available.

If GM can pocket the $, who cares?

Navergashun is too hard!!! DHURRRR!!

[bowtie_dude]

"OnStar, how can I help you today Mr. Dowdell?"

You can tell General Motors to put a real f@#king navigation system in this $30k car...

[Lamar]

Not having a true NAV system is a serious omission IMO. I've used turn-by-turn and while it's usually fine, there are times when it helps to see where you are and where the streets are in relation to your position. Some people have an easier time with visual aids as well.

. . . . .

As others have pointed out, it's also about perception...knowing you can get a Nav system in a Mazda3 but not in a more expensive, larger Malibu is not helping perception.

I still like the car alot, but GM's refusal to have a proper Nav system as an option has long irritated me.

[CARBIZ]

I like the "We're tired of being a foreign car in our own country" tagline much better. The TV ads are retarded...they are poorly thought out IMO.

Not having a true NAV system is a serious omission IMO. I've used turn-by-turn and while it's usually fine, there are times when it helps to see where you are and where the streets are in relation to your position. Some people have an easier time with visual aids as well.

Where the Malibu really lacks is on the techno goodies. No bluetooth, no true Nav, no file storage system. Chrysler's MyGig is awesome, and would be a serious determining factor if I were shopping in this segment, as I would be looking at top-tier models anyway. Chrysler also has available AWD...I think that's an excellent feature that much of the midsize segment lacks. Living in the snow belt, it's very handy.

As others have pointed out, it's also about perception...knowing you can get a Nav system in a Mazda3 but not in a more expensive, larger Malibu is not helping perception.

I still like the car alot, but GM's refusal to have a proper Nav system as an option has long irritated me.

But I wonder how many young people (who love every techno goody on the market and will pay virtually anything for them) would jump from their 10 year old Intrepid into a brand new Malibu anyway? They may even break down and buy the base Mazda 3, but you can't get the nav system in that, either. At least OnStar is standard in the Malibu BASE and you can upgrade for $100 to the turn by turn - DOESN'T THAT SOMEHOW MAKE GM THE HERO HERE?

Isn't that what this silly argument has turned into? Just that, silly. The people with real money aren't buying the Malibu, they're buying BMWs and Caddys (where the nav system is available or standard) and the kids who think nav systems are

'all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips' can't afford either the nav system, nor the cars they should be available in.

Since Chevrolet used to be 'every-man's' car, providing standard OnStar to EVERYONE and allowing for a cheap upgrade to Directions and Connections (which would satisfy the thrill seekers, who we all know get bored of every gadget in six months anyway) is a cheap and effective way to address the target market for the vehicle AND keep costs down.

[bowtie_dude]

But where does it say that GM can't OFFER Navigation to those that want it? You realize that 5-10% of the people who buy Camrys and Accords that get navigation amount to 35-70,000 cars a year? So you're saying that these aren't customers GM wants driving its Malibus?

Nice 1980s GM thinking...

[Drew Dowdell]

But where does it say that GM can't OFFER Navigation to those that want it? You realize that 5-10% of the people who buy Camrys and Accords that get navigation amount to 35-70,000 cars a year? So you're saying that these aren't customers GM wants driving its Malibus?

Nice 1980s GM thinking...

90% of those Camry buyers wouldn't buy a Chevy anyway simply because it's a Chevy. And if their V6 Camry sludges up and throws 3rd and 6th gear out, they can go buy "One of dem German Saabs" with Nav for 25k.

[bowtie_dude]

90% of those Camry buyers wouldn't buy a Chevy anyway simply because it's a Chevy. And if their V6 Camry sludges up and throws 3rd and 6th gear out, they can go buy "One of dem German Saabs" with Nav for 25k.

No because currently Chevrolet doesn't offer what they want. Your way of thinking is self-defeating. "Well even if we offered it, they wouldn't buy one anyway, so lets just not even offer it." Well how the hell are you going to know they wouldn't have bought one if you don't offer them what they want?

[Drew Dowdell]

No because currently Chevrolet doesn't offer what they want. Your way of thinking is self-defeating. "Well even if we offered it, they wouldn't buy one anyway, so lets just not even offer it." Well how the hell are you going to know they wouldn't have bought one if you don't offer them what they want?

