What do you really think?

[ddustan]

I'm with CSpec on this. This list is right on. I feel like the American car industry must take "baby steps." It took a decade to get rid of ribbon speedometers and then slushy automatics... Maybe they can look at what all people are really buying, not just GM owners!

David

I voted No. Here's my list of class leaders:

Cobalt SS s/c (not the others)
Corvette (I'm not sure what class it's in, but it's damn good)
GTO
SSR (that's cheating since it doesnt have direct competitors, but kudos for trying something new)
Sky (over Solstice based on interior)
9-3 SportCombi 2.8t
GMT-900s

[post="57277"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[Snate]

There are very few cars that are really "Class-Leading"...from any manufacturer. All depends on what you are going for. Everything is a trade-off.

[NOS2006]

There are very few cars that are really "Class-Leading"...from any manufacturer.  All depends on what you are going for.  Everything is a trade-off.

[post="63609"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not only that, but they are "class-leading" in whose perspective? I agree with ya.

[pow]

Maybe "tasteful" is a better word. I realize taste is in the tastebud of the taster, but most GM products seem to suffer in this regard. I agree the majority of GM products have competitive "substance" (who doesn't?), only to be let down by refinement issues that border on offensive. It's hard to quantify subjective things like dash bongers, power seat motor speed, and the number of A/C vents, but generally, these are the only things that differentiate cars and make one preferable to another. Now I'm not to say who has a better sense of taste, but perhaps there are some quantifiable qualities, as evidenced by the general opinion that GM products are improving. The greater the effort GM spends on making their cars more "tasteful", the better they seem to be doing (as judged by the media and the public)... hmm... connection, maybe? :AH-HA_wink:

[turbo200]

Maybe "tasteful" is a better word. I realize taste is in the tastebud of the taster, but most GM products seem to suffer in this regard. I agree the majority of GM products have competitive "substance" (who doesn't?), only to be let down by refinement issues that border on offensive. It's hard to quantify subjective things like dash bongers, power seat motor speed, and the number of A/C vents, but generally, these are the only things that differentiate cars and make one preferable to another. Now I'm not to say who has a better sense of taste, but perhaps there are some quantifiable qualities, as evidenced by the general opinion that GM products are improving. The greater the effort GM spends on making their cars more "tasteful", the better they seem to be doing (as judged by the media and the public)... hmm... connection, maybe? :AH-HA_wink:

[post="63654"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

you've hit the nail on the head. GM's problems go a little further than this as well, but the "class" factor has been the biggest idea missing from GM's consumer products. Having a consumer driven business means you must understand the sentiment of the consumer. GM has lost too many sales to imports that have come in with fanicer interiors, quieter engines, more refined designs and in too many cases more sophisticated chassis dynamics. One need look no further than GM's own newest products and compare them with what is coming out of Toyota now and in the near future. The Colorado has been completely blown away by the Tacoma; Camry will completely blow away Malibu and Impala, Lacrosse, G6, and every other GM midsizer currently in production, it will even have a nicer interior than most current Cadillacs; Rav4 will completely blow away Equinox, Torrent, and Vue, and every other midsize ute GM currently has; 4runner is more expensive looking thanks to tighter and flusher panel gaps and the interior is worlds ahead, engines and suspensions are closer to each other; Yaris has a better, higher quality interior, with more genuine looking alluminum trim than Cobalt; Cobalt interior is already outclassed by current 5-year old Corolla.

It's that factor of taste, of class, of substance, of tailor made goods that is hugely, resoundingly missing from GM.

[nrd515]

