W-Body to live into 2012?

[The O.C.]

Although that is commonly done, why do it. The customer doesn't care about the size of the wholes (borexstroke) that are manufactured into his engine. Comparison of external dimensions and weight of the power module would seem more appropriate.

By the way, do you have intententions of changing your screename to "the L.V."

LOL......I was thinking either something like that, or maybe "The Strip"......

The pushrod/DOHC mini-debate that started in here was the result of Oldsmoboi whining (j/k 'Boi) something about loosing his pushrod engines with "torquey" low-ends.....and that valvetrain configuration has little to do with refinement and NVH.

That's what I was responding too. Showing that, for similar-sized displacements, in the same car, (AURA and Malibu) the DOHC choice in this matter is, in fact, torquier, at a lower rev-range, and offers lots more horsepower....with comparable mileage. I was trying to make the point that, in order to match the 3.6L in power and torque, you'd have to have a pushrod V6 probably greater than 4.0L, maybe even 4.3L....4.5L (based on what GM is getting out of the 3.5L, 3.8L, and 3.9L.)

[Drew Dowdell]

You are crack smoking again.

EXACTLY my point was to compare like-sized displacements. 3.5 is only 0.1L away from 3.6L. 3.9L is 0.3L bigger....but you want to compare 3.9 to 3.6? 3.6L STILL comes out ahead in power and torque.

Anyways....the WHOLE POINT was to compare a pushrod V6 to a DOHC V6 available in the same car (AURA/Malibu.)

Secondly, WHY are you trying to compare a 3.6L V6 with a 6.0L V8.....? What's the point you are trying to make there?

I think you are just flustered again trying to figure out how you can "spin" your way around my (very well made) argument.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I thought the whole "horsepower per litre" argument has already been shown to be a red herring on this board.

It comes down to PACKAGING. If you're really concerned about horsepower per litre, put the turbo ecotec in place of the HF and call it a day. You picked a rather neglected, old, and underdeveloped <much like your argument>, pushrod V6 to compare to GM's finest DOHC engine and you expect us to be shocked, SHOCKED, that the pushrod engine doesn't perform like the DOHC.

Go pop the hood on your CTS, take off the plastic cover, and take note of just how much SPACE the 3.6 takes up. Next, go look under the hood of any 3500 powered vehicle. Notice how much space it DOESN'T take up.

You are using an engine that has been around since the last decade to try prove that a new DOHC is better than an old pushrod. Well I hope you are sitting down, because I have news for you. When the Quad-4 came out... it was waaay better than the iron duke it replaced. I know.. it shocked me too. GM spent a ton of money and put a lot of technology into the Quad-4 and it instantly surpassed it's predecessor. It's one of the great mysteries of the universe.

MY point is that if GM had put the same amount of money into a pushrod V6 as they have into the HF line they would have easily come up with an engine that would match the performance of the HF. Yes it would have been a larger displacement but it still would have fit in the same space as the HF. The 3.6 is about as big as GM can go on a DOHC V6 Epsilon. However, a pushrod V6 can increase displacement dramatically and push up into V8 territory.

Now I'm not advocating that GM take this course of action. GM could come up the sweetest reving V6 in the world, but if it was operated by pushrods, the press <and you> would &#036;h&#33; all over it before shoving all four of your cam shafts back up your ass.

[Satty]

DOHC engines do tend to take up quite a bit of space compared to their OHV counterparts. I once saw a Ford 5.0 and 4.6(SOHC) on engine stands next to each other. The 4.6 looked absolutely huge in comparison, pretty sad considering they made the same power.

[Drew Dowdell]

LOL......I was thinking either something like that, or maybe "The Strip"......

The pushrod/DOHC mini-debate that started in here was the result of Oldsmoboi whining (j/k 'Boi) something about loosing his pushrod engines with "torquey" low-ends.....and that valvetrain configuration has little to do with refinement and NVH.

That's what I was responding too. Showing that, for similar-sized displacements, in the same car, (AURA and Malibu) the DOHC choice in this matter is, in fact, torquier, at a lower rev-range, and offers lots more horsepower....with comparable mileage. I was trying to make the point that, in order to match the 3.6L in power and torque, you'd have to have a pushrod V6 probably greater than 4.0L, maybe even 4.3L....4.5L (based on what GM is getting out of the 3.5L, 3.8L, and 3.9L.)

The 5.3 is cheaper then the DI3.6HF, makes more power, has displacement on demand and E85, and will fit into the same engine bays that the 3.6 does.

If you're going to fill an engine bay to get the most grunt, you don't use a DOHC V6 to do it.

[black02]

So if you want to compare the GM 3.6 DOHC with a pushrod V6 of equal size, you'd have to speculate on something like 3/4 of the L76 or LS3. Maybe 4.5-4.6 litres, and 270-320hp. One of the GM concepts early this decade did have such an engine in it. I'm wondering how smooth such an engine would be, even with a 60 degree bank. Also, how tall would it be? You could certainly build it at 90 degrees, but then you need a balance shaft.

There must be a good reason that there have been almost no passenger car V6s (and no modern ones) over 4.0 litres. Anyone know what it is?

[Sixty8panther]

I'd rather have a timing CHAIN that makes the car

sound like a chainsaw than a rubber band!

[Drew Dowdell]

So if you want to compare the GM 3.6 DOHC with a pushrod V6 of equal size, you'd have to speculate on something like 3/4 of the L76 or LS3. Maybe 4.5-4.6 litres, and 270-320hp. One of the GM concepts early this decade did have such an engine in it. I'm wondering how smooth such an engine would be, even with a 60 degree bank. Also, how tall would it be? You could certainly build it at 90 degrees, but then you need a balance shaft.

There must be a good reason that there have been almost no passenger car V6s (and no modern ones) over 4.0 litres. Anyone know what it is?

If you get too far over 4 litres, people start expecting 8 cylinders rather than 6.

[CARBIZ]

......"if vehicle is driven regularly in very low temperature, -20F, V6 only"

Doesn't seem like a normal maintenance requirement to me.....at least not to the vast, vast majority of owners......

Do you know of a timing belt that does not have to be replaced at 60k miles? (Other than the '09 Aveo, of course. )

[haypops]

Do you know of a timing belt that does not have to be replaced at 60k miles? (Other than the '09 Aveo, of course. )

The 54 degree six in the L series Saturn and Cadillac were 100,000 miles belts. I think there are many others?

[Drew Dowdell]

I think Civics are at an 80,000 mile interval. My 3.4 DOHC Cutlass was an 80,000 mile belt also.

[CARBIZ]

I think you get my point. I have long had a beef with the 'imports' in that most of them require a $6-800 timing belt change somewhere between 60k and 80k miles. Frankly, in the 21st Century, that is not acceptable. For the most part, GM vehicles require NO maintenance other than oil changes (maybe twice a year), air filter and gas line filter replacements for FIVE years. How come the imports, in all their 'superiority' cannot match that? I'll tell you why (the dirty little secret): they want you to bring the car to the dealer every 3 months so they can overhaul the vehicle. You know, those nasty little service bulletins that people don't know about. The more of those the imports catch, the more 'perfect' their cars seem in the eyes of the owners. Drive a GM car for 5 years, never return to the dealer once (which is conceivable, considering GM does not insists on dealer maintenance), and the owner may be in for a nasty surprise because those service bulletins never get attended to.

Every car ever designed and built is nothing but a series of compromises. The engineers produce their 'dream' car, then the bean counters and marketing guys pee all over it. Honda and Toyota are no different. The difference in decibels between an Impala engine and a Honda engine would be unnoticeable to the layperson - unless pointed out to them by someone with an axe to grind. Nobody I have ever sold an Impala to has complained about it being noisy. As to the 'mushy' suspension: you try driving on our &#036;h&#33;ty Ontario roads with their frost-heaves, potholes, 13 year maintenance cycle and see what you would rather drive around in!

