Frisky Dingo

You wanna talk about ME being clueless and you go make such a pathetically biased fanboy post??? Please. The Malibu sells near the bottom of the barrel of the current midsize market for very, very good reason. A cheap, chintzy interior, small back seat, bland design, poor content for the price, and less than class-leading reliability and value all conspire against it. Resale value? That's a good one. They have atrocious residual. My dealer can't hardly give Malibus away, and we're squarely in pro-Domestic America. No fan boy comments here troll. the Malibu as we have now is a left over design of old GM that was just put in to buy time. It is not the class leader but it is far from the worst car in class. too. Outside of the Honda and Toyota there are no real winners in resale here as so many cars are sold in this segment. Fleet sales have hurt the GM car and I expect that we will see the new car restricted from these sales as they have many of their other new cars. As for not being able to sell a Malibu you do realize how many there are out there. It sounds more like a sales man issue to me. You may not be in sales as you can't sell this pathetic story line very well. hmmm. I get it you wash cars that is how you get to drive so many cars? Pay attention and GM will sell the new car and keep the old one for fleets. This will help on resale. Also it is supply and demand. Time will tell if GM can keep demand up on these as they sell more and more of them. Many people are buying the Honda and Toyota too because they can't afford the new ones since they are higher priced. Even with a hit it will take time to earn the reputation in this segment. Even Ford with the Fusion is still working on this and they too have a very good car. These things do not happen over night. I'm sorry, are you really trying to insult me because of my profession?? Real original reply there. And mature. Are my feelings supposed to be hurt because I sell cars? We don't hardly sell Malibus because people don't want them. They don't even ask for them. They'd rather buy Camrys and Accords because they're better all around options for the class. As for the sales thing. GM tried that with the new Impala, too. Guess what? They still don't hold their value for $h!.

It's like I've been arguing in the thread about pushrods. It's all about low end torque. This new 1.5T has as much torque at 2,000 rpm as the current 2.5 produces at 4,400 rpm. As a base engine, it will do fine. Drew it is clear he has no clue or even has driven one of the Eco DI Turbo engines as it has more low end Torque than some recent V8 models and a torque curve flatter than the Bonneville. It is post like this that lose credibility in the argument and he finishes himself off. Two things- 1)I'd like to know what your response is going to be when the car comes out and reviewers say it feels underpowered. 2)Hyper, I work in the car business. I've driven and forgotten about more cars than yo can imagine. I OWNED a turbocharged car for years. Here's a news flash for you- turbo, NA, pushrod, OHC, an engine that's underpowered is underpowered. End of discussion. It's clear YOU don't know WTF you're talking about. Frisk What are you going to say if they come back with that this is a compelling car and a top choice in the segment? As for you working in the industry what are you a car salesman? I work in the performance industry and understand there is more to car than just saying underpowered. You have to use all the factors like mass gearing and torque to understand just how a car feels. HP alone is not a true measure of how a car feels or even performs. Even in this class what is considered adequate performance is not on the same scale as say a Camaro. Added Torque at the low end and cutting of mass can make a very good feeling and performing package here. Lets let them put it out there and see just what we get. GM has made few mistakes here of late in the performance department. I would be shocked if the new engine did not run as good or if not better than the 2.5. News flash you do not have all the answers here. Note it is clear to more than me. No $h! Sherlock. The car went to a down sized turbo I4 engine that I feel will be barely adequate for such a vehicle. Argue that all you want, but you're not going to change my mind. This is the newest car in this segment, and it is starting off having to overcome a power deficit to many other players. So it makes torque a few grand earlier. The current 2.5 isn't exactly a slouch down low. It's also losing almost 40 hp, is the same torque and down on hp compared to the 1.5 Fusion, despite it's torque curve still won't match the best acceleration in the I4 class. If they say it's the best in class, good for them. That won't change the fact that it's underpowered if it turns out to be the case.

You wanna talk about ME being clueless and you go make such a pathetically biased fanboy post??? Please. The Malibu sells near the bottom of the barrel of the current midsize market for very, very good reason. A cheap, chintzy interior, small back seat, bland design, poor content for the price, and less than class-leading reliability and value all conspire against it. Resale value? That's a good one. They have atrocious residual. My dealer can't hardly give Malibus away, and we're squarely in pro-Domestic America.

