View Full Version : Car Talk
Pages :
[
1]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
propellerhead
2004-06-18, 18:36
I'm not sure if this is too broad of a topic to be addressed by a single thread, but I've always enjoyed car talk and so started this thread about anything concerning automobiles.
I'll start it off with a question I 'borrowed' (:D) from another site (vwvortex.com).
If you could drive one car on one road for one hour what would you choose?
I think I'd go for a Porsche GT2 on Highway 1. :D :D
Quagmire
2004-06-18, 21:58
If I could take a car on the road for an hour, it would be the Ferrari enzo. Heck I won't even return it.
windowsblowsass
2004-06-18, 22:09
shelby cobra
http://www.moonbowgraphics.com/lauriesphotogallery/cars/cobra.jpg
For my gf's birthday last year I bought her a 1973 BMW 2002 (she was born in '72, so I wanted something made that year). Completely renovated from head to exhaust pipe. Verona Red. Sexy as all hell. :)
Oh, and to address your question:
1967 Alfa Romeo Duetto Spyder. The sexiest car ever made. :)
http://www.autocollections.com/image/cars/1967%20alfa%20duetto%20spyder%20f.jpg
propellerhead
2004-06-18, 23:06
If I could take a car on the road for an hour, it would be the Ferrari enzo. Heck I won't even return it.
I've always wondered if there's some valet out there in a remote part of Mexico with some of the world's most exotic cars.
"yep...this enzo here...got it two days ago. turned it to the border and never looked back.."
:D :lol:
For my gf's birthday last year I bought her a 1973 BMW 2002 (she was born in '72, so I wanted something made that year). Completely renovated from head to exhaust pipe. Verona Red. Sexy as all hell. :)
Oh, and to address your question:
1967 Alfa Romeo Duetto Spyder. The sexiest car ever made. :)
http://www.autocollections.com/image/cars/1967%20alfa%20duetto%20spyder%20f.jpg:wow: wow - what a very generous gift! (I hope she was appreciative. ;) )
As for the Alfa choice - agreed: it has an old world class about it that just reeks style! However, I also like the new Alfa Spiders / GTVs too! (and the 2004 brera looks cool too! :) ) link (http://homepage.mac.com/ajsonego/lookatthis/brera.jpg)
Powerdoc
2004-06-19, 01:21
I will choose a Porsche Turbo, and I choose a private road, because I don't want to lose my driving license.
Welcome to Car Talk, I'm Linda Richmond. Oh now I'm getting all verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic: I like cars, so why not have a general car talk thread? Any kind of car talk welcome. Got the idea as we were talking about my Scooby in the lolcat thread, and didn't want to keep derailing the lols there.
I know there's a bunch of car guys here, let's talk about our whips... yo. Or new cars coming up, or past cars you've loved, or current cars... whatever. :D Top Gear talk also strongly encouraged. :lol:
So I'll start with my cars. The only really big project car I ever had was building a badass built up low compression SR20DE engine for my Sentra SE-R, and slapping a massive turbocharger on it. That didn't end very well, but it was running for about a little while. It got totaled in an accident, the other person's fault. I was pissed. Here's a couple pics. Stock looking and mostly innocuous on the outside, fire breathing monster on the inside.
http://www.xaqtly.com/car/pictures/image/side.jpg
http://www.xaqtly.com/car/pictures/image/engine.jpg
Why yes, that turbocharger is almost half the size of the entire engine. :lol: At a curb weight of about 2450 lbs, this thing was a rocket ship. I put a lot of money into improving all aspects of the car, especially the suspension and brakes. Fully custom suspension with more travel than stock, relatively massive Wilwood 4-pot lightweight racing calipers on large rotors, a high end Quaife mechanical limited slip differential in the front, polyurethane bushings everywhere. To say that I could do rolling burnouts in 2nd gear would be an understatement. :lol:
That was an immensely fun car. It handled like it was on rails, and it went like stink. On fire. With the boost controller turned off and the wastegate at the default 10 psi, the car made about 250-270 HP at the front wheels. To put that in perspective, that power to weight ratio is almost as good as a Corvette Z06. Not quite, but close. But the thing is, that turbo was so big it didn't even become efficient until about 14 psi. It was designed to run at 18-20 psi. When the boost was cranked up it was making over 400 at the wheels. It was pretty ridiculous, but it was so fun. At high boost levels it felt like I was being shot out of a cannon every time I got on the gas.
I miss that car. These days I don't really have the time or money to spend on a project car, so I've just done minimal upgrades to my Legacy. Right now it has an AP map good for a total of about 300 HP and 305 lb-ft., and I have a set of Ion springs on it, great for handling. I've never been a fan of external modification so it still looks stock other than the aftermarket 18" wheels. At some point I'll probably get a bigger turbo to replace the stock one but I'm not in any hurry.
Oh and always a manual transmission for me. As long as I have the option it'll always be a manual.
http://www.xaqtly.com/legacy/images/P1010061.jpg
http://www.xaqtly.com/legacy/images/P1010040.jpg
http://www.xaqtly.com/legacy/images/P1010039.jpg
At one point I also had a Nissan NX2000 that I had swapped a j-spec SR20DET factory turbocharged motor into. That was also a fun car, but more in a "this is how it should have been from the factory" way. I took it down some drag strips and got a 13.8@101 in it. I think it was a little faster than that, but my clutch had been slipping the whole day and had to be replaced after that.
psmith2.0
2009-12-02, 13:08
I have a 2001 silver Saturn SC1 coupe (the three-door thing, with a backwards-opening "rear door" behind the driver door for easy backseat access and storage). I love it. It's a 5-speed and it's been all over SoCal, across the country and all over the Southeast. It's a workhorse. It's right at 86,000 miles.
Alas, my final Saturn (as they'll no longer exist in another year or two).
:(
I used to have a few pics, but I don't know where they went.
But here are a couple via Google:
http://www.lotpro.com/Themes/Default/cars/945.jpg
http://www.cheapcompactcar.com/includes/images/Saturn_S_Series/01SatrnSSriesCpe.jpg
And the third door in action. (http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/650/841/26622920002_large.jpg) So handy (groceries, large boxy items, musical gear, etc.). It's a two-door coupe, but with the handiness and convenience of a four-door when you need it. And because that rear door opens backwards and there's no brace or pole in that opening, you have a huge area to work with, with no obstructions. If you slide the driver seat forward, you can get really large items in the backseat that you simply couldn't do with a standard 4-door opening design. I've put huge amps, large Rubbermaid boxes, a 27" tube TV (quite big and bulky), air compressors, items from Home Depot, sawhorses and much more there over the years, with ease.
And, yes...I have a white Apple sticker - centered, down low - in the rear window, and it's been there since the day I bought it in April 2001. I always thought the car looked like a G4 tower, in that it's very slick and glossy at all times (even when it's dirty...must be the topcoat?), and has nice little swoops, curves and cutbacks throughout.
:)
Glad I went with the silver. After eight years, I'm not sick of it and it doesn't feel like a dated, trendy color that screams "early 2000's". My next car will probably be some sort of grey or silver as well (unless it's available in that awesome copper/burnt orange color I'm seeing on the road more and more these days). That's the only "color" I'd truly feel good about having, for obvious reasons. ;)
alcimedes
2009-12-02, 13:17
I love suicide doors on cars, and love them on my car as well.
The pic is old, but the car looks the exact same.
my baby
http://www.alcimedes.com/rx8images/rx8.png
Oh, I like the RX-8s. And Mazdas in general. My co-worker really wants to get a new Speed 3, we both love the hot hatch factor.
Quagmire
2009-12-02, 13:26
Do I even need to say which company I favor? :p
2007 Saturn Aura XR. Love it 15,600 miles later. :) Love the 252 HP 3.6 DOHC V6, put synthetic oil in it, ditched the POS OEM Goodyear Eagle LS2 tires with Goodyear Eagle F1 All Seasons, and hope Santa gets me Ceramic brake pads. :)
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100221/DSC_0018/web.jpg?ver=12492537290002
My dad has a 2007 BMW 335xi. Stock with no high pressure fuel pump issues yet( knocks on wood).
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100229/DSC_0039/web.jpg?ver=12503105300002
Not my picture, but it is the type of truck I'm currently driving.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Toyota_T100_SR5.jpg/800px-Toyota_T100_SR5.jpg
In chronological order: (None of the pictures mine)
'76 Jeep Cherokee: (mine was blue/white, it was a beast in the hills)
http://www.allpar.com/images/jeep/1975/cherokee.jpg
'73 BMW 2002: (mine was burgundy - FUN little car, wish I had a tii variant now)
http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/BMW%202002%201973.jpg
'86 Chrysler LeBaron convertible: (No, I don't know what I was thinking either.)
http://www.keystoneclassic.com/cars/DSCN0061.jpg
'92 Kawasaki R600: (Awww, I learned to ride on this little thing... It's so *cute*.)
http://honda-tech.com/picture.php?albumid=4132&pictureid=2673
'95 Ducati 900CR SuperSport: (GOD I miss this bike...)
http://www.paradisecycles.com/Images/Image51.jpg
'95/'96 Jeep Cherokee: (No, seriously - front half is a '95, rear half is a '96. Chop shop special.)
http://mtu4wheelers.powweb.com/images/mem/greggl.JPG
This is my spaceship car, taken on the day I brought it home two years ago. It's a 2007 Civic Hybrid and I love it.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4153806110_132442239e.jpg
Windswept
2009-12-02, 16:11
Bought during Cash for Clunkers in August, my 2009 Toyota RAV4 Limited, fully loaded wrt bells and whistles: on-demand 4WD; automatic keyless entry, so that when my hand starts to encircle the door handle, the car beeps twice and unlocks automatically - a great safety feature at night in dark parking lots; interior lights that light up when I approach the car - another great safety feature; moon roof; luggage rack; pressure on all tires (including spare on back) automatically monitored; 6-CD system; satellite radio; blue-tooth; steering wheel controls for audio systems; light grey leather seats; alarm system that prevents the car from being started; push-button ignition; extra-gorgeous pearlized white paint; and more...
http://www.autospectator.com/cars/files/images/2009-Toyota-RAV4-Limited-005.jpg
I have 2,255 miles on it now. It's fun to drive and I'll probably have it for a long time.
Regarding appearance, mine has a protection strip along the side, so it looks nicer than the one in the pic, imo.
ezkcdude
2009-12-02, 16:45
I love suicide doors on cars, and love them on my car as well.
The pic is old, but the car looks the exact same.
my baby
I'd love one of these, but I'm pretty happy with my 6. :)
This came up in conversation with my co-worker today - if you were going to buy a car primarily for gas mileage, which way would you go?
A) Gas/electric hybrid
B) Diesel
C) Small lightweight car with tiny gas engine
I chose diesel, because to me it represents the least amount of compromise. You can still have a bigger car or a wagon or something while retaining respectable gas mileage. There's no main battery to replace after 3 years, and you can fill up on diesel at the same pumps everyone else does.
My friend has a Scion XB (1st gen) and while it does crank out mid-30s MPG, it's really annoying to drive. Hybrids are nicer, like the new Prius, but they're also more expensive.
There are some sub-classes like Honda's hydrogen electric hybrid, but that's still not viable yet due to lack of hydrogen filling stations.
My first car was a title claim from the woods near my house. It had been abandoned long before I found it. 1967 Ford Galaixe 500. Mine was all white. I never got it street legal but I did get it running and replaced the whole brake system myself. It was my senior year Auto Shop project. I got an "A".
http://www.dyna.co.za/cars/1967_Ford_Galaxie_500_Ltd_Green.jpg
1989 Subaru GL, though mine was Black. Strictly A to B until it was hit by an incompetent driver.
http://www.economysuperstar.com/milesfox/gallery/87gl10/87gl10side.JPG
Subaru was replaced by an 1989 Plymouth Sundance. Yet again it was a cheap A to B car.
http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/PLSU8994.jpg
The Plymouth was replaced by a 1969 Ford Mustang. :) I loved this car. It had some serious character. I rebuilt the engine in it and did some other major mods to it. I loved that car until it stranded me for the third time. Mine had a white hood and spray paint blue complete with run on the body.
http://www.chooseyouritem.com/classics/photos/135500/135556.1969.Ford.Mustang.2-Door.Coupe.jpg
After being stranded I kept the Mustang for a while but use a 1998 Ford Ranger as my daily driver and off roading toy. I added real nerf bars and brush guards for the front grill/light and real lights. I also added PIAA Off Road Driving light to the grill guard. I really liked that ride.
http://z.about.com/d/4wheeldrive/1/0/0/T/1/Devinater_OR_98FordRang_2RR.jpg
The Ranger was replaced with my current car at 195K miles, the Ford Contour Sport with 2.5L. Nice without an mods. I still enjoy driving this car.
http://images.automotive.com/stock/300/FORD/CONTOUR/1999/4SA.JPG
I passed my Contour on to my wife and picked up a 1999 Toyota Camry since it had better milage for the long trips I went on. I enjoyed the car's comfort but missed the power of my Ford.
http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/TOCA9799.jpg
It died young due to the sludge build up issue that model engine had.
I went back to my Ford and got my wife a 2005 Toyota Sienna. She loves it and I enjoy driving it when I take the whole family with me.
http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/2005_toyota_sienna_xle_awd_100008162_l.jpg
Not sure what's next but I would love another sporty car. I think we are heading for something a little different though. :D
http://www.travelizmo.com/archives/jayco-greyhawk-sport-class-c-motorhome-2008.jpg
Not this model, but you get the idea.
'73 BMW 2002: (mine was burgundy - FUN little car, wish I had a tii variant now)
http://blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/BMW%202002%201973.jpg
That is soooo sweet. I would love to have 2002. *Drool*
I can't imagine why you would need ceramic pads Quag... seriously, on a daily driver? You do autocross the astra?
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2138375/IMG_1420.jpg
That's mine.
Nothing Fancy for me. Both are images of the actual cars, in winter to boot.
First Car: 1987 Honda Accord
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/photos/730302642_5hmTc-L.jpg
Second Car: 2004 Toyota Corolla LE
http://robdphotos.smugmug.com/photos/730298636_hrnSh-L.jpg
Loved my first car, simply because it was my first car. :) I only owned it two years, but it was costing me too much to keep fixing it. As for my second car, it wasn't my first choice in terms of looks and size, I wanted something smaller, but once I drove the Corolla, I was sold on it.
Quagmire
2009-12-02, 20:15
I can't imagine why you would need ceramic pads Quag... seriously, on a daily driver? You do autocross the astra?
Quieter mostly. :) The brakes are squealing on my car and the rotors were just resurfaced 3 months ago to fix this problem. One of my friends used to have a Pontiac G6 GTP( same car as the Aura ;) ) and he replaced the metallic pads with ceramics and any squealing disappeared without replacing the rotors as well. The pads are at ~40% right now anyway. So it isn't like I am throwing away good pads like I did with the tires. :p
Don't most ceramic pads require a bit of a workout to get them up to temperature and optimal stopping capabilities? Ceramic composites are a more viable option IMO.
Err, I meant Aura but I wrote Astra, my apologies.
...I chose diesel, because to me it represents the least amount of compromise. You can still have a bigger car or a wagon or something while retaining respectable gas mileage. There's no main battery to replace after 3 years, and you can fill up on diesel at the same pumps everyone else does..
Smart choice. Just make sure you fill up with diesel. My friend who's a mechanic was telling me last week about this guy who loaned his '09 Jetta TDI to his wife who fueled up on the way home....with gasoline. My friend had to drop the tank to completely drain it which required removal of the exhaust and some suspension bits and then blow out the lines. Came to around $750! Of course our local VW dealer wanted almost $1500.
Smart choice. Just make sure you fill up with diesel. My friend who's a mechanic was telling me last week about this guy who loaned his '09 Jetta TDI to his wife who fueled up on the way home....with gasoline. My friend had to drop the tank to completely drain it which required removal of the exhaust and some suspension bits and then blow out the lines. Came to around $750! Of course our local VW dealer wanted almost $1500.
I thought they had differen nozzles! How could you make such a mistake. do they not have different nozzles?
The gas nozzle is smaller than the diesel. You can't put the diesel nozzle in a gas inlet.
http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/TOCA9799.jpg
It died young due to the sludge build up issue that model engine had.
My parents had that car. I remember one day my Dad told me he took it in for an oil change at the dealer and they recommended an anti sludge flush for the car. I thought it was a dealer scam since the car barely had 30K on it. A few years later they were blowing up. Changes Toyota made to the engine making it run hotter combined with people following the wrong maintenance schedule for oil changes did a lot of them in. Those who did mostly highway miles or ran synthetic fared much better.
The gas nozzle is smaller than the diesel. You can't put the diesel nozzle in a gas inlet.
Obviously here in NJ you can. There is around fifteen gallons of gasoline mixed with a few gallons of diesel in his shop. It does say Diesel Only on the fuel filler flap or cap but the guy pumping probably couldn't read English. Self serve is illegal here so you are mostly dealing with third world types who barely speak the language let alone read it. Of course it was her job to know what was needed.
edit: oops! I was replying to the post above yours!
None of the pics are mine, but...
First car (1996-1998): 1989 Toyota Tercel EZ, manual 4-speed.
http://img3.abload.de/img/imagen20agze.jpg
Second car (1998-1999): 1989 Acura Integra LS hatchback, manual 5-speed. Mine was a metallica gold color, and in great shape for having been a Minnesota car.
http://i49.tinypic.com/qn8dwl.jpg
That's all...when I moved to Austin for college, I sold the Acura, and haven't had a car since. :\
First car and only one so far: 1994 Ford Explorer.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2796/4153910921_299f658c11.jpg
(Yes, that is a ticket on the windshield)
Soon to be replaced...but I'll update this thread when that happens. :)
This came up in conversation with my co-worker today - if you were going to buy a car primarily for gas mileage, which way would you go?