350,000 people don't up and abandon Ford, GM, and Chrysler just because of a lack of NAV. These are people that have bought into the CR group think that has been pumped into the media over the years. These are the same kind of people who, when I recommend a CTS, say "I'd never buy an American car, I want something German.... like a Saab"* or like all those guys over on that Tundra site talking about their Best Truck EVAR.

Facts don't matter to these kind of people. They are too stupid. I don't want them driving a Malibu because when they don't change their oil for 30,000 miles and the engine goes they'll blame it on shoddy American quality.

NAV is bling... plain and simple. It's a penis waving contest that goes right along with 7-8 speed transmissions and DOHC engines. The Malibu is about value. And like it or not, Onstar turn by turn is a BETTER value than a NAV system.

*actual quote.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Oldsmoboi

[pow]

350,000 people don't up and abandon Ford, GM, and Chrysler just because of a lack of NAV. These are people that have bought into the CR group think that has been pumped into the media over the years. These are the same kind of people who, when I recommend a CTS, say "I'd never buy an American car, I want something German.... like a Saab"* or like all those guys over on that Tundra site talking about their Best Truck EVAR.

Facts don't matter to these kind of people. They are too stupid. I don't want them driving a Malibu because when they don't change their oil for 30,000 miles and the engine goes they'll blame it on shoddy American quality.

NAV is bling... plain and simple. It's a penis waving contest that goes right along with 7-8 speed transmissions and DOHC engines. The Malibu is about value. And like it or not, Onstar turn by turn is a BETTER value than a NAV system.

*actual quote.

The Fusion and Sebring have nav, too. In fact, all midsize sedans do, except for GM's and the Koreans.

[traderchpl]

To those of you saying Chevy shouldn't at least offer touchscreen Nav "to keep costs down," (LOL...because making profit on 5,000 Nav systems wouldn't help keep base invoice down a little or anything.......ahem.....CarSalesman): Please go to that massive VCR below your black and white Zenith, and set the damn clock? It's really annoying me.

Oh, and while you're there, don't forget to program it to tape Johnny Carson on Wednesday, the TV Guide that came in the mail today says that Don Johnson is going to be on announcing some new cop show taped in Miami, and I don't want to miss it.

Thanks!

[bowtie_dude]

To those of you saying Chevy shouldn't at least offer touchscreen Nav "to keep costs down," (LOL...because making profit on 5,000 Nav systems wouldn't help keep base invoice down a little or anything.......ahem.....CarSalesman): Please go to that massive VCR below your black and white Zenith, and set the damn clock? It's really annoying me.

Oh, and while you're there, don't forget to program it to tape Johnny Carson on Wednesday, the TV Guide that came in the mail today says that Don Johnson is going to be on announcing some new cop show taped in Miami, and I don't want to miss it.

Thanks!

Zing!

[bowtie_dude]

350,000 people don't up and abandon Ford, GM, and Chrysler just because of a lack of NAV. These are people that have bought into the CR group think that has been pumped into the media over the years. These are the same kind of people who, when I recommend a CTS, say "I'd never buy an American car, I want something German.... like a Saab"* or like all those guys over on that Tundra site talking about their Best Truck EVAR.

Facts don't matter to these kind of people. They are too stupid. I don't want them driving a Malibu because when they don't change their oil for 30,000 miles and the engine goes they'll blame it on shoddy American quality.

NAV is bling... plain and simple. It's a penis waving contest that goes right along with 7-8 speed transmissions and DOHC engines. The Malibu is about value. And like it or not, Onstar turn by turn is a BETTER value than a NAV system.

*actual quote.

No, 350,000 people up and abandoned GM, Ford and Chrysler because for nearly 25 years they built the worst, most god-forsakenly awful pieces of &#036;h&#33; on four wheels.

And thanks to the way you think, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord will ALWAYS and FOREVER outsell GMs mid-size sedans.

By the way, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you're one of the thickest people I've ever had an encounter with. Virtual or otherwise.

Edited October 22, 2007 by bowtie_dude

[Intrepidation]

But I wonder how many young people (who love every techno goody on the market and will pay virtually anything for them) would jump from their 10 year old Intrepid into a brand new Malibu anyway? They may even break down and buy the base Mazda 3, but you can't get the nav system in that, either. At least OnStar is standard in the Malibu BASE and you can upgrade for $100 to the turn by turn - DOESN'T THAT SOMEHOW MAKE GM THE HERO HERE?