The amount of nitpicking on 'average' automobiles will eventually price them out of the 'average' person's budget. I am sure there is no limit to the amount of engineering/sound deadening that can go into a car. Or suspension improvements.

[pow]

Do you know of a timing belt that does not have to be replaced at 60k miles? (Other than the '09 Aveo, of course. )

The 3.5 V6 in our '03 Odyssey needs it every 105K. Honda doesn't specify a specific mileage for the new Accord because of the maintenance minder system, but based on a 7,500 mile OCI, it should be the same.

[enzl]

I think you get my point. I have long had a beef with the 'imports' in that most of them require a $6-800 timing belt change somewhere between 60k and 80k miles. Frankly, in the 21st Century, that is not acceptable. For the most part, GM vehicles require NO maintenance other than oil changes (maybe twice a year), air filter and gas line filter replacements for FIVE years. How come the imports, in all their 'superiority' cannot match that? I'll tell you why (the dirty little secret): they want you to bring the car to the dealer every 3 months so they can overhaul the vehicle. You know, those nasty little service bulletins that people don't know about. The more of those the imports catch, the more 'perfect' their cars seem in the eyes of the owners. Drive a GM car for 5 years, never return to the dealer once (which is conceivable, considering GM does not insists on dealer maintenance), and the owner may be in for a nasty surprise because those service bulletins never get attended to.

Every car ever designed and built is nothing but a series of compromises. The engineers produce their 'dream' car, then the bean counters and marketing guys pee all over it. Honda and Toyota are no different. The difference in decibels between an Impala engine and a Honda engine would be unnoticeable to the layperson - unless pointed out to them by someone with an axe to grind. Nobody I have ever sold an Impala to has complained about it being noisy. As to the 'mushy' suspension: you try driving on our &#036;h&#33;ty Ontario roads with their frost-heaves, potholes, 13 year maintenance cycle and see what you would rather drive around in!

The amount of nitpicking on 'average' automobiles will eventually price them out of the 'average' person's budget. I am sure there is no limit to the amount of engineering/sound deadening that can go into a car. Or suspension improvements.

What is a maintenance-free schedule if you have to drive a penalty box everyday?

Even non-enthusiasts have become aware of the competition's superiority in many respects that have nothing to do with service intervals, timing chains or 'quiet' recalls.

Simply put, your point, while somewhat valid, goes nowhere when you consider that GM's product, up until about 2 years ago, simply wouldn't have avoided the shop, statistically. Would have left an owner who trades every few years thousands short on residuals. And, furthermore, putting aside the 900's & vette, there were simply NO product that even sniffed the upper echelon of its class.

So, while service intervals are one point in favor, there are simply a dozen others where that same customer would have had an opportunity to say 'No Sale' well before facing a timing belt replacement. That's GM's biggest problem---simply no consideration by a large proportion of the population---and then an underwhelming greeting when faced with the likes of an Impy, Aveo or Cobalt in the showrooms.

GM simply cannot replace these products fast enough--nor will any amount of updating make them truly competitive--that's the cold, hard truth--played out everyday in the sales reports and any reputable judge of things automotive.

[michaelv13]

In past three years (since Pontiac Solstice brought GM revolution) GM products and stragegy indicates almost there but really not.

Solstice for example: Great looking inside and out. Thoughtless utilization of space, cargo area, roof.

GMT 900s: Rigid as a rock body, good interior. Still the 4-speeds (finally after three MY they are finding 6-speeds), where is the manual transmission? why not top of the line engine in regular cab configuration?

Malibu: Good overall design, rigid chasis. No manual transmission, where is the fuel efficient V-6, what no navigation? lacks some of the space.

Similarly their product strategy. Excellent emphasis on design Lambdas, Malibu, etc, no one can say that GM builds crappy cars and ironically they decide to keep the W-Body.

So what the thing has been paid off and is a cash cow. It is about perceptions and nothing else. Common people do not even know what a W-body is, and editors bash it because of its antquaited engineering it becomes a Holy Grail despite of being re-engineered a couple of times.

Here is a story of another W-body, only it was called W-124. Probably the car which brought back a company from its brink and became its bestseller. If the engineers wanted to milk money there would have been no W-210 which even exceeded the sales of W-124.

Igneous rocks are probably one of the strongest rocks existing on earth. Yet the relatively new Himalaya mountains is made of sedimentary rocks. The point is even sometime in evolution good things must give their way to others. Nature knows that why cannot GM?

[Robert Hall]

Igneous rocks are probably one of the strongest rocks existing on earth. Yet the relatively new Himalaya mountains is made of sedimentary rocks. The point is even sometime in evolution good things must give their way to others. Nature knows that why cannot GM?

I think within GM there is still a measure of the myopia/rose colored glasses that only sees the depressing gray skies and potholed roads of Michigan and not the world around it...

[VenSeattle]

Simply put, your point, while somewhat valid, goes nowhere when you consider that GM's product, up until about 2 years ago, simply wouldn't have avoided the shop, statistically. Would have left an owner who trades every few years thousands short on residuals. And, furthermore, putting aside the 900's & vette, there were simply NO product that even sniffed the upper echelon of its class.

I'm not going to argue with you, but your absolutes are sometimes annoying and in this case incorrect. GM didn't have too many winners in the 1990s but let's give GM credit where it's due.

Throughout the 1990s, the Buick LeSabre was the best selling large car, held its resale value very well, and remained extremely reliable based on surveys, reports, and owner testimonials. The LeSabre easily bested Ford's panther sedans, Toyota's first two attempts at Avalon, and sold better than Chrysler's modern-styled LH sedans. And no, it wasn't a fleet queen or viewed as a fleet queen in the 1990s.

The LeSabre dominated its class in the 1990s. The large car market may have dwindled over the past several years, but it was alive and well in the 1990s.

[CARBIZ]

What is a maintenance-free schedule if you have to drive a penalty box everyday?

Even non-enthusiasts have become aware of the competition's superiority in many respects that have nothing to do with service intervals, timing chains or 'quiet' recalls.

Simply put, your point, while somewhat valid, goes nowhere when you consider that GM's product, up until about 2 years ago, simply wouldn't have avoided the shop, statistically. Would have left an owner who trades every few years thousands short on residuals. And, furthermore, putting aside the 900's & vette, there were simply NO product that even sniffed the upper echelon of its class.

So, while service intervals are one point in favor, there are simply a dozen others where that same customer would have had an opportunity to say 'No Sale' well before facing a timing belt replacement. That's GM's biggest problem---simply no consideration by a large proportion of the population---and then an underwhelming greeting when faced with the likes of an Impy, Aveo or Cobalt in the showrooms.

GM simply cannot replace these products fast enough--nor will any amount of updating make them truly competitive--that's the cold, hard truth--played out everyday in the sales reports and any reputable judge of things automotive.

Ohhhh, I just knew you would take the bait, so I had this ready just waiting for the next time you and I butted heads on this one topic that you love so much:

Yesterday, I perused Toyota Canada's website, and decided to price myself out a 2009 Corolla LE - the very one I spent the day with about two weeks ago. Just to be fair, I threw in the sunroof package (since it is FREE on the lowly Cobalt) and a spoiler. Total MSRP is $21,495 plus delivery of $1,140 and ' air tax' of $100 (yeah, this is Canada!), bringing the total MSRP to $23,442. Now, according to their website, all other fees are included, but I know that to be patently untrue; however, I will let that slide because I know that leaving out a $3-400 admin fee will still not help Toyota. The Corolla's 'on the road' price is $26,390.

