turbo200

Is this too much to ask for? In your most reasonable of mindsets, balthazar, razoredge, et al, are we asking for too much by asking for GM to simply live up to the competition's standard? GM simply has failed in too many regards, and I will point it out and keep them on thier toes and question leadership to make sure they are doing thier best as long as I am alive.

Is this theory anything like blaming GM for saab's long-running woes? Or the arrogance of blaming GM with commentary such as 'Car X doesn't have a glove box lamp, no wonder GM has lost half of it's (historic high) market share!!!!!' This degree of broadbrush whitewashing is never deserved and never objective. Constructive criticism is fine as long as the treatment of the industry remains balanced. Oops. Arrogance Boulevard is a 2-way street. [post="82700"][/post] It's a lot like blaming GM for Saab's woes. It's consistent and objective analysis taken from a point of view of knowing some of the inner-workings of the corporation and seeing the results. Saab is a great example of piss-poor management. Zarella and all Brand imaging whizes decided to pour money into trucks and ignore cars because trucks were where all the profits were. What they neglected to see was the explosion of luxury makes right around that time. BMW and MB were both having successes with each new redesign and model introduction. What a different story we'd be looking at if Sigma had spawned just two additional cars for Saab. Saab's cars would probably be much better executed than Caddy's have been. GM was arrogant enough to look at its sales channel and look at its still gigantic share of the market and ignore all the signs that there product wasn't ENOUGH! Their product was shoddy! And little by little people were waking up to the fact. Today we have reached a point now where many Americans hate GM. They have sampled the product, either from today, or from the last decade, and have seen no justifiable reason to go back. They hate GM, because of all the crap GM has put out there. Go out and drive a Lumina and try telling me it compares to Accord's and Camry's of the time. Go out and drive a Buick from the time and try telling me it doesn't shake and rattle and look like it's designed straight out of the 70's. There was just so much wrong with the company, I can't believe college educated people were in charge of the company.

It's a shame, but they wouldn't be where they are today without the cash infusion from GM. Though it looks like that's what they needed to get back on the rise.

Sorry BV, most of the content of that post wasn't meant for you. Your line about Honda got me thinking about the many times someone here has tried to say they have crappy reliability, based on one instance or one recall. Honda and Toyota like any other manufacturer are going to have thier issues, but as a whole, they have produced cars that are a lot more perfect and durable over time than any other carmaker, and that really is a fact. though it appears American makes are finally catching up in that respect. Though I wish someone would offer objective proof of GM's newfound durability.

One of the worst phenomonons going on at GM right now. G6 terrible in base form [sorry Toni] compared to upper levels, Lacrosse, Lucerne, SRX. GM loves to dumb down the design of thier cars with crappy wheels [Malibu and Impala are showing signs of improvements] and crappy trim.

There is just no way a mid-level Tahoe should go for that much money. 35k I could understand. It's a Chevy after all. It's a Tahoe, not the suburban and not the Esclade. Esclade debuted starting around $50k. That's where it needs to be. Tahoe should not climb all the way to $50k. A completely loaded Tahoe should go for no more than $45k. That sounds reasonable. For those kinds of prices, I see cars that are way more advanced and have a lot more content than the 900s. 58k-70k for a standard Escalade is pretty ludicrous if you ask me.

you just can't use the reliability argument against Japanese cars--no one except twisted GM fans will buy it. Honda auto transmissions don't have problems, on a general basis [cue rabid fan citing the one recall Honda has ever had on auto transmissions]. Honda engines don't have problems on a general basis. Honda suspensions are fun to drive. Honda steering is some of the best around. You see all those perceptions I just threw out. Those are based on fact. When you've got that to go up against, you have to bring out your best, kind of like what Nissan tried to do with the Altima, that car excelled in two specific areas when it debuted that others in its class lacked, garnering it some attention: styling and engine power. The chassis was also exemplary. Pontiac didn't bring its A game with the G6. Tasteless amorphous styleless center stack, subpar interior materials, lower-powered engine, optional and expensive and inefficient high-powered engine, outdated transmissions, spondy chassis. I want to like it so much, in fact a part of me wants to own one. But I can't see it as anything other than good cheap transportation. Not on a level with Accord, Mazda6, Altima [in some really important ways]. GTP starts at 25k and goes from there, that engine should be available from 21k all the way up. That's how Accord and Altima do it.

Completely agreed. The reason multiple media outlets exist, not twelve, not twenty, not fifty, but a gazillion press sources exist is so that they can balance each other out and we the public can pick and choose which we most closely agree with. There can sometimes be variations in the reviews, but a wide consensus has to appear, otherwise we the people would stop buying from that magazine that seems to disagree with everyone else. This media bias crap is crap. It's a weak argument too. It shows cowardice, childishness, and ignorance. Oh, they hurt my feelings, so they must be wrong. Yadda yadda yadda. I take what they give. Sometimes I don't agree with what they say. Most of the times their reviews are fair and balanced. Notice how MOST of EDUCATED America seems to agree with them, since thier sales have been sustained, and Import sales, the cars they most often praise, have gone up. A good review will get someone to consider an automobile. Ultimately it will take a good test drive and a good deal for the customer to make that decision to buy that car. The review will not automatically warrant a purchase.