Isn't that what this silly argument has turned into? Just that, silly. The people with real money aren't buying the Malibu, they're buying BMWs and Caddys (where the nav system is available or standard) and the kids who think nav systems are

'all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips' can't afford either the nav system, nor the cars they should be available in.

Since Chevrolet used to be 'every-man's' car, providing standard OnStar to EVERYONE and allowing for a cheap upgrade to Directions and Connections (which would satisfy the thrill seekers, who we all know get bored of every gadget in six months anyway) is a cheap and effective way to address the target market for the vehicle AND keep costs down.

Since that was obviously directed at me, the car is 7 years old, thank you. I wouldn't jump into the Malibu from a 7 year old Intrepid because I don't see any reason compelling enough to want to. It's certainly not better looking in my eyes, it's still FWD, and it's interior certainly doesn't look any better than my own, and it certainly doesn't have any "techno goodies" I would want besides an MP3 jack...which I can get in a Cobalt...or any other modern car.

If I were in the market for a new car, which is a big investment anyway, I would rather spend the extra to get a top of the line model than spend what is already a lot of money on a base model. If saving money was my priority, I'd buy a gently used fully loaded vehicle.

Your argument is silly in that you are willing to dismiss the customers who want such things as a Nav system but can't get it in the Malibu, and then claim that it doesn't matter it's only 10% or so....but in this day and age GM is trying to get all of the sales it can get. So loosing out on that 10% because they are too stubborn to equip the vehicle with such options is a stupid move, and defending that move is equally, if not more stupid. You're a sales guy, you should know every sale counts.

[bowtie_dude]

I'm 24.

Even if I could afford to, I wouldn't jump into a Malibu because I can't get it with a stick w/ the 3.6L.

Not to mention that were I spending $30k, it wouldn't be spent on a mid-size sedan.

But by Oldsmoboi's logic, since only 5-10% of drivers opt for a manual, carmakers should stop offering it.

[CARBIZ]

I'm 24.

Even if I could afford to, I wouldn't jump into a Malibu because I can't get it with a stick w/ the 3.6L.

Not to mention that were I spending $30k, it wouldn't be spent on a mid-size sedan.

But by Oldsmoboi's logic, since only 5-10% of drivers opt for a manual, carmakers should stop offering it.

But they don't..........Who will buy a Malibu? Do they want a stick? Do they want Nav?

No. They want safety (six air bags), comfort, value and are probably the most risk adverse group out there. As long as Malibu can deliver on those items, it will be a winner.

The posers can rush out and spend $600 a month on a Bimmer lease - that's what they're for.

[Windy-57]

Wait a minute...

I thought there was something a little while back about how most of the Scions were being purchased by old people? lol

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but while Scion does have an average buyer age in the 40s, it does still have the lowest average of any brand. Also, most of those studies are citing transaction data and don't account for the fact that most young new-car owners have their cars bought for them by their parents.

Still, Scion's surprisingly old demographic is a good case study in the fact that auto companies shouldn't segment the market using demographics, but should look at it based on other factors...but that's a whole rant in and of itself.

[Intrepidation]

But they don't..........Who will buy a Malibu? Do they want a stick? Do they want Nav?

No. They want safety (six air bags), comfort, value and are probably the most risk adverse group out there. As long as Malibu can deliver on those items, it will be a winner.

The posers can rush out and spend $600 a month on a Bimmer lease - that's what they're for.

So instead of admitting I made a point you'd rather make pointless references to BMW. Being a poser and wanting an option available on most other cars are two different things. Oh and guess what? All of today's midsize cars come with a full compliment of airbags, comfort and some form of value. What makes the Malibu any different?

[Z-06]

I'm 24.

Even if I could afford to, I wouldn't jump into a Malibu because I can't get it with a stick w/ the 3.6L.

Not to mention that were I spending $30k, it wouldn't be spent on a mid-size sedan.

But by Oldsmoboi's logic, since only 5-10% of drivers opt for a manual, carmakers should stop offering it.

Good one. I have always argued with that GM psychology of only 5% buyers buy stick or only 5% buyers buy Nav, or only 2% buyers buy bigger engine in Single Cab configuration, or 0.5% buy car with Chapsticks. The fact is that if you start adding those small numbers it accounts for 100,000-200,000 customers. The worst thing is people go to other car companies because they give them that ammenity.

