Malibu...Oh Malibu, where art Thou?

[smk4565]

I was born in 1981, so I have pretty much only seen sinking market share in my lifetime. I think the Camry did sell like 470,000 last year, but I could be mistaken. I think the Camry is way over rated and not that good of a car, it is ugly, and has poor handling. Although the interior materials and fit/finish are much better than the comparably priced GM offerings (I haven't sat in an 08 Malibu).

At the Pittsburgh auto show this year the Malibu LTZ was next to the Camaro and about 100 feet from the 08 CTS, and I thought the Malibu was the best looking car of the 3, and way better looking on the outside than any Japanese car.

They should be able to sell over 30,000 a month, if not either the interior is not up to snuff or they are doing a poor job of image/brand building, or having production/distribution problems. Either way none should be acceptable, they can just sit complacent like GM of the 90s. Their goal needs to be to have the Malibu selling at a rate similar to the Accord and Camry.

The Malibu should eat into Impala sales, I drove and 06 Impala rental one time, it was horrible. Although the Ford Taurus still holds the title of worst car I ever drove.

[smk4565]

Ok, ok I get it. The Malibu sold comparable units per year as today's Camry 38 and 30 years ago but sorry, I just don't get how that is relevant 3 or 4 decades later. Different time, different market. But I guess I was wrong.

FYI. Did you know the Model T sold 501,462 units in 1915? Nice entry level sedan. I'll bet Ford wishes the Fusion sold as much.

At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T. Ford has gone down hill since then.

[Northstar]

I'm not sure if the Fairfax Assembly has the capacity to produce 360k cars a year (and it also produces the Aura, though that's only selling at about 60k/year). They are planning on producing some at Orion too though, so that should help. I would hope between the two plants they would be able to do 30k Malibus/month. The Aura isn't taking much capacity up at Fairfax and GM would much rather sell Malibus near sticker than G6s for thousands off, I'm sure.

[ketch]

Once they get the lots filled with Malibu's, the obvious question is - "How will chevy sell any Impala's?"

The Malibu appears to be that good!

As much as the 'bu interest me, I find myself wanting an Impala SS with the 5.3 V8 more. Of course I like FWD, and an Impala V8 just makes it for me over a 'bu with the 3.6;

If I was in the market, an Impala SS is it, but the Malibu comes in a strong second. Way to go GM. Cars with real character!

[ketch]

I was born in 1981, so I have pretty much only seen sinking market share in my lifetime. I think the Camry did sell like 470,000 last year, but I could be mistaken. I think the Camry is way over rated and not that good of a car, it is ugly, and has poor handling. Although the interior materials and fit/finish are much better than the comparably priced GM offerings (I haven't sat in an 08 Malibu).

At the Pittsburgh auto show this year the Malibu LTZ was next to the Camaro and about 100 feet from the 08 CTS, and I thought the Malibu was the best looking car of the 3, and way better looking on the outside than any Japanese car.

They should be able to sell over 30,000 a month, if not either the interior is not up to snuff or they are doing a poor job of image/brand building, or having production/distribution problems. Either way none should be acceptable, they can just sit complacent like GM of the 90s. Their goal needs to be to have the Malibu selling at a rate similar to the Accord and Camry.

The Malibu should eat into Impala sales, I drove and 06 Impala rental one time, it was horrible. Although the Ford Taurus still holds the title of worst car I ever drove.

You drive a rental version (hard/beat driven and all) and call that "the example to go by". Come on,

Drive an LTZ, or better yet, an SS and get back to us. thx.

The boring CamAccord is for you. Enjoy your car as appliance. Please drive thru.

[balthazar]

>>"At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T."<<

No.

The Model T's annual U.S. marketshare peaked at 62.3% in 1924.

The T's cummulative share of the U.S. market was reached in 1925, with 52.0% of all cars built in the U.S. since the beginning of the industry (figures used were totals from 1909 thru 1927).

When will toyota reach 62% of the U.S. market, smk?

[regfootball]

Oldsmobile done right could have replaced Saturn, Saab, Buick and Pontiac. They could have had Chevy, Olds, Caddy a 1,2,3 hierarchy. Oh well.

The Outlook has lots of inventory because they made too many of them, it outsold the Enclave for a few months this summer, I think the Enclave is slightly ahead of it now. But the Outlook sales are bad because Saturn is geared to younger people, or people that want small, import style cars. Those types of buyers don't want an 8 seat SUV that gets 17 mpg. It would be like BMW making a 205 inch long front drive car, their customers don't want that.

what you don't get is that most buyers are choosing between the outlook and acadia and pick the acadia because of the nicer interior and better 'truck' brand image with GMC.

People don't want to drive a saturn brand when they drop 40g on an SUV, which of course, you noted.