A) Gas/electric hybrid
B) Diesel
C) Small lightweight car with tiny gas engine
Diesel/electric *serial* hybrid, please. :) None of this parallel hybrid malarky.
alcimedes
2009-12-02, 22:15
Yes, ceramic pads have to get hot before they work well, at least the only ones I've ever heard of do. Maybe they have versions for daily drivers now?
My friend who has some on his car (which he does autocross in) almost drove into the back of my other friends car because the pads weren't up to temp after a few hours of driving on the highway.
NosferaDrew
2009-12-02, 22:42
My little coupe:
http://homepage.mac.com/drew1/.Pictures/Tuna_Canyon02.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/drew1/.Pictures/TunaCanyon01_Full03.jpg
I've got some simple mods that I'm doing soon: new, wider 17" wheels, chip for the engine, sport exhaust and a ducktail.
In the future I'm going to turn this one into a track car and I'm going to get a 993 C2S or an older 997 GT3.
Here's a widebody 993 similar to what I want:
http://homepage.mac.com/drew1/.Pictures/Porsche993Widebody.jpg
I've really become addicted to Porsche and I really don't want any other make of car.
So much fun to drive up in the hills.
psmith2.0
2009-12-02, 22:47
That first pic caught my eye. Is that a one-lane mountain road and you're in some pull-off/parking lane, or are you actually positioned in the wrong way of the right-hand lane on a blind corner?
:eek: :D
Well, it does look like that lane is blocked off ahead with those barrels (or garbage bins?). :)
joveblue
2009-12-02, 23:28
This came up in conversation with my co-worker today - if you were going to buy a car primarily for gas mileage, which way would you go?
A) Gas/electric hybrid
B) Diesel
C) Small lightweight car with tiny gas engine
I chose diesel, because to me it represents the least amount of compromise. You can still have a bigger car or a wagon or something while retaining respectable gas mileage. There's no main battery to replace after 3 years, and you can fill up on diesel at the same pumps everyone else does.
I'd probably choose a small lightweight car, as long as the acceleration was decent enough to take up from lights and get up hills easily and so forth. I prefer something smaller anyway: they're sportier and easy to manoeuvre. My worst nightmare would be a big-arse 4x4 or something. My dream car at the moment would probably be something like a BMW 1 series.
If I needed the extra space for a family or something, I'd probably go with a hybrid. although I'd research it a bit more first.
Diesel doesn't really appeal to me. Although the milage is better, the carbon emissions aren't a huge amount better (I don't think?) and the exhaust is also dirtier. Also, I'm not sure on this one either, but don't they have worse acceleration?
NosferaDrew
2009-12-02, 23:33
That first pic caught my eye. Is that a one-lane mountain road and you're in some pull-off/parking lane, or are you actually positioned in the wrong way of the right-hand lane on a blind corner?
:eek: :D
Well, it does look like that lane is blocked off ahead with those barrels (or garbage bins?). :)
That's Tuna Canyon Road (http://www.lateralg.org/roads/orange/malibu3.htm).
It's a magnificent road above Malibu (there are many up there) and it's one-way straight down.
Here's a little video of the trip down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwlf2CRugEM).
My BFF Tay just bought a 2010, which naturally means I have to one-up her with a 2011. :D Unfortunately, I'm less than employed. But my "if I get The Deal" car is currently a toss-up between a Volvo C30, a Honda CR-Z, and a Fiat 500, though naturally I'd have to actually drive the latter two to be sure. ;)
I'd probably choose a small lightweight car, as long as the acceleration was decent enough to take up from lights and get up hills easily and so forth. I prefer something smaller anyway: they're sportier and easy to manoeuvre. My worst nightmare would be a big-arse 4x4 or something. My dream car at the moment would probably be something like a BMW 1 series.
If I needed the extra space for a family or something, I'd probably go with a hybrid. although I'd research it a bit more first.
Diesel doesn't really appeal to me. Although the milage is better, the carbon emissions aren't a huge amount better (I don't think?) and the exhaust is also dirtier. Also, I'm not sure on this one either, but don't they have worse acceleration?
The current diesels are pretty good on running clean. It's a lot better than it used to be, these days. Diesels don't usually have a lot of horsepower but they usually have massive, disproportional amounts of torque. :) And torque is what gets you up hills without having to downshift, so I like that aspect of diesels. I would say that most turbo diesels do have much better acceleration than small engined high MPG gas cars while maintaining better MPG at the same time. The Jetta TDi gets 42 MPG with 140 HP and 236 lb-ft of torque. That's better in every way than a car like the XB which has less power and worse gas mileage. It's probably worth noting that the XB is also cheaper, but that's all it really has going for it, IMO.
The BMW 128 costs a lot more, almost $30k for the base model, only gets 28 MPG at best, but does have more HP than the Jetta TDi for example. But this is what I meant by compromise; A car like the Jetta TDi is a good car to drive, it handles well and it accelerates well enough while getting fairly stellar mileage. I would only be looking at a 1 series if MPG weren't a concern at all.
I adore my green 2004 Mazda 3. The pics below are from a Google search.
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2426/261/6062630001_large.jpg
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/2426/261/6062630004_large.jpg
Quagmire
2009-12-03, 09:41
The current diesels are pretty good on running clean. It's a lot better than it used to be, these days. Diesels don't usually have a lot of horsepower but they usually have massive, disproportional amounts of torque. :) And torque is what gets you up hills without having to downshift, so I like that aspect of diesels. I would say that most turbo diesels do have much better acceleration than small engined high MPG gas cars while maintaining better MPG at the same time. The Jetta TDi gets 42 MPG with 140 HP and 236 lb-ft of torque. That's better in every way than a car like the XB which has less power and worse gas mileage. It's probably worth noting that the XB is also cheaper, but that's all it really has going for it, IMO.
While diesels have a lot more torque especially in the low end of the RPM's, diesels do take longer to rev up then gasoline engines. Take the 335i vs 335d. 335i is a gas engine producing 300 HP and 300 lb. ft of torque at 1500 RPM. The 335d produces 265 HP and 435 lb. ft of torque at 1750 RPM from its diesel inline 6. While down 35 HP, it has a 135 lb. ft of torque advantage. Though performance of the 335i is 0-60 in 4.8 seconds while the 335d is 0-60 in 5.9 seconds.
Yeah, a 135i was my dream car at the moment but it was just unrealistic as a daily driver - especially in the winter if Wisconsin. Ahh well, we can all dream.
These were taken a while ago, when I first bought my car. It's got over 22k miles on it already, after 17 months. Only problems I've had so far were a broken center brake light (which was replaced for free) and I had an irreparable puncture in one of my tires. Since all my tires were low on tread anyway, I decided to replace them all with snow tires. And finally, today, it's begun snowing!
http://forums.applenova.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1070&d=1217466581
http://forums.applenova.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1071&d=1217466595
http://forums.applenova.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1072&d=1217466604
Quagmire
2009-12-03, 11:15
Talking about the Fit, how about the new US spec Ford Fiesta? While they ruined the sedan with the 3 bar grill, the hatch still retains it's Euro look mostly. Expected to hit 40 MPG HWY. Plus, it can escape from a Corvette in a mall and be used as a beach assault vehicle if you want to go invading a country like Britain or Japan. Can any sub-compact do that? :p
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/fiesta-1280-001.jpg
I'm something of a car whore.
This is what I have had in 25 years of driving.
At 16 I started out with a 1978 Honda Accord CVCC that looked just like this one:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/78_accord.jpg
After my college roommate totaled the Accord I got a black 1980 Audi 4000s similar to this one:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/80_4000.jpg
After a little less than a year of Audi ownership the timing belt broke and so did the engine.
My Grandparents let me USE a 1977 Ford Pinto that looked like this:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/77_pinto.jpg
After a few weeks of driving a pinto (and of total embarrassment) I bought my first new car...a black 1986 Mazda 323. It had one option: A/C and looked like this:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/86_323.jpg
I then bought my second new car: a 1990 Honda CRX DX that looked just like this:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/91_crx.jpg
God!! Do I miss this car.
In 1995 I sold the CRX when I moved to Boston and I bought a 1990 Audi 100 in metallic green. It looked like this:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/90_91_100.jpg
While driving on the interstate, the truck in front of me deposited a cooler on the road and I ran over it causing damage to the engine and transmission.
So, I bought a white 1996 VW Jetta:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/96_jetta.jpg
After a few years I went back to school and needed to get rid of a car payment so I sold the Jetta and bought a dark blue 1991 Audi 100s (see pic of Audi 100 above). I REALLY love VW's and Audi's.
After getting out of school (again) I got a blue 1996 Honda Accord LX coupe. I frigging hated this car. It was loud, unreliable and just a total let down to drive.
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/96_accord.jpg
I got a great deal on a dark blue 1999 Ford Crown Victoria LX so I got rid of the hated Accord and bought my first American car.
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/99_cv.JPG
After moving back to Little Rock I really wanted a truck in a bad way so I sold the CV and bought a 2wd 1991 Dodge Ram Charger with a, um, highly modified engine in it. It required premium gas and on a good day got 9 mpg, but what a blast to drive. This is a pic of my real truck, no google pics for it.
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/91_ramcharger.jpg
Finally, the combination of increasing gas prices, another kid on the way and looking forward to paying for private school and daycare forced me to sell the truck (I really did not like spending > $100 per week to fill up) and buy this horrible GM POS called a 1996 Buick LeSabre.
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/96_lesabre.jpg
This car has really made me despise all things GM. Unreliable, poor fit and finish, poor everything.
Ever since getting married my wife has gotten the nice (and new) cars and I get to drive old and cheap cars. Maybe someday I'll get to have a nice car again.
If the Fiesta had been available in the US last year, I would have bought it. Unfortunately it was not, and I needed a car right away (the car I was using was borrowed and my brother needed it).
But I'm still happy with the Fit. I'm excited to find out how well it handles once I put summer tires on it this spring!
While diesels have a lot more torque especially in the low end of the RPM's, diesels do take longer to rev up then gasoline engines. Take the 335i vs 335d. 335i is a gas engine producing 300 HP and 300 lb. ft of torque at 1500 RPM. The 335d produces 265 HP and 435 lb. ft of torque at 1750 RPM from its diesel inline 6. While down 35 HP, it has a 135 lb. ft of torque advantage. Though performance of the 335i is 0-60 in 4.8 seconds while the 335d is 0-60 in 5.9 seconds.
Right. Well there's a number of factors in play there; Horsepower gets better 0-60 times, not torque, and diesels always have longer gearing to compensate for the much shorter rev range. The good thing is that the higher torque compensates for the longer gearing in day to day driving, it just doesn't really do anything for 0-60 times. Additionally, the 335d weighs over 300 lbs. more than the 335i.
But diesels really aren't suited for nor are intended to be performance cars. The 335d gets 36 mpg highway, which for a car of that size/class is pretty damn good. And since that would really be the only reason you would get a 335d over a 335i, performance shouldn't be an issue for most people. Like the Jetta TDi, 140 HP isn't a lot but 236 lb-ft. of torque will get the job done no matter where you go. And I think that's a good compromise for getting 42 MPG. And it should probably be said that both the 335i and d are pretty expensive. in the $40-50k range.
When I was in high school I had a friend who had a diesel Rabbit. That thing was so small and light, he could go for weeks without refilling it. He figured once that he was getting over 50 MPG on average. It was not a fast car :lol: but it was fun to drive and 50 MPG was pretty ridiculous.
Plus, it can escape from a Corvette in a mall and be used as a beach assault vehicle if you want to go invading a country like Britain or Japan. Can any sub-compact do that? :p
THAT was AWESOME. And I love how they framed it in the context of a "proper car review" because some old guy was complaining about how they review cars. :lol:
GSpotter
2009-12-03, 12:50
But diesels really aren't suited for nor are intended to be performance cars. That's right in general, but Audi is thinking about a diesel version of the R8. Google for "Audi R8 V12 TDI" ... ;). I think this would qualify as performance car.
These were taken a while ago, when I first bought my car. It's got over 22k miles on it already, after 17 months.
My gf just bought a 2009 Fit Sport a few months ago. She's really digging it, and my dog fits really well in the hatch space behind the back seat. Her only complaint so far is that while it's plenty zippy around town and at lower speeds, once you're on the freeway the engine doesn't quite have the cojones to do things like cruise uphill without downshifting (at 80mph or so) or pass people efficiently. But, she's been averaging mid 30s MPG which is one of the reasons she wanted it so she's fine with that.
I think it's a nice car in most respects. It handles surprisingly well for a cheap car and the interior is pretty nice. The iPod connector in the glove box is nice too.
Keep in mind that Luca has the previous generation (2007-2008) Fit, which is smaller and lighter, IIRC.
Oh, and the Fiesta will be priced from $13,320 ($13,995 after destination). That's the sedan, though - ew! - the hatchback starts at $15,120 plus destination.
Keep in mind that Luca has the previous generation (2007-2008) Fit, which is smaller and lighter, IIRC.
I just looked it up. The '09 Sport automatic is 2604 lbs whereas my '08 Base manual weighs 2432 lbs, which is 172 lbs less. The '09 does have 8 more horsepower than the '08, but if it's an auto then there will be some power loss as well.
I'll admit, though, that it is not very fast once you get to the higher speeds. I mean, what do you expect from a car with 109 hp? Still, it handles well and the VTEC gives it reasonable acceleration early on. I think Car and Driver actually got faster 0-60 times with the less-powerful '08 model than they did with the '09.
I think Car and Driver actually got faster 0-60 times with the less-powerful '08 model than they did with the '09.
That's what I was trying to allude to. I know a lot of people who think that the first-gen was better, performance-wise. But I still like them both. :D
People who reserve a Fiesta apparently get the "SYNC and Sound" package for free -- premium sound and Ford SYNC, though apparently no "real" navigation is available on the Fiesta. With companies like Nissan and Suzuki either including navs standard or charging only $400 for them, that's not super-competitive, but maybe it's something to add for 2012.
joveblue
2009-12-03, 17:22
The BMW 128 costs a lot more, almost $30k for the base model, only gets 28 MPG at best, but does have more HP than the Jetta TDi for example. But this is what I meant by compromise; A car like the Jetta TDi is a good car to drive, it handles well and it accelerates well enough while getting fairly stellar mileage. I would only be looking at a 1 series if MPG weren't a concern at all.It just occurred to me that the BMW 1 getting good environmental ratings is a diesel model, the 118d, at 4.5L/100km or 52mpg, which isn't bad at all. Whoops! So there you go, small light diesel for me! :lol:
It just occurred to me that the BMW 1 getting good environmental ratings is a diesel model, the 118d, at 4.5L/100km or 52mpg, which isn't bad at all. Whoops! So there you go, small light diesel for me! :lol:
Ah yeah, I was only looking in the US market. :o Just about every other nation in the world has more choice in diesel cars than we do in the US. I was happy to find that my Legacy is sold in the UK as a turbo diesel too, only 150 HP but 260 lb-ft of torque. Great MPG though, 44 combined and 51 "extra urban mpg" whatever that means. Top Gear did a segment where they had to drive 750 miles on a single tank of gas while racing each other to try to get there first. James May chose the Legacy turbo diesel, and a number of times he was averaging over 50 MPG. They didn't show if he ran out of gas or not but I think he was within 30 miles or so of finishing, so he at least made it well over 700 miles on a single tank.
I'm not sure why diesel isn't embraced like hybrids are in the US... probably the misconception that they all run dirty or something.
I'm not sure why diesel isn't embraced like hybrids are in the US... probably the misconception that they all run dirty or something.
I would totally get a diesel myself, because it's most practical all around. Diesel-electric hybrid, as Kickaha described, is also good. I'm just surprised nobody thunk of it sooner considering that is what the locomotives has been doing for decades. (What? You think they have a big ole' transmission strapped on the engine car? ;) :p)
Anyway, what I heard (and keep in mind that hearsay is awful piece of evidence...) was that they found it more profitable to sell high-sulfur diesel to US and because of that, it kinds of killed the market for diesel cars.
Serial hybrid, let the generator run on gas, diesel, biodiesel, leaves, peanut oil, hydrogen fuel cell, reconstituted stripper sweat, it doesn't matter. Migrate from fuel needs to fuel needs, main technology and system remains the same, only the generator needs to be swapped out.
Parallel hybrid, let the generator run on gas, diesel, biodiesel, leaves, peanut oil, hydrogen fuel cell, reconstituted stripper sweat, it doesn't matter. Migrate from fuel needs to fuel needs, main technology and system remains the same, only the generator needs to be swapped out.
And many people could get by on just the battery for their day-to-day needs, renting a generator for trips. :)
While true, I think most people would feel much more secure knowing that *if* they start to run the battery low, then can pull into any gas station and keep going. I know for me that's a huge factor.
Recharge at home for most daily driving, use fuel as a backup or for long trips.
...a black 1996 Mazda 323. It had one option: A/C and looked like this:
http://podmate.com/images/AN/cars/86_323.jpg
Typo. You mean 1986, of course. My wife had that when we first started dating, except in pale blue.
After we were married, she was living in Montreal and I was still in Ottawa much of the time, driving back and forth. After the GLC broke down in 1993 in -30C very early one morning on that Montreal-Ottawa highway (and I had to hike 30 minutes over a snowy field to use a phone at a pig farm), we decided we needed something newer, so we bought a used 1991 Ford Taurus (file photo):
http://www.atozautolights.com/images/AutoPhotos/FOTA8691.jpg
We drove that car into the ground - with a new transmission and some rust repairs we were able to get over 300,000 km out of it. That old Vulcan engine never needed to be touched. We replaced it with a silver 2000 Taurus (file photo), our first new car:
http://airportautoexchange.com/web_images/03_ford_taurus_side.jpg
We also put a lot of kms on that, with no real problems. Again, that engine was almost like a sealed unit; never need anything but the occasional oil change. We replaced it with our current car, a 2008 Subaru Legacy Wagon (again, file photo):
http://www.auto123.com/ArtImages/83680/2008-Subaru-Legacy-i001.jpg
None of these cars are all that exciting, but I've never been that much of a car fan. Cars are mostly a get from A to Z proposition for me.