Only Toyota offers 6 speed with a V-6 on its Tacoma, heck GM does not even offer a 5-speed on its 5 cylinders GMT 360s. No 6 speed on the Kappas. No manual transmission on the Malibu. The devil is in the details, if GM ignores these details then they are losing some amount of marketshare in those.

And at the end of the day it is the customer who should get what he wants. Telling him you are dumb for buying the navigation system or manual transmission car and we are smart to not provide it will only drive him away. Those people who buy navigation system might be dumb, but they still would have been GM customers and we are losing them.

[Drew Dowdell]

No, 350,000 people up and abandoned GM, Ford and Chrysler because for nearly 25 years they built the worst, most god-forsakenly awful pieces of &#036;h&#33; on four wheels.

And thanks to the way you think, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord will ALWAYS and FOREVER outsell GMs mid-size sedans.

By the way, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you're one of the thickest people I've ever had an encounter with. Virtual or otherwise.

Do you honestly believe... that if the Aura, G6, and Malibu had NAV suddenly people would stop buying Camcords?

As of September 2007 Toyota has sold 365,140 Camrys and is on pace to sell 438,168 this year.

G6, Aura, and the old Malibu sold 270,659 copies and are on pace to sell 324,791

G6 110,473

Malibu 102,955

Aura 46,062

Old Malibu was good for around 203,503 at it's peak. I'll bet money that the new Malibu is good for at least 250k in it's first full year. So if the Aura ever gets off it's ass and starts selling at the intended 100k per year, the epsilons will overtake Camry. If you're looking to point a finger, point it at the Aura, because the Malibu has been holding up it's end of the bargain. I'm not saying that GM shouldn't offer NAV. I'm saying it's not going to seriously effect the sales of the car. The Fusion, Milan, Taurus and Sable offer NAV. Ask Ford how that's working out for them. As bowtiedude mentioned, things like a manual transmission are much more important to offer.

But wait, there's more. The current LaCrosse outsold the ES in 2005 and matched it in 2006. Sales are tanking in 2007 because it's been beaten with an ugly stick, but once the EpII model comes on line, all it has to do is match the 2005 sales numbers to outsell the ES.

In 2005 GM sold 502,216 W-bodies. Toyota sold 498,980 Camrys, Solaras, and ESes.

That's right.... the old W-body. Oldest platform in GM's lineup... and not even offered with NAV, outsold all of the Camrys, Camry Coupes, and Camry De Luxes combined.

But apparently I'm too thick to look at the numbers.

[bowtie_dude]

You actually just posted W-body sales numbers? KNOWING that 60-70% of those have went STRAIGHT to fleets, you posted w-body sales numbers like it meant something?

Yeah, I'm done arguing with you. I'd have more success convincing my cat why GM needs to offer navigation in its mid-size sedans.

And yes, you are incredibly thick and borderline moronic.

[Drew Dowdell]

You actually just posted W-body sales numbers? KNOWING that 60-70% of those have went STRAIGHT to fleets, you posted w-body sales numbers like it meant something?

Yeah, I'm done arguing with you. I'd have more success convincing my cat why GM needs to offer navigation in its mid-size sedans.

And yes, you are incredibly thick and borderline moronic.

I never said they shouldn't. I said that it won't affect sales much and Turn-by-turn offers a less expensive alternative. Cost is important in this market.

[pow]

Back to the original subject, I wonder if the current fires of Malibu have anything to do with this latest advertising blitz?

"Malibu is hotter than its rivals!"

[bowtie_dude]

I never said they shouldn't. I said that it won't affect sales much and Turn-by-turn offers a less expensive alternative. Cost is important in this market.

But it doesn't affect cost of the entire lineup. Its an option. An option that gives a certain perception that GM can compete on the same level of Honda and Toyota. As has been said in this thread several times, Chevrolet is more and more associated with Hyundai than it is Toyota. As a "bargain" and "value" brand. I don't much care for that, even if its what GM wants. Toyota isn't top in sales in cars because it has value. Its top because its perceived as being reliable, high quality, and desirable. Same for Honda.

When C&D or Edmunds does their comparo of top-of-the-line models, the Malibu will be hurt by not offering a navigation system.