Edited November 28, 2007 by regfootball

[regfootball]

>>"The Malibu has never sold anywhere close to 40,000 units per month like the Camry"<<

Actually, the Malibu (alongside it's trim variants the Chevelle 300 DeLuxe and the SS396) sold 455,000 units in 1969. In a straight 'divide-by-12' thats 38,000, but considering plants are shut down for about 1 month during the re-tooling for next year, and that winter months are ususally down months, undoubtedly the Malibu sold OVER 40,000 per month.

Has the camry reached 455,000 units annually yet?

not without the help of hertz, enterprise, alamo, and major dumping incentives etc.......

[turbo200]

>>"At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T."<<

No.

The Model T's annual U.S. marketshare peaked at 62.3% in 1924.

The T's cummulative share of the U.S. market was reached in 1925, with 52.0% of all cars built in the U.S. since the beginning of the industry (figures used were totals from 1909 thru 1927).

When will toyota reach 62% of the U.S. market, smk?

what are you attempting to prove?

at times when Ford and GM had almost no competition, maybe 1/4 of the nameplates currently sold in today's marketplace, they had a command of a much smaller market?

like GTP said, that GM sold that many Malibus in the '60's is totally irrelevant.

Edited November 28, 2007 by turbo200

[6t5frlane]

More great news for General Motors.

I wonder if Ford is taking any notes?

Probably, At that rate they would sell 36,000 cars. Disaster. I think they will do better then that or they will have to change the add to " The car that people ignored "

[balthazar]

'turbo200' :>>"what are you attempting to prove?"<<

Not attempting to prove anything, merely correcting a completely erroneous statement. You don't object to the objective, do you?

>>"at times when Ford and GM had almost no competition, maybe 1/4 of the nameplates currently sold in today's marketplace, they had a command of a much smaller market?"<<

Here's another one I unfortunately have no time for right now. There were FAR more namplates in the U.S. market in the first 25 years than there are now. Hundreds and hundreds, perhaps as high as a thousand. Some amounted to nothing, most amounted to a short run, very few 'made it'- but as long as vehicles were rolling out factory doors, they were competition.

>>"like GTP said, that GM sold that many Malibus in the '60's is totally irrelevant."<<

Again, the statement was that the Malibu never sold 40,000 units monthly. I supplied the numbers that strongly supported otherwise. No where was a limiting year span stated, therefore 1969 is relevent to the initial erroneous claim.

Edited November 28, 2007 by balthazar

[thegriffon]

what you don't get is that most buyers are choosing between the outlook and acadia and pick the acadia because of the nicer interior and better 'truck' brand image with GMC.

People don't want to drive a saturn brand when they drop 40g on an SUV, which of course, you noted.

It may also be too big to be a Saturn. A midsize, rather than fullsize, crossover may do better with Saturn than GMC.

[Camino LS6]

The first month's sales are nothing to base a yearly total on, the car had barely been introduced and production just ramping up at one of two plants which will build the car. The only interesting stat is that of 3,500 built, 3,000 are already sold.

There is no bad news in any of this.

[Drew Dowdell]

The only interesting stat is that of 3,500 built, 3,000 are already sold.

[SuperSport623]

is that 3000 all retail? are they fleeting any yet? or is there a "malibu classic" of the last gen being built for fleet?

[smk4565]

You drive a rental version (hard/beat driven and all) and call that "the example to go by". Come on,

Drive an LTZ, or better yet, an SS and get back to us. thx.

The boring CamAccord is for you. Enjoy your car as appliance. Please drive thru.

What I drove was an Impala LT with about 3,000 miles on it. It body rolled all over the place, but the Taurus actually makes me nauseous. The last Camry was bad too, I was never in a current one. I thought the Aura XR drove very well for a car of it's price class.

I made a mistake about the Model T, it was Ford total was 90% not just the Model T.

From Wikipedia...

"By 1914, the assembly process for the Model T had been so streamlined it took only 93 minutes to assemble a car. That year Ford produced more cars than all other automakers combined. The Model T was a great commercial success, and by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords. In fact, it was so successful that Ford did not purchase any advertising between 1917 and 1923; in total, more than 15 million Model Ts were manufactured, more than any other model of automobile for almost a century."

[smk4565]

>>"At one point around 1916, 80% (or maybe even 90%) of all the cars in the world were the Ford Model T."<<

No.

The Model T's annual U.S. marketshare peaked at 62.3% in 1924.

The T's cummulative share of the U.S. market was reached in 1925, with 52.0% of all cars built in the U.S. since the beginning of the industry (figures used were totals from 1909 thru 1927).

When will toyota reach 62% of the U.S. market, smk?

There are about too many brands and models now, vs just a few mass producers in the early 1900s. The market is obviously different now, just as it is different than the 1960s. All I am saying is the Malibu should sell 360,000 a year at least, it should outsell the Altima, and at least compete with the Accord and Camry.

I suppose Toyota could buy GM and get to about 45% market share, then buy Ford and get to 60%, but they have no interest in buying anyone else. It is possible to do, every share of GM today is worth $16.07 billion. Toyota posted $5 billion in profit in the last quarter alone. Their cash reserve is enough to buy another auto maker if they wanted, but they seem to be happy without getting involved with anyone else.