For comparison purposes, I am using our most popular Cobalt 1SB package which gives ABS, 16" alloy wheels, free power sunroof, leather steering wheel and spoiler. I also added side air bags, since they are standard on the '09 Corolla. Both vehicles are equipped with automatic, which is the way 90% of them are sold. MSRP on the Cobalt is $ 21,735 plus delivery of $1095 and air tax of $100 for a total of $22,930. But wait: there is a package credit of $1,250 on the LT Cobalt, bringing the price down to $21,680.

Since Canada has combined taxes, in Ontario you will pay an extra 13% on both cars, bringing the Corolla to $26,390 and the Cobalt to $25,000 (I threw in an extra $500 on the Cobalt because I do know GM dealers charge at least $4-500 in admin fees.)

So, the cash buyer is at least $1,400 better off with the Cobalt. But there really is no such thing as cash, is there? What does Toyota offer? 5.9% finance rate for 60 months, or a lease rate of 6.9% for 48 months. Hmm. The Cobalt is 0% for 72 months on a finance and 0.9% on a lease for 48 months. (But to be fair to Toyota, I will only work out the Cobalt's payment over 60 months, not the much lower 72.)

Let's do the math. From Toyota Canada's very own website:

5.9/60 mo = 508 6.9/48 lease = $368 + tx = $416 buy back = $10,439.

Total cost = 508X60 = $30,480 416X48 = $19,968 + $10,439 +13%) = $31,812 For a Corolla?

What about a Cobalt. Just to be fair, I am not going to discount the Cobalt one dime, even though we do (and they don't)

0/60 = $416, oops, that still equals $25k, doesn't it? 0.9/48 lease = $292+tx = $330 buy back = $8,891.

Lease costs 330X48 = $15,840 + $8,891 (+13%)= $25,886

So, the Cobalt is $1,400 cheaper to buy (for those that can), $5,500 cheaper to finance and $5,926 cheaper to lease and then buy out. All around, sounds to me like it is Toyota that is gouging Joe Lunchbucket, don't you think?

Enzl, you made the accusation several months ago that GM was stiffing the working class because their cars are crap, they don't hold their value and someone is going to get screwed if they trade them in. You claim to be a numbers man, THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. Working class people don't have cash. Almost half the cars in Canada last year were leased.

OF THE ABOVE NUMBERS, WHO IS GETTING SCREWED?

Sure, the Corolla has push button start, climate control, 2 glove boxes, woodgrain (yech, I'd take the Cobalt's plastic), a telescoping wheel, an anemic engine, no underhood sound deadening, a prop rod and assist handles on the ceiling - but for $5,000?????? Damn straight the Corolla had better be worth more in 5 years because you just paid FIVE THOUSAND MORE!

Now, I understand both companies 'market price' their vehicles. We Canadians know that our cars are overpriced, but both Toyota and GM are stiffing us equally. But the dirty secret is when you look at transaction prices (because Toyota ain't discounting their Corollas just now), the Cobalt is a much better buy.

And this is from Toyota's best new effort! Oh, yeah - and the Corolla has a crappy 4 spd auto, too! Oh, and Toyota wants $500 for an 'iPod' interface. Screw that: all Cobalts have an iPod connect for FREE.

[CARBIZ]

I'm not going to argue with you, but your absolutes are sometimes annoying and in this case incorrect. GM didn't have too many winners in the 1990s but let's give GM credit where it's due.

Throughout the 1990s, the Buick LeSabre was the best selling large car, held its resale value very well, and remained extremely reliable based on surveys, reports, and owner testimonials. The LeSabre easily bested Ford's panther sedans, Toyota's first two attempts at Avalon, and sold better than Chrysler's modern-styled LH sedans. And no, it wasn't a fleet queen or viewed as a fleet queen in the 1990s.

The LeSabre dominated its class in the 1990s. The large car market may have dwindled over the past several years, but it was alive and well in the 1990s.

I can't tell you how many LeSabres and 88s we still see on the road here, or in our service bays, from the early '90s! Most of the LHs, Avalons and others from the same era are long, long gone via rust!

Many 'enthusiasts' automatically equate 'exciting' with a 'good' vehicle. Even the reviled Cavalier was a pretty bullet-proof car. Compare that to the Escorts and Shadows of their day. GM was among the first to adopt 4 spd electronic trannies, air bags, ABS on all models and the list goes on, but some people will only remember the bad.

[Sixty8panther]

What is a maintenance-free schedule if you have to drive a penalty box everyday?

A Scion Xb or a Honda Element are the PENALTY BOXES!

Well, actually the Elemant is more of a walk-in-freezer made by Rubbermaid.

[enzl]

Ohhhh, I just knew you would take the bait, so I had this ready just waiting for the next time you and I butted heads on this one topic that you love so much:

Yesterday, I perused Toyota Canada's website, and decided to price myself out a 2009 Corolla LE - the very one I spent the day with about two weeks ago. Just to be fair, I threw in the sunroof package (since it is FREE on the lowly Cobalt) and a spoiler. Total MSRP is $21,495 plus delivery of $1,140 and ' air tax' of $100 (yeah, this is Canada!), bringing the total MSRP to $23,442. Now, according to their website, all other fees are included, but I know that to be patently untrue; however, I will let that slide because I know that leaving out a $3-400 admin fee will still not help Toyota. The Corolla's 'on the road' price is $26,390.

For comparison purposes, I am using our most popular Cobalt 1SB package which gives ABS, 16" alloy wheels, free power sunroof, leather steering wheel and spoiler. I also added side air bags, since they are standard on the '09 Corolla. Both vehicles are equipped with automatic, which is the way 90% of them are sold. MSRP on the Cobalt is $ 21,735 plus delivery of $1095 and air tax of $100 for a total of $22,930. But wait: there is a package credit of $1,250 on the LT Cobalt, bringing the price down to $21,680.

Since Canada has combined taxes, in Ontario you will pay an extra 13% on both cars, bringing the Corolla to $26,390 and the Cobalt to $25,000 (I threw in an extra $500 on the Cobalt because I do know GM dealers charge at least $4-500 in admin fees.)

So, the cash buyer is at least $1,400 better off with the Cobalt. But there really is no such thing as cash, is there? What does Toyota offer? 5.9% finance rate for 60 months, or a lease rate of 6.9% for 48 months. Hmm. The Cobalt is 0% for 72 months on a finance and 0.9% on a lease for 48 months. (But to be fair to Toyota, I will only work out the Cobalt's payment over 60 months, not the much lower 72.)

Let's do the math. From Toyota Canada's very own website:

5.9/60 mo = 508 6.9/48 lease = $368 + tx = $416 buy back = $10,439.

Total cost = 508X60 = $30,480 416X48 = $19,968 + $10,439 +13%) = $31,812 For a Corolla?

What about a Cobalt. Just to be fair, I am not going to discount the Cobalt one dime, even though we do (and they don't)

0/60 = $416, oops, that still equals $25k, doesn't it? 0.9/48 lease = $292+tx = $330 buy back = $8,891.

Lease costs 330X48 = $15,840 + $8,891 (+13%)= $25,886

So, the Cobalt is $1,400 cheaper to buy (for those that can), $5,500 cheaper to finance and $5,926 cheaper to lease and then buy out. All around, sounds to me like it is Toyota that is gouging Joe Lunchbucket, don't you think?

Enzl, you made the accusation several months ago that GM was stiffing the working class because their cars are crap, they don't hold their value and someone is going to get screwed if they trade them in. You claim to be a numbers man, THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS. Working class people don't have cash. Almost half the cars in Canada last year were leased.

OF THE ABOVE NUMBERS, WHO IS GETTING SCREWED?

Sure, the Corolla has push button start, climate control, 2 glove boxes, woodgrain (yech, I'd take the Cobalt's plastic), a telescoping wheel, an anemic engine, no underhood sound deadening, a prop rod and assist handles on the ceiling - but for $5,000?????? Damn straight the Corolla had better be worth more in 5 years because you just paid FIVE THOUSAND MORE!