[CARBIZ]

So instead of admitting I made a point you'd rather make pointless references to BMW. Being a poser and wanting an option available on most other cars are two different things. Oh and guess what? All of today's midsize cars come with a full compliment of airbags, comfort and some form of value. What makes the Malibu any different?

I'll tell you what makes Malibu different: Pontiac and Buick. You want a mid-size Honda, you got ONE choice, the Accord. Or you can jump WAY up to the Acura. GM has to remember what the name Chevrolet brings to the table and get back to its roots. From where I sit, once the payment hits $450 a month, the Buick looks mighty fine.

And my point about toys is valid. Young people love to jump on every high tech bandwagon out there. Once wisdom hits, people realize that it isn't necessary to 'upgrade' for the sake of upgrading.

If NAV systems were a $299 upgrade (or something like that) and if the updates were automatically downloaded for FREE and if they covered the entire continent, then I would see some value to them. Otherwise, it is the same posers who gush over 20" wheels at $1,000 a pop who can be suckered into nav systems - and yes I will gladly take their money, but if I see any sense between their ears I will talk them out of it.

[CARBIZ]

Good one. I have always argued with that GM psychology of only 5% buyers buy stick or only 5% buyers buy Nav, or only 2% buyers buy bigger engine in Single Cab configuration, or 0.5% buy car with Chapsticks. The fact is that if you start adding those small numbers it accounts for 100,000-200,000 customers. The worst thing is people go to other car companies because they give them that ammenity.

Only Toyota offers 6 speed with a V-6 on its Tacoma, heck GM does not even offer a 5-speed on its 5 cylinders GMT 360s. No 6 speed on the Kappas. No manual transmission on the Malibu. The devil is in the details, if GM ignores these details then they are losing some amount of marketshare in those.

And at the end of the day it is the customer who should get what he wants. Telling him you are dumb for buying the navigation system or manual transmission car and we are smart to not provide it will only drive him away. Those people who buy navigation system might be dumb, but they still would have been GM customers and we are losing them.

And at some point, the Law of Diminishing Return kicks in. Eventually, the marketing people, the engineers and the bean counters have to cry 'enough.' Otherwise, a Malibu will cost $50k to build.

To provide a single cab, which may be 5% on a volume of 1 million is 50k units, which is probably worth having, provided the tooling doesn't cost too much. And they don't want to alienate their hard core of contractors who want a cheap truck with 8' box, who have been loyal for 75 years. However, to provide for 5% of 300k (which is probably the most that the Malibu can hope to sell in any given year) is only 15,000 units - and the profit on the Malibu will be decidedly lower than the pick ups, I warrant.

[bowtie_dude]

Why would I want a base model Buick when I can own a loaded Chevrolet?

[Intrepidation]

I'll tell you what makes Malibu different: Pontiac and Buick. You want a mid-size Honda, you got ONE choice, the Accord. Or you can jump WAY up to the Acura. GM has to remember what the name Chevrolet brings to the table and get back to its roots. From where I sit, once the payment hits $450 a month, the Buick looks mighty fine.

And my point about toys is valid. Young people love to jump on every high tech bandwagon out there. Once wisdom hits, people realize that it isn't necessary to 'upgrade' for the sake of upgrading.

If NAV systems were a $299 upgrade (or something like that) and if the updates were automatically downloaded for FREE and if they covered the entire continent, then I would see some value to them. Otherwise, it is the same posers who gush over 20" wheels at $1,000 a pop who can be suckered into nav systems - and yes I will gladly take their money, but if I see any sense between their ears I will talk them out of it.

Funny then, that the LaCrosse doesn't have a Nav system either..and neither does the G6...or the Aura. The sad fact is that with the Accord you only need one choice because it lacks nothing. The only thing GM's multiple midsizers have that's different is the way they look..and the G6 and LaCrosse aren't exactly lookers.

Your point makes you sound like an old man afraid of change. Nav systems are useful whether you think so or not. Nevertheless, they should be offered for the people who want them, otherwise its a sale lost to a competitor that offers such options and every sale counts.

[Z-06]

And at some point, the Law of Diminishing Return kicks in. Eventually, the marketing people, the engineers and the bean counters have to cry 'enough.' Otherwise, a Malibu will cost $50k to build.