[smk4565]

The first month's sales are nothing to base a yearly total on, the car had barely been introduced and production just ramping up at one of two plants which will build the car. The only interesting stat is that of 3,500 built, 3,000 are already sold.

There is no bad news in any of this.

The bad news is they are advertising the car like crazy, but it isn't on dealer lots. So if people need a car in November or December and can't get one, they'll end up at the Honda or Toyota dealer. They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. GM always advertises cars a ton when they are new, then scale way back after a year or two. So when production ramps up, they will cut advertising, then they'll get an excess on dealer lots and that is when the phone call to Enterprise and Avis happens. The Malibu is too good a car to be treated like the G6 or Grand Prix.

[balthazar]

Took many mamy years for the accord & camry to get up to their current sales levels. Decades. You want the Malibu to reach the same levels in a few months?? Even tho there are "too many brands and models now"?

Take a consistancy pill or 2 and post us in the morning.

>>"it isn't on dealer lots.

They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. "<<

Weren't the 3000 sold last month "on the lots"?

There's a difference between having dozens & dozens of cars moldering away on lots and having very few because they are selling extremely quickly. Does toyota have 40,000 camrys on the lots the first model-year month?

I know you're pulling hard and have only the best intentions for the Malibu , but have an ounce of patience for a change.

Edited November 29, 2007 by balthazar

[smk4565]

Took many mamy years for the accord & camry to get up to their current sales levels. Decades. You want the Malibu to reach the same levels in a few months?? Even tho there are "too many brands and models now"?

Take a consistancy pill or 2 and post us in the morning.

>>"it isn't on dealer lots.

They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. "<<

Weren't the 3000 sold last month "on the lots"?

There's a difference between having dozens & dozens of cars moldering away on lots and having very few because they are selling extremely quickly. Does toyota have 40,000 camrys on the lots the first model-year month?

I know you're pulling hard and have only the best intentions for the Malibu , but have an ounce of patience for a change.

The Camry came out in 1983 as a compact, in 1992 it was redesigned to a midsize car. I think it was 1996 when it passed the Taurus in sales. The Malibu isn't exactly new, it has been out since 1997, and was around in the 1960s as you pointed out.

Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part.

Toyota has a more efficient production system than the other auto makers and multiple factories to build the Camry in, there is never a shortage of Camry's on dealer lots and it has been #1 or #2 selling car for 11 years. This is where GM killing a brand could help, it frees up factory space to build the cars people actually want (and opens up R&D and marketing dollars for cars like the Malibu/CTS) and they cna build less cars like the G6, Grand Prix, G5, Torrent for Enterprise, Avis and Alamo.

[Drew Dowdell]

Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part.

OMG! WTF?!

GM has to plan around people who's lease expires in November?! What about the unlucky ones who's lease expires in October? OR... last January?

FWIW, most leasing companies will allow you to extend your lease a month or two. I know GMAC will allow me to extend mine... especially if I'm buying another GM.

[enzl]

The Camry came out in 1983 as a compact, in 1992 it was redesigned to a midsize car. I think it was 1996 when it passed the Taurus in sales. The Malibu isn't exactly new, it has been out since 1997, and was around in the 1960s as you pointed out.

Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part.

Toyota has a more efficient production system than the other auto makers and multiple factories to build the Camry in, there is never a shortage of Camry's on dealer lots and it has been #1 or #2 selling car for 11 years. This is where GM killing a brand could help, it frees up factory space to build the cars people actually want (and opens up R&D and marketing dollars for cars like the Malibu/CTS) and they cna build less cars like the G6, Grand Prix, G5, Torrent for Enterprise, Avis and Alamo.

I agree that there should have been more 'bu's on the ground when the ad campaign kicked off, but I'll defend GM on two grounds...

First, the quality of the Malibu appears to be excellent---the upgrade in materials & Toyondas cost cutting have drawn the perceived quality to about even.

Second, if the 'Bu doesn't cannabalize the Impala too badly, Chevy should, Net-net, get some incremental sales...whether it's enough to offset lost sales elsewhere is a different story, and hopefully, these sales will be retail rather than the previous gen's rental queen status.

[Cory Wolfe]

Two have arrived in Brookville... IE, the middle of nowhere. I'd say production ramping up isn't that big of an issue. It just takes time... with ANY vehicle.

[RangerVT]

We've had 5 Malibus so far and all 5 have sold. We've even sold a few that are on order and haven't arrived yet! The vehicle is sharp looking and a great drive as well! Seems like the mid-level LTs are the sweet spot so far. What's more surprising is the demand for the 2.4L vs. the 3.6L. The majority are snatching up the 2.4L rather than take additional power. The LS model sat the longest (2 weeks), and the LTZ and LT models both turned within a few days.

[CARBIZ]

I agree that there should have been more 'bu's on the ground when the ad campaign kicked off, but I'll defend GM on two grounds...

