Remeber folks, what is "more exciting" to consumers in general is not necessarily what's "more exciting" to enthusiasts.

And this isn't a domestic/import thing. Chrysler/Dodge is kicking *** right now, Ford's doing well. It's just GM that is losing money hand over fist because they make uninspiring, generic "platfrom" cars, then make a flavor of that car for every brand they have.

Peace
policy

 

My last American car was a '94 SHO which I bought in '96. It was perfect when I got it with 20K on the odometer. In less than two years I replaced the starter, alternator, fuel pump and front & rear rotors (the starter & fuel pump left us on the side of the road two seperate times). I'm not even going to mention the electrical problems I had. The motor was built by Yamaha and was the only thing that didn't break down. I know it wasn't just this car because there were five SHO's in my family between my dad, my brother and myself (one'90, one'91, one'94 & two'95's). All five cars experienced the exact same problems. We bought them because at the time, there was nothing else with four doors that could keep up. I know that Japanese cars break down but it's generally with much less frequency.

I do need to correct a fault on a previous statement. When I mentioned there wasn't an American car I would buy other than a Vette, I neglected to mention the 300C Hemi and SRT8. I'm not happy that the DUB society has taken it as their poster child but that is one car Americans can be proud of. The car may have some issues but what car doesn't? It's a perfect example of an American auto maker taking a chance and breaking the mold. GM needs to pay attention. The Aztek is not a good example of breaking the mold. I guess when it comes down to it, I do rank excitement over reliabilty but not too much higher. :p

 

Well, yes, the SHO was quite unreliable. But it was little more than a modded Taurus. Factory-modded, granted, but modded none the less, complete with all the problems that they usually have -- supporting equipment that frequently breaks. That certainly doesn't mean all American cars are that way. I and my immediate family have owned some 13 American cars over the past 10 years and about 6 Japanese ones -- none stand out as being particularly more reliable or unreliable than another.

And, fact of the matter is, every single reliability study done these days puts GM right up there with the best Japan has to offer. Only Honda and Toyota ever get above average reliability rankings. Every Japanese make is generally well below with Nissan occassionaly getting close to average. Ford, not quite as high as GM, but still besting the rest of the Japanese. Mazda? Mazda is often dead-last or damn near it. The last JDPower put Mazda #40 out of 41 in initial quality and still well below Ford and GM (as every Japanese maker aside from Honda and Toyota are) in overall quality.

I guess Honda and Toyota must really not believe in their cars either:

Toyota only has a 3/36 standard warranty
Honda only has a 3/36 standard warranty

Honda provides no more warranty coverage than Ford or GM does. And Toyota while have an extended 5/60 on Powertrain is actually bested by Chrysler who has an extended Powertrain warranty of 7/70.

So when are Honda and Toyota gonna offer "REAL warranties" and stop "penny-pinching"?

Yours is exactly the kind of attitude that I was talking about in my initial post.

 

Why would I want to be proud of a gigantic, gas-guzzling, sloppy-handling, boat of a car?

If anything the 300C illustrates exactly what is wrong with American automakers -- We'll take an overall poor car, chock it full of old technology and nothing really innovative (with the exception of DoD), and stick a big-*** engine (and old big-*** engine at that) in it and pray that they'll buy it. GM is doing the exact same thing now and making an "SS"-everything. And they have been buying the 300C. I'll grant them that. But the fad has been quickly dying out. And more importantly they haven't been buying the standard 300, which is the bread-and-butter model. The 300 is resorting to a whopping 25% fleet sales just in order to keep the plant up and running.

The only thing saving DCX right now is the Hemi. Without it their entire new lineup of cars would be floundering. Their designs are not very classic and likely won't stand the test of time, particularly the 300. Eventually consumers will tire of them, just as they quickly did with the standard 300, and the lots will be full. All the cars are numb-driving, poorly-braking, poorly-handling boats (I'll exempt the Charger as I haven't driven it yet) that, with the exception of how fast you can get to the next stoplight, hardly fit into the "exciting" category. Even if you want you can't have fun with them because their damn computers are so damn conservative (thanks to both a litigous society and a society full of people that haven't driven RWD in decades) they prevent you from doing anything remotely exciting without butting in.

While Toyota and Honda embrace hybrid vehicles with Toyota having waiting-lists of tens of thousands for multiple new cars, DCX goes to the opposite spectrum and builds a bunch of cars that require paying a $1300 gaz-guzzler tax to own. It's doubtful that, in the long-term, there's room for both to succeed.