To provide a single cab, which may be 5% on a volume of 1 million is 50k units, which is probably worth having, provided the tooling doesn't cost too much. And they don't want to alienate their hard core of contractors who want a cheap truck with 8' box, who have been loyal for 75 years. However, to provide for 5% of 300k (which is probably the most that the Malibu can hope to sell in any given year) is only 15,000 units - and the profit on the Malibu will be decidedly lower than the pick ups, I warrant.

Well if that is the theory then Honda, Toyota will be the first to discontinue the navigation system, because they are the ones who follow Keizen, and when they see Diminishing returns they will axe all their navigation models if they think they will be on point of diminishing returns.

Considering,

a. All platforms of GM are/ will be worldwide, there will be always need for some ammenity/ equipment in one market compared to the other. Let us say for example 6-speed manual in a Epsilon. This is certainly going to be a possibility in European bound sedans. So the development money is going to be put forth, what is needed is minor retooling while manufacturing for USDA.

b. Take a look at Honda, they have one 6-speed manual transmission which they put in every darn car they have. I am sure if GM does that, it will at the most need two good 6-speeds. One for low performance vehicles, other for higher performance. As a matter of fact they can just make the Hi-po transmission "heavy duty". How much will that be for development and design, considering the expertise they have to simulate the real world conditions in modeling, I do not foresee any serious development dollars going in the manual transmissions. Or heck, give it to Tremec, Aisin or Getrag and ask them to meet the specs and let there be a "healthy competition".

c. Again Navigation. They put Navigation in the TrailBlazer..... I am sure Trailblazer was not tooled for that considering it has the 1990s corporate radio system. They cannot do that in the Malibu? Wonder how many of those navigation Trailblazer did they sell. I am seeing more and more cars with navigation systems. And many prefer in dash compared to the Garmins or Tom Toms. I am sure they can sell more Malibus equipped with navigation than the Trailblazers.

Edited October 23, 2007 by smallchevy

[Drew Dowdell]

Why would I want a base model Buick when I can own a loaded Chevrolet?

Same reason you'd want a base ES over a loaded Camry.

Because if done right, the base model Buick has better hardware and more options standard, not to mention classier looks and a more upscale badge..

..... if done right.

[bowtie_dude]

Same reason you'd want a base ES over a loaded Camry.

Because if done right, the base model Buick has better hardware and more options standard, not to mention classier looks and a more upscale badge..

..... if done right.

A base ES is nicer than a base Lacrosse. WAY nicer. Better engine and a better interior are the major differences. Buick isn't quite up to par with Lexus in the design and fit-n-finish area.

But its a moot point anyway, because I wouldn't own a Buick OR a Lexus like...ever.

Edited October 23, 2007 by bowtie_dude

[regfootball]

re: sticks. the Aura and G6 ought to be the Eps cars that have a manual with a v6. For the malibu, I think Paddle shifters is fine. In fact, paddle shifters is nearly class exclusive in that segment for GM.

NAV and Bluetooth should be available on the Bu. The lack of bluetooth a major faux pas. We have remote start at GM but not bluetooth. Very bad. Women today love their phones more than anything. Gadget guys love their phones. Lack bluetooth and you basically do not want these free spending people as your customers. Plain and simple.

NAV may not sell at 2k in very big numbers but the opportunity was huge with the BU to be the first car to offer an affordable NAV system. Imagine the take rate on a $395 NAV option! get my drift? Chevy is about value.

No one is aware of my gig from Chrysler, but I think it would be a nice option in cars like the BU, although I would bundle it with the expensive sound system. Although from my perspective, Ford sync makes a lot more sense. You can hook up the iPod you use everyday and control it with Voice.

Ford gives you the Sync for 395 bucks. Your digital lifestyle under your voice command for a measly 400 bucks. If I could add on star to Sync and alacarte a 395 dollar NAV....then we're in good shape.

Lack of NAV won't bury the BU but i look at the lack of tech in this car as more of a gigantic missed opportunity than a glaring omission.

Perhaps the money they spent on marketing would have been better spent to upgrade the tech in these cars.

Edited October 23, 2007 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

A base ES is nicer than a base Lacrosse. WAY nicer. Better engine and a better interior are the major differences. Buick isn't quite up to par with Lexus in the design and fit-n-finish area.

But its a moot point anyway, because I wouldn't own a Buick OR a Lexus like...ever.