First, the quality of the Malibu appears to be excellent---the upgrade in materials & Toyondas cost cutting have drawn the perceived quality to about even.

Second, if the 'Bu doesn't cannabalize the Impala too badly, Chevy should, Net-net, get some incremental sales...whether it's enough to offset lost sales elsewhere is a different story, and hopefully, these sales will be retail rather than the previous gen's rental queen status.

[balthazar]

smk4565+ >>"I made a mistake about the Model T, it was Ford total was 90% not just the Model T.

From Wikipedia...

"...by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords."<<

90% of the WORLD's cars produced by 1923/24 were Fords? Impossible. T was roughly 90% of Ford's production thru '24, and T only reached 52% of U.S. cars by that year.

You CANNOT rely on wikipedia for hyperbole like the above.

But if you insist, give me a head's up and the Ford entry will read differently in about 2 minutes... :wink:

[Robert Hall]

smk4565+ >>"I made a mistake about the Model T, it was Ford total was 90% not just the Model T.

From Wikipedia...

"...by the time Henry made his 10 millionth car, 9 out of 10 of all cars in the entire world were Fords."<<

90% of the WORLD's cars produced by 1923/24 were Fords? Impossible. T was roughly 90% of Ford's production thru '24, and T only reached 52% of U.S. cars by that year.

You CANNOT rely on wikipedia for hyperbole like the above.

But if you insist, give me a head's up and the Ford entry will read differently in about 2 minutes... :wink:

Depends on how you read it...it doesn't necessarily say 9/10 of in production in 1923/24 were Fords..is the meaning that 9/10 of all cars produced up to that point Fords? (i.e. 9/10 of total production from the beginning of time until when Ford hit 10 mil? ) Who knows? That was a loooooong time ago..none of us on this board were around then..

[cletus8269]

The bad news is they are advertising the car like crazy, but it isn't on dealer lots. So if people need a car in November or December and can't get one, they'll end up at the Honda or Toyota dealer. They are losing sales because they can't get it on lots. GM always advertises cars a ton when they are new, then scale way back after a year or two. So when production ramps up, they will cut advertising, then they'll get an excess on dealer lots and that is when the phone call to Enterprise and Avis happens. The Malibu is too good a car to be treated like the G6 or Grand Prix.

i cant speak for anyone else, but for me... if i am getting ready to make a 5 yr commitment of 25 grand im going to get what i want not something comparable because they were "out". if they want the money they will find it. My colorado came from a dealership in NC, i reside in SC. Even toyo will do the ol swap a roo... my cousins 01 tacoma is from virginia... he lives next door. Have we forgotten how rare a solstice or sky was the first month they were on sale?

[balthazar]

Depends on how you read it...it doesn't necessarily say 9/10 of in production in 1923/24 were Fords..is the meaning that 9/10 of all cars produced up to that point Fords? (i.e. 9/10 of total production from the beginning of time until when Ford hit 10 mil? ) Who knows? That was a loooooong time ago..none of us on this board were around then..

If I wasn't clear- I was referring to the historical cumulative totals, which is how I read it. The figures I stated reflect that.

Why would it matter if 'any one of us was around then'- have you absolutely no use or appreciation for history ??

[Chicagoland]

"...was around in the 1960s as you pointed out."

Malibu was a high end trim level on the Chevelle line from 1964-77. Though by 1974, most people called the "Colonnade body" cars Malibus, so the 1978-83 mid sized Chevys were called Malibu/Malibu Classic [top of the line, not the cheapie as today's Classic]. The FWD A body Celebrity replaced it.

[gm4life]

I saw my first base Malibu LS in gold and still liked it.

[vonVeezelsnider]

In our shopping this month, GSL in Calgary is getting them in and selling them within 2 days... They're really moving Impalas too surprisingly.

[hyperv6]

Everyday I see truck load after truck load on Interstate 76 in Ohio.

Even the people at work are talking about them and are shock at how well they look.

[Z-06]

Well lack of Nav cost two surefire sales for the Malibu.

1. My foster uncle, who has long given up on GM vehicles and only buys foreign cars. He was looking for a midsizer for him and my aunt, as their crapolla is old and he wants to get on a roadtrip heading to Western States. I asked him to consider the Malibu. He spewed venom on GM and I defended GM saying on how far they have come. He had almost struck a deal with Honda Accord EX-V6 with Nav. But he went and test drove the LTZ. He absolutely Loved it, but the no Nav was a deal breaker for him. He is not a techno guy, but a good ol' country boy with a spend thrift attitude and who lived the American Dream. He told me that he preferred in dash navigation, as you do not have to be worried about being stolen, looking tacky, and being a pain to hook them with battery or chords in the 12V plug. I agree with him on all those counts.