Hi everyone, first post! I have owned quite a few GM vehicles, the first being a 72 Cutlass, the last being a 2000 Sierra pickup. Only the Cutlass had any really bad problems. Right now, there are only a few GM vehicles that really get my attention: The Solstice..not my kind of car, but looks good. The big SUVs are something GM does better than anyone else. I really like the Tahoe/Yukon, but a truck is much cheaper, and does what I need to. Corvette: I wish I could afford one. I didn't like the older ones from 74 until 98(?) too much, but they sure got faster as time went by. HHR. not a huge fan of the drivetrain, but looks ok. Avalanche: I would have bought one in 03, but they got too much more for it than a normal pickup, so I passed. Right over to the Dodge dealer and bought a 2003 Ram Quad Cab. I was going to buy another Sierra, but dealer games irritated me, along with the ABS problems GM trucks have, and I jumped. The Chevy frontend is truly bad, and GMC was the only option. I have to admit, I like the Ram better than ANY previous car/truck I have ever had. Had a rear end problem, fixed under warranty, and warped rotors (Can't anyone make stock rotors that don't warp?), that's about it. The Caddies: In general, they are all pretty decently done. I could live with any of the rear drives if I had to. Hummer. A friend has a H2. Too slow for me, but he loves it. Buick: Well, They havent made anything I would want for almost 35 years, so I don't know what to say about them. Pontiac has had nothing I care about since the T/A was killed. As far as class leaders go: In fullsized pickups the F150 looks great and I really like the interior, but the bed is too high for much use as a truck (I do use mine for hauling once in a while), it's slow, and judging from a neighbor and a friend, has a lot of tranny failures. How Ford can keep having transmission problems is something I don't understand. The Titan has the best engine/trans combo, though I think the hemi would be even better with a similar transmission. The truck itself is not great, to put it mildly. My friend has one, leased it (Yay for him!) and it's falling apart. It makes noises when you go over a rough set of train tracks that are downright scary. Somthing is going on in the back of the cab, but the dealer and a few other people who have looked, cant find the cause. The Dana 44 Rear doesn't seem strong enough either, as he has had problems with it twice in 30K. The Tacoma is about the only small truck worth looking at anymore. The GM twins are goofy looking, and seriously lack power. The Dakota is one ugly truck since it's latest redesign and the Ranger is so old it's ridiculous. The mid sized SUV crown has to go to the 4Runner, mostly due to the Durango being one of the most insanely ugly things made since the Aztek. It's too bad, the Durango drives great, is built like a tank, but that "styling", yuck. The Trailblazer and clones are ok, but not great. As far as cars go, there aren't a lot out there that I'm interested in, that are in my price range anyway, but if GM gets the Camaro right, I will probably be there. But, if they blow it, the Challenger (anyone really think it won't be built?) will be there at the local Doge dealer, and so will I. The Charger was a huge dissapointment. If they hadn't blown it, I might have one now.

[PontiacTechNJ]

I could agree with this list with the exception of the pickups.  F-150 is better, but the corresponding SUVs are better at GM.  I'll accept Lucerne though I think it is missing a lot of features it should have.  DTS?  No.  Lucerne is better than it, so DTS cannot be classleading since they really compete in the same class.

[post="57259"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Why is the F150 better ? Engine SUCKS - no power , ages poorly - leaker - explosive - low tech transmission -non truck styling - poor handling

[The O.C.]

Why is the F150 better ? Engine SUCKS - no power , ages poorly - leaker - explosive - low tech transmission -non truck styling - poor handling

[post="65707"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

F-150 deserves its #1 sales ranking.

We got to spend a couple of days in an F-150 Lariat as a loaner vehicle and was extremely impressed.

F-150 is heavier than GM's full-size pickups.....but one things for sure, it feels a hell of a lot stouter and more solid than the last Silverado we had (also as a loaner.)

There was NO comparison in interior styling and/or quality......Ford rules this segment HANDS down (although that might change with GM's next generation pickups....)

The 5.4L OHC 3V/cyl engine certainly doesn't "suck"......Ford's getting a smooth 300hp and 365lb/ft of torque (at 3,750rpm) from the 5.4L V8. Compare that to Silverado at 295hp and much less torque at higher rpm (335lb/ft at 4,000rpm.)

[Munson05]

They have made some progress, the Cobalt SS the HHR are home runs, I think the new pontiac G6 isnt quite there yet but its a step in the right direction. The GTO I love I have one and it is a truly underrated car. The old style Tahoe was in need of updating and thats more than been addressed, with the excellent new truck. The Solstice is great the sky and Aura arent here yet. I think the General has waited too long to get them to market. I think the Aura and new Ion are going to be huge for GM. The Camaro is sick! I just hope they make it. Gm is on the right track although I think they are taking a little too long. IMO they should get the Aura and the restyled Malibu here ASAP, and pull a soltice style run to Market for the Camaro. The Media is not interested in helpng out at all. You hear about every mess up and stock drop by GM but not enough of the positive stuff gets any air play. So they have to do it right . Were on the right track I just hope they continue. AND GIVE MY NEW CAMARO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Edited January 11, 2006 by Munson05

[CARBIZ]