Quagmire
2009-12-03, 22:35
Parallel hybrid, let the generator run on gas, diesel, biodiesel, leaves, peanut oil, hydrogen fuel cell, reconstituted stripper sweat, it doesn't matter. Migrate from fuel needs to fuel needs, main technology and system remains the same, only the generator needs to be swapped out.
If you're talking about the Volt's hybrid system, then you got it mixed up. :)
Prius= Parallel
Volt= Series hybrid.
If you're talking about the Volt's hybrid system, then you got it mixed up. :)
Prius= Parallel
Volt= Series hybrid.
I... I have no idea what you mean. *D'oh*
(I got it right the first time!)
joveblue
2009-12-06, 01:01
While true, I think most people would feel much more secure knowing that *if* they start to run the battery low, then can pull into any gas station and keep going. I know for me that's a huge factor.I saw something recently where the "gas station" was a battery swap station. Drive in, swap your depleted battery over for a full one. Can't find it now, but could be a good solution.
Ah yeah, I was only looking in the US market. :o My fault, I was the one saying I wasn't interested in diesel.
I saw something recently where the "gas station" was a battery swap station. Drive in, swap your depleted battery over for a full one. Can't find it now, but could be a good solution.
It theoretically could, but consider a couple of things...
Until there's a battery swap center on every corner there's now a gas station... you have to carefully plan your routes and nearness to a swap center. That's going to reduce adoption rate, which reduces incentive to create swap stations, which... you see the problem.
Secondly, gas is gas is gas. Battery technologies have vastly different discharge profiles. Each car would have to know about each kind of battery technology and know how to best take advantage of it.
Third, battery formats. Consider how many kinds of batteries there are for just cell phones... can you imagine a swap station having to have a couple of every kind of battery out there for every possible model that might pull in? Oy.
Finally, you'd have to design the car around a quickly removable battery. They're big (.5mx.5mx2m), they're heavy (600-800kg), and from a vehicle design perspective, best buried deep in the car's center of gravity, under a bit of armor for crash safety. And those are the *forty mile* batteries! How are you going to just swap one of these things out in a few minutes? Heck, again, look at the cell phone. A non-user-replaceable battery in the iPhone means it's thinner, simpler, and a better functional design. Adding quick swapability adds weight, size, and distracts from creating a *car* instead of a battery holder on wheels.
I just don't see it being practical.
Battery swap technology is a central part of the approach of the Better Place company which is among the world leaders in the practical implementation of electric cars. I suspect that this is what joveblue was remembering. Getting it to work quickly and well is indeed very much part of their plans. It is yet to be seen, of course, whether Better Place, or others, can make this a reliable and paying proposition.
General link:
http://www.betterplace.com/
Charging/Swapping link:
http://www.betterplace.com/solution/charging/
I think the idea is fine, but is this company really going to get GM, Toyota, Ford, BMW, Honda, Kia, Volkswagon, and every other car manufacturer to use *their* system?
I don't see it.
Charging is universal, like gas. Swapping isn't.
thegelding
2009-12-06, 13:10
we are a two vehicle family....my wife has a car (a camry), i have 2 scooters and 2 bikes....i do fine day to day without a car of my own
if i get a car in the next couple of years (coming up on 50 soon enough and probably could use a "covered" ride for winter and such) it will be an all electric...
fuck gas, fuck oil, fuck internal combustion engines...
electric will be good for daily commuting, and we have the dino car for the rare long trips (plus she will be changing out the camry in a couple of years for a hybrid)
the range is short now, but fine for my usage...and i see battery tech going like computer chip tech...in 5 years it will be double....5 years double again...
by 2020 you will be able to go 400 miles on a single charge...and will have fast charging stations across the country...
so gas cars will go the way of beta tapes (and vhs tapes too)
gas cars have had a surprisingly long run, but i imagine my grand kids won't ever own a gas car and my great grand kids won't even know what a gas car was except if they happen to see mystery science theater 10,000 doing a rip on zoolander...and then they will be horrified that people actually put flammable, explosive fluid into a large tank in their car...
g
thegelding
2009-12-06, 13:13
ps...ions are ions are ions...
every gas station in the world will add a charging station....then another...
then they will take out half their gas pumps and put in more charging stations...
over time all gas pumps will be removed and electric charging points added...
there will be a few gas only stations for retro cars, muscle gas, diesel cars and trucks...but they will get harder and harder to find...
gas will get more an more expensive, electric will get cheaper and cheaper
it happens with all tech, with all products...they change and adapt or stagnant and die...
like i said, i'm surprised gas cars have survived this long with so little changes
g
joveblue
2009-12-06, 20:06
Battery swap technology is a central part of the approach of the Better Place company which is among the world leaders in the practical implementation of electric cars. I suspect that this is what joveblue was remembering.Yes! Thanks :)
Until there's a battery swap center on every corner there's now a gas station... you have to carefully plan your routes and nearness to a swap center. That's going to reduce adoption rate, which reduces incentive to create swap stations, which... you see the problem.That's a very good point. We probably won't see a solution like this work for quite some time. But hopefully we'll see some great advances in battery technology over the next 10 years and we'll almost certainly see the price of petrol go through the roof (especially if a price is put on greenhouse emissions). So in 2020 the economic incentive might be there to help with this. Also, you'd probably mainly really need them along highways and such. You'd plug your car into a charge station at home, work, shopping centres, etc.
Secondly, gas is gas is gas. Battery technologies have vastly different discharge profiles. Each car would have to know about each kind of battery technology and know how to best take advantage of it.
Third, battery formats. Consider how many kinds of batteries there are for just cell phones... can you imagine a swap station having to have a couple of every kind of battery out there for every possible model that might pull in? Oy.Presumably there would have to be some sort of international standard applied here. Obviously that's not going to be a simple task, at all.
[/quote]Finally, you'd have to design the car around a quickly removable battery. They're big (.5mx.5mx2m), they're heavy (600-800kg), and from a vehicle design perspective, best buried deep in the car's center of gravity, under a bit of armor for crash safety. And those are the *forty mile* batteries! How are you going to just swap one of these things out in a few minutes? Heck, again, look at the cell phone. A non-user-replaceable battery in the iPhone means it's thinner, simpler, and a better functional design. Adding quick swapability adds weight, size, and distracts from creating a *car* instead of a battery holder on wheels.[/quote]If the battery is placed underneath the car, like in the YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHHvjsFm_88&feature=player_embedded), that may solve this problem.
There's a lot of challenges to be overcome, for sure, but it could be quite an attractive solution in 10 years time. No solution is going to be ideal.
Quagmire
2009-12-18, 11:34
Sorry Robo( I believe you were the Saab fan here). :( Saab is dead.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/breaking-gm-closing-saab-ab-87179/
http://img.worldcarfans.com/2008/11/medium/saturn-saab--pontiac-face-the-chopping-block.jpg
I'm nowhere close to the debate but a part of me wonders if GM never bought out (or owned) Saturn & Saab, would they have been flourishing right now? I've always thought of Saturn & Saab as good brand- GM's buying them up just meant cannibalizing itself, it seems.
Quagmire
2009-12-18, 12:14
GM created Saturn and was flourishing before the other divisions got jealous.
Right, I couldn't remember for sure if Saturn was once independent company or owned by other company then later bought by GM.
Too bad that it's the one that's getting canned. I would think Buick would be a better candidate for the canning, but whatever.
Dorian Gray
2009-12-18, 15:29
Sad news, but not surprising. Saab is a worthless brand these days. Saab used to make very good, very interesting cars that attracted loyal customers. What has Saab done in the last few years? My answer would be, roughly: disgusted every Saab owner on the planet; bewildered everyone else. That's all GM's fault.
See my previous thoughts here (http://forums.applenova.com/showpost.php?p=597808&postcount=109).
P.S. Saab died when GM bought it, not today.
P.S. Saab died when GM bought it, not today.
Agreed. Saab's downfall was similar to Saturn's—GM thought it would be a great idea to keep tons of extra brands around without making sure each brand had some level of uniqueness to it. Saturn and Saab both used to have their own cars, but eventually they just became yet more brands to sell boring Epsilon-platform cars. And how about the Saab 9-2X and 9-7X? Those were the most blatant rebadgings ever and were probably insulting to long-time Saab customers.
Right, I couldn't remember for sure if Saturn was once independent company or owned by other company then later bought by GM.
Too bad that it's the one that's getting canned. I would think Buick would be a better candidate for the canning, but whatever.
Saturn seemed like a separate entity because GM basically allowed it to act like like a separate entity until, as Quag pointed out, the other GM divisions got involved.
thegelding
2009-12-18, 19:02
bring back this saab and all will be forgiven
http://img2.netcarshow.com/Saab-UrSaab_1947_800x600_wallpaper_03.jpg
g
And how about the Saab 9-2X and 9-7X?
those are acts against both god and and nature...
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
At least it didn't go to the Chinese, I guess. Well, most of it.
Quagmire
2009-12-18, 23:25
:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
At least it didn't go to the Chinese, I guess. Well, most of it.
Yeah, you'll be seeing pre-2006 Saab 9-3's and the old 9-5's around in China somewhere. lol
It is a shame. I started to like the new 9-5( which was only a month away from starting production
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/588/medium/sb1.JPG
The new 9-5 was, like, the savior of the brand. It was what everybody was waiting for. It just didn't come fast enough. :\
Saturn and Saab, in the same year...ouch. :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(
It looks like Volvo's going to be next, which I don't get at all, because Ford actually seems to be doing okay. But I guess they need the money...
According to Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/20/spyker-tries-again-submits-11th-hour-11-point-bid-for-saab/) Spyker has re-submitted a bid for Saab that addresses eleven of the sticking points of their previous bid. The Swedish government has also apparently gotten involved, since they don't want to see Saab go either. The big issue with Spyker's previous bid was intellectual property fears -- namely, involving Spyker's Russian backer -- but I guess if Sweden backs them instead...
I'm trying really hard not to get my hopes up. Spyker's apparently set a deadline of 5pm eastern today, and it's hard to imagine GM changing their mind that quickly. But then again, they are supposed to be trying to be more "decisive," right?
At least we won't have long to wait. :\
Shutting down Saab now just makes no sense to me. Right before its comeback car comes out? After development is virtually complete on it? And the wagon variant? And apparently the 9-4X crossover? You'd think they'd at least want to try and sell some of them, to cut their losses. But then again, GM has always retained a unique ability to lose money on each car sold.
It looked like they were finally about ready to let Saab be Saab. But I guess that's all a distraction from trying to get young people to buy Buicks, and trying to get soccer moms into GMCs. :err:
..P.S. Saab died when GM bought it, not today.
That's not really true. Where would Saab be if GM didn't buy them? Probably out of business for more than a decade by now. They were basically a one car company with the aging 900 as their bestseller when GM stepped in. Saab had little money and no plans to change and improve their lineup. If anything they were life support for them. It was just another wasted investment on GMs part.
These companies going under is not necessarily a bad thing. I know brands develop intense followings but the problem with the auto industry is massive overcapacity which needs to be dealt with.
GM created Saturn and was flourishing before the other divisions got jealous.
Flourishing.....with an uninspiring product line that never changed. The intense attraction some had to Saturn always seemed to have less to do with product and more to do with the dealer experience and vibe of the company. The cars were pretty stale from day one and never were improved on. They may have been good for GM cars but couldn't really compete with what was coming out of Japan at the time. After a few years the cars were just hideous and the fans moved on.
Flourishing.....with an uninspiring product line that never changed. The intense attraction some had to Saturn always seemed to have less to do with product and more to do with the dealer experience and vibe of the company. The cars were pretty stale from day one and never were improved on. They may have been good for GM cars but couldn't really compete with what was coming out of Japan at the time. After a few years the cars were just hideous and the fans moved on.
It's really the "never improved on" part that's the problem. Hence Quag's "other divisions got jealous" bit, which is one of the few GM-related Quag quotes I'll totally agree with. GM should have told the other divisions to STFU and either come out with something to match Saturn's early success or lose their funding. If GM would have axed all those other brands first, and kept pouring money into building Saturn, I think they'd be in a very different position today. When you have a hit, you run with it, but they didn't. They had an early success, but completely blew it, because various execs wanted attention for their crappy pet divisions instead of wanting what was best for the company. There is no doubt in my mind that Saturn could be up there with Toyota and Honda now, if GM hadn't fumbled the ball and tried in vain to save Oldsmobile, et al.
GM always viewed Saturn in a ridiculously outmoded way. They created Saturn as a niche "import-fighting" division, oblivious to the fact that all of their product would need to fight imports. (It was like having a niche "competitive" division within GM - huh?) The solution to that impasse, of course, would be to have Saturn make all of their product, or at least all of their product that had import competition (at the time, this largely excluded trucks) but that was too risky for GM, who decided to spread amongst nine brands what should have been poured into just two, weakening their advertising. Saturn was perpetually underfunded, and their early success was all but forgotten.
GM's problem is that they were - still are - in love with themselves. They thought that people really wanted to have Buick and Cadillac and GMC and Pontiac and Hummer and Chevrolet and Saturn and Oldsmobile around. GM was convinced that each of these brands would reach customers none of their other brands could, that they were all necessary by virtue of their history and, presumably, a loyal owner base. Some people love(d) those brands, true, but not as much as GM loves them. The problem was that nobody really wanted an Oldsmobile, yet GM still wasted a good bit of their resources (most notably advertising) trying to make Oldsmobile somehow necessary.
The entire dealer model is archaic, IMO, but especially GM's "we're slaves to our dealers" arrangement. Your Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers are telling you they want a more affordable product? You tell them to STFU because they aren't low-end dealers, they chose not to be -- do Lexus dealers demand econoboxes to move? Unfortunately, GM told them "Sure!" and build the Pontiac G3, a clone of the Aveo that exactly zero people asked for. And then they spent money trying to make people ask for it.
Marques should complement each other, not compete for the exact same dollars. It's amazing how long it took GM to learn this, and I think in some ways (Buick/GMC) they still haven't. GM's problem wasn't that they could never make good cars, just that they couldn't make enough good cars to keep nine brands afloat, and thus developed a bad reputation. If they had focused on just keeping their essentials competitive, I think they'd be in a different position.
Quagmire
2009-12-21, 13:07
It's really the "never improved on" part that's the problem. Hence Quag's "other divisions got jealous" bit, which is one of the few GM-related Quag quotes I'll totally agree with.
Oh come on, my other quotes were 100% truth as well. I swear there was no bias ever. ;) :p
The entire dealer model is archaic, IMO, but especially GM's "we're slaves to our dealers" arrangement. Your Pontiac/Buick/GMC dealers are telling you they want a more affordable product? You tell them to STFU because they aren't low-end dealers, they chose not to be -- do Lexus dealers demand econoboxes to move? Unfortunately, GM told them "Sure!" and build the Pontiac G3, a clone of the Aveo that exactly zero people asked for. And then they spent money trying to make people ask for it.
I seriously don't know what GM was thinking with the G3. I know GM reluctantly gave them the G5, but that was a deal with the dealers. Pontiac dealers would merge with GMC and Buick if they got the G5. That is why I hate dealers so much. Pontiac dealers couldn't stand that Pontiac was going to become a niche brand of RWD cars. The dealers still wanted a mainstream rebadged Chevy to shove down our throats, which is why I support abolishing the independent dealer network system. The automakers should be able to open corporate dealers. It would give the automakers direct control over the quality and type of service the consumer gets. No more dealers trying to screw the consumer with mark ups( they added $5K in mark ups to the G8 which helped it fail), no more dealers screwing consumers with ridiculous service where your car needs, " Such and such" when it really doesn't. When there is a bad independent dealer which screws over a customer, they don't know the dealer is independent and think that is how GM treats their customers.
That's what like about Toyota, they killed the markups years ago, at least on new cars. They set the price, and the dealers have to work with it. The dealers make money on service, and used cars. If they screw those things up, they loose customers, plain and simple.
Quagmire
2009-12-21, 15:38
That's what like about Toyota, they killed the markups years ago, at least on new cars. They set the price, and the dealers have to work with it. The dealers make money on service, and used cars. If they screw those things up, they loose customers, plain and simple.
The markups are put on by the dealer, not GM.
I know, but Toyota does not let the dealers do that, which was my point. ;)
Quagmire
2009-12-21, 16:09
I know, but Toyota does not let the dealers do that, which was my point. ;)
Ah ok. I hope GM doesn't let the dealers do it when it comes time for GM and the dealers to redo their contract in 2010. It's a stupid practice which costs GM customers.
DMBand0026
2009-12-21, 17:51
No, GM's shitty vehicles cost them customers.
Spyker has extended their revised offer for Saab "until further notice."
Sell it already, GM! Stop toying with my heart :(
Some of you might have seen this, but here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hc0buYIZXI) was the first ad in Saab's (failed?) re-launch campaign. The ad, for the quick-and-dirty, we're-bleeding-cash-and-need-a-crossover-now 9-3X, showed that Saab was still trying to hold onto its Swedish quirkiness. Plus, it's an actual ad. For a Saab. That alone makes it sort of novel. :\
Quagmire
2009-12-21, 23:10
I would say it failed as I totally forgot about the 9-3x. :p
I would say it failed as I totally forgot about the 9-3x. :p
Apparently, it hasn't gone on sale in the US yet? It's not on Saab's US site.
That's weird, because it actually seems like a very US-facing product -- all it is is a lifted (1.4 inches IIRC) 9-3 SportCombi with two-tone cladding and more standard features (yay roof rails!), but it's a "crossover," not a "wagon." That's very important. It seems designed to escape the stigma wagons have in the US while offering a very (let's face it) car-like crossover, which is what some people want. Yet the US didn't get it (yet?)...huh.