Now, I understand both companies 'market price' their vehicles. We Canadians know that our cars are overpriced, but both Toyota and GM are stiffing us equally. But the dirty secret is when you look at transaction prices (because Toyota ain't discounting their Corollas just now), the Cobalt is a much better buy.

And this is from Toyota's best new effort! Oh, yeah - and the Corolla has a crappy 4 spd auto, too! Oh, and Toyota wants $500 for an 'iPod' interface. Screw that: all Cobalts have an iPod connect for FREE.

You always take the sales approach to your analysis...and, quite simply, you're wrong. In the states, financing rates are similar (although Cobalt has been out many years, so its not surprising to find better APR) for most buyers, as most don't qualify for "promotional' rates, so throw your finance savings out the window.

Toyota is proving Adam Smith right: Supply & demand give you pricing, not magic calculations. Toyota can get $20K for a Corolla--GM simply can't get that for a Cobalt. All of your other stuff is sales crap---closing a deal, not about Toyota or Chevy or Honda for that matter.

'Biz--you're simply too biased to see it for what it is---but we've already established that long ago.

Just in case you believe I'm just being a jerk---did you notice GM's dump of bad news last Friday before the long weekend? Or the fact that 2 Zetas have been cancelled? GM can't get out of its own way & people who think like you are only standing in the way--just enough isn't good enough anymore.

When you're selling the deal instead of the vehicle, you're already on the losing end of the argument, my friend.

To win this running argument, you're going to have to do better than selling me a car. GM's got plenty of salesmen...its the engineers and designers that need to save this ship.

Edited May 28, 2008 by enzl

[gmcbob]

You're right - GM needs to really start knocking it out of the park on every single produce - CTS like attention to detail and style/performance on every single product. A Cobalt that is seriously just as tight and modern as a Civic, a real f*cking cool Buick that has an awesome, extremely elegant and sophisticated interior that is truly as solid and well made as the most expensive Lexus or Audi. It HAS to happen - many of GM's cars today are probably pretty trouble free, and very durable - but it needs to go way beyond that - we've been promised these things, and I think the CTS proves that it can be done, but we need to really see it - especially in their mainstream models (I would think a Buick Regal type vehicle of the 90s but every bit as refined inside, as say, a new Accord), could make Buick a contender. But the message would have to get out to the public to ensure them that it's true. That could be the hardest part.

[enzl]

I'm not going to argue with you, but your absolutes are sometimes annoying and in this case incorrect. GM didn't have too many winners in the 1990s but let's give GM credit where it's due.

Throughout the 1990s, the Buick LeSabre was the best selling large car, held its resale value very well, and remained extremely reliable based on surveys, reports, and owner testimonials. The LeSabre easily bested Ford's panther sedans, Toyota's first two attempts at Avalon, and sold better than Chrysler's modern-styled LH sedans. And no, it wasn't a fleet queen or viewed as a fleet queen in the 1990s.

The LeSabre dominated its class in the 1990s. The large car market may have dwindled over the past several years, but it was alive and well in the 1990s.

There's no absolutes, just statistics:

GM has recently closed the quality gap...but for years, the average repair rates were dramatically higher than Toyonda. That's simply fact, with a few exceptions for Buick and the occasional NUMMI product.

So, if my car has .5 more visits per year to the dealer, GM's timing belt longevity means sh!t.

Besides, if we're going to reach back to 90's LeSabre's as examples of GM's superiority, than I think you've just made my point for me. When I'm wrong, I'll admit it---but there's no empirical evidence to support any other conclusion than GM has been mired in mediocrity for decades---with a rare flash of genius or luck in the mix, granted.

That's simply not a record I would want to run on. You're entitled to disagree.

[The O.C.]

:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:

I thought the whole "horsepower per litre" argument has already been shown to be a red herring on this board.

It comes down to PACKAGING. If you're really concerned about horsepower per litre, put the turbo ecotec in place of the HF and call it a day. You picked a rather neglected, old, and underdeveloped <much like your argument>, pushrod V6 to compare to GM's finest DOHC engine and you expect us to be shocked, SHOCKED, that the pushrod engine doesn't perform like the DOHC.

Go pop the hood on your CTS, take off the plastic cover, and take note of just how much SPACE the 3.6 takes up. Next, go look under the hood of any 3500 powered vehicle. Notice how much space it DOESN'T take up.

You are using an engine that has been around since the last decade to try prove that a new DOHC is better than an old pushrod. Well I hope you are sitting down, because I have news for you. When the Quad-4 came out... it was waaay better than the iron duke it replaced. I know.. it shocked me too. GM spent a ton of money and put a lot of technology into the Quad-4 and it instantly surpassed it's predecessor. It's one of the great mysteries of the universe.

MY point is that if GM had put the same amount of money into a pushrod V6 as they have into the HF line they would have easily come up with an engine that would match the performance of the HF. Yes it would have been a larger displacement but it still would have fit in the same space as the HF. The 3.6 is about as big as GM can go on a DOHC V6 Epsilon. However, a pushrod V6 can increase displacement dramatically and push up into V8 territory.

Now I'm not advocating that GM take this course of action. GM could come up the sweetest reving V6 in the world, but if it was operated by pushrods, the press <and you> would &#036;h&#33; all over it before shoving all four of your cam shafts back up your ass.

You are in a constant state of dillusion......WHERE do you come UP with this CRAP? ("Crap" meaning that you are a MASTER of "spin.")

You keep trying to deflect the whole argument about a simple matter of "low-end torque" in a pushrod versus a multi-cam/multi-valve engine.

As usual, my argument is such that you can't get around it.....can't respond to it.....can't combat it.....so you throw out this incredibly vague collection of paragraphs, phrases, opinions, and verbatim....JUST to try to deflect everyone reading these post from the real point.

I'm laughing right now....

Edited May 28, 2008 by The O.C.

[Drew Dowdell]

You always take the sales approach to your analysis...and, quite simply, you're wrong. In the states, financing rates are similar (although Cobalt has been out many years, so its not surprising to find better APR) for most buyers, as most don't qualify for "promotional' rates, so throw your finance savings out the window.

Toyota is proving Adam Smith right: Supply & demand give you pricing, not magic calculations. Toyota can get $20K for a Corolla--GM simply can't get that for a Cobalt. All of your other stuff is sales crap---closing a deal, not about Toyota or Chevy or Honda for that matter.

'Biz--you're simply too biased to see it for what it is---but we've already established that long ago.

Just in case you believe I'm just being a jerk---did you notice GM's dump of bad news last Friday before the long weekend? Or the fact that 2 Zetas have been cancelled? GM can't get out of its own way & people who think like you are only standing in the way--just enough isn't good enough anymore.

When you're selling the deal instead of the vehicle, you're already on the losing end of the argument, my friend.

To win this running argument, you're going to have to do better than selling me a car. GM's got plenty of salesmen...its the engineers and designers that need to save this ship.

If you're not going to qualify for 0% at Chevy, you're not going to qualify for 5.9% at Toyota.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

You always take the sales approach to your analysis...and, quite simply, you're wrong. In the states, financing rates are similar (although Cobalt has been out many years, so its not surprising to find better APR) for most buyers, as most don't qualify for "promotional' rates, so throw your finance savings out the window.

Toyota is proving Adam Smith right: Supply & demand give you pricing, not magic calculations. Toyota can get $20K for a Corolla--GM simply can't get that for a Cobalt. All of your other stuff is sales crap---closing a deal, not about Toyota or Chevy or Honda for that matter.

'Biz--you're simply too biased to see it for what it is---but we've already established that long ago.