O.C.,: hate to break it to you, but the combined Sierra/Silverado outsells the F-150. Hmm, where should I begin? Several plates of metal combining the tailgate. The tailgate is so heavy it needs a torsion bar to assist in the opening and closing. I am 6'2" and can't reach the floor of the bed over the sides of the bed. The bed is made of three pieces of metal welded together, instead of one with no seams. Dontcha just love those 4 bolts right in the middle of the bed of the Ford? Ford always lies about their payloads and tow rating because of their heavier weight. Confuse consumers with GVWR and GCWR and they'll get away with it. My personal favorite? You still have to get out and turn the front locking hubs in the super duty! Oh, and the steering box in in Front of the front hub - great place for getting whacked by a rock when on a construction site! Face it, with last year's redesign, Ford barely caught up to what GM had done in their 1999 make over: bussed electrical systems, hydroformed steel frames, etc. Ford makes them cheap and sells them cheap. I will grant that their interiors look nicer, if you want to spend $40k (Canadian) for the upgraded one. If GM is listening at all, they will make sure the redesign of their pickups include fixing their interiors!

[The O.C.]

O.C.,: hate to break it to you, but the combined Sierra/Silverado outsells the F-150.
  Hmm, where should I begin?  Several plates of metal combining the tailgate.  The tailgate is so heavy it needs a torsion bar to assist in the opening and closing.  I am 6'2" and can't reach the floor of the bed over the sides of the bed.  The bed is made of three pieces of metal welded together, instead of one with no seams.  Dontcha just love those 4 bolts right in the middle of the bed of the Ford?  Ford always lies about their payloads and tow rating because of their heavier weight.  Confuse consumers with GVWR and GCWR and they'll get away with it.  My personal favorite?  You still have to get out and turn the front locking hubs in the super duty!  Oh, and the steering box in in Front of the front hub - great place for getting whacked by a rock when on a construction site!
  Face it, with last year's redesign, Ford barely caught up to what GM had done in their 1999 make over:  bussed electrical systems, hydroformed steel frames, etc.  Ford makes them cheap and sells them cheap.
  I will grant that their interiors look nicer, if you want to spend $40k (Canadian) for the upgraded one.  If GM is listening at all, they will make sure the redesign of their pickups include fixing their interiors!

[post="71904"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Spin it however you want.....Ford simply builds a FAR superior full-size pickup.

AND my opinion is based upon many miles of test-driving in BOTH Ford AND Chevrolet full-sizers.....

.....and YES....you ARE right.....IF GM is listening, they WILL make sure they fix their interiors in the next redesign.

[Flybrian]

Really, the interiors are the current trucks' only downfall. Even as is, the insides are perfectly fine for a truck, but not for what the market wants today.

[rkmdogs]

Really, the interiors are the current trucks' only downfall. Even as is, the insides are perfectly fine for a truck, but not for what the market wants today.

[post="72475"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have been reading these opinions with much interest, 'cause there does not seem to be much consensus, just brand loyalty, but flybrian you just hit a nerve with your comment.

I have owned several late-model Chevrolet trucks, and one area they just cannot get right is--- MIRRORS!
Especially ones for vehicles used for towing. I have yet to see GM offer anything that matches the Ford mirrors for extendability and steadyness.
I had 3 sets on my 2001 Express, and they never could get them to stop vibrating so bad that you could not tell what you were seeing in them!
And when I hitched up the trailer, I could not see any closer that almost 30 feet behind it, because they did not set out far enough.
Side windows---- the cut-down that Ford has on their truck windows is not just a
styling quirk. It lets the mirror sit lower and lets you see better in the blind spots.
Lighting: At GM the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Since the DOT stopped making standard-sized lamps a requirement, and has allowed contoured plastic lens covers, actual lighting optics has gone in the dumper on most of GM's vehicles. They need to get an optics department to work out a correct
lens design for each body model, so that the lights do a job, and not be just another decoration!
And this business of a quad lamp system, but only two light at a time----- that's why people are buying and using mis-aimed fog lights!
When I added after-market relay kits, so that all four lamps could stay on, on
high-beam, what a world of difference for night driving on a black, country road,
with no street lights.
GM touts its' heads-up display and shows picking up deer at night in its' display.
Well, if you had a 4 light system that worked as it should, and was used responsibly, that would be a far cheaper solution!l Edited January 22, 2006 by rkmdogs