2. A new chinese recent grad student joined our company, and was planning to buy Nissan. He had been told by his friends that Japanese vehicles are the best. I asked him to consider the Bu. He is totally opposite of what my foster uncle is. The dude reeks geekness and first to get a new technology attitude (the guy waited for 72 hours at Best Buy to get PS3 while finishing his PhD thesis). He thinks he likes sporty vehicles and says that he has knowledge about vehicles. Think and says are the most important words there. He wanted a Knee-Shin Altima V-6. Again I asked him to look at the Malibu. He test drove the 2-LT and said it was as fast as the Altima. He liked the comfortable seats, and the interior ambience. Again for the geek the no Nav was a deal breaker.

As much as I agree Nav is a waste and may not be practical. Things are changing. As from my example, there are two people from different race, background, education, age, family status, demanding the Nav for different purposes.

[pow]

Well lack of Nav cost two surefire sales for the Malibu.

1. My foster uncle, who has long given up on GM vehicles and only buys foreign cars. He was looking for a midsizer for him and my aunt, as their crapolla is old and he wants to get on a roadtrip heading to Western States. I asked him to consider the Malibu. He spewed venom on GM and I defended GM saying on how far they have come. He had almost struck a deal with Honda Accord EX-V6 with Nav. But he went and test drove the LTZ. He absolutely Loved it, but the no Nav was a deal breaker for him. He is not a techno guy, but a good ol' country boy with a spend thrift attitude and who lived the American Dream. He told me that he preferred in dash navigation, as you do not have to be worried about being stolen, looking tacky, and being a pain to hook them with battery or chords in the 12V plug. I agree with him on all those counts.

2. A new chinese recent grad student joined our company, and was planning to buy Nissan. He had been told by his friends that Japanese vehicles are the best. I asked him to consider the Bu. He is totally opposite of what my foster uncle is. The dude reeks geekness and first to get a new technology attitude (the guy waited for 72 hours at Best Buy to get PS3 while finishing his PhD thesis). He thinks he likes sporty vehicles and says that he has knowledge about vehicles. Think and says are the most important words there. He wanted a Knee-Shin Altima V-6. Again I asked him to look at the Malibu. He test drove the 2-LT and said it was as fast as the Altima. He liked the comfortable seats, and the interior ambience. Again for the geek the no Nav was a deal breaker.

As much as I agree Nav is a waste and may not be practical. Things are changing. As from my example, there are two people from different race, background, education, age, family status, demanding the Nav for different purposes.

Well, at least you got them to consider and test drive the Malibu. That alone is progress.

[CARBIZ]

Well lack of Nav cost two surefire sales for the Malibu.

1. My foster uncle, who has long given up on GM vehicles and only buys foreign cars. He was looking for a midsizer for him and my aunt, as their crapolla is old and he wants to get on a roadtrip heading to Western States. I asked him to consider the Malibu. He spewed venom on GM and I defended GM saying on how far they have come. He had almost struck a deal with Honda Accord EX-V6 with Nav. But he went and test drove the LTZ. He absolutely Loved it, but the no Nav was a deal breaker for him. He is not a techno guy, but a good ol' country boy with a spend thrift attitude and who lived the American Dream. He told me that he preferred in dash navigation, as you do not have to be worried about being stolen, looking tacky, and being a pain to hook them with battery or chords in the 12V plug. I agree with him on all those counts.

2. A new chinese recent grad student joined our company, and was planning to buy Nissan. He had been told by his friends that Japanese vehicles are the best. I asked him to consider the Bu. He is totally opposite of what my foster uncle is. The dude reeks geekness and first to get a new technology attitude (the guy waited for 72 hours at Best Buy to get PS3 while finishing his PhD thesis). He thinks he likes sporty vehicles and says that he has knowledge about vehicles. Think and says are the most important words there. He wanted a Knee-Shin Altima V-6. Again I asked him to look at the Malibu. He test drove the 2-LT and said it was as fast as the Altima. He liked the comfortable seats, and the interior ambience. Again for the geek the no Nav was a deal breaker.

As much as I agree Nav is a waste and may not be practical. Things are changing. As from my example, there are two people from different race, background, education, age, family status, demanding the Nav for different purposes.

Like pushing the blue OnStar button and saying "Where is the nearest Exxon station" is hard. I still shake my head. The free Turn by Turn Navigation feature that GM is applying to the Malibu answers the question for those who 'must' have navigation.

I want to see some hard numbers on how many people who DEMAND Nav systems (and are willing to pay $2k in upgrades to get it) actually use the damned thing after one year. Like most toys, they are fun in the beginning but then become too complicated to bother.

In my experience, when people come up with 'deal breaker' arguments, they are merely excuses. The import humper has already made his buying decision and being 'coerced' to look at a domestic is painful for them, so using an easy out is, well, easy.

Edited December 20, 2007 by CARBIZ

[pow]

Like pushing the blue OnStar button and saying "Where is the nearest Exxon station" is hard. I still shake my head. The free Turn by Turn Navigation feature that GM is applying to the Malibu answers the question for those who 'must' have navigation.

I want to see some hard numbers on how many people who DEMAND Nav systems (and are willing to pay $2k in upgrades to get it) actually use the damned thing after one year. Like most toys, they are fun in the beginning but then become too complicated to bother.