Just in case you believe I'm just being a jerk---did you notice GM's dump of bad news last Friday before the long weekend? Or the fact that 2 Zetas have been cancelled? GM can't get out of its own way & people who think like you are only standing in the way--just enough isn't good enough anymore.

When you're selling the deal instead of the vehicle, you're already on the losing end of the argument, my friend.

To win this running argument, you're going to have to do better than selling me a car. GM's got plenty of salesmen...its the engineers and designers that need to save this ship.

The trouble with nay-sayers like you, sir, is that you have a short memory when it suits you. Chevrolet has never meant 'top drawer' or cutting edge. When Chevrolet kicked Ford into second place back in the early '50s, it was through a good ol' fashion price war. There were better vehicles out there (Buick, even some Packards at the time), but it was the volumes set by Chevrolet that catapulted it (and GM) to #1. Get more, decent product into the layperson and show them how things have changed.

The average Joe doesn't care about # of valves or # of gears - they care only about price, quality and a bit of style. Nobody is going to argue that Toyota is a style leader. If you look at price, they haven't been 'cheap' in about 15 years. If you look at 'quality,' the difference between GM and Toyota has been like a half visit per year to the dealer. What does that mean, exactly?

The real challenge is in convincing people with hidden agendas that every car does not have to perform like a BMW or be constructed like a Sherman tank.

[IfICouldWouldYou?]

If you're not going to qualify for 0% at Chevy, you're not going to qualify for 5.9% at Toyota.

Shh, don't confuse him with facts.

[Drew Dowdell]

You are in a constant state of dillusion......WHERE do you come UP with this CRAP? ("Crap" meaning that you are a MASTER of "spin.")

You keep trying to deflect the whole argument about a simple matter of "low-end torque" in a pushrod versus a multi-cam/multi-valve engine.

As usual, my argument is such that you can't get around it.....can't respond to it.....can't combat it.....so you throw out this incredibly vague collection of paragraphs, phrases, opinions, and verbatim....JUST to try to deflect everyone reading these post from the real point.

I'm laughing right now....

Then I'm simply not able to follow you as you dart around like an A.D.D. rabbit on speed running from an imaginary wolf. Are we talking NHV? Low end torque? Packaging? Torque per litre?

If you're making an argument that torque per litre is better in a DOHC engine than a pushrod in engines of equal displacement, then fine, I concede to your stupidly shortsighted point.

In the meantime, while you're capped out at 3.6 litres in your engine bay, happily spinning your four cams, I can fill that same engine bay with 6 litres of pushrod power. If you want to test this experiment, go out in your CTS and taunt the next CTS-V you encounter. Make sure you record it so we can all see the results.

To make comparisons of engines based on displacement and valvetrain while ignoring all other factors is just plain dumb... and I know you know better.

[enzl]

Shh, don't confuse him with facts.

You guys are unreal.

If you don't qualify for Manufacturer's Top tier promotional rates, you get commercially available rates from independent lenders....meaning, for those who are so eager to 'trap' me in your maze of dubious logic, the rates are about the same for either the Chevy or Toyota customer.

Those are the facts...the nonsense 'biz is confusing you with is a 'hard close' using math that means little. You get the customer into the F&I box with those figures, then you hit 'em up with every aftermarket item on the planet to get back the gross you need to sell the car....

[enzl]

The trouble with nay-sayers like you, sir, is that you have a short memory when it suits you. Chevrolet has never meant 'top drawer' or cutting edge. When Chevrolet kicked Ford into second place back in the early '50s, it was through a good ol' fashion price war. There were better vehicles out there (Buick, even some Packards at the time), but it was the volumes set by Chevrolet that catapulted it (and GM) to #1. Get more, decent product into the layperson and show them how things have changed.

The average Joe doesn't care about # of valves or # of gears - they care only about price, quality and a bit of style. Nobody is going to argue that Toyota is a style leader. If you look at price, they haven't been 'cheap' in about 15 years. If you look at 'quality,' the difference between GM and Toyota has been like a half visit per year to the dealer. What does that mean, exactly?

The real challenge is in convincing people with hidden agendas that every car does not have to perform like a BMW or be constructed like a Sherman tank.

There's absolutely no trouble with 'nay-sayers' like me. The trouble is with people who knowingly twist the current situation into something it isn't...

GM is in real trouble. You can debate Chevy's role in the automotive universe until you're blue in the face. Competing on price is meaningless if you can't get people in the door.

The Impala, Cobalt or Aveo do nothing to advance the case for returning to a Chevy or GM showroom. There are simply better alternatives out there, available for a few dollars more a month with the advent of 60-84 month finance.

I have no hidden agenda. I'm not at liberty to discuss what I do in full, but suffice it to say that noone on this board has more at stake than I do when it comes to GM. I oppose the ostrich mentality because that's what put GM on their back in the first place.

When I see the boneheaded moves, both product and business, it bothers me. You and I would not have jobs if our performance was as poor as GM's management over the last 5-10 years. Lost marketshare, record losses, product missteps, strikes, union agreement f-ups, multi-national investments gone awry---I mean, what does RW need to do to get fired? And what is the Board of Directors seeing in their meetings that tells them that next quarter will be different?

New blood is needed. This evidence is overwhelming. If pointing out the obvious makes me a 'nay-sayer' rather than a realist, so be it.

[Drew Dowdell]

OK, so you get equal financing on both vehicles, but if you drive away from the Chevy dealer with an extra $1500 in your pocket <and only that little because you didn't negotiate a better price>, didn't you STILL end up with a better deal?

Assumes 5.9% interest for all:

Cobalt: $25,000

Total Repaid: $28929.60

Total Interest Paid: $3929.60

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.718%

Payment Amount: $482.16

Corolla: $26,390

Total Repaid: $30538.20

Total Interest Paid: $4148.20

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.719%

Payment Amount: $508.97

Now suppose the buyer isn't an idiot and was able to negotiate another grand off the purchase price of the Cobalt:

Cobalt: $24,000

Total Repaid: $27772.20

Total Interest Paid: $3772.20

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.718%

Payment Amount:: $462.87

Oh look! There's bonus cash on the Cobalt

Cobalt: $22,500

Total Repaid: $26036.40

Total Interest Paid: $3536.40

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.717%

Payment Amount: $433.94

[Sixty8panther]

Well said Oldsmoboi.

I've tried to spell out that basic scenario to many a Japanese car lover who think

that Japanese econobox = cheap to buy/maintain/repair/insure. WRONG!

[enzl]

OK, so you get equal financing on both vehicles, but if you drive away from the Chevy dealer with an extra $1500 in your pocket <and only that little because you didn't negotiate a better price>, didn't you STILL end up with a better deal?

Assumes 5.9% interest for all:

Cobalt: $25,000

Total Repaid: $28929.60

Total Interest Paid: $3929.60

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.718%

Payment Amount: $482.16

Corolla: $26,390

Total Repaid: $30538.20

Total Interest Paid: $4148.20

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.719%

Payment Amount: $508.97

Now suppose the buyer isn't an idiot and was able to negotiate another grand off the purchase price of the Cobalt:

Cobalt: $24,000

Total Repaid: $27772.20

Total Interest Paid: $3772.20

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.718%

Payment Amount:: $462.87

Oh look! There's bonus cash on the Cobalt

Cobalt: $22,500

Total Repaid: $26036.40

Total Interest Paid: $3536.40

Interest as percentage of Principal: 15.717%

Payment Amount: $433.94

As I stated before...if you've got to sell the deal, not the car, you've already lost, my friend.

But since you insist, I'll tell you how the cost differential is covered:

The Corolla will be worth 10 points more come trade time in the middle of that loan (you know, in the real world, where needs change because of things like marriage, kids, etc...) That 10 points is $2600, in the worst case scenario you paint:

Therefore, all things being equal, the $80/mo. (assuming the same guy can't get a $ knocked off at the Toyota place too.) will take 32+ months before the Toyota actually 'costs' more...