It's like I've been arguing in the thread about pushrods. It's all about low end torque. This new 1.5T has as much torque at 2,000 rpm as the current 2.5 produces at 4,400 rpm. As a base engine, it will do fine. Drew it is clear he has no clue or even has driven one of the Eco DI Turbo engines as it has more low end Torque than some recent V8 models and a torque curve flatter than the Bonneville. It is post like this that lose credibility in the argument and he finishes himself off. Two things- 1)I'd like to know what your response is going to be when the car comes out and reviewers say it feels underpowered. 2)Hyper, I work in the car business. I've driven and forgotten about more cars than yo can imagine. I OWNED a turbocharged car for years. Here's a news flash for you- turbo, NA, pushrod, OHC, an engine that's underpowered is underpowered. End of discussion. It's clear YOU don't know WTF you're talking about.

Not a fan. And I usually kinda like Bentleys.

I'm sorry, I still think this thing is going to feel pokey. I think anything under 180hp is too little for this class. Even with the weight loss, I can see this thing feeling labored, especially with 2-3 passengers and cargo. Heck, you can get more powerful engines in the Mazda 3 and Focus. As for the sales, I think the sales will increase very little, if at all. GM refuses to get aggressive on leasing programs, and coupled with ever increasing CUV market share, it sets the stage for mediocre sales. I can also all but guarantee there will be issues at launch with availability of certain trims, options, etc. That said, I'm still very much looking forward to seeing one in person and driving one.

I predict this car is still going to continue with poor sales. I really like the styling. I don't like how they are lowering power levels, though.

I'll be honest, I'd be hard pressed to find something to change on a Sierra Denali or SLT Crew Cab 6.2. It's the best styling, paired with the best powertrain, best interior, and highest refinement levels. For an everyday truck that was seeing light work and truck duties, it'd be it all the way. For an off-road truck, I'd happily take the Raptor as-is in it's current form. If I had to nitpick, I'd put the GM 6.2 and interior in it. Ditto for the new one, because Idk that I'd prefer the EcoBoost over the 6.2. For a street/play truck, I'd probably want a new body Ford Single Cab 2WD with the GM 6.2, or supercharged Toyota 5.7.

Still wouldn't have anything in this class unless Subaru built a new Legacy GT, Mazda a MS6, or until the Fusion ST comes.

Not entirely true. Tires in many cases are now getting smaller. Cadillac has tried to cut the size of the tires and wheels on most models to cut weight and unsprung weight. They are not going to 20-22 inch wheels as they can get the same or better results with smaller lighter wheels and tires. Sway bars are not bigger but better matched along with softer springs and magnetic struts and shocks. The old days of bigger tires, bars and stiffer springs are over and better design and integration is what is working. The secret are things like GM's is Mark Stielow who is one of the leading suspension engineers and one of the many who has been freed to do what they can not just what they are told. The major move at GM was the disbanding of the GM Performance Division. This high skilled group took poor cars and made them into super cars. Now they were taken and integrated in new car platforms from the start. Computer engineering and the idea that less is more like many Euro models have done for years. While GM made cars that were amazing on the test track they failed in the real world. While testing at the Ring may be cliché it really give the extreme conditions of the real world roads and not a perfectly paved black lake or race track. Smart engineering is where companies are making progress. At GM empowered engineers are where they have made the greatest gains. For too many years they had the best engineers but kept them on a leash and underfunded. Today these engineers are empowered and funded to a degree we have not seen in years. That folks is why we have cars like the CTS and Z06 able to do things that pre GM bail out was seen as impossible for a Front Engine Sports Car and a 4 door sedan. This is more about people and not so much just technology alone. Check the track record of GM's improved drivetrains and suspensions and it is tied to the arrival of Bob Lutz who changed the Culture. I know a driveline engineer who said Bob told them he had their backs and now do what you can do and wait to be told to do it. Hence the ZR1 engine. The sheet metal gaps were a mess and Bob asked if they could do better and the engineer said yes but they were not told to do it. Bob said done wait and just give me the best gaps you can. This became the 08 Malibu the first GM product to have class leading gaps. The GM Performance division was given room to work under Bob with John Henrency and they made cars like a Tahoe and Cobalt turn times at the ring right with a Camaro SS. The tricks they used is some technology but most is just plain good engineering. I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I didn't say newer cars were using bigger tires, although many of them are. I said tire technology has advanced greatly. And it has. As for GM's cars, I'm not specifically counting those cars as examples of driver systems improving, but on the whole, cars have gotten more an more dependent on advanced traction and stability control systems.