Saab's real relaunch, of course, would have been the new 9-5, Saab's new flagship with a new design language and their first 9-5 update...ever. (The current model dates back to 1998.) Along with that would have been the 9-4x, based on the SRX platform but a more significant (and successful) badge job than either the 9-2x and 9-7x. A really new sedan and a real crossover...just what Saab needs to be relevant again. If I were Saab's new owners, I would actually skip the 2010 model year and launch the 9-5 and 9-4x in the US at NAIAS in January as the first 2011s. :p
dmegatool
2009-12-22, 02:13
That's Tuna Canyon Road (http://www.lateralg.org/roads/orange/malibu3.htm).
It's a magnificent road above Malibu (there are many up there) and it's one-way straight down.
Here's a little video of the trip down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwlf2CRugEM).
Nice road indeed. So you took your pictures at 3:20 right ? :)
atomicbartbeans
2009-12-22, 14:32
Top Gear talk also strongly encouraged. :lol:
Indeed! I've been following Top Gear for several months now, and watched pretty much everything since season 6. Very addictive show.
First car (1996-1998): 1989 Toyota Tercel EZ, manual 4-speed.
Tomoe, how was your experience with the Tercel? Mine is a 1992 Tercel DX 5-speed - I've had it for 8K miles and just under a year.
http://i.imgur.com/E10QL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Rkqy3.jpg
It's the first car that I've owned and it's been very worthwhile so far - purchased from a professor for $950 last January. Fuel economy is quite better than EPA (my record for one tank is 42.05 MPG; I typically get 36-39 highway and 31-34 city).
Apparently, it hasn't gone on sale in the US yet? It's not on Saab's US site.
9-3 Sport Combi is one of the best looking cars out there....9-3X? Not digging the lifted look. And from what I've read the price may be north of $40K!! That's too much for Saabs in my opinion. They just aren't worth it. If I was in the market for that type of vehicle I'd probably buy a Forrester. A lot cheaper and way more reliable.
This season of Top Gear has been a big disappointment. I hope they don't go out on this one, i read that the next ep should bring it back up to our lofty standards though.
Indeed! I've been following Top Gear for several months now, and watched pretty much everything since season 6. Very addictive show.
Tomoe, how was your experience with the Tercel? Mine is a 1992 Tercel DX 5-speed - I've had it for 8K miles and just under a year.
...
It's the first car that I've owned and it's been very worthwhile so far - purchased from a professor for $950 last January. Fuel economy is quite better than EPA (my record for one tank is 42.05 MPG; I typically get 36-39 highway and 31-34 city).
I hope your car went in with the recall, I know they had to do a lot of rebuilds on early 90's Tercels.
Quagmire
2009-12-23, 10:00
The Chinese has bought one Swedish brand. Geely just bought Volvo.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31664
The Chinese has bought one Swedish brand. Geely just bought Volvo.
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31664
:\
I'm a little confused. Ford just guaranteed themselves a new competitor...one that's wanted an in on the US market for a while and certainly won't let go, and one that now has a brand with a safe image that will counteract their biggest weakness (safety). How is this a good idea for Ford? Because they got $2B for it? That's really not that much money, if you think about it. And what do they have now, in that high-end (ish) space? Lincoln? Give me a break.
I wanted a C30, but now I'm not so sure. :\ It's still the same C30, of course, but inferior Volvos in the future could hurt Volvo's brand image and tank its resale value. It'll be a while before we see any models that reflect the change in ownership, but then again, it'll be a while before I can afford a C30, too.
Oh well. We're suddenly faced with an overabundance of adorable small cars, so there's lots of other choices...but my first one was still the C30. It's like the Saab 9-1 we never got. :(
This is a bad year to be a fan of Swedish cars.
Quagmire
2009-12-23, 17:50
So the Goodyear Eagle F1 All Seasons didn't last 8,000 miles....... The fronts are worn out on the outer edges and Goodyear does not make the F1's in the size of the Aura's rim anymore so it is an all 4 job. So after research, I have narrowed it down to the Assurance Triple treads( my dad has a fierce loyalty to Goodyear) vs the Bridgestone Potenza RE960AS Pole Position. I really liked the F1's for their grip and handling in dry and wet conditions. Good grip, response, etc. The Pole Positions would give me the closest performance to the F1's. My dad with his loyalty prefers the Assurance triple treads despite telling him that I have been told that the Triple Treads have the same wear problem as the F1's. He is concerned that getting a similar high performance tire as the F1's, they will not last. I told him I have read over at tirerack, that people have put on 35,000-50,000 miles with no problems.
So anyone out there that can give me any insight with these two tires?
Not with those two tires specifically. I bought some 18" Bridgestone Potenza RE-11s for my car, and I've been happy with them. Great performance in the dry, but I don't think I'd trust them too far in the slippery stuff. But I live in the desert, so... yeah. I have a set of Blizzaks for snow.
Why do people assume Geely will somehow ruin Volvo just because they are Chinese? As for Ford, they had to sell. They have a crushing debt burden and the $2.8 billion (they paid $6.5B I think) is needed to pay some of it down. Remember, just because they didn't take a bailout doesn't mean they are in good shape. Like Land Rover and Jaguar, Volvo was a bad investment for them. Time to focus on the core business.
As for Lincoln, they can compete if they try. This concept is pretty interesting.....
http://www.automotivetraveler.com/images/stories/blogs/richt/090113-02-Lincoln_C_Concept_Front.jpg
Why do people assume Geely will somehow ruin Volvo just because they are Chinese?
It's not just because they're Chinese. I buy lots of products that are made in China. It's that Geely doesn't exactly have the best reputation. The average Geely is also a good bit lower-end than the average Volvo, methinks.
As for Lincoln, they can compete if they try.
But that's the rub, isn't it? Ford really can't afford to try, with Lincoln. They're pouring all of their money into the Ford brand, which is mostly pretty smart, but it means they're not that competitive in the luxury space.
I don't think many luxury buyers today even think to consider Lincoln. It's not that they're necessarily bad cars, although I don't think they're great -- it's just that Lincoln really isn't in the public consciousness like BMW or Lexus or Mercedes-Benz. Getting there would take more advertising than Ford can afford (especially since they also have to split that advertising with Mercury).
I'm not saying Ford should kill Lincoln-Mercury. Not now, anyway, when they don't have anything else to fall back on (no more PAG!). Besides, having that sort of half-life (selling gussied up Fords at a premium) allows Ford to, without a huge investment, sort of have a presence in a market they normally wouldn't have access to. But I don't think they'll ever be truly competitive in that market without a larger cash outlay -- some unique models, and more advertising. (Let's be real, the only reason they've been around for the last decade was because of the Navigator.)
And I normally go for unique/quirky concept cars, but IMO that Lincoln is ugly. But to each his own, I guess :D
As for Lincoln, they can compete if they try. This concept is pretty interesting.....
http://www.automotivetraveler.com/images/stories/blogs/richt/090113-02-Lincoln_C_Concept_Front.jpg
That is interesting. Even if I had the money for a luxury car, I wouldn't touch something that looks like that with a ten foot poll.
I'm running Pirellis and Bridgestones. Do some research on tire rack, if you haven't already
That is interesting. Even if I had the money for a luxury car, I wouldn't touch something that looks like that with a ten foot poll.
I mean, I like most of it. It's just that bizarre "fold" character line, where it juts out just below the beltline (above the door handles). That ruins it. (That, and I don't particularly care for the contrasting roof treatment, or the logo placement on the C-pillar.)
But the rest of it is OK. I like the idea of a small-ish (by Lincoln standards, anyway) luxury hatch, and it seems to wear Lincoln's new corporate grille pretty well. And I like the color. It matches our holiday theme :D
For me it is the entire package, I think hatchbacks are ugly to start with (the only one I think is okay is the Toyota Matrix), so that doesn't help it any in my books. I hate the change in colour between the roof and the lower part of the body too. Also, the front grill looks overdone, and needs to be smaller.
atomicbartbeans
2009-12-24, 13:35
I hope your car went in with the recall, I know they had to do a lot of rebuilds on early 90's Tercels.
No sir, not mine. In fact, it's needed little work done in the past few years (previous owner kept meticulous records), only the sundry components that readily fail in a cold climate due to salted/rough roads and potholes. I've put a few hundred into it for a new catalytic convertor, shocks, and brakes, but nothing unexpected.
Saab has received a stay of execution for at least another week or so while GM considers its options in detail. A good sign? Here's an even better one: GM will actually resume building Saabs in January, including the new 9-5. Still trying not to get my hopes up, but...
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D *snoopy dance* :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Autoblog (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/30/breaking-gm-reportedly-extends-bidding-deadline-for-saab-produ/)
Jalopnik (http://jalopnik.com/5436980/its-alive-gm-to-resume-building-saabs)
BuonRotto
2009-12-30, 16:46
I mean, I like most of it. It's just that bizarre "fold" character line, where it juts out just below the beltline (above the door handles). That ruins it.
Yup, the Bangle Bustle, extended through the mid-section. Bad. The rest looks good, aside from the usual over-sized grille and badges every where (I blame Jon Ive for the oversize logos on things now).
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 16:24
Now this is interesting. Tim Cook new GM CEO?
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-coo-is-a-top-candidate-for-gm-ceo-job-chatter-2009-12
According to BusinessInsider (http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-coo-is-a-top-candidate-for-gm-ceo-job-chatter-2009-12), Apple's own Tim COOk (see what I did there?) is executive search firm Spencer Stewart's "top candidate" for the position of CEO of GM.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Of course, this is based off an anonymous tip. And being Spencer Stewart's first choice doesn't mean that Cook will be willing to leave Apple. Still, I thought it was worth noting. Cook filled in as CEO when Jobs was away; maybe he found that he likes the idea of being a CEO? He's pretty obviously next in line to the Apple throne, but I think/hope Jobs will be perched there for some time yet.
To be honest, I think damn near anybody from Apple would be good for GM. GM needs to do exactly what late-nineties Apple needed to do: Drastically streamline the product matrix, build a brand that people are in love with, and then supplant an uneven dealer network with controlled, consistent, customer-pleasing COR stores.
It's unlikely that GM will take steps that drastic on their own, at least not until they absolute have to (and by then, it will be too late). GM needs their Jobs, or at least somebody just like him. Right now they have a bunch of old-guard execs, a CFO from Microsoft, and a handful of Ed Whitacre's AT&T buddies.
I doubt Cook will leave Apple, but I hope someone with a similar level of insight -- maybe somebody with an actual vision, perhaps? -- finds a seat as GM's CEO.
EDIT: Damn you Quag :( :( :( at least my post is more informative...
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 16:35
The only "old-guard" exec left at GM is Bob Lutz. The rest are outsiders like Whitacre and Liddell or young executives like Mark Reuss who successfully ran Holden.
The only "old-guard" exec left at GM is Bob Lutz. The rest are outsiders like Whitacre and Liddell or young executives like Mark Reuss who successfully ran Holden.
From Fortune's Dumbest Moments in Business 2009 (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0912/gallery.dumbest_moments_2009.fortune/17.html):
GM's closed culture
Almost every executive at General Motors has spent his or her entire working life there, and some say that's part of the troubled automaker's problem.
That's why it seemed noteworthy when CEO Fritz Henderson announced in October that he would find an outsider to fill GM's top North American sales job.
But Henderson didn't seem to look too hard -- just a few hours later, he said he had given the job to Susan Docherty, a GM veteran of more than 20 years.
The automaker eventually looked outside its ranks for a CEO when it pushed Henderson out two months later. It hired GM chairman and former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre, who has admitted in the past that he knows little about cars.
Let's not forget that Buick/GMC manager Brian Sweeney, who took the position after Michael Richards quit after just nine days on the job, is also a 25-year GM vet. And I'm not even looking, this is just from memory. There's still tons of old blood at GM.
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 17:01
True. Thought you meant top management that ran GM into the ground.
Though I have to correct that link, Ed is interim CEO of GM. ;)
True. Thought you meant top management that ran GM into the ground.
Though I have to correct that link, Ed is interim CEO of GM. ;)
Thank god.
Although to be real, the best thing ever for GM would be for them to find some other iCEO... ;)
All the important people at Apple should just take over GM for six months, on a strictly "interim" basis, and cut the crap and do all the stuff that nobody else has the balls to do. Just to help them in this turnaround period. Jobs was the CEO of two companies for years, he could do it again... :p
Jony Ive actually wanted to be an auto designer, originally. I'd buy an Ive-designed Cadillac.
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 18:16
Jobs I am sure would be a good pick. But, his health is questionable right now. Plus, it wouldn't be good that only 7 people knew about the new Cadillac iMac internally. :p
Spy photographers would drop in number due to Jobs telling the engineers driving the mules to shoot on site to ensure secrecy when testing.
billybobsky
2010-01-01, 19:07
GM isn't coming back. It will be sold off piecewise within a decade.
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 20:09
GM isn't coming back. It will be sold off piecewise within a decade.
Maybe, maybe not. Today GM shed over $30 billion in costs and if Opel or Saab doesn't screw anything up, GMNA could be profitable.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/gm-sheds-billions-costs-today-87516/
I'm not sure how selling of GM piecemeal would even work, since all of their current vehicles share all of their platforms -- it's not like there's specific Cadillac platforms/factories/parts, Chevy platforms/factories/parts, &c. Hell, Buick and GMC share a dealer network (in addition to vaguely similar market positioning).
GM will be fine. They just need someone with an actual vision for once, someone who can create cars that can appeal to more just "car people" and brand loyalists, someone isn't afraid of killing some sacred cows and upsetting some people to get there. But that shouldn't be hard to find. Right?
Quagmire
2010-01-01, 21:42
Agreed. The sooner Cadillac can build a car that is faster then the Corvette would be a good sign that GM is willing to do whatever it takes to get back its customers. The Cien was such a wasted concept.....
http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-abc/Cadillac-Cien-Pillars.jpg
The XLR wasn't a great car, but I loved the idea of it. Cadillac needs a halo car, and what says "luxury" better than a roadster? I guess they're going to use the XTS as their new halo car, but I'm not sure how well that's going to work. (It has a much less badass name, for starters.)
And yeah, Cadillac's always had great concepts. Evoq, Provoq, Converj, Sixteen...they aren't always practical, but they are always alluring.
billybobsky
2010-01-01, 23:22
I'm not sure how selling of GM piecemeal would even work, since all of their current vehicles share all of their platforms -- it's not like there's specific Cadillac platforms/factories/parts, Chevy platforms/factories/parts, &c. Hell, Buick and GMC share a dealer network (in addition to vaguely similar market positioning).
GM will be fine. They just need someone with an actual vision for once, someone who can create cars that can appeal to more just "car people" and brand loyalists, someone isn't afraid of killing some sacred cows and upsetting some people to get there. But that shouldn't be hard to find. Right?
I think you are missing the point. GM's value isn't in its factories/labor/management, it's its brands.
I think you are missing the point. GM's value isn't in its factories/labor/management, it's its brands.
I don't think their brands are that valuable, outside of Cadillac and trucks. But Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company bought the Hummer brand, so apparently I'm way of base on this one. :D
One thing's for sure: if Chery buys Chevy, the world will officially explode.
Quagmire
2010-01-07, 00:54
So first we had the regular Regal, now we have a Regal GS concept with a 2.0T 4 banger making 255 HP and 295 lb.-ft of torque.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/reggs3.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/naias-buick-regal-gs-show-car-87722/
Am I the only one who thinks the new Buick look is incredibly...blah? To use a term I read in MT once, it looks Asianonymous. I know that they want to be "America's Lexus" but that doesn't mean they have to make it look so...generic. I mean, the Regal doesn't even have the "sweepspear" character line. If you showed me just the C-pillar, I'd think it was a Nissan.
They went from looking ugly to looking just like tons of other cars. Less offensive, but not a huge improvement. But I guess Buick is going to be their "safe and boring" alternative to edgy Cadillac? Why do they need to have a "safe and boring" division? There's plenty of "safe and boring" luxury cars.
Man, that GS concept is a Buick I could get behind. Hmm, maybe that's because it reminds me of the Lexus is250.
Quagmire
2010-01-07, 01:35
Am I the only one who thinks the new Buick look is incredibly...blah? To use a term I read in MT once, it looks Asianonymous. I know that they want to be "America's Lexus" but that doesn't mean they have to make it look so...generic. I mean, the Regal doesn't even have the "sweepspear" character line. If you showed me just the C-pillar, I'd think it was a Nissan.
They went from looking ugly to looking just like tons of other cars. Less offensive, but not a huge improvement. But I guess Buick is going to be their "safe and boring" alternative to edgy Cadillac? Why do they need to have a "safe and boring" division? There's plenty of "safe and boring" luxury cars.
Why would they design a Buick trait into the Opel Insignia OPC? :p From what I hear, the 2.0T may not make it into the GS as it is just a show car. It may be the 2.8T that is in the Insigna OPC that makes 325 HP when/if it makes production.
http://www.joelfeder.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/opel-insignia-opc.jpg
I still wish this was the Saturn Aura/ Aura Redline instead. :(
I still wish this was the Saturn Aura/ Aura Redline instead. :(
Me too.
For anyone out there in the market, now is a supergood time to buy a Saturn Astra or somesuch. They're discounting them hugely. The catch is that, technically, the new vehicles are now being sold as "used," since the dealers are now officially the first owners. But if you don't mind that...
I'm still a little sad I'll never be able to get a Sky. Poor Saturn...the American revolution that wasn't. *tear*
Quagmire
2010-01-08, 00:06
2011 Chevrolet Aveo RS Concept.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/avrs2.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/avrs3.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/avrs8.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/avrs10.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/naias-chevrolet-aveo-rs-concept-87774/
Ahaha, I knew you would post that as soon as the embargo broke. Six minutes, not bad...of course, it did leak earlier today...but I wasn't going to spoil your fun. :D
It looks like an improvement, but I'm still not digging the huge grille. And we need a new Aveo now. The current one dates back to the 2004 model year, and it wasn't even that good then.