Good god do you ever read a post all the way through? Maybe get your cat to help you.

What do you think me typing ".... if done right" twice was implying. I've already said the Lacrosse was beaten with an ugly stick. Clearly the Lacrosse hasn't been done right. My point stands on why you'd buy a base Buick over a loaded Chevy... if the Buick is done right.

[bowtie_dude]

Good god do you ever read a post all the way through? Maybe get your cat to help you.

What do you think me typing ".... if done right" twice was implying. I've already said the Lacrosse was beaten with an ugly stick. Clearly the Lacrosse hasn't been done right. My point stands on why you'd buy a base Buick over a loaded Chevy... if the Buick is done right.

Ah, I thought you meant optioned properly, which didn't make sense because then it wouldn't be a base Buick anymore.

Though, as I said, moot point.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ah, I thought you meant optioned properly, which didn't make sense because then it wouldn't be a base Buick anymore.

Though, as I said, moot point.

I think Buick should base around 30k and move up from there. No, they won't do that with the current models. The Lacrosse should match or exceed the ES in every way.

[bowtie_dude]

I think Buick should base around 30k and move up from there. No, they won't do that with the current models. The Lacrosse should match or exceed the ES in every way.

Absolutely it should. The Lucerne should do the same for the LS. And then there needs to be a GS-type sedan in between.

But I also think the Malibu should match and exceed the Camry and Accord in how it looks, performs, its reliability, fit-n-finish, interior quality AND by what it offers the customer.

Is standard OnStar with emergency response nice? Yes. Is turn-by-turn a decent, cheap alternative to navigation? Yes. Is it a equal or superior product? Nope. Which is why GM should offer it with the 4-cyl AND 6-cyl LTZ-trim and up Malibu. It should also be offered on the Aura XR.

Making nav an option doesn't drive up costs across the board, and the potential profit (it can't cost GM more than $750 to put in a nav) greatly outweighs any attached costs. PLUS the perception value in comparisons to its competition.

[CARBIZ]

Funny then, that the LaCrosse doesn't have a Nav system either..and neither does the G6...or the Aura. The sad fact is that with the Accord you only need one choice because it lacks nothing. The only thing GM's multiple midsizers have that's different is the way they look..and the G6 and LaCrosse aren't exactly lookers.

Your point makes you sound like an old man afraid of change. Nav systems are useful whether you think so or not. Nevertheless, they should be offered for the people who want them, otherwise its a sale lost to a competitor that offers such options and every sale counts.

OnStar blows Nav systems out of the water. End of story. Honda and others are scrambling to play catch up. I am quite comfortable with change: new HP laptop, Hitachi 42" plasma TV, 7.1 Yamaha surround system...3 iPod, portable XM.....GM is ahead of the curve on this one AND UNTIL YOU HAVE USED TURN BY TURN, I SUGGEST YOU BITE YOUR TONGUE.

[CARBIZ]

Absolutely it should. The Lucerne should do the same for the LS. And then there needs to be a GS-type sedan in between.

But I also think the Malibu should match and exceed the Camry and Accord in how it looks, performs, its reliability, fit-n-finish, interior quality AND by what it offers the customer.

Is standard OnStar with emergency response nice? Yes. Is turn-by-turn a decent, cheap alternative to navigation? Yes. Is it a equal or superior product? Nope. Which is why GM should offer it with the 4-cyl AND 6-cyl LTZ-trim and up Malibu. It should also be offered on the Aura XR.

Making nav an option doesn't drive up costs across the board, and the potential profit (it can't cost GM more than $750 to put in a nav) greatly outweighs any attached costs. PLUS the perception value in comparisons to its competition.

HAVE YOU USED DIRECTION AND CONNECTIONS? HAVE YOU USED TURN BY TURN? FOR THAT MATTER, HAVE YOU EVEN USED A NAV SCREEN?

Why would I need to know how to get from Santa Monica Blvd to Wilshire? Because that is how useful a Nav Screen is, provided you've paid for the updates. How about parking in an alley (because you are LOST) and getting directions onto the freeway? How about where the nearest Exxon, because you are damned near out of gas and all your other credit cards are maxxed?

THERE'S A LOT OF NOISE ON THIS THREAD, BUT NOT MUCH ACTUAL FACTS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE USED THESE DEVICES.