In my experience, when people come up with 'deal breaker' arguments, they are merely excuses. The import humper has already made his buying decision and being 'coerced' to look at a domestic is painful for them, so using an easy out is, well, easy.

Turn-by-Turn is a nice freebie, but it's no replacement for full navigation. I've read lots of complaints about cell outages...

http://reviews.cnet.com/sedan/2007-saturn-...7-32367724.html

Test the tech: OnStar off-base

One of the few digital highlights of our 2007 Saturn Aura Green Line was GM's OnStar telematics system, which on our test vehicle included the Connections and Directions turn-by-turn navigation service. Unlike LCD-based systems, OnStar's in-car navigation delivers automated voice-guided directions and text-based information to the car's in-dash display. We resolved to test OnStar to the point of breaking by requesting directions and then willfully disobeying its guidance. To set one's destination via OnStar, the driver has to press the blue OnStar button, which connects to a real, live OnStar representative (GM recently announced a partnership with MapQuest to enable drivers to send routes directly from a computer to the car, cutting out this step, but we like the human touch).

Being immediately connected to the OnStar rep, we told her that we needed to get to Tehama Street, a small, back alley near CNET's headquarters in San Francisco. This is where the first of our journey's problems began. According to the nice lady, OnStar was experiencing technical difficulties due to a disruption to its cellular network coverage. As such, the system was unable to send out the text data that we would need for our journey. (Interestingly, we experienced a similar outage the last time that we tried to use the service in our review of the 2007 Chevy HHR in June).

The OnStar rep told us that this kind of outage happened from time to time, and that there was a workaround: she would read out a list of the turn-by-turn directions, which we could record and play back to ourselves throughout the journey. We could activate playback by pressing the phone button and saying "Adviser playback." This would then give us the option of hearing the list of directions either from the start or from our last position. It sounded like a reasonable alternative--unless we took a wrong turn, in which case all subsequent directions would be wrong, and we would have to start the process over again by calling in to OnStar for new directions.

Steeled with optimism, we resolved to give it a go. Starting out from St Joseph's Drive (see map) we were told by the recorded voice to "continue north to Geary Boulevard and turn right." We pulled off, drove north on St Joseph's, came to a T-junction, and turned right at what we thought must be Geary Boulevard. Alas, it was not. We had found ourselves on O'Farrell Street, and with no means of recalculating the route, we were left to our own devices to find our way to the destination. Rather than call back, we opened the glove box and pulled out a map.

---

http://www.technoride.com/2006/08/onstar_t...ot_there_ye.php

I set out in a Cadillac DTS with OnStar Turn-By-Turn, and began my weekend from hell. For a couple locations in the Adirondack area of New York State (that are both in Yahoo Maps and Microsoft Streets & Trips), the OnStar operators couldn't find a long-established road or even the road leading to that road. They could find the nearest town seven miles away (but had trouble downloading the directions for me) and a bigger town 65 miles away. OnStar also couldn't locate a been-there-forever country road in Keene, NY, and that's with OnStar having access to both of the major computerized roads databases from NavTeq and TeleAtlas (formerly GDT).

My first eight calls to OnStar yielded two on-holds of 10-plus minutes before I was cut off, and the service made six failed attempts to download the information. OnStar blamed poor cell coverage and/or system problems. When I made my first few calls, I was working my way through traffic on Interstate 287 in New Jersey, near Interstate 80, and heading toward the New York State Thruway. If there was lousy cell coverage in one of the most populous areas of North America, my Verizon phone didn't know about it. It showed three bars, four bars, and just occasionally, two bars of signal strength, and OnStar uses the Verizon network.

The operators were invariably polite, but sometimes I got the feeling that they were chosen for their affordability over their efficient and speedy problem-solving abilities. When I later talked through the problems I had with Nebo Nedeljkovic, OnStar's online service manager, he was able to locate two of three roads. He told me, "Although infrequent, there are incidents as you experienced."

To be fair, if OnStar operators find the location you need but the OnStar technology can't download the GPS routing, there is a fallback: The operator can speak the instructions, the car records the voice (up to 90 seconds), and you can play back the instructions as needed.

Other Limitations

Assuming you can get route instructions downloaded (I had better luck on other days), going from city to country is no problem. You don't need cellular coverage at the end of your journey, only the GPS satellite network. But if you're in the scenic middle of nowhere tomorrow and can't get cell coverage, you can't call for routing for the second day's trip. And unfortunately, you can't ask OnStar to download and cache today's trip and tomorrow's trip. Only one trip can be in memory at a time.

OnStar downloads a route corridor of information to get you back on track in case you make a wrong turn or pull off the interstate for fuel, but it's possible to stray off the route; you then have to call for revised directions. Or OnStar can give you compass directions to get back on course but not actual street names and turns. Also, if your GM car has traditional in-dash navigation, OnStar Turn-By-Turn can't link to it. That's an obvious and needed enhancement. OnStar is working on it, but gives no date for when it will be available. I think most people will be satisfied with Turn-By-Turn once OnStar gets the bugs out, but some will want both kinds of navigation, and they'll want the two interconnected.