Again, just for the sake of argument, as this is an academic exercise. Chevy can't get most Corolla shoppers in the door, so that's really why the Chevy deal is sooo good. To posit this argument the way you're stating it only begs the question why GM can't ask the same amount for a similar vehicle, doesn't it?

Adam Smith is still correct today.

Edited May 28, 2008 by enzl

[CARBIZ]

First of all, the financing is through GMAC, and compared to Toyota credit, they do approve a lot of people. I would love to see national figures, but I can tell you from 12 years in the business (and working both ends of Canada's 'richest' city) 80% or more of the people out there do not have cash. Toyota wants to make money on the money; whereas, GM is leaning on GMAC to help it move metal.

I have no trouble putting the Cobalt up against the '08 Corolla. The '09 Corolla is supposedly 'all new' so I would certainly hope it is better! In the natural order of things, as a model ages, it needs to be discounted or refreshed to keep its sales up. GM has chosen more of the former over the latter. As far as the ride/handling goes with the Cobalt, it holds its own against all its competitors. As I have said before, I wish GM had spent more money on the interior; instead, it was spent on NVH and amenities like standard split rear seats (Civic base does not have), power trunk (Corolla finally has it for '09) and other comforts. As I have tirelessly said , when you live with the Cobalt, it is a very agreeable car. The new Corolla does LOOK nicer on the inside; outside appearances are purely subjective. But the car is all new, so it SHOULD be. But for $100 a month more? No thanks, for that payment I would take the much better Malibu!

BTW, the Cobalt/G5 twins are outselling the Mazda3 and Corolla in Canada.

If we were talking about the Acura, then I would submit the 'deal' doesn't matter, which is where GM is trying to place the Astra with mixed success. However, with the Cobalt, price does matter and since the vehicle itself is 4 years old (technically older, since it is a warmed over Ion), it would only follow that the vehicle has to be discounted.

Another point you conveniently ignored is Toyota's own website is acknowleding the buy back is only $1,548 more than the Cobalt after 4 years. Hmm, it appears Toyota credit doesn't have as much faith in their resale as you claim.

Any bloody accountant will tell you to stick your cash in the bank: even a lousy 4% on $26, 390 is $5,832 over 5 years. That is money your Cobalt buyer can keep in his bank while Toyota gives back a measly $1,548 more at buy back time.

These are real world figures. I can tell you from working for a Toyota dealer that if you get $500 off a Corolla, you are doing well. For the Cobalt, you'd maybe get $500 more, but I never used those figures because those depend on the dealer and the buyer.

I JUST PREFER THE REAL WORLD.

[enzl]

First of all, the financing is through GMAC, and compared to Toyota credit, they do approve a lot of people. I would love to see national figures, but I can tell you from 12 years in the business (and working both ends of Canada's 'richest' city) 80% or more of the people out there do not have cash. Toyota wants to make money on the money; whereas, GM is leaning on GMAC to help it move metal.

I have no trouble putting the Cobalt up against the '08 Corolla. The '09 Corolla is supposedly 'all new' so I would certainly hope it is better! In the natural order of things, as a model ages, it needs to be discounted or refreshed to keep its sales up. GM has chosen more of the former over the latter. As far as the ride/handling goes with the Cobalt, it holds its own against all its competitors. As I have said before, I wish GM had spent more money on the interior; instead, it was spent on NVH and amenities like standard split rear seats (Civic base does not have), power trunk (Corolla finally has it for '09) and other comforts. As I have tirelessly said , when you live with the Cobalt, it is a very agreeable car. The new Corolla does LOOK nicer on the inside; outside appearances are purely subjective. But the car is all new, so it SHOULD be. But for $100 a month more? No thanks, for that payment I would take the much better Malibu!

BTW, the Cobalt/G5 twins are outselling the Mazda3 and Corolla in Canada.

If we were talking about the Acura, then I would submit the 'deal' doesn't matter, which is where GM is trying to place the Astra with mixed success. However, with the Cobalt, price does matter and since the vehicle itself is 4 years old (technically older, since it is a warmed over Ion), it would only follow that the vehicle has to be discounted.

Another point you conveniently ignored is Toyota's own website is acknowleding the buy back is only $1,548 more than the Cobalt after 4 years. Hmm, it appears Toyota credit doesn't have as much faith in their resale as you claim.

Any bloody accountant will tell you to stick your cash in the bank: even a lousy 4% on $26, 390 is $5,832 over 5 years. That is money your Cobalt buyer can keep in his bank while Toyota gives back a measly $1,548 more at buy back time.

These are real world figures. I can tell you from working for a Toyota dealer that if you get $500 off a Corolla, you are doing well. For the Cobalt, you'd maybe get $500 more, but I never used those figures because those depend on the dealer and the buyer.

I JUST PREFER THE REAL WORLD.

In the real world, lots of folks are following my prescription, so I'm afraid you're being proven wrong everyday.

By lots of people that don't have an axe to grind.

And your numbers still don't work because, regardless of Toyota's position on residuals, you & I know that GM is subventing it's leases with absurd residuals to make the payments work---then they take it in the shorts a second time when the vehicle comes off lease and is auctioned. Besides, smart money knows you buy used and save the steep depreciation of the first year or so...that would net you lot's more than $1500 + interest--you're simply making more 'deal' talk...

But, you know all this. You're just fighting this to fight--I get it, you sell Chevies, you hate Toyota--but it doesn't change the fact that GM has showrooms full of product that need desperate attention--and then the good marketing skill to get the message out. Without those two things (which GM has repeated shown it is unable to bring consistently), we're all dead in the water.

As I said, if you have to sell the deal, the vehicle isn't what it should be, either in perception or reality.

Edited May 28, 2008 by enzl

[Drew Dowdell]

As I said, if you have to sell the deal, the vehicle isn't what it should be, either in perception or reality.

Untrue. I was going to get a CTS. I test drove everything else I was interested in and even a few I wasn't interested in just to make an informed decision. The end result was simple.... I was getting a CTS. I may have to wait for it, but I was getting it. It was "the deal" that got it for me. I got an amazing deal on my CTS about 13 months after it had been released. There was no "other" for me. I would have been perfectly content to drive my Cutlass convertible for another summer and just put money into any repairs it might need. The car "sold" itself to me. The "deal" made it possible.

In the interest of full disclosure, the other cars I was considering at the time were:

Aurora V8

Regal GS - Joseph Abboud eddition - this came close, it was the W-body familiarity that really made it comforting

Chrysler 300m - the 300c wasn't out yet

Subaru Legacy GT - loaded with manual transmission

Hyundai XG350 - I liked the "baby Towncar" look, but the car was a complete pile

and a host of used cars.

[enzl]

Untrue. I was going to get a CTS. I test drove everything else I was interested in and even a few I wasn't interested in just to make an informed decision. The end result was simple.... I was getting a CTS. I may have to wait for it, but I was getting it. It was "the deal" that got it for me. I got an amazing deal on my CTS about 13 months after it had been released. There was no "other" for me. I would have been perfectly content to drive my Cutlass convertible for another summer and just put money into any repairs it might need. The car "sold" itself to me. The "deal" made it possible.

In the interest of full disclosure, the other cars I was considering at the time were:

Aurora V8

Regal GS - Joseph Abboud eddition - this came close, it was the W-body familiarity that really made it comforting

Chrysler 300m - the 300c wasn't out yet

Subaru Legacy GT - loaded with manual transmission

Hyundai XG350 - I liked the "baby Towncar" look, but the car was a complete pile

and a host of used cars.

You make my point for me:

BUT FOR the deal, you would not have purchased the car.