The problem with the current Aveo is its crushing mediocrity. There's nothing outright bad about the car, but nothing very good about it either. GM's planning on upending that mediocrity with the next Aveo, moving the car onto a bigger platform, giving it some aggression and actually styling the interior.
Wait...so it's bigger...but still B-segment? Is that right? Is there really going to be that much space between the Spark (which seems larger than A-segment) and the Cruze (C-segment)? Redundancy FTL.
Quagmire
2010-01-08, 00:18
Ahaha, I knew you would post that as soon as the embargo broke. Six minutes, not bad...of course, it did leak earlier today...but I wasn't going to spoil your fun. :D
It looks like an improvement, but I'm still not digging the huge grille. And we need a new Aveo now. The current one dates back to the 2004 model year, and it wasn't even super good then.
I can assume the production Aveo will be on sale by the fall as it is a 2011 MY vehicle. This is fairly close to the production vehicle minus some body work and 19" wheels. Oh and that leather wrapped interior most likely as well. :p
Oh and I did forget to show off the CTS-V Coupe. :p
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/ctc12.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/ctc42.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/ctc32.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f63/naias-2011-cadillac-cts-v-coupe-87614/
BuonRotto
2010-01-08, 09:32
I thought the Cruze was replacing the Aveo? Or the Spark? Is GM splitting hairs with their car model segments or what?! Guh, one of the first things I would have done is simplify the product line. Just because Audi and others are making this mistake and haven't been hurt too much by it... yet, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
I normally walk or take the underground, but if not, I use my mother's 2008 Range Rover Sport. Did you ever play that N64 racing game Roadsters Trophy? The car shadows were screwed and it looked like you were floating above the track. That's how it feels to drive the Range Rover. I think she had some modifications done because she wanted to one-up one of her idiot friends, but you can't tell. In general I'm an anxious driver, so it's happy chance that I'm also a fitness chappy who can legitimately claim to enjoy walking :)
Quagmire
2010-01-08, 11:23
I thought the Cruze was replacing the Aveo? Or the Spark? Is GM splitting hairs with their car model segments or what?! Guh, one of the first things I would have done is simplify the product line. Just because Audi and others are making this mistake and haven't been hurt too much by it... yet, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Cruze is replacing Cobalt. Aveo is Aveo. Spark is the Smart car competitor.
I'm routinely surprised by what people think looks good or doesn't in a car. That Lincoln from the previous page is in fact quite interesting. It could look good as a Saab or a new age Citreon DS. Citroen's own new age DSs look hideous, as does that Cadillac Cein mid-engine monstrosity from the previous page. The CTS doesn't quite translate to 2 door form, maybe it's the slab sides and high beltline - it's kinda like a Cadillac GTO, not quite there. That Aveo ain't no Golf/Polo - hotwheels were fun when I was a kid, but they only looked good in actual pocket sized dimensions, not in a full size car, even a small one.
Quagmire
2010-01-08, 12:47
I'm routinely surprised by what people think looks good or doesn't in a car. That Lincoln from the previous page is in fact quite interesting. It could look good as a Saab or a new age Citreon DS. Citroen's own new age DSs look hideous, as does that Cadillac Cein mid-engine monstrosity from the previous page. The CTS doesn't quite translate to 2 door form, maybe it's the slab sides and high beltline - it's kinda like a Cadillac GTO, not quite there. That Aveo ain't no Golf/Polo - hotwheels were fun when I was a kid, but they only looked good in actual pocket sized dimensions, not in a full size car, even a small one.
Me too. A person on another forum finds the Camry to be amazing and "sporty" looking. :|
The CTS Coupe looks IMHO pretty good in person. Now this is just the concept when I went to the British Auto Show, but the production CTS Coupe is not that different from it.
http://gallery.me.com/quagmire2/100095/IMGP0684/web.jpg
On another subject, anyone see the last episode of Top Gear? They couldn't admit the Vauxhall Insignia VXR was a good car. They somewhat did, but they decided to bore the crap out of people with that road sign BS so maybe people wouldn't notice they said the VXR was a good car. :p
On another subject, anyone see the last episode of Top Gear? They couldn't admit the Vauxhall Insignia VXR was a good car. They somewhat did, but they decided to bore the crap out of people with that road sign BS so maybe people wouldn't notice they said the VXR was a good car. :p
I haven't watched it much this season. It felt too scripted, I know a lot of people jav had that complaint. I am planning on catching up as soon as my comp gets back from Apple tho.
In the latest installment of the never ending Saab saga...it looks like a private equity firm involving F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone might bid. Maybe he should concentrate on making Formula 1 something more than a cure for insomnia than buying a dead company. GM is smartly moving to liquidate despite these bids which probably can't get financing. It's time for Saab to disappear. They haven't designed their own car since the 99/900. Thirty years of rebadges and reskins have killed the brand. Selling down market cars at luxury car prices was never a good strategy.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/spyker-submits-fresh-offer-for-gms-saab-unit-2010-01-08?reflink=MW_news_stmp
Downmarket masquerading as luxury? Sounds like Ecclestone all over it.
:( :( :(
I like the CTS coupe too, but not as much as I like the sportwagon. :D I'd take a CTS-V wagon in an instant (I know I'm probably one of the only ones...).
Also, I normally don't like SUVs or crossovers but for some reason I'm loving the new SRX. It's less wagonlike than the old one, so one would think I would like it less, but I'm totally in love with its new stance. I just wish it came in an ER-EV version, like the Provoq concept (or at least a hybrid version, like the Lexus RX). Instead, they make a hybrid Escalade...what's the point?
Any thoughts on the new KIA/Hyundai hybrids? Looks like they will be the cheapest hybrids on the market, when they become available .
joveblue
2010-01-08, 16:44
2011 Chevrolet Aveo RS Concept.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/avrs2.jpg
That's odd, that's the Melbourne skyline. I wonder why it's in Melbourne (or is that a photoshop job?). We don't even have Chevrolet's here, much less left-hand drives... Although it might end up here rebadged as a Holden. We don't even have a GM holden production plant here. :confused:
Quagmire
2010-01-08, 17:32
:( :( :(
I like the CTS coupe too, but not as much as I like the sportwagon. :D I'd take a CTS-V wagon in an instant (I know I'm probably one of the only ones...).
Also, I normally don't like SUVs or crossovers but for some reason I'm loving the new SRX. It's less wagonlike than the old one, so one would think I would like it less, but I'm totally in love with its new stance. I just wish it came in an ER-EV version, like the Provoq concept (or at least a hybrid version, like the Lexus RX). Instead, they make a hybrid Escalade...what's the point?
Don't get me started on the SRX.... POS FWD and now as reviews are out, POS 3.0 DI V6. Fix the two problems of the 1st gen, but ruin the reason why the 1st gen won C&D best luxury SUV for 3 years in a row and came in second in a comparison in 2007 only beaten by the MDX. :rolleyes:
Downmarket masquerading as luxury? Sounds like Ecclestone all over it.
:lol: :lol:
Downmarket masquerading as luxury? Sounds like Ecclestone all over it.
http://www.speedsportlife.com/photopost/data/1158/thumbs/cadillac_cimarron_pub_83.jpg
Quagmire
2010-01-10, 13:02
GM finally released a picture of the interior of the CTS-V Coupe.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/X11CA_CT027.jpg
Quag, do you know what the V (in CTS-V, &c.) stands for?
I know there isn't an actual "V Division" within GM, like M-Technik or AMG. It's just a performance sub-brand, like the Lexus F-marque. But I was still wondering if it had any meaning, or if it was just chosen because it sounded/looked edgy and suggested performance.
If not, I'm nominating Viggen. *tear*
:p
Quagmire
2010-01-10, 13:58
V doesn't mean a thing.
V doesn't mean a thing.
It could mean anything, then. It could mean that a victorious vegetarian viking is vexed. But I say it means Viggen. :D
Speaking of Cadillac...ATS? Converj? Something else? (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/10/spy-shots-mystery-small-cadillac-spotted-ats-or-converj/)
I can't wait for either car. But I'm not exactly sure what place the Converj is suppose to hold in the line-up? If it's just "the ER-EV Cadillac," couldn't they just make an ATS-E or something? It seems like they would go for a unique body style, too, since they already have the CTS coupe. To me, the name suggests either one of those "four-door coupes" that are all the rage these days (the convergence of a coupe and sedan) or a hard-top convertible (the convergence of a coupe and a convertible) but the concept was neither. So I guess we'll see.
Of course, the name will probably change to something like "VRJ" by the time it's released (Voltec Racing Jalopy?), so what "Converj" suggests may well be irrelevant. In any case, I hope it stays super-edgy and low-slung and sporty, something that would take the place of the XLR. A Z Series to the CTS coupe's 6 Series.
Either that, or a fastback or shooting brake, something like an electric Scirocco. Ooh. :D :D :D
Am I the only one who's annoyed that the automotive press got to see the ATS (or a styling example, anyway) six months ago and we aren't even going to see it at NAIAS (probably)? Cadillac is sort of taking their time with their turnaround, no? I mean, I know GM has been having financial troubles, but they've delayed the ATS, et al so many times. By the time the ATS and XTS hit (2012?), we'll need a new (or at least mid-cycle-refreshed) CTS to accompany them! Hopefully, that's the plan.
Still not a fan of the XTS moniker. In alphanumeric parlance, X = crossover/SUV. Sure, there was the XLR, but that's obviously a sort of pun ("accelerate"), as well as its own...thing. If it's supposed to stand for "Extended Touring Sedan," why not "ETS"? Makes sense, as the successor to the DTS, and then you'd have a nice ATS/CTS/ETS thing going.
But then again, Cadillac's whole nomenclature is a mess. You have the Catera Touring Sedan...coupe. And you still have the Escalade, which doesn't fit in at all (but of course they'll never change it). I get that "CTS coupe" has more name recognition than "CTC" would, but I still find it irksome :D
They're miles ahead of Lincoln, though, who went through four different alphanumeric schemes in about as many years. :eek: And "CTS" still rolls off the tongue far easier than "MKZ." What were they thinking?
And yes, I know all my posts turn into rants about naming. :o But if you're going to try and have a cohesive naming scheme, you have to be cohesive, you have to do it right. MKT? WTF is that shit? :lol:
Quag, do you know what the V (in CTS-V, &c.) stands for?
V doesn't mean a thing.
It could mean anything, then.
Larry David: So, this is the GTS model...
Customer: What does GTS stand for?
Larry David: Uh... Guaranteed Tremendous Safety...
Customer: Oh. So what does the GT model stand for? Just Guaranteed Tremendous?
Larry David: Uh... yes...
Quagmire
2010-01-10, 17:10
Speaking of Cadillac...ATS? Converj? Something else? (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/10/spy-shots-mystery-small-cadillac-spotted-ats-or-converj/)
A lot of people are saying its fake. Notice the passenger rear wheel or lack there of.....
A lot of people are saying its fake. Notice the passenger rear wheel or lack there of.....
Yeah, I noticed that after I posted it. Oh well. It doesn't change anything, about me wanting to see the ATS :grumble:
Larry David: So, this is the GTS model...
Customer: What does GTS stand for?
Larry David: Uh... Guaranteed Tremendous Safety...
Customer: Oh. So what does the GT model stand for? Just Guaranteed Tremendous?
Larry David: Uh... yes...
:lol:
Some people hate the alphanumeric nomenclature that it seems like every luxury automaker is adopting (except, notably, Buick and Mercury, both of which are intended to be softer antecedents to the more hard-edged Cadillac and Lincoln). I'll be honest -- I don't. In fact, I think "aspirational" car names are kind of silly. Regal? LeSabre? Lucerne? I'm not trying to hate on just Buick here, but there's nothing "regal" about a low-end Buick. Or even a high-end one, for that matter.
I prefer alphanumeric nomenclature...when it makes sense. BMW and M-B have been at it the longest, and have the benefit of owning individual numbers (BMW) or letters (M-B). Everybody else needs to use multiple letters (ES), multiple numbers (9-5), or a combination (A4), but that's okay -- probably a good thing, because it helps each "scheme" be ownable. (In other words, when you hear of a sedan labeled [something]TS, you know it's a Cadillac, without even hearing the make.)
The important thing is that designations A) are consistent, B) are identified with the brand and C) give a clear sense of progression, from lowest-end to highest. BMW, Audi, and Saab are the best at this, as they have the benefit of a progression of numerals paired with, in the case of Audi and Saab, universally reconizable prefixes ("A" and "9-", of course). M-B requires you to know their class designations but it's mostly alphabetical, from worst to best (as is Cadillac).
But then there's Lexus. Quick, arrange these Lexus models in order from lowest-end to highest: ES, GS, HS, IS, LS. That's not it, though that's the alphabetical arrangement. Only people who "know" Lexus are going to get the hierarchy, but everybody knows a 7 Series is better than a 3 Series. Thus, Lexus fails at the third requirement. Acura does too. (They have other problems, which I won't get into here. No, their new corporate grille isn't what I meant :D).
Lincoln fails at everything. First of all, they are just now arriving at a scheme that is consistent, and still not completely (Navigator and Town Car still exist). They've used, again, four different schemes in recent memory, and their first attempt at an alphanumeric name was the short-lived Lincoln LS. Yes, they straight-up ripped the name of the flagship Lexus. So they fail at the second requirement, because nobody ever hears "LS" and thinks "Lincoln." After "LS," they had "Mark [something]," which I would have stayed with...and then "MK[something]," pronounced "Mark something," and then "MK[something]," pronounced "Emm-Kay-something." Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't t?
Anyway, I'll shut up now. In short, Japanese automakers are good at lots of things but alphanumeric designations aren't one of them, and Lincoln fails at life. That is all.
Quagmire
2010-01-10, 22:27
Woot! Converj has been green lighted. :)
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OEM04/100119990/1115#
Woot! Converj has been green lighted. :)
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OEM04/100119990/1115#
I thought it was greenlighted before? Maybe that was just a rumor.
"After 2012," though...I hope he means after the 2012 model year (which, to be fair, is already looking sort of crowded for Cadillac...XTS, maybe ATS?), and not after the year 2012. I'd like to see in released no later than calendar year 2012 (2013 MY).
And I get what he says, about needing to "slot it into" the line-up. It's like what I was just saying -- it'll have to be something unique, not just an electric CTS coupe.
Anyway, NAIAS starts in just a few hours...embargoes might expire at midnight on Monday, so about an hour from now? Exciting. Chrysler has a whole lotta nothin' -- people on Jalopnik are freaking out over all the special editions of dated models (http://jalopnik.com/5443804/chrysler-to-detroit-auto-show-yeah-we-got-nothin), but I'm like...it's going to take time to turn them around. Quick, cheap cash-ins on old models are, well, quick and cheap cash-ins. I hope it keeps them afloat long enough for us to see some new models.
(I would be remiss to not mention that Chrysler Group actually has improved many of their models for 2010, making many options standard and redesigning their often lackluster interiors.)
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who cares to see Chrysler turn around. It's not out of any sort of loyalty, I'd just like, y'know, a thriving American auto industry. And I think it'd be nice to see Chrysler be an actual luxury marque, instead of just a sort-of-upmarket Dodge.
Quagmire
2010-01-10, 23:22
Yep I know of two vehicles being released tonight. A Ford and a GMC concept.
And Converj was a go as long as GM got the green funds( the same ones that Ford got forgot the real name of the program). Which they apparently did so it is a go. :)
Yep I know of two vehicles being released tonight. A Ford and a GMC concept.
And Converj was a go as long as GM got the green funds( the same ones that Ford got forgot the real name of the program). Which they apparently did so it is a go. :)
I can only assume that the GMC concept is going to be the GMC Granite aka Urban Utility Concept, which seems a little weird. A small MPV by GMC? But I guess if GMC is going to be one of GM's "core brands" (bad idea) they're going to have to expand (bad idea) beyond their "professional grade" market (bad idea), right?
In other news, Cadillac has a new ad agency...that has never worked with an automaker before. This should be different! I actually liked Cadillac's ads; it was Buick's advertising (or lack thereof?) that needed more work...that "makeover" ad was so cheesy. I think they should bring back Cadillac's old "Standard of the World" tagline. I mean, it's not true, but maybe it could be, maybe. There's no reason it couldn't, if GM tried. I actually really liked "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit," particularly its multiple typeface wordmark, but I can't help but think that it would be a better fit for Chevy, replacing "American Revolution." There's hopefully reasons to buy a Cadillac besides just "it's American," but Chevy...well, they need that help a bit more, I think. :D
Oh, and Chevrolet should officially change its name to Chevy. Nobody says "Chevrolet" any more, ever.
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 00:03
GMC Granite Concept:
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/X10CC_GM015.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/naias-gmc-granite-concept-87857/#post1945453
I knew the Ford model would be the Focus! Couldn't be anything else, really, since Ford replaced basically every other car they sold last year. (Well, I guess it could have been the new unibody Explorer. Ugh.)
The new Focus is nice.
And, yup, the GMC concept is the Granite -- no surprise there. I'm normally a fan of boxy, polarizing designs...but that's for their simplicity, something the Granite...lacks. It also just seems totally off-brand and very..."old GM." Do they have to make rebadges of everything? But it's just a concept, for now, and I have a hunch it'll stay that way.
At the stroke of midnight, Autoblog became plastered with ads for the CR-Z. The CRX replacement I always wanted...and it's a hybrid! I can't wait. :D
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 00:10
And, yup, the GMC concept is the Granite -- no surprise there. I'm normally a fan of boxy, polarizing designs...but that's for their simplicity, something the Granite...lacks. It also just seems totally off-brand and very..."old GM." Do they have to make rebadges of everything? But it's just a concept, for now, and I have a hunch it'll stay that way.
How is it a rebadge? If it goes into production it rides on Gamma II and I don't think it looks like the Aveo at all. ;) Orlando is Delta II.
How is it a rebadge? If it goes into production it rides on Gamma II and I don't think it looks like the Aveo at all. ;) Orlando is Delta II.