Key-85? No, E85

GM is big on alternative fuels, particularly E85, the 85-percent-ethanol, 15-percent-gasoline blend that many of its cars use. When I asked operators about locations near the New York Thruway for purchasing E85 fuel, though, they seemed baffled. On my second try, I got a supervisor who, after several minutes of research, said she couldn't find any gas stations called "Key-85." Finally, on my third try, I got an acknowledgement that New York State has just two E85 stations, and an offer to e-mail me a link to all current E85 stations nationwide.

To its credit, Turn-by-Turn operators did find my home address, PC Magazine's address, the Pepsi Center in Albany (it's hard to miss, not unlike the Caddy I was driving), the Olympic ice arena in downtown Lake Placid, and a "Baptist church on Staten Island, N.Y." for which I deliberately left out the full name. That's OnStar at its best, both traditional OnStar Directions & Connections (the operator reads directions as you go) and OnStar Turn-By-Turn. If you know sort of where you're going and you get the city or town right, and the destination is urban or suburban, OnStar can tell you exactly where to go.

TBT rollout through 2007

GM is rolling out the Turn-By-Turn service to its cars lines, about 1 million total of the 4 million it builds in a year, from now through the end of 2007. Currently the service is available in the Cadillac DTS; its mechanical twin, the Buick Lucerne; and the Cadillac STS. If your 2007 GM car doesn't come equipped with TBT, you can probably have it added or activated fairly easily.

Actually, some GM cars, going back to about 2003, also can be retrofitted with up-to-date OnStar. There will be two kinds of retrofits: One is quick, easy, and affordable (other than the monthly service cost) and gives you Turn-By-Turn. The other will be necessary if you have a really old, analog-only OnStar system: It would give you digital OnStar but not OnStar Turn-By-Turn. The analog-only network goes dark around 2008, and if you don't upgrade by taking a three-year contract (in which case GM pops for the cost of the new equipment), you won't have OnStar service. That's going to be the case with other older (non-GM) cars offering first-generation telematics services.

Other Downsides

One other thing to know about OnStar: If you decide not to continue the service, OnStar disables the crash notification feature. It doesn't have to, but it does. Some other automakers keep emergency crash notification active even if you stop paying for the telematics-assist services they offer. (As required for any cell phone, the OnStar service has to be able to let you dial 911 manually, whether you've paid your bill or not.) I understand why GM does this: OnStar is a recurring revenue stream. If you get one of the key features for free, that's one less reason to re-up. Even so, it's still troublesome that GM deactivates a potentially lifesaving feature.

A minor, non-life-threatening annoyance, for me: When you're on hold—and with OnStar you can be on hold a lot—you will hear, interspersed with the be-right-back recordings, repeating house advertisements for OnStar touting its reliability, efficiency, and usefulness. OnStar says there is no way to opt out.

Better Luck Next Time?

I'll try to drive Turn-By-Turn again in a few months and report on improvements. This is too promising a service to give up on. It will likely cost about $10 a month beyond basic OnStar, but since OnStar Turn-By-Turn is free for the first year, and the first cars got it this past spring, GM hasn't seen fit to tell buyers what they'll be paying for OnStar Turn-By-Turn come 2007.

My belief is that Turn-By-Turn has to cost $10 a month in addition to the basic OnStar charge, because that's the going rate for competing navigation services, particularly the cell-phone navigation packages. Currently OnStar is $200 a year for the basic Safe & Sound package of remote door unlock, emergency notification, vehicle diagnostics (uploaded to your dealership and also sent to you as free e-mails), and stolen vehicle tracking (but no navigation help). The Directions & Connections package, $400 a year, adds operator-assisted navigation instructions, where the operator actually stays on the line with you during trips (short ones, at least). Most likely the Turn-By-Turn service will come in around $300 a year, because it involves less operator-assist time each month, though it's possible GM could just stick to $400 a year.

Like most technology, TBT, Version 1.0 needs improvement. And if General Motors is going to survive, the company needs to hit home runs with its cars and services. OnStar has that promise, and some facets are unique or best-in-class, such as the diagnostic uploads and the operator lookup, direction download service. Right now, though, the best you can say is that OnStar's glass is half full.

---

Again, TBT is better than nothing, but it's not as useful as an interactive map, which you can use immediately to find alternate routes. But yes, TBT is cheaper.

[balthazar]

It sure seems amazing with all the recent laws passed and pending WRT driver distractions... that moving-graphics screens with writing in front of the driver are allowed, requiring focused attention at regular intervals and occasional interaction... are going to be legally tolerated much longer. First hand-held cell phones are banned, then texting, now there's talk of banning eating by drivers.