Admitted NSX-hater checking in again. Maybe Honda should be putting more effort into this thing instead of that neat motorcycle/car mash-up thing that will never see the light of day.

I don't recall anyone saying one particular car's performance was on account of it's tires, or that new cars were just 'bigger tires and sway bars'. That said, if you were to take the top three advancements of performance cars, it's definitely tires, driving aids/modes, and transmissions. No contest.

In some cars, weight has gone up, in others, it's gone down.

Yeah, I'm not taking anything away from it, because it's true of all the contenders of the last few years. Just pointing out a factor than many often overlook.

In their defense, a lot of that gap is due to tire technology and outright power.

Wow, I see several things of note. First off, bravo to GM for the times their products turned in. While the CTS-V should have had no difficulty setting a new record for sport sedans, I am admittedly impressed by the Z06's time. I would not have thought it'd beat out the 650S, and I thought the GT3 would give it all it could handle. The ATS V cars were about where I expected- close to the M4's time. This was a very embarrassing showing for Ford. The EcoBoost is just pathetic, and even the GT had a poor lap. People talked about this being on par with the new M4 in terms of performance, but it barely beat the OLD M3. Makes me wonder if the GT350 is going to be able to put up the times Ford is implying. Does anyone really see this thing beating out a GT3? Speaking of GT3, say what you will about it being beat by the Vette, but that is an incredibly impressive performance. The next car with less than 500hp is 3 and hald seconds back, and it lapped faster than many mega powered exotics have over the years. It's only been beat out by near-racecars and cars with huge power advantages. I'd love to see the new RS get a go-round. The RC-F, to the surprise of nobody, is underwhelming. Over 5 secs slower than the M4, and slower than even the Mustang GT. Holy crap Lexus.

It better be drastically improved over what's in the cars now.

Gotta hand it to them, they're really making a bid to become a bigger player.

I'll believe it when I see it. Overall, their lineup is no more exciting than Toyota's. The only mainstream brand worse is Nissan.

Like I said, even if you DO add the 1LE suspension to the 15MY car, it's 5K cheaper than a 2SS with MRC. It's also a 5K diff if you don't add either option to either car.

Fair enough. And I'm not quite saying it is either. But it may be dangerously close, and it may affect sales.

Okay, that's a fair enough point I suppose. They are essentially doing what Ferrari does in targeting a special model with a standard one. However, having said that, Ford supposedly did too, by targeting the Boss, and the Mustang didn't get as much of a price jump. I understand the Camaro will most likely be the superior car, but while that matters to people like us, it won't to most buyers. As for the cost difference loaded up, it appears as though the current car is roughly 8K cheaper all up. That's a lot of money. Especially when it encroaches on C7 territory as you said. Time will tell just how good of a car it is, and if reviewers think it's worth the price increase. I still look forward to driving one, but unless I'm blown away by it, I've nixed it from my list of next possible cars. How do you figure the current gen is 8k cheaper? I priced a 2015 2SS with just the RS package and 1LE package and it already costs $43,000. Those are built into the '16 Camaro's starting price for the 2SS. I mean looking at the real essentials, the price is basically a wash. If I add the other performance parts, dual mode exhaust, recaro seats, a special edition package, wheels, etc. I can make the 2015 Camaro 2SS cost over $50,000 easy. Also, I wasn't saying the 2SS was priced too close to the Corvette, I was saying the performance and interior are closer to the Corvette than ever. The only difference between the Stingray and Camaro SS is a few hundred pounds of curb weight. I don't think the Alpha chassis gives up anything as far steering and handling, both get the same 8-speed automatic. Well, if you are adding the 1LE Pkg to the cost, it narrows the gap, but until I see some figures, I'm not quite sure if adding it is the only fair way to compare pricing of the 15 and 16. A 2016 2SS w/ Nav, MRC, and sunroof alone will be roughly 48K. A 2SS with those same options sans MRC is right at 41K. If you want to go the extra mile and equip the 1LE suspension, it comes in at 43K. That's still a 5K gap. Regarding your second point, I see. I still think the Stingray will have a decisive advantage, but maybe I'm wrong.