Autoblog says that GM hasn't divulged the platform but that they think it will "share many parts" with Delta II. The Orlando is five inches shorter, which could make it unique, but a GMC the size of a Honda Fit? I love small cars and I have a hard time buying that. It doesn't fit the brand at all. It would be like, well, a GMC subcompact.
Next up, a RAM city car based on the Fiat 500. :D
I'm sorry Quag, but I just don't see how anybody can think it's a good idea. Even GM Authority (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2010/01/teaser-photo-of-gmc-granite-leaks-but-should-gm-build-it/) (who also thinks it will be based on Delta II) are unimpressed. GM needs to make its brands more distinct, not muddle the waters further by having GMC make a car (GM Authority's label, not mine). GM should be reducing nameplates; they certainly shouldn't be adding to the mess by having four general-purpose brands.
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 00:22
Autoblog says that GM hasn't divulged the platform but that they think it will "share many parts" with Delta II. The Orlando is five inches shorter, which could make it unique, but a GMC the size of a Honda Fit? I love small cars and I have a hard time buying that. It doesn't fit the brand at all. It would be like, well, a GMC subcompact.
Next up, a RAM city car based on the Fiat 500.
I'm sorry Quag, but I just don't see how anybody can think it's a good idea. Even GM Authority (http://gmauthority.com/blog/2010/01/teaser-photo-of-gmc-granite-leaks-but-should-gm-build-it/) (who also thinks it will be based on Delta II) are unimpressed. GM needs to make its brands more distinct, not muddle the waters further by having GMC make a car (GM Authority's label, not mine). GM should be reducing nameplates; they certainly shouldn't be adding to the mess by having four general-purpose brands.
I have been told it would be on Gamma II and the person's sources have been quite accurate. Dig around GMI and look up our exclusives. ;) Makes sense as its length is around the Aveo's I believe( by visual they seem to be roughly the same size). Nothing is concrete as this is just a concept right now with no plans for production yet.
Even I don't get it, but if it does go into production and sells, what do we know? :p Everyone thinks this is Delta II because they automatically think it is a rebadge of the Orlando.
In any case, I don't know why we're talking about it instead of the new Focus, which is unquestionably a more important car.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/nextgenfordfocus014_opt.jpg
HAWT.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/nextgenfordfocus000_opt.jpg
Cue Saturn-ad-style "THAT is a Focus?!?"
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/nextgenfordfocus022_opt.jpg
That's an 8" screen. In a Focus.
This is such a huge step up for Ford and I think it will be a huge success, globally. I think they will be able to compete very well with compacts here in the States, for the first time in a long time. I'm not really a fan but I'm still happy for them, they have momentum.
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 00:47
What is even more ground breaking is that the US gets it first! Take that Europeans! :p
joveblue
2010-01-11, 02:44
That's odd, that's the Melbourne skyline. I wonder why it's in Melbourne (or is that a photoshop job?). We don't even have Chevrolet's here, much less left-hand drives... Although it might end up here rebadged as a Holden. We don't even have a GM holden production plant here. :confused:So apparently the Aveo was designed in the GM Holden design centre in Melbourne. It won't be produced here however, it'll be produced by GM Daewoo in Korea, and sold here as a Holden Barina. Good to know we're producing some good designs here. :)
So apparently the Aveo was designed in the GM Holden design centre in Melbourne. It won't be produced here however, it'll be produced by GM Daewoo in Korea, and sold here as a Holden Barina. Good to know we're producing some good designs here. :)
I'm skeptical. The current Aveo, also by GM Daewoo, is arguably the single worst vehicle you can buy in the States. It is one of a very select group of cars -- the current Chrysler Sebring being another -- that has absolutely no redeeming features. I honestly have no idea why anyone would purchase one; it's not even particularly inexpensive. I'll stop now, for fear of offending an Aveo (or Sebring) owner. :D
I'm sure you're a nice person, theoretical Aveo/Sebring owner! Please don't take it personally.
And please don't be ezkcdude.
Now. That Melbourne Aveo certainly looks...more acceptable. The single worst feature is the oversized grille, and that's likely an concept-only tweak; the production vehicle will actually be an improvement in that regard. But I'm still skeptical. (The last Aveo was styled by Pininfarina, but that didn't help it.) I will say that, at this point, it looks like it wears the lines of the Beat/Spark more successfully. (See? Positive!)
But you don't understand. I've been subjected to the Aveo for years, not just as a Chevy, but as a Pontiac too. (An old guy on my street has one. A blue one, with a bra on it -- isn't that weird?) I'm being as positive as the emotional scarring allows. :p
joveblue
2010-01-11, 06:30
Apparently the concept will "closely mirror the look of the production car once you strip away its hot hatch-inspired 19-inch wheels and body adornments".
Hopefully it actually has something to offer this time around. Otherwise GM might as well give up. :\
V doesn't mean a thing.
V is the seating position of anybody who tries to wedge himself in the back of the coupe.
(THIS IS A JOKE: Upon cursory glance there's about as much room in the CTS-V back seats as any other coupe.)
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 08:18
Bah! Equinox got cheated! No way the Transit Connect is more truck of the year worthy then the new Equinox! I demand a recount! :p
And Fusion won too. Clean sweep for Ford.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/ford-fusion-ford-transit-connect-take-top-honors-87869/
I don't know. I can see why they thought the Transit Connect was more significant, being sort of a new genre for the US and all.
Ford has been on a roll lately...like I said, momentum.
The "Chrysler Delta" looks better than I thought it would -- but then again, I've always liked the look of the Lancia Delta. It seems to fit right in with Chrysler's sleek concept car tradition -- now, will it change their totally un-sleek production car tradition? If it hits next year as a 2012, I could see it being a hit -- the first New New Chrysler (unless you count the conspicuously absent 2011 300). Chrysler just needs to turn around fast -- people are already tiring of the special edition game they're playing.
People on Autoblog aren't getting it...they're thinking it's, like, the new Pacifica? It's like, dude, it's the replacement for the PT. Viewed in that light, it's a huge step up, and really gets Chrysler closer to being an actual luxury marque -- where they need to be. They have Dodge for the rest.
Lancia does have the worst web site of any "major" auto maker, though.
This pretty convincing tv spot called suicide just went viral. Well done, but you can tell that it is not of Audi's standard or quality with the use of music and close, but wrong typeface. Audi released a statement calling it fake and is attempting to have it removed. Fake or not it's creating a buzz.
http://www.adverblog.com/archives/004152.htm
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 10:15
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/01/gmc-granite-concept-live_02.jpg
The Granite sure is small.
Here is Orlando Concept for comparison.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/10/01_chevy_orlando_live_opt.jpg
http://files.posterous.com/generalmotors/bXMbxtS1MxgjG50sTm85nf9bTzvkbAjWb1PBYQyF70WjZMKLwb NkVFVouzI0/photo.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1263223181&Signature=3jWMcgyM8Geubij320qp8A7LIjw%3D
The Granite sure is small.
It's so teensy, your image isn't showing up!
It's very close to the size of the Honda Fit, from what I gather -- just a bit wider. Nobody gets it. They won't make it. It was a waste of time and money designing the concept. But hey, go GM! :p
This pretty convincing tv spot called suicide just went viral. Well done, but you can tell that it is not of Audi's standard or quality with the use of music and close, but wrong typeface. Audi released a statement calling it fake and is attempting to have it removed. Fake or not it's creating a buzz.
http://www.adverblog.com/archives/004152.htm
I wouldn't want that kind of buzz and potential liability. What happens when someone tries that for real (possibly with a non-TDI Audi) and then dies?
Quagmire
2010-01-11, 11:37
It's so teensy, your image isn't showing up!
It's very close to the size of the Honda Fit, from what I gather -- just a bit wider. Nobody gets it. They won't make it. It was a waste of time and money designing the concept. But hey, go GM! :p
Fixed. :p
I wouldn't want that kind of buzz and potential liability. What happens when someone tries that for real (possibly with a non-TDI Audi) and then dies?
Hence its viral status. Audi can say that it was a rejected ad that was never meant to be seen...wink wink, nudge nudge.
I'm still digging the Delta. A Chrysler. Wow.
I wouldn't want that kind of buzz and potential liability. What happens when someone tries that for real (possibly with a non-TDI Audi) and then dies?
To quote one of the greatest athletes that never was, Ivan Drago. "If he dies, he dies". :wtf:
To quote one of the greatest athletes that never was, Ivan Drago. "If he dies, he dies". :wtf:
Evolution FTW!
Hence its viral status. Audi can say that it was a rejected ad that was never meant to be seen...wink wink, nudge nudge.
But it was seen, and I don't think it's worth the negative vibe. Some idiot will try it and kill himself in the process regardless of who made it, and it will be associated with the brand. I guess maybe it's possible another car company paid for it!
Seeing how this was not made to earn profits by the creator who is not Audi is one thing, however if this has the potential to lose any sales for Audi or cause damages they have every right to issue a lawsuit, at the very least have the person edit it to take off the Audi four ring logo. and a disclaimer would be nice.
Audi can't stop anyone from using their products in personal projects which this was.
Unless I'm missing something it looks like Ford won't be doing a three door Focus? Kind of an interesting move in this segment. Let's hope they have better luck with this car than they did with the first Focus that came over from Europe. That car took a detour through the Ford Accounting Department and came out with cheaper quality. Plus, eleven recalls didn't help! Not that I was expecting it but seems like there will be no diesel option either which sucks.
In any case, I don't know why we're talking about it instead of the new Focus, which is unquestionably a more important car.
Yeah I'm not much of a Ford fan and not really interested by anything they do, but even I'll admit that looks good. And more importantly, looks like a step in the right direction. The prospect of an SVT "Ecoboost" version seems pretty attractive, maybe to compete with the WRX 5 door.
BuonRotto
2010-01-11, 16:08
Ford is kicking ass lately. I luurve the 5-door hatch/wagon flavor of the new Focus.
I'm loving this smaller rear wheel drive Audi E-Tron (http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Audi_News/article_5579.shtml) for the Detroit auto show. Smaller form factor means smaller price tag right? I do like the back a lot more than the first red Quattro concept based off the R8.
This looks more like a direct competitor to the Tesla Roadster.
e-tron is going to be Audi's electric brand -- think quattro -- so I'm sure there will be a TT e-tron, an R8 e-tron, &c. Hopefully an A3 e-tron, too. :-)
Speaking of the A3, that's apparently the Delta's chief competition overseas, but I'm really not sure Chrysler has the brand cachet to even compete with that. The Delta can't cost more than the 300. They're going to have to get up into that luxury space -- that's their challenge -- but it's going to be slow going and they might be "pushing it" for a while. Unless they go for a clean-break "now we are luxury!" approach, I guess. But they have to get out of the Mercury-esque "not luxury, but not cheap" worst-of-both-worlds place they are now.
I just hope the US Delta won't be too decontented (to get the price down). I think it would be better for Chrysler to have a really strong luxury compact for $23,999 than a decontented not-really-luxury compact for $19,999. That sort of thing attracts no buyers, in either direction (luxury or bargain).
It's hard to believe that BMW sells a cheaper car than Chrysler (the MINI). Chrysler needs to pick a market and stick with it - no more of this double-life stuff. They have Dodge for "value," so they need to step it up. They need to be the Gap to Dodge's Old Navy, at the very least.
Is it odd that the Chrysler Group's namesake brand is their weakest? Or that I'm still talking about the Delta? (I like comeback stories, I guess.)
Quagmire
2010-01-12, 11:21
Sorry I am late. Was on the auto train back down to FL. :(
Cadillac XTS Platinum concept. I will say that along with it being on Super Epsilon II, I am disappointed how conservatively they styled the front end. It needed to be more like the Sixteen concept.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/CadillacXTSFrontAngleTop.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/gallery/data/591/medium/CadillacXTS4.jpg
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/naias-cadillac-xts-platinum-concept-87912/
I was waiting for you to post that. :lol: I didn't want to be the only one posting in this thread...
I agree, the XTS is disappointing. I keep on hearing that it would be "an okay stopgap," but considering it's not coming for another two years it can't be just a "stopgap." If it was arriving today, and there was a much better flagship two years down the road, that'd be different. Some other choice quotes from Real People around the interwebs:
"It has no reason being called an 'XTS.' It's a DTS. And that's fine. But it's a car meant for the geriatric set. And I'm of the position that Cadillac needs to dump them forever. And if they want a Cadillac, they can get one of the newer Cadillacs."
"I am kind of astonished at how bland it came out, though." (There are tons of quips that basically amounted to this, and I agree. They took Art & Science and took all the edginess out of it. It looks like, well, a DTS.)
I saw two quotes that perplexed me:
"S-Class is the standard of the world when it comes to luxury. XTS doesn't compete with it. And it's not meant to. The problem is XTS is made to cater to geriatrics."
...and...
"An S-Series challenger it is not, but GM told us that a while ago."
There's this sort of idea that the XTS isn't meant to compete with the S-Class or 7 Series. So...GM is knowingly making an uncompetitive car, and that's okay? I mean, if it's not "supposed" to be cross-shopped with the S or 7, what is it "supposed" to compete with? The Hyundai Equus? :err: (Actually, the Equus will likely cost more. :\)
This is probably my favorite quote: "I'm not thrilled this car exists. It's an underpowered FWD barge which is exactly the car that Cadillac shouldn't be building." So true.
All of those quotes were from a GM fansite (I'm sure you know the one ;)). Sure, some people were more positive, but a lot of people basically said the same sorts of things; they were surprised at how bland it was, or that they couldn't wait for the "real" S/7 competitor. But it's taken them how long to make the XTS? Ugh.
Hopefully, the ATS will be more competitive, with the 3 Series. But I can see the same people making the same excuses for it, in a few months time. "GM told us it wasn't meant to be competitive. Maybe someday they'll really take on the 3."
Jalopnik repeatedly calls it a "luxo-barge," although they did conclude that, while they hoped to never own one, it was "damn sexy." I'm not sure I'd agree. It bulges, Cadilacs are never supposed to bulge. GM insists it draws inspiration from the Sixteen but the usual response to that is "where?"
I really hope GM takes some of its criticisms to heart and at least makes it look a bit more hard-edged. (Better yet, move it to Zeta! Then they could call it the ZTS, which sounds so much nicer.) The DTS (and its octogenarian audience) has been Cadillac's security blanket for far too long; it's time to let them go. Cadillac can't be a one-model brand; they can't have a "good Cadillac" and a "land-barge Cadillac" trying to coexist.
My brother designed the interior of this (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/11/detroit-2009-chrysler-200c-concept-what-the-sebring-should-hav/) last year. Pre-Fiat, he said there was some debate between the more avant-guarde designers like him and the conservative designers. I don't know what the story is now, but it's "safe" to say Chrysler design isn't changing direction. They don't even have a serious concept car at the show this year other than the rebadged Lancia.
Quagmire
2010-01-12, 17:14
I was waiting for you to post that. :lol: I didn't want to be the only one posting in this thread...
I agree, the XTS is disappointing. I keep on hearing that it would be "an okay stopgap," but considering it's not coming for another two years it can't be just a "stopgap." If it was arriving today, and there was a much better flagship two years down the road, that'd be different. Some other choice quotes from Real People around the interwebs:
"It has no reason being called an 'XTS.' It's a DTS. And that's fine. But it's a car meant for the geriatric set. And I'm of the position that Cadillac needs to dump them forever. And if they want a Cadillac, they can get one of the newer Cadillacs."
"I am kind of astonished at how bland it came out, though." (There are tons of quips that basically amounted to this, and I agree. They took Art & Science and took all the edginess out of it. It looks like, well, a DTS.)
I saw two quotes that perplexed me:
"S-Class is the standard of the world when it comes to luxury. XTS doesn't compete with it. And it's not meant to. The problem is XTS is made to cater to geriatrics."
...and...
"An S-Series challenger it is not, but GM told us that a while ago."
There's this sort of idea that the XTS isn't meant to compete with the S-Class or 7 Series. So...GM is knowingly making an uncompetitive car, and that's okay? I mean, if it's not "supposed" to be cross-shopped with the S or 7, what is it "supposed" to compete with? The Hyundai Equus? :err: (Actually, the Equus will likely cost more. :\)
This is probably my favorite quote: "I'm not thrilled this car exists. It's an underpowered FWD barge which is exactly the car that Cadillac shouldn't be building." So true.
All of those quotes were from a GM fansite (I'm sure you know the one ;)). Sure, some people were more positive, but a lot of people basically said the same sorts of things; they were surprised at how bland it was, or that they couldn't wait for the "real" S/7 competitor. But it's taken them how long to make the XTS? Ugh.
Hopefully, the ATS will be more competitive, with the 3 Series. But I can see the same people making the same excuses for it, in a few months time. "GM told us it wasn't meant to be competitive. Maybe someday they'll really take on the 3."
Jalopnik repeatedly calls it a "luxo-barge," although they did conclude that, while they hoped to never own one, it was "damn sexy." I'm not sure I'd agree. It bulges, Cadilacs are never supposed to bulge. GM insists it draws inspiration from the Sixteen but the usual response to that is "where?"
I really hope GM takes some of its criticisms to heart and at least makes it look a bit more hard-edged. (Better yet, move it to Zeta! Then they could call it the ZTS, which sounds so much nicer.) The DTS (and its octogenarian audience) has been Cadillac's security blanket for far too long; it's time to let them go. Cadillac can't be a one-model brand; they can't have a "good Cadillac" and a "land-barge Cadillac" trying to coexist.
Everything else is fine, IMHO. back end is nice as is the side profile. And that interior! :eek:
I am hearing Lutz is fighting tooth and nail to get the Cadillac Zeta revived. Now with the Anti-Zeta/beancounters off the executive board( Fritz, LaNave, Young) with more product oriented people on it, I assume Lutz wish might got a bit easier to pass. Hell, new GMNA President( ex-Holden guy) has teased us that he wants the Commodore to return. So who knows what will happen.