Macro matters as individual anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to an argument. Gimme a call when GM isn't going to have to bribe people to buy most of their product.

Simply put, if you want to compete with Used car lots and 2nd tier Japanese/Korean intenders, then GM is doing all that it can to sell cars.

However, if you peruse the latest public filings, I think you'll see that GM selling cars doesn't equate to GM making money.

[The O.C.]

Those of us that actually like the grunt of a pushrod be damned.

OK Oldsmoboi.....I'm gonna drop this one.

But JUST as a reminder TO YOU.....this is the one-line sentence that you typed......that I responded to. Go back. Re-read my original post responding to THE ABOVE.

You are the one that was flying off into tangents.

[CARBIZ]

In the real world, lots of folks are following my prescription, so I'm afraid you're being proven wrong everyday.

By lots of people that don't have an axe to grind.

And your numbers still don't work because, regardless of Toyota's position on residuals, you & I know that GM is subventing it's leases with absurd residuals to make the payments work---then they take it in the shorts a second time when the vehicle comes off lease and is auctioned. Besides, smart money knows you buy used and save the steep depreciation of the first year or so...that would net you lot's more than $1500 + interest--you're simply making more 'deal' talk...

But, you know all this. You're just fighting this to fight--I get it, you sell Chevies, you hate Toyota--but it doesn't change the fact that GM has showrooms full of product that need desperate attention--and then the good marketing skill to get the message out. Without those two things (which GM has repeated shown it is unable to bring consistently), we're all dead in the water.

As I said, if you have to sell the deal, the vehicle isn't what it should be, either in perception or reality.

Really? Smart money knows you LEASE what depreciates and BUY what appreciates: Rockefeller, the world's first billionaire coined that phrase. Why would you pay $350 a month for a used Corolla (at 9%) and have half of your 'savings' eaten up by interest? Joe Lunchbucket would be far better off to lease a new Cobalt at 0.9% and dump the car in 4 years. Why should he give a crap if GMAC takes a bath at the auctions?

Maybe you should climb out of your Lexus budget (like you accuse Wagoner & Co.) and mix with the plebians for a while. People don't have $15k plus taxes CASH to buy a used Corolla with 25k miles on it that's been beaten up by some car jockey on a rental lot. You show me where paying $4k in INTEREST on a one year old car over 5 years (or try a 72 month term for real laughs!) is of any f'ing benefit to the average Joe? You've been drinking Toyota's kool-aid for far, far too long.

Get on the floor and work the numbers for yourself. A new lease (from GMAC, not Toyota credit who is going to screw the client) is a much better deal than a used car. Period. You talk about risk aversion. Where is the downside on a new lease at 0.9???

[The O.C.]

It was "the deal" that got it for me. I got an amazing deal on my CTS about 13 months after it had been released.

I shudder to think it was "the deal" that got it for you......not the fact that the CTS was actually a far superior product to an XG350, Legacy, 300M, or other General Motors products.......

You are a PRIME example of Enzl's whole POINT....! And you walked RIGHT into it.

(Contrary......for the most part, a new CTS at our store is more expensive, payment-wise, on a lease, than a comparable 3-Series or C-Class. But you know what? CTS is doing FAR better than it's ever done before (at least in the Las Vegas market.) People see real value in the styling, driving character, and appointments of this car. We'll see if the trend continues....)

[CARBIZ]

You make my point for me:

BUT FOR the deal, you would not have purchased the car.

Macro matters as individual anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to an argument. Gimme a call when GM isn't going to have to bribe people to buy most of their product.

Simply put, if you want to compete with Used car lots and 2nd tier Japanese/Korean intenders, then GM is doing all that it can to sell cars.

However, if you peruse the latest public filings, I think you'll see that GM selling cars doesn't equate to GM making money.

But GM has always had to bribe people to take their cars! Are you new around here? Hell, I was drawn to my '91 Caprice because GMAC was offering 9.9% (a good deal at the time), even though I looked at the Thunderbird SC and new Grand Caravan. Chevy knocked Ford off its pedestal in the '50s with styling and PRICE.

Don't believe your own press clippings. I laugh every time I see a new 'study' that puts 'price' at 3rd or 4 on the customer's list. That's pure BS and something the marketing people would like us to believe. That's just another pile of BS.

[The O.C.]

But GM has always had to bribe people to take their cars! Are you new around here? Hell, I was drawn to my '91 Caprice because GMAC was offering 9.9% (a good deal at the time), even though I looked at the Thunderbird SC and new Grand Caravan. Chevy knocked Ford off its pedestal in the '50s with styling and PRICE.

Don't believe your own press clippings. I laugh every time I see a new 'study' that puts 'price' at 3rd or 4 on the customer's list. That's pure BS and something the marketing people would like us to believe. That's just another pile of BS.

Vague....really vague. What IS your definition of "price" in this matter? Who knows. And who knows what the consumer considers "price."

"Price" is usually considered to be a factor such as "I want a CTS" but I can "only afford a Cobalt." So, in that manner, YES...."price" is one of, if not THE most important consideration.

But, let's say you are comparing a CTS to a new 3-Series....where the lease payment differs by $50 (or so....pulling figures out of my ass)........most likely, price won't be nearly as big of a factor. If you are swayed enough by the CTS styling and features, you most likely can afford the extra $50.

It all depends on how you define it.

[The O.C.]

But GM has always had to bribe people to take their cars! Are you new around here? Hell, I was drawn to my '91 Caprice because GMAC was offering 9.9% (a good deal at the time), even though I looked at the Thunderbird SC and new Grand Caravan. Chevy knocked Ford off its pedestal in the '50s with styling and PRICE.

Don't believe your own press clippings. I laugh every time I see a new 'study' that puts 'price' at 3rd or 4 on the customer's list. That's pure BS and something the marketing people would like us to believe. That's just another pile of BS.

Do you realize how much CTS traffic we get at the dealership NOT because of any sort of "deal?"

"Where's the Car of the Year?" "I wanna test drive that new Direct Injection V6." "I heard Caddy has this new BMW-fighter!"

GM has shown they can do it.

[CARBIZ]

I shudder to think it was "the deal" that got it for you......not the fact that the CTS was actually a far superior product to an XG350, Legacy, 300M, or other General Motors products.......

You are a PRIME example of Enzl's whole POINT....! And you walked RIGHT into it.

(Contrary......for the most part, a new CTS at our store is more expensive, payment-wise, on a lease, than a comparable 3-Series or C-Class. But you know what? CTS is doing FAR better than it's ever done before (at least in the Las Vegas market.) People see real value in the styling, driving character, and appointments of this car. We'll see if the trend continues....)

First of all, the ugly secret is that certain cultures (and this is incredibly non-PC to talk about, but screw it) are only drawn to the 'deal.' These people won't buy a car unless there is a 'deal.' Secondly, nobody is going to buy a POS unless the car is free, so the 'deal' is more about perception than anything, but in my examples above, would you pay $100 a month more for a Corolla than a loaded Cobalt LT? Or put another way, would you buy a Corolla LE over a Malibu LT1, because their payment is the same around here - and that doesn't even factor in all the 'under the radar' deals like GM visa points, grad rebates and the current "Mid-car" bonus which will give a Camry, Altima, Intrepid, Taurus, etc, owner $750 off.

Long term, I will grant you that GM has to get off this 'deal' merry go round, but my points above are to debunk the myth that Toyotas hold their value better. I warrant they only hold their value if you can pay CASH and if that CASH is not borrowed (even against a line of credit.) In fact, unless you are a drug dealer, you should not have any cash, so either way you lose with Toyota.

GM's car and trucks are getting more 'desirable,' but until they dispel this Toyota is better BS, the deal will have to do.

[CARBIZ]

Vague....really vague. What IS your definition of "price" in this matter? Who knows. And who knows what the consumer considers "price."