The FWD cars GM builds are all outclassed [except for maybe the Lucerne, which is comparable to the rest in its class, minus a few shortcomings] by competitors in its class. GM has relied on outdated technology for its FWD cars, or they just can't figure out how to build FWD platforms correctly [as evidenced by reviews of the Epsilon cars, 9-3, G6, Malibu all have been criticized for handling]. That's how FWD figures into the argument. I've said it once and I'll keep saying it. Until you go out and drive the competition you have no bearing to say some of the things you are saying. Go out and drive a Cobalt and then a Mazda3 and then a Honda Civic and then a 5 year old Corolla. Then come back and give us an objective report on interior quality and design. The Cobalt will be the one that feels like you can tear it apart with your own hands. Transmissions and engine configurations matter when there are better designs out there, and when the rest of the competition has left you behind. Both cases are true for GM. Next. The competition has figured out how to make sloping roofs and good looking automobiles and still make back seats infinitely more comfortable than most of GM's offerings. Once again, go sit in an Accord, Camry, and Altima back seat and then compare to G6, Grand Prix, Impala, Malibu, Lacrosse. As OC has documented here, GM places the seatback angle so as to artifically create more rear dimmensions, but not comfort. Listen to the argument, comprehend it, and then respond.

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today. Many people here can't face it because of blinding loyalty, but GM's mainstream cars are far outclassed.

give it back to the friend. it's the fair thing to do.

always try every solution until you've exhausted every possible opportunity---in other words hope for the best. with that kind of money and the small loan you are asking for someone with a fica score of 400 [really low] wouldn't have a problem securing a loan....

and i'll buy you a fist in your face if you don't quit that joke :AH-HA_wink:

With $3700 down, you should have no problem securing a loan for the $1,300 extra. You could probably get more than that, but I would stay practical. As long as your parents can co-sign for you, even with thier questionable credit, there will be a bank that's willing to do it for you.

so that's how it works! Oh, and kudos for naming your son after a nation ruler griffon. My kid's name is going to be Escalade, after a very fancy truck.

944's are badass. A friend had one in high school, it got a lot of attention. But this kid wasn't all that good with the ladies, ...... A really nice car with a lot of compromises to it. Crude, uncomfortable, not too fast [non-turbo], but it was sure fun to look at. Moving on.... Integra's are nice, and I'm glad you're looking at one, since in the class you're looking at you seemingly have to keep broadeninng your options since the car you want is usually never there. I'm almost not into Tegs though, they're a bit soft looking, though they can be fun cars. Look for a GS-R, whether it be a sedan or coupe. Try to find a lady driver, or a well cared for example with no mods. Mods usually mean driven hard. This is going to be out there: have you considered a Focus SVT? I was just looking at some in my area, and the 02 can actually be had for pretty low. I don't know if it's exactly in your range, or if you trust Ford, but these are actually fun and nice looking little cars. The improvements SVT made to the already competent Focus chassis were enough for mags to proclaim it one of the best drivers of the FWD/RWD compact set.

There's a lot of good suggestions going right now. Sportcombi, 9-2x, CTS, G6 GTP, Aura, Vue 3.5 all would be good choices in my book. Grand Prix GXP, Lacrosse CXS are nice cars too [GXP is fast and fun!], but not really for me. Aura should be on production middle of June? Look in the General Motors News section under the thread 06/07 production schedule. Also, I really think this will be a better time to buy, what with end of model year discounts.

This is a very nice car, and sciguy is right, the front end is already much more engaging than the Lucerne. Don't those headlights remind you of the G6 though? Not a bad thing, just something I noticed. The interior, as is always the case, looks like a place you could feel rich in. The exterior design takes the cake for FWD cruisers. This should sell well. Lucerne needs an interior update, stat.

GM isn't Mitsubishi. I don't care how many fleets Mitsu sells, and the WSJ being based in the US wouldn't put as much precedent on it either. The fleet sales are not what get me, it's the percentage. If we could grow total sales by way of retail and the percentage shrinked, then I'd be happier.

Miata's not a bad choice. But where's the MR.2? 3-series are fantastic cars as long as you can manage all the costs associated with owning one. CRX isn't on there, but you could manage one of those. Prelude and Integra would also fit your criteria. 240 is the best of all worlds, sprightly, efficient, good looking, and RWD! Corrado is nice, but expensive to keep up, and I wouldn't buy a VW used, jmo. Impreza will be a great performing car, but performance only goes so far, and it goes far, but looks are really important too, and the Impreza is a sore looking auto. You want to impress those girls and guys? Get a cool looking car. Get a 240, put a nice set of BBS rims on it, and everyone will want you. Eclipse is a good looking car, and your price range could get you into the second gen. I would be wary of Mitsu, be sure to find one in good condition, one that drives really really well. 300 is pretty sweet, though personally the 240 is a better car. With all these cars there is one thing to remember, the clutch will need to be replaced around 100k miles, try to get a car that has already had that done. It could run you $500 just to replace it.

Did you try Score? Like, my sperm scored a touchdown! There was a girl at my school whose mom's name was Muffy. That would be an interesting name to have to live up to. No matter how hard I try I can only picture one specific type of woman. Felictacions! Bon chance. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders.....have fun cleaning poo!

Tom Cruise to Matt Lauer: Matt, you're being glib. I know the history of psychology. I've done the research, you haven't.

wow, a 3-series with 100k miles for $4k. That's pretty good. I agree with Bobo on the German front, but 100k miles is really good, and BMW's are historically reliable....... So if you're in the mood for practicality and all the amazing performance tricks, but not so attractive bodystyle, then the Subie is right up your ally... If you decide to say screw maintenence [which will run expensive] then go for the bimmer, which is hot The 240 is always a wise choice, and very good to look at, and those prices and mileage are not at all outrageous Those were my favorites. Miatas are cool too, though that one seems pricey.

If that's the kind of space hardtops take up in a trunk, as opposed to the space available from a similar competitor like the Sebring, and then there are the weight gains and cost issues, are hardtop convertibles really worth the cost of entry. I think they are cool in a high end cars, but I want my big convertibles to have some practicality to them too. And in cars where a soft top doesn't detract from the look of the car, as it most certainly would from the XLR and SL, as compared to thier hardtop style, i would just rather stick to the softtop.

sorry, Camino, I'm done now...