My brother designed the interior of this (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/11/detroit-2009-chrysler-200c-concept-what-the-sebring-should-hav/) last year. Pre-Fiat, he said there was some debate between the more avant-guarde designers like him and the conservative designers. I don't know what the story is now, but it's "safe" to say Chrysler design isn't changing direction. They don't even have a serious concept car at the show this year other than the rebadged Lancia.
Chrysler has long had an identity crisis. For years, there's basically been two Chryslers -- "concept" Chrysler and "real" Chrysler. There's a disconnect there for all automakers, true, but it's especially bad with Chrysler. Chrysler concepts use slender, elongated forms -- exactly the opposite of all current production Chryslers. What's more, Chrysler concept interiors have had a recognizable (and, in my opinion, very nice) style for some time -- if you see the right light leather and swoopy chrome arcs, you know that you're in a Chrysler concept even without seeing the logo. I think Chrysler's concepts actually share a more apparent design language than their production cars, which is...worrysome. (But it means your brother did a good job. :))
Chrysler Group doesn't have room for two mass-market passenger car brands. Chrysler's going to have to lose their multiple personality disorder and really go upmarket, like their concepts have been for years. (And it wouldn't hurt for Dodge to get a little more affordable, either. I mean, their cheapest car starts at over $17k.) I think Chrysler will be able to do that if they play their cars right. True, they're pretty much off the radar for many car buyers today (especially luxury buyers), but that gives them all the opportunity to reinvent themselves. They don't have a bad image, just an irrelevant one. They just need to tell us who they are.
That takes product. That also takes money. That's why it's a little bit worrisome that Chrysler really didn't have a presentation at NAIAS. They had a presence, but they released some special editions and a concept essentially without comment. What "the new Chrysler" really needed was a coming-out party, with the new 300 and a splashy ad campaign. But that will have to wait, which scares me, because the 300 is supposed to come out this year. (Same with Fiat, which had an equally ghostly presence at the show. If the Fiat 500, which by all signs could be the new MINI, is supposed to be hitting US dealers by year-end, shouldn't they have started building the hype at Detroit? But I digress.)
Chrysler needs to make it clear to buyers that they're serious about luxury, that they're not in some Buick/Mercury/Oldsmobile-esque "sort-of lux" segment. That means, for starters, they have to get out of that segment. :p No more cars from 1999 and no more cars for $19,999. They don't have to take BMW and Mercedes head-on, but they could at least take on Acura and Lincoln and maybe the lower-end Audis, I mean come on.
With the exception of the lingering, moldy spirit of the DTS (and now XTS), Cadillac seems to have transformed themselves rather nicely. There's no reason Chrysler can't do the same. Granted, not all of Cadillac's metamorphosis was due entirely to GM's efforts -- I don't think anyone at the RenCen planned for the (are you ready?) "hip-hop community" to embrace Cadillac and the Escalade so heartily, which certainly helped Cadillac shed a good bit of their old (in all senses of the word) image. While there's nothing Chrysler can do to start a movement like that (or is there?), Cadillac did a lot of things right, too. Chrysler could do worse than learn from them and:
Establish a bold, unified design language that instantly says "Chrysler." Again, Chrysler's concept cars have had this more than Chrysler's actual cars. There needs to be a Chrysler "look," or better -- an attitude. The Chrysler 300, with a stately square profile and ginormous grille, has a recognizable look and attitude in spades but it's not something that could easily translate into other models (particularly smaller cars). I'd suggest instead adopting the swoopy, elongated forms from Chrysler's concepts of the last decade. After all, cars get rounder, and then they get less round, and then they get rounder again. Cadillac is already doing the squared-off, edgy look, and Acura is following them. I like that look, but it's important for Chrysler to stand out in its segment, not blend in. What Chrysler lacks in edginess they could make up for in elegance -- to be honest, I'd shoot for touches of decadence, even. The chrome look is certainly in, and while it's stupid to chase trends, it's not a bad idea at all to reinvent them within yourself. I could see Chrysler pulling of chrome-trimmed look better than anyone -- not retro, mind, but with just a little bit of American glam.
Trade soiled names for alphanumeric designations. Here's one case where following a trend is a good idea. The only "luxury" brands still using actual names are the struggling half-luxury brands: Mercury and Buick. Chrysler has to make it clear that they're not a Mercury or Buick, and for better or for worse, people expect an alphanumeric designation on a luxury car now. Chrysler should take time now establish a consistent, ownable nomenclature system that gives a sense of progression from low-end to high. (Bonus points if it's not completely arbitrary, either.) They already have that, with the 300C (and 200C concept), but an awkward problem arises when the Fiat 500 is sold in the same dealers. I'd find something new -- maybe they could spell out the numbers? (In any case, they should make sure not to use "TC." ;))
Get in the movies. Appearances in The Matrix Reloaded surely helped Cadillac's case, more than their rock-and-roll ads, probably. Directors won't say no to a posh, elegant sedan with just the right amount of bling, and buyers won't, either. Chrysler's biggest problem (once they get new products) is going to be exposure.
Give a lot for a little. I'm not saying they should be "the value luxury brand" -- their prices should actually probably go up. But the CTS is essentially a 5 Series-sized car for a 3 Series price, and while it's appropriate for that to change now that the CTS is more recognized, I'm it sure helped Cadillac out in the beginning. The 300 could help Chrysler out like that too.
Elevate the dealer experience. Everybody loves getting a new car but hates shopping for one. Why is that? While I personally think we'd be better off with an Apple-esque corporate-owned model, that's actually not legal in the states. So what is one to do? Get as close to a COR store as possible, by creating a special tier of Chrysler Group dealers -- using the hot Fiat as leverage. Take back the old "Five Star" dealership brand and apply it only to dealers that actually sell all five Chrysler-Fiat brands -- since Fiat is only going to be sold at select dealers, this ensures that these dealers actually are five-star-worthy. (At the very least, this will force unworthy dealers to replace any ancient signage, which is good -- Chrysler, Dodge, and RAM all have new logos, and so all existing signage should be replaced anyway). Only "Five Star" dealers should be allowed to display the Pentastar in signage or advertising.
But how to elevate that dealer experience? Adopt policies that should have been adopted long ago: "No haggling. No commissions. No pressure." Since Chrysler is now going to try making money on cars, and not on financing (what a concept!), that's okay, and Apple Stores have proven that no-pressure environments work. Also, these dealers should have clean, well-kept facilities with a dedicated section (and specialists) for each brand. I don't know if Cadillac still gives you a gold key and a full tank of gas, but Chrysler should really be emulating Lexus here anyway -- free car washes for owners, that sort of thing. The goal would be to get to the point where the dealer experience for any other brand (even other luxury marques) is ruined, where people are actually afraid of buying a car in any other environment. Compare Apple Stores to, say, Best Buy. Now it's like every dealer is a Best Buy. That needs to change -- there's no room for Geek Squads at Chrysler.
The 500 will get people into the dealers, and hopefully the new 300 will keep them there. (See what I mean? Awkward.) But for a turnaround to work, people need to see evidence of a change. People are already impatient, and their desire for new vehicles hasn't been placated by special editions of outgoing models. Chrysler has a huge opportunity, here. Volvo is being sold. Saab is dying. Cadillac has one model, and Lincoln is struggling with everything that's not the Navigator. The luxury space is going to be more open than it's ever been. A lot of people aren't going to want to buy a BMW, in the New Economy, but they might buy a Chrysler. Chrysler just needs to be that brand. They need to tell us who they are, what "the new Chrysler" is all about.
Wow. :o :D So, uh, does your brother still work at Chrysler? :p
Everything else is fine, IMHO. back end is nice as is the side profile. And that interior! :eek:
I am hearing Lutz is fighting tooth and nail to get the Cadillac Zeta revived. Now with the Anti-Zeta/beancounters off the executive board( Fritz, LaNave, Young) with more product oriented people on it, I assume Lutz wish might got a bit easier to pass. Hell, new GMNA President( ex-Holden guy) has teased us that he wants the Commodore to return. So who knows what will happen.
I think it's safe to say that the XTS hasn't had the sort of reaction most Cadillac concepts have had, and that the toned-down styling and inherent barge-ness is part of it. I really hope they go back to their drawing boards on this one, and come back with an edgier, more desirable ZTS. In trying to make a luxury car that appeals to everybody (including old farts) I think Cadillac has succeeded in making a concept that isn't going to appeal to anyone. It's going to be too subdued for any "actual" comparison shopper and old farts won't like it because it's not the DTS. :lol:
The ATS and XTS are really going to have to prove that Cadillac isn't just a one-hit-wonder, that they can make a whole line of great sedans. There's no room for a mediocre, "weeeelll....it's better than the DTS" sedan in Cadillac's new line.
I do (sort of) like the interior, although it's a bit worrisome that it's the "Platinum" trim. Does that mean that other models will be decontented? And how will those OLED screens handle glare? "I'm sorry officer, I couldn't see how fast I was going...see, I have an OLED speedometer, and the sun was behind me..." :p
Good thing they're likely a concept-only touch. (And that nobody will ever want to speed in the current XTS.)
Quagmire
2010-01-12, 18:21
Cadillac is a 3 hit wonder( Escalade, CTS, and now new SRX). :p
EDIT: Sigh..... :(
http://www.leftlanenews.com/cadillac-retracts-promise-to-produce-converj.html
Cadillac is a 3 hit wonder( Escalade, CTS, and now new SRX). :p
True, I guess I was thinking passenger-car-wise. The XLR was a flop, the much-hyped STS was a flop, and the DTS is...the DTS. The CTS (and CTS wagon! Yay wagons!) has done okay, but everyone is waiting for the ATS and XTS (and Converj, whatever they call it -- I nominate EVOQ, it has "EV" right in the name!) to see if Cadillac actually means business with their cars. Which, apparently, they don't. :( MAKE IT A ZTS.
ZTS doesn't look too much like "zits," does it? Dammit, now that's all I can see. But "XTS" sounds so bad. *sigh*
I've resigned myself to the fact that I'm apparently the only person on the face of the Earth who is excited about the Delta. :( If I was buying a car right now, I think I would buy the Audi A3. (Please spare me the asshole jokes.) But if I could get more stylish competitor that would help a struggling US automaker and also cost less money, I would totally get that. I don't get why more people aren't excited...?
Speaking of the A3, apparently the US market is going to get an A3 sedan, because apparently we Americans don't appreciated the beauty of a properly sculpted hatch. Anyway, the A3 sedan is going to be larger, of course. In fact, it's going to be almost exactly the same size as the original A4 sedan. SO WHY NOT JUST MAKE THAT THE NEW A4 AND LEAVE THE A3 ALONE? I don't get why cars always have to get bigger. Some people, y'know, like...small cars.
Speaking of VW upsizing their cars, apparently the New New Beetle will be based on the Jetta platform. (The outgoing platform? The "new family" one? I don't know.) That's the second time the New Beetle has been upsized...the original concept used the Polo platform, and then the production version used the Golf platform, and now this. They're doing this to make the next Beetle more "masculine." Sorry VW but I think you'd actually be better off just creating a new nameplate rather than trying to get manly men to buy a Bug. I mean, if you take away the rainbow roof and the round headlamps how Beetle-esque will it be, really?
Ironically, VW has a smaller "up" concept (new Lupo, I think?) that is more Beetle-esque than any New Beetle. I think VW should launch a retro flower-power sub-brand, with the new Microbus, the new New Beetle, and the up, all of which would be hybrid-only. They could totally own eco motoring, they could totally steal the crown away from Toyota, they have the perfect brand and models for it. That would also further differentiate the new New Beetle from the Golf, which would probably help sales of both. So, yeah.
EDIT: DAMMIT Cadillac I wish you would quit this Converj nonsense. Just make it. :( :( :( :( :(
Ford is kicking ass lately. I luurve the 5-door hatch/wagon flavor of the new Focus.
Let's hope that they actually sell the hatch and wagon in North America. A lot of manufacturers aren't giving us the option that they give to the rest of the world.
alcimedes
2010-01-12, 21:32
I don't care if the STS was a sales flop, that was an awesome car to drive.
In a move that should surprise absolutely no one, Alfa Romeo's US relaunch has been "delayed" (http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/13/report-alfa-romeos-u-s-launch-delayed/) once again.
I put "delayed" in quotes because I don't think a date was ever set for it. Some people just assumed that now that Fiat was working with Chrysler we would see Alfas in US showrooms by now. The fact that Fiat-Chrysler's "five year plan" (2010-14, MY 2011-15) made absolutely no mention of Alfa Romeo should have been a hint.
Marchionne has long said that they would bring Alfas to the US if and only if doing so would be profitable, and wouldn't hurt Fiat-Chrysler's other US operations. That's a pretty big "if," considering VW's US operations aren't currently profitable.
And I can see the sense in wanting your car business to make money. ;) Don't get me wrong, I want a MiTo this much but I also don't want Alfa to go under trying to bring it here.
I mean, let's say Alfa was coming to the US a year from now. Where would they be sold? Alfa's old problem was a poor dealer network. Now they would have the strength (ahem) of the Chrysler dealer network, but all Chrysler dealers are already going to sell four brands (Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram) and some will also sell a fifth (Fiat). Alfa Romeo would have to come to the US without stepping on any of those toes. I think Alfas would end up being sold alongside Fiats in the special Fiat "salons," changing Fiat from a MINI-style one-vehicle brand to a "sporty small Italian cars" brand. But then that could step on the toes of Dodge, who was (last I checked) supposed to be sporty. And if Alfa is trying to go head to head with the German luxury marques, they risk competing with Chrysler, who is going to have to try that same thing.
Fiat-Chrysler can't be like old GM. Even without Alfa they already have more brands than the new GM, although I think theirs are more successfully differentiated (they just have to deal with the Dodge/Chrysler overlap). They can't sell cars that compete with each other, and pitting Alfa against more established (in the US) brands would just spell doom for Alfa. I'm willing to wait until they can do it right.
I think Marchionne is a very smart businessman. I mean, he got up to 35% of Chrysler without paying a cent. :p But more than that, he found a partner that has everything that Fiat lacks (a US presence, large car platforms and engines) and needs everything that Fiat has (an international presence, small car platforms and engines). Fiat has been growing when everyone else is shrinking ("be hungry when others are fearful," &c.)...they're going to come out of this downturn in a very good position, I think -- certainly as one of Europe's leading auto conglomerates. And I think in a few years Italian cars will be seen at least like British cars in the States, and possibly better. There's no reason the Fiat 500 shouldn't be the new MINI; Marchionne & Co. just need to start building buzz. After all, the few Italian cars currently sold in the US are certainly desirable, and Italy has a very fashionable image. If Fiat leverages those, the 500 will be as big of a success here as it is overseas -- maybe even bigger, because everything European has an exotic air about it on this side of the pond.
And then maybe we could see about that MiTo. :)
Quagmire
2010-01-13, 16:49
I have rumors of Alfa's death. Nothing solid, but there is talk....
I have rumors of Alfa's death. Nothing solid, but there is talk....
I've heard that they're going to give Alfa one more push, with the Giulietta and 169, and if they still aren't competitive with their German rivals they're going to wind down the brand. With Lancia also venturing upmarket, where will that leave Alfa? They could try to be the Porsche to Lancia's (eventual) Audi, I guess, but that would mean heading quite a bit upmarket. Right now, Alfa's upmarket cars are doing the worst. It's the MiTo and 147 that are doing okay.
Fiat has grown primarily through acquisitions. Right now, they have a bunch of parts, and they have to figure out a "place" for each brand. (Can you imagine if Fiat had gone through with their purchase of GM Europe? :wtf:)
I think they'll find a place for Alfa. It might be a much smaller place, though. One thing is for sure: Fiat is going to have to find some brand that can really compete with the BMWs and Mercedes (and Lexuses and Cadillacs) of the world, both in Europe and in North America. They need to find their Audi. I don't care who it is.
Do we really need Alfa, especially here in the US? The problem with the global auto industry is massive overcapacity. Too many factories, too many brands and not enough customers. You can play the re-badge game but that only works for so long. At some point brands just have to go away. I like Alfa but I doubt they'll ever come back to the US. On a side note, I used to own a '79 Alfa Sprint Veloce, basically a GTV-6 with a four banger. Total pain in the ass car but it had it's moments.
The problem with the global auto industry is that nobody cares about cars any more.
According to a study performed by Pew Research in 2008, 23% of people believe their car is "something special — more than just a way to get around." That figure is half of what it was in 1991.
In response to this "demand," car companies have made driving appliances, the equivalent of beige box PCs -- unwittingly ensuring that future generations won't care about cars either. This makes brands like Alfa niches within niches.
According to Leander Kahney, the very first thing Jobs did upon taking control of Apple was ask an early-morning executive boardroom what was wrong with Apple. And then, in true Jobs fashion, he answered the question himself: "It's the products. The products SUCK! There's no sex in them any more."
And that's really all there is to it. Cars represent so many things -- freedom, possibility, conveyance, cocoon -- that I think you'd actually have to try to make them boring or unemotional, but somehow the auto industry has done it. Nobody gets excited about getting a car, unless it's their first. Nobody out there gets giddy at the thought of driving a Malibu.
Even Toyota, in a rare moment of weakness during this downturn, realized it would have to start making more emotional cars -- hence the FT-86 concept. The problem isn't the brands, it's what they're selling. Everything feels the same.
Robo, I think you're onto something, something like the fleeting pulse of the entire auto industry. I hardly ever hear guys talking about cars, they're no longer something people swoon over, cars have become just a conveyance.