The 1SS is priced identically to the 5th gen SS 1LE, which was their performance benchmark, and the SS now includes the RS package which makes it a better deal than the current gen. Performance isn't free. The 2SS is basically stepping on the toes of the Stingray Corvette and nobody ever accused the C7 of being overpriced. The $5k jump from 1SS to 2SS seems like a lot to me too, but we have limited information. Right now it just says leather interior and dual zone auto climate control, this is obviously not $5000 worth of upgrades. Maybe mag-ride is standard, maybe the $500 brake and cooling pkg is standard. People keep expecting better performance, better technology, and nicer interiors, well that sh*t costs money and the Camaro is hugely improved. Go to chevy.com and price out a 2015 Camaro equipped similarly to the 2016. The price difference isn't that vast. Okay, that's a fair enough point I suppose. They are essentially doing what Ferrari does in targeting a special model with a standard one. However, having said that, Ford supposedly did too, by targeting the Boss, and the Mustang didn't get as much of a price jump. I understand the Camaro will most likely be the superior car, but while that matters to people like us, it won't to most buyers. As for the cost difference loaded up, it appears as though the current car is roughly 8K cheaper all up. That's a lot of money. Especially when it encroaches on C7 territory as you said. Time will tell just how good of a car it is, and if reviewers think it's worth the price increase. I still look forward to driving one, but unless I'm blown away by it, I've nixed it from my list of next possible cars.

Even if it's only going away in the cars, it's still sad news. This new Charger being built on the Guilia platform, is it going to support a V8? I find it kind of difficult to believe, though it's not possible.

I'm not going to quote a bunch of posts, because those of you this one addresses know who you are. I and others aren't saying the car is overpriced just based on nothing of merit. I've clearly underlined what I find to be legitimate questions concerning the price increase. All me to do it again, line by line for clarity- 1)The car increased in price by $5,000. That is a 15.5% hike. That is quite considerable on a car that is already 32K. You can argue that the car is new and improved all day long and it is. But it also utilizes a chassis shared with several other cars, an engine shared with another one, and uses much the same hardware- Brembo brakes, 20" wheels, etc- as the last gen. 2)The 2SS is 5 grand more than the 1SS, but still leaves several notable features off- Nav, MRC, Sunroof, etc. If the only difference between the 1SS and 2SS is heated/cooled leather, stereo, and a few other minor bits, there should not be a 5K gap there. I did not say, nor imply the GT350 renders this car moot, and to argue such is just clearly being a baby. I said in 2SS form the car is only 5K away from the GT350. It is NOT an unreasonable claim to imagine that could be a factor for some buyers. It would for me. You all act like the GT350 is some stripped-out track car, and that's BS. It has Recaro seats from the factory, all the power amenities you'd want, and would be no more difficult to DD than a base model V6 Mustang. Furthermore, if you want the use the price of one with added features such as MRC, nav, and leather seats and what not, when you add those same things to the 2SS, you're still going to be left with a roughly 5 grand difference. Now, I am a full-fledged GM when it comes to domestics, but I can't imagine it'd be to hard to justify that extra 5 grand for the Shelby. Just for the performance alone, not to mention the intangibles like heritage, exclusivity, prestige, collector value, etc. Some of you guys are hitting the GM kool aid a little too hard. Gawd, I hope so. Because if they made a turbocharged ~275hp BRZ or FRS, I'd have bought one yesterday. I wouldn't, however, buy a turbo-4 Camaro or Mustang. V8 or bust for me.