I was next to a vehicle last night at a light- he had TWO windshield-mounted graphic screens (1 was obviously NAV, the other; not sure), and he was on U.S. RT 1, which at that point is an arrow-straight road for 2 counties. He didn't have an out-of-state plate, either. It's borderline madness, and I agree w/ CARBIZ: I have to believe it's primarily a toy, not a 'neccessity'.

No way would I ever pay for NAV- it's an extremely poor value (unless you're a traveling salesman, I suppose). Add to that the damages cost for the #1 most widely stolen in-car item, and the value becomes even worse.

[Drew Dowdell]

Only time I've found NAV especially useful was in Europe where I couldn't read the signs.

[hyperv6]

Are todays people are so lame that they can not function with out GPS?

I really do think the effect of Helmet laws Seatbelt laws and Air Bags has dumb down the public that they just can find there way out of a dark corner anymore. Lack of helmets, seatbelts and airbags use to thin the heard for us now we save all these people to buy GPS units and take up space.

Can you imagine if we had to depend on this todays people to make it to California in the 1840'S? My Great Great Great Grandfather made it from Ohio to California and back in 1849 and 1851 with nary a wrong turn.

If we start to let our cars tell us where to go it will not be long till they just take us where we are going and we lose the ability to drive ourselves. You then may well also be charged by the mile a goverment tax on how far you have gone. Both of these are being looked at now.

Not being a alarmest but who would ever though people would be paying for TV and Radio years ago?

It is just time to put down the DVD, Phone and GPS and just drive the damn car. The life you save might just be your own.

[balthazar]

I have to agree with you, hyper: everyone applauds all the electronic nannys in cars today, but the question is entirely valid: who's driving that mercedes 'sport' sedan- the driver or the mercedes? God forbid one of these coddled, sheltered drivers ever gets behind the wheel of a non-ABS, non-ESC, non-active suspensioned, non-AWD, non- ad-infinitim vehicle and actually has to... you know... DRIVE it -say- in the rain {GAZP!}. These interferences don't 'make us better drivers', they make us increasingly short on real skill, but able to PRETEND we know what we're doing. I truely pity those who've grown up driving '90s and '00s cars ONLY.

[Robert Hall]

I've never had a need for a nav system, I'm quite good at reading maps..even in rental cars in unfamiliar areas, I find my way around.

And as amazing as it sounds to the kiddies here, I drove in the '80s in RWD cars in the WINTER with snow tires without airbags or ABS and survived!!!

[pow]

Only time I've found NAV especially useful was in Europe where I couldn't read the signs.

I've found nav useful also at night, in rural-ish areas where there are no streetlights and you can't read the road signs.

[Cory Wolfe]

NAV > Map. Giving the option > Not giving the option. Anything else regarding the subject is useless banter deserving of my trash can.

Edited December 21, 2007 by blackviper8891

[ocnblu]

They used to put 8-track players in cars, too. And in the 50's, you could buy a Mopar with a record turntable under the dash.

[balthazar]

MAP: never gets your car broken into, never breaks/malfunctions, nearly impossible to distract the driver (reading/navigating a map takes far too much concentration), no one bugs you to borrow it. Oh, and it costs a few bucks, not a few thousand bucks. Da Winnah.

[RBB]

Are todays people are so lame that they can not function with out GPS?

I completely agree! And while we're at it, why do people think that they need air conditioning? Just roll down the windows (hand-cranked of course, you lazy bastard)! And cruise control is for people too sedentary to keep their foot on the pedal - out it goes, too. And radios are for spoiled brats who can't possible last a 20-30 minute commute without being aurally assaulted by obnoxious deejays and devil music.

I don't know why any manufacturer puts all this junk in their cars. Chevrolet should strip all this stuff out and sell on price! That'll work....

-RBB

Edited December 24, 2007 by RBB

[Drew Dowdell]

Ya'll will also be the first to whine when an Aveo bases for 25k.

[haypops]

And cruise control is for people too sedentary to keep their foot on the pedal - out it goes, too. And radios are for spoiled brats who can't possible last a 20-30 minute commute without being aurally assaulted by obnoxious deejays and devil music.

I have had my car for about 7 months now and have used the radio for about 10 minutes. I checked out the cruise control to make sure it works and haven't touched it since. I guess that qualifies me as cheersandgears curmudgeon. Happy Christmas all.

[Robert Hall]

I completely agree! And while we're at it, why do people think that they need air conditioning? Just roll down the windows (hand-cranked of course, you lazy bastard)! And cruise control is for people too sedentary to keep their foot on the pedal - out it goes, too. And radios are for spoiled brats who can't possible last a 20-30 minute commute without being aurally assaulted by obnoxious deejays and devil music.

I don't know why any manufacturer puts all this junk in their cars. Chevrolet should strip all this stuff out and sell on price! That'll work....

-RBB

I couldn't imagine not having A/C. Or power windows. Or heated seats. Or a 6-disc CD changer. I've gotten used to driving loaded cars and couldn't imagine driving something stripped down.