Well, maybe people becoming bored with cars is a good thing. We'd end up with fewer cars, maybe. What we need is SJ giving advice to the public transit industry to sex up the buses and trains.:p
Well, maybe people becoming bored with cars is a good thing. We'd end up with fewer cars, maybe. What we need is SJ giving advice to the public transit industry to sex up the buses and trains.:p
Cars aren't bad, though. Pollution is bad. Being dependent on foreign oil is bad. Cars don't require either of those things, or at least they shouldn't. :\
I think what bothers me about the auto industry is the lack of innovation. The 2000 Audi A2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A2) should not still be the best small car. For decades people have said that we'd all be driving electric vehicles "in the next decade." What bothers me is that the car I really want -- aluminum space frame, in-wheel electric motors -- just doesn't exist. Instead, companies all make cars to "match" other companies' cars, and they're all struggling because they're all trying to sell the same product.
The biggest disappointment for me at NAIAS was the Honda CR-Z. A hybrid remake of a classic sporty hatch with futuristic styling? Count me in, right? Except that it's worse than the original CR-X in every available metric. It even gets worse gas mileage. This is a car I really wanted to like, but even I can't think of any reason to buy it. I mean, really.
I'm sick of cars getting bigger and heavier and bloated. I guess they're just matching their occupants, really.
Quagmire
2010-01-13, 19:16
I agree. People just don't give a crap about cars anymore. That is why the Camry is now the best selling vehicle in America. I also love hearing people saying the current Malibu is ugly and yet they drive a Camry. :err: Along with Americans love of the car dying, so is American's design taste. The Venza? Why is that thing selling? Unlike the Terrain, it isn't polarizing. It is just plain ugly. If the Aztek was a Toyota, would people have bought it because it was bulletproof reliable despite being uglier then Susan Boyle? :p
Wow. :o :D So, uh, does your brother still work at Chrysler? :p
Yep. This year he did the seat-belt guides on the seats of the electric Fiat 500.
Magic two years in a row. :p
joveblue
2010-01-13, 19:40
Cars aren't bad, though. Pollution is bad. Being dependent on foreign oil is bad. Cars don't require either of those things, or at least they shouldn't. :\Traffic is bad too.
And until we come up with a renewable energy source to provide for all our needs, cars are pollution. A plug-in electric seems like the best answer at the moment. But the energy still comes from somewhere. And at the moment that 'somewhere' seems to be burning coal, for the most part. :\
Once all our non-transport energy usage is renewable, then we can start thinking about our transport energy usage as potentially being green via plug-in electric vehicles too.
Yep. This year he did the seat-belt guides on the seats of the electric Fiat 500.
Magic two years in a row. :p
I heart the Fiat 500 and could see myself totally owning one. Pity they probably aren't going to actually make the electric version, though.
And until we come up with a renewable energy source to provide for all our needs, cars are pollution. A plug-in electric seems like the best answer at the moment. But the energy still comes from somewhere. And at the moment that 'somewhere' seems to be burning coal, for the most part. :\
Solar! Solar solar solar solar solar. :D
joveblue
2010-01-13, 23:34
Solar! Solar solar solar solar solar. :D
Once we have enough solar (wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) power to power our homes and industry with surplus, then we can actually start to call electric cars green. That's a little way off though. In the meantime, there's really no such thing as a green car, electric cars included. Public transport is still, and will remain for quite some time, a greener option (it's also safer and contributes much less to traffic problems!).
Quagmire
2010-01-14, 00:27
Once we have enough solar (wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.) power to power our homes and industry with surplus, then we can actually start to call electric cars green. That's a little way off though. In the meantime, there's really no such thing as a green car, electric cars included. Public transport is still, and will remain for quite some time, a greener option (it's also safer and contributes much less to traffic problems!).
Electric cars will never be green until the batteries are cleaned up as well
Hydrogen FTW. Then we can keep the ICE and we can still go vroom vroom( one thing I will miss when cars hopefully go to hydrogen fuel cells). I love the engine note the HF 3.6 DOHC V6 makes above 4000 RPM. :D
Public transport is still, and will remain for quite some time, a greener option (it's also safer and contributes much less to traffic problems!).
Oh totally. I don't own a car, at present, and I'm not planning on buying one until I can get one that I like. I happily take public transportation in the meantime. In fact, living in Vegas actually made me sort of hate driving, as sad as that is. But I do miss speeding off into the midnight Midwest countryside, or down curvy mountain roads here in Oregon.
It's all about balance, and balancing responsible living with people's comfort levels. Obviously staying at home all the time is the most eco-friendly thing to do, but nobody's going to want to do that. I'm cool with public transportation -- I actually find it kind of a relief sometimes -- but it's not for everybody. Even high speed rail wouldn't be for everybody. :D Here in America we've always been all about the automobile, and even though I think a lot of people buy irresponsible SUVs we can't really say that people are wrong to buy what they want. The smart thing to do is to take a holistic approach, and work toward reducing our energy use on all fronts. Electric cars aren't a magic bullet, since the electricity they use might not be clean, but at least they keep us from guaranteeing that we will pollute with ICEs.
Some people are always going to want to drive themselves around, especially in America (where our public transportation systems are less developed - the system in my city doesn't even operate on weekends, for example). So rather than trying to get people to stop wanting cars it would be easier, I think, to work "with the grain" of the market, and just try to get people into greener cars.
Parallel hybrids aren't what I'm talking about -- at least, they shouldn't be our only approach. ER-EVs, "pure" BEVs, clean diesels...all good approaches, too. (And in-wheel motors would be more efficient! Just sayin'.) But, in general, I think we just need to move toward lighter, smaller vehicles. In Texas, You Drive A Truck. It doesn't matter if you're just going to grab a Crunchwrap Supreme at the nearest Taco Bell, you're not really a Texan if you don't drive a truck to get there. And trucks these days are huge. We don't have car-based trucks, like Australia does. In fact, we don't even really have midsize body-on-frame trucks any more. It's all full-size, F-150s and above.
Also, we should look into technologies like start/stop systems that could be -- realistically -- put into every car. Not every car could be made a hybrid, or should be -- I think I've made it known that I'm not a fan of the parallel hybrid scheme -- but every car could have a start/stop system. It doesn't cost much money.
I don't know where I'm going with this. Have I hit high-speed rail? In-wheel motors? Parallel vs. series hybrids? OK, good. It's a Roboman post, then. :)
BuonRotto
2010-01-14, 11:20
Hydrogen FTW.
This ignores the fact that hydrogen fuel is currently manufactured from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. So it's a zero sum game with hydrogen (just like bio-fuels using food supply products) until there's a better/more efficient process to extract hydrogen from other sources.
Quagmire
2010-01-14, 11:23
This ignores the fact that hydrogen fuel is currently manufactured from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. So it's a zero sum game with hydrogen (just like bio-fuels using food supply products) until there's a better/more efficient process to extract hydrogen from other sources.
I know, but almost everything needs fossil fuels today still. Charging the battery needs fossil fuels( or some other kind of harmful power source aka nuclear) the manufacturing and disposing of the battery is not green either. IMHO, hydrogen is the better fuel source of the future.
BuonRotto
2010-01-14, 11:32
I'm not disagreeing with the principal of hydrogen as fuel. It's true of course that all of our alternatives still depend on fossil fuels to a large extent -- power plants on the grid for electricity, natural gas for hydrogen, and consumable plants for bio-fuel.
I think it's a race to see which one of those sources can first adapt to something less resource intensive and perishable. Hydrogen needs better efficient methods of extracting it from non-fossil fuel sources. Power plants need to turn to wind, solar or other means of generating power. Bio-fuels have to use the collagen parts of the plants that are not normally consumable or part of the food supply.
Actually, it's not just who gets the technology there first, but who gets the infrastructure in place first too.
billybobsky
2010-01-14, 11:33
Hydrogen isn't a fuel source. It is a storage medium, and there is no good way to produce it without a significant loss in energy.
The touted hydrogen economy is not going to happen.
Quagmire
2010-01-14, 20:24
Need $116K stat! Please donate. Thank you.
http://jalopnik.com/5448530/gm-looks-to-offer-build-your-own-engine-program-for-corvette-zr1
Please GM do this. This would be awesome. :D
Maybe you won't see an A3 at all because it would be too costly compared to a new Jetta, which is something of an A3.5, by the looks of it:
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/vortex_news/article_2694.shtml
Or, maybe you do see one because it amounts essentially to a Jetta rebadge...
Nicely resolved sedan profile, combination of A4 and BMW 3series lines. Good enough corporate front end, pretty safe, nice interior, dash need s little extra work. Sport buck GT rear seat centre console combination looks nice, but is impractical for this car: it's better to have more leg room.
If they build it, it will sell. More interested in a wagon myself.
If that's the next Jetta it's certainly an improvement over the current model and will certainly sell better, if priced appropriately, but it kind of looks like a lot of other cars out there. Hopefully we see a decent base motor instead of the 2.5 five cylinder.
They're talking about TFSI, TDI and Hybrid versions... for some reason VW likes to give North America the base 2.5, blech. I would only consider one of their cars with a TDI or much better gas/hybrid engine.
I've said it before: VW should make the next New Beetle (and the next Microbus!) a dedicated hybrid. The brand is just perfect for it, with the whole hippie karma thing. Throw in an all-electric Up as a smaller option with the same flower-power styling an you have the engine (er, motor?) for VW's US resurgence.
It's kind of like Mercury. Right now Mercury has no point and is priced too close to Ford. FoMoCo should axe all Mercuries but the Milan and Mariner Hybrids. Voilà, the world's first all-hybrid brand! That would put Merury back on the map and move them upmarket in a way that wouldn't at all overlap with Lincoln. FoMoCo would instantly gain a pair of dedicated hybrids -- even better, a dedicated brand. They'd beat Toyota to the punch with their rumored Prius spin-off and "going green" would mesh well with the trendier image FoMoCo has tried to build for Mercury over the last few years.
They're talking about TFSI, TDI and Hybrid versions... for some reason VW likes to give North America the base 2.5, blech. I would only consider one of their cars with a TDI or much better gas/hybrid engine.
That article talks of rumors of a new base four cylinder so we'll have to wait and see. I guess using the five helps VW keep costs down but it's inefficient, heavy, and is on the rough side. It can't even compete with Japanese engines.
So it looks like the GM/Spyker deal for Saab is going to happen which should make some here very happy! To me it's just more life support but we'll see what happens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/global/27saab.html
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
And not a moment too soon, as today I was practically hated off another car site I was posting at. The new 9-5 and 9-4x are Saab's most promising vehicles in decades, and I'm so glad we'll actually see them. And if that 9-1 is still on the table, I'm in for one in ärlig white. :D
Quagmire
2010-01-27, 14:09
So anyone else enjoying the meltdown happening at Toyota right now? :p
So anyone else enjoying the meltdown happening at Toyota right now? :p
You mean that they're totally acting like the new GM? :p
Quagmire
2010-01-27, 14:25
You mean that they're totally acting like the new GM? :p
You mean old GM. :p
"the new GM," as in, they've taken GM's traditional position.
I love the real new GM. They spared my Saab :D :D :D :D :D
BuonRotto
2010-01-27, 16:26
I for one am not enjoying Toyota's troubles for one reason: consumer bias, specifically my wife's. At least right now, she will only let me consider a Honda or Toyota. Well, now she may only let me look at Honda. I am actually trying to convince her that Subaru and Ford have good quality too (now), but it's an uphill battle. All this Toyota crap has just limited my options for a car even more than they already were!
Dorian Gray
2010-01-27, 16:50
Poor you. A Honda! The horror. :lol:
So anyone else enjoying the meltdown happening at Toyota right now? :p
Something tells me that Toyota will handle it quickly and in a way that preserves customer loyalty. If it was GM they would probably ask the accountants what to do and they would say the potential loss of life isn't worth the money to fix it!! I'm kidding....sort of.;)
I for one am not enjoying Toyota's troubles for one reason: consumer bias, specifically my wife's. At least right now, she will only let me consider a Honda or Toyota. Well, now she may only let me look at Honda. I am actually trying to convince her that Subaru and Ford have good quality too (now), but it's an uphill battle. All this Toyota crap has just limited my options for a car even more than they already were!
Subaru has good quality. Those flat fours are pretty bulletproof. The only downside is you take a slight hit on fuel economy. I'd take a Subie over a Ford at this point.
Quagmire
2010-01-27, 20:48
Something tells me that Toyota will handle it quickly and in a way that preserves customer loyalty. If it was GM they would probably ask the accountants what to do and they would say the potential loss of life isn't worth the money to fix it!! I'm kidding....sort of.;)
Handle it quickly?
First was install zipties to prevent this. Then new gas pedal designs. And now a complete halt of sales and new gas pedal assemblies. This is haunting Toyota like the cruise control switch haunted Ford.
:p
I currently live with my head in the ground, can someone post a link about Toyota's troubles? A synopsis would actually be better. :D
There is an issue with accelerator pedals possibly sticking on some models. This morning there was news that Ford may have the same issue.
Something tells me that Toyota will handle it quickly and in a way that preserves customer loyalty. If it was GM they would probably ask the accountants what to do and they would say the potential loss of life isn't worth the money to fix it!! I'm kidding....sort of.;)
Subaru has good quality. Those flat fours are pretty bulletproof. The only downside is you take a slight hit on fuel economy. I'd take a Subie over a Ford at this point.
I've owned a number of Subarus (six to date) and the current ones are definitely solid cars. My Legacy is going on 67k miles now and is still bulletproof. Doesn't even squeak or rattle. Still on the original clutch too, despite being AWD. I would definitely recommend one. Get a turbo model though, the non-turbos are underpowered for the weight they have to pull. :)
There is an issue with accelerator pedals possibly sticking on some models. This morning there was news that Ford may have the same issue.
A few car experts I've heard on the radio believe it isn't just the actual peddles and that it could be a firmware problem, from the computer manufacture.
BuonRotto
2010-01-28, 16:45
Toyota has something like 8 models and almost 10 million (it seems) recalls due to uncontrolled acceleration issues. The floor pedals, mats, or computer problems may be the issue. It's a very large recall, and it's gotten a lot of attention because 1. people have died and 2. the list keeps expanding.
Poor you. A Honda! The horror. :lol:
Have you seen the Crosstour?! :p
FWIW, I have a Civic now, nothing against Hondas except for
1. road and wind noise,
2. poor styling
3. bloated Accords and now Crosstours
4. poor brakes
5. Acuras being nothing special as luxury car features/performance go
Subies are nice, and I really like the Outback, though I prefer the styling from the '09 model.
Quagmire
2010-01-28, 16:55
Toyota has something like 8 models and almost 10 million (it seems) recalls due to uncontrolled acceleration issues. The floor pedals, mats, or computer problems may be the issue. It's a very large recall, and it's gotten a lot of attention because 1. people have died and 2. the list keeps expanding.
Have you seen the Crosstour?! :p
FWIW, I have a Civic now, nothing against Hondas except for
1. road and wind noise,
2. poor styling
3. bloated Accords and now Crosstours
4. poor brakes
5. Acuras being nothing special as luxury car features/performance go
Subies are nice, and I really like the Outback, though I prefer the styling from the '09 model.
Just to add on to your list
6. No power below 5000 RPM. My aunts Acura TL feels like an 185 HP 4 banger below 5000 RPM instead of the 280 HP( I think it is) V6. When you hit 5000 RPM, you can finally tell it is a 280 HP car. ;)
DMBand0026
2010-01-28, 16:55
Who's won more awards and is constantly praised for building the best motors in the world? Not GM, that's for damn sure.
Quagmire
2010-01-28, 16:58
Who's won more awards and is constantly praised for building the best motors in the world? Not GM, that's for damn sure.
Small Block V8, the HF 3.6 DOHC V6( both the regular and DI versions), and now the 2.4 DI 4 banger( won Ward's 2010 best engine of the year award).
A few car experts I've heard on the radio believe it isn't just the actual peddles and that it could be a firmware problem, from the computer manufacture.
Ah, the downsides of drive by wire.
DMBand0026
2010-01-28, 17:06
Small Block V8, the HF 3.6 DOHC V6( both the regular and DI versions), and now the 2.4 DI 4 banger( won Ward's 2010 best engine of the year award).
2 motors? I'm unimpressed.
My feelings on American cars should be well known, to you anyway. Honda builds the best motors, hands down. They're powerful enough (I don't need to go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds), they're ROCK solid, and fuel efficient.
Quagmire
2010-01-28, 17:10
2 motors? I'm unimpressed.
My feelings on American cars should be well known, to you anyway. Honda builds the best motors, hands down. They're powerful enough (I don't need to go 0-60 in 2.8 seconds), they're ROCK solid, and fuel efficient.
Small Block V8 is one
3.6 V6 is two
2.4 DI 4 banger is three.
Looks like you need to go back to school to learn how to count Honda fanboy. ;)
DMBand0026
2010-01-28, 17:11
Yawn. Just saying.
Quagmire
2010-01-28, 22:01
Oh boy...... Toyota is officially the new old GM. They knew about this issue back in 2004!
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/28/did-nhtsa-know-of-toyota-woes-back-in-2004/
Spoken like a true GM fan boy. ;)
Quagmire
2010-01-28, 22:13
Spoken like a true GM fan boy. ;)
What? I believe GM did a similar thing back in the day where they deemed it cheaper to deal with the lawsuits then to recall the defective part( was it the Corvair?).
Though instead of lawsuits, Toyota just tried to sweep it under the rug. :p
Thanks for the heads up guys. :) I guess I might want to see if my wife's van in in the recall then. I can tell you that I've never had an issue with it.
Quagmire
2010-02-02, 14:34
So sales results are out.
Malibu outsold Camry and Fusion
Equinox outsold RAV4. Only 1K behind Escape. But if you combine the Theta Twins with the Escape/Mariner, Theta twins win.
LaCrosse outsold ES
Camaro outsells Mustang again.
I wouldn't look too deep into that Camaro/Mustang thing. The new Mustang has been known to be on it's way for a while now.l Orders have definitely slowed down on the Stang as people wait for the awesome 2011 version. 312HP and 30 MPG in the V6? 412 HP and 25 MPG in the 5.0L V8? Yes please..
...as a matter of fact, I did order a 2011 Mustang GT. Should be here late spring. I can't wait.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.