"Price" is usually considered to be a factor such as "I want a CTS" but I can "only afford a Cobalt." So, in that manner, YES...."price" is one of, if not THE most important consideration.

But, let's say you are comparing a CTS to a new 3-Series....where the lease payment differs by $50 (or so....pulling figures out of my ass)........most likely, price won't be nearly as big of a factor. If you are swayed enough by the CTS styling and features, you most likely can afford the extra $50.

It all depends on how you define it.

True, a CTS buyer (who presumably makes a good income and isn't in hock up to his/her teeth) won't be as drawn to the 'deal,' but it may help tip the scales. I am talking more about the Corolla/Cobalt buyers, most of whom are recent grads, newly married couples, etc. They are very concerned about payment. Many of the import humpers on this board keep harping about how GM is a bad deal for Joe Lunchbucket, and I am debunking that with real world figures.

A CTS/BMW buyer is more likely going to be impressed by ride/handling and, of course, snob appeal (probably the most over-riding factor in this market.)

[Drew Dowdell]

I shudder to think it was "the deal" that got it for you......not the fact that the CTS was actually a far superior product to an XG350, Legacy, 300M, or other General Motors products.......

You are a PRIME example of Enzl's whole POINT....! And you walked RIGHT into it.

(Contrary......for the most part, a new CTS at our store is more expensive, payment-wise, on a lease, than a comparable 3-Series or C-Class. But you know what? CTS is doing FAR better than it's ever done before (at least in the Las Vegas market.) People see real value in the styling, driving character, and appointments of this car. We'll see if the trend continues....)

Apparently I wasn't clear.

The only way I could afford the car was "the deal". As far as wanting one over the other cars I drove, there was no contest. The CTS "sold" itself. The only way I could have gotten the car was because of "the deal". I could not have afforded a CTS at MSRP at the time of the sale. However, I would have just waited till I had a bigger down payment and bought the car at a later date. If I had bought one of the other models I looked at, it only would have been because I was unable to afford the car I really wanted.

No one buys a Cobalt <non-SS> or Corolla because they are pining for one, drooling over it ever since seeing it at the autoshow. People buy one of these cars because of "the deal". Given the ability to afford more car, few people are going to pick a Cobalt or Corolla over a Malibu or Camry. Whether it be at the dealership, the service desk, the gas pump, or all three the perception is that the Corolla as the better deal. What Carbiz is trying to show is that the Corolla isn't the deal it appears to be.

edit: I still think I'm not being clear enough. Point is, even if the CTS were $50 cheaper on a lease price than a 3-series, I wasn't about to march over to the BMW dealership and sign on the dotted line. I didn't even bother to test drive the 3-series because it's looks don't appeal to me.

[enzl]

Really? Smart money knows you LEASE what depreciates and BUY what appreciates: Rockefeller, the world's first billionaire coined that phrase. Why would you pay $350 a month for a used Corolla (at 9%) and have half of your 'savings' eaten up by interest? Joe Lunchbucket would be far better off to lease a new Cobalt at 0.9% and dump the car in 4 years. Why should he give a crap if GMAC takes a bath at the auctions?

Maybe you should climb out of your Lexus budget (like you accuse Wagoner & Co.) and mix with the plebians for a while. People don't have $15k plus taxes CASH to buy a used Corolla with 25k miles on it that's been beaten up by some car jockey on a rental lot. You show me where paying $4k in INTEREST on a one year old car over 5 years (or try a 72 month term for real laughs!) is of any f'ing benefit to the average Joe? You've been drinking Toyota's kool-aid for far, far too long.

Get on the floor and work the numbers for yourself. A new lease (from GMAC, not Toyota credit who is going to screw the client) is a much better deal than a used car. Period. You talk about risk aversion. Where is the downside on a new lease at 0.9???

Still trying to sell me a Cobalt, huh?

I don't want a deal, I want a car, man.

When people are coming to a GM dealer for its product, rather than the deal, you'll be 100% right.

Until then, you can keep the Cobalt. There's simply much better choices out there. And deals to be had on many of them. (Subaru has 0% financing, Mazda is at 1.9% and even BMW is advertising 3.9% on Certified Used, for examples.) Apparently, GM doesn't own a patent on selling deals.

[enzl]

Apparently I wasn't clear.

The only way I could afford the car was "the deal". As far as wanting one over the other cars I drove, there was no contest. The CTS "sold" itself. The only way I could have gotten the car was because of "the deal". I could not have afforded a CTS at MSRP at the time of the sale. However, I would have just waited till I had a bigger down payment and bought the car at a later date. If I had bought one of the other models I looked at, it only would have been because I was unable to afford the car I really wanted.

No one buys a Cobalt <non-SS> or Corolla because they are pining for one, drooling over it ever since seeing it at the autoshow. People buy one of these cars because of "the deal". Given the ability to afford more car, few people are going to pick a Cobalt or Corolla over a Malibu or Camry. Whether it be at the dealership, the service desk, the gas pump, or all three the perception is that the Corolla as the better deal. What Carbiz is trying to show is that the Corolla isn't the deal it appears to be.

edit: I still think I'm not being clear enough. Point is, even if the CTS were $50 cheaper on a lease price than a 3-series, I wasn't about to march over to the BMW dealership and sign on the dotted line. I didn't even bother to test drive the 3-series because it's looks don't appeal to me.

You can't make a deal with someone who won't even walk into your showroom, so your points are moot.

And if you don't think Joe Lunchbucket doesn't look at safety or reliability or reputation before buying a car, then you're just being elitist and naive. Many people are paying 'more' for their Toyonda...and perfectly happy to do it.

BTW- You're still admitting you got the CTS on a 'deal', regardless of how you try to wriggle out of your own statements.

[Drew Dowdell]

BTW- You're still admitting you got the CTS on a 'deal', regardless of how you try to wriggle out of your own statements.

I got an amazing deal on the CTS, however that was not my reasoning for buying it as you are trying to assume. I would have paid MSRP for the CTS if I had been able to afford it and if the dealer wasn't negotiating. I desired the CTS. No one desires a Cobalt or Corolla.

You can't make a deal with someone who won't even walk into your showroom, so your points are moot.

And if you don't think Joe Lunchbucket doesn't look at safety or reliability or reputation before buying a car, then you're just being elitist and naive. Many people are paying 'more' for their Toyonda...and perfectly happy to do it.

I'm not sure where this part is coming from. I never said that people didn't look at safety or reliability or reputation before making a purchase. I specifically waited for the HF3.6 because I knew the 3.2 offered at launch was inadequate. GM did themselves a disservice by offering that engine at launch, but the 3.6 has been great enough that they've been forgiven for it.

People buy Toyondas for two reasons:

1. Consumer Reports tells them to.

2. Their great aunt's, roomate's, lesbian lover had a used Chevy Vega that broke down two miles outside of the dealership in 1981.

In nearly every case, feature v. feature, reliability v. reliability, price v. price, the domestics will offer a better deal than Toyondassan. However, most sheeple don't bother to do the research. Yes there are exceptions, but for the bulk of the lineups, this is true.

[Intrepidation]

Something to consider. I would gladly pay extra for a product that is considerably better than cheap out. Is the Corolla significantly better than the Cobalt? In my opinion no, but the Mazda3 sure as a hell is...and I would gladly pay $3000 extra or whatever, than be reminded every day that I settled for the cheaper car.

[Drew Dowdell]

Something to consider. I would gladly pay extra for a product that is considerably better than cheap out. Is the Corolla significantly better than the Cobalt? In my opinion no, but the Mazda3 sure as a hell is...and I would gladly pay $3000 extra or whatever, than be reminded every day that I settled for the cheaper car.

There it is! That's what I'm trying to say!