So, I'm sorry, I little reason to be "proud" of the 300C. It's selling well, and close enough to sticker to get a good profit margin, but it's the recipe for a disaster in the long-term. DCX has bet the pooch on its' entire lineup on a design that's likely quick-to-age and gas prices.

 

We are straying from the original reason for this thread so I'll be brief. You obviosly haven't read a car magazine lately. The SRT-8 300C will keep up with a vette in straigh line acceleration and keep up with an RX-8 in braking. The skid pad is the only place where it obviously can't compete as well (.88g compared to the RX-8 @ .91g). As far as gas guzzling, the 6.1 Hemi does a better job at sipping fuel than a 1.3 rotary.

 

I subscribe to every car magazine in print, including not only the popular newsstand rags bbut many on the industry itself, thanks.

My comments were in reference to the 300C (as stated) not the SRT-8. The SRT-8 is produced in very limited numbers at a relatively high consumer cost and significantly less margin for DCX and in no way points to the serious capabilities or the needs of American automakers today. Everyone knows that Detroit can make a nicely-performing car, they've been doing it for decades with the Corvette like you stated, and even the GTO or Mustang GT pulls similar track-numbers as the SRT-8, just with less luxury attached and with the pricetags reflect that.

But Detroit doesn't need ~$45,000 good cars. It has those. Has for some time. And it's pretty good at making them. The CTS-V is a hell of a nice car too, offering very similar performance to the SRT-8 at roughly the same price. Or, if you've got the money, the STS-V is available. You didn't mention I should be proud of those.

The strategy of going after the Europeans, which is precisely what all the above cars were made for, hasn't bode well for Detroit. For one, it's not a big market to begin with. But primarily it's not the market that's eating away at their share. And it's a market of elitists who would rather buy the European product no matter how much better the American one was, making attracting buyers a difficult prospect.

I certainly don't want to be "proud" of yet another attempt to steal a tiny marketshare away from a company that wasn't even a threat. It's akin to Burger King starting to sell Fried Chicken because McDonald's is kicking it's butt in the burger business. The SRT-8 and the -Vs are all great cars, but everytime one comes out it's just another example of Detroit throwing up its' arms against the Japanese and turning to fight the one group that maybe they can hold off. It's almost embarrassing not pride-instilling.

 

rx8 buckeye,

very true insights about our big three's mentalities and the way the media gives it a negative rap. All this from a buckeye? I'm impressed. Glad to have you in detroit.

 

Exactly!

It's not domestic vs. imports, its GM. You can debate reliability all you want, but GM WAS (and still IS) the largest Automaker in the world. With that position, you expect leadership. What you get in the last couple of years still what a follower does. Heck, Hyundai has been more gutzy than GM.

GM does not exercise price leadership. It is VERY guilty of degenerating the indsutry into a price war with it's deep rebates and financing plans. Thank god, Toyota and Honda didn't follow suit with huge price cuts. GM does not exercise product leadership. This is what I think the author was pointing to. Why wasn't GM on the leading edge on hybrids? Why did they miss the boat on the crossovers? GM does not exercise manufacutring leaderhsip. Why did GM enter a joint venture with Toyota to setup NUMMI to try to learn the "Toyota Way" of manufacutring?

 

Actually the TPS is not that big of deal and does not lend itself to many types of manufacturing. Most Japanese companies copy it just to say they use it because Toyota is the most famous company whether it makes sense to what they do or not. There are things done in Japanese companies that are actually funny just to copy what the big two do over there. The unions are still hurting American companies by having strict job descriptions (hey that screw is loose, well shut it down till maintenance can drag the butts up here) and by defending real slobs that even all the other union members know is a real slacker. GM does have many problems they need to address but the unions have to change to make the companies better, not hinder them. Most don't know it but Japan has many unions too but their goal is to make sure the company does well in the long run as well as the workers.

 

American brands need to stop digging around in the past, and start creating vehicles that can stand on their own merit.

 

Toyota had to recall and insane amount of vehicles(i'm sure most are aware here), hardly any news about it..in comparsion to a American builders recall. Our own disgusting media has a very negative impact on this countries auto builders.

 

One question, why is GM still using the same auto tranny they developed in the 80's? BMW has a 7 speed auto out now! SVT trannies are starting to make waves, Audi's new auto is amazing. No technology and extremely uninspiring cars. If GM could get a clue and design an appealing car for the masses, I have an idea for them, make it a hybrid with something other than that crappy 4sp auto tranny, make look nice, comfortable, and the interior quality better than the last Yugo. Get 1 car right to start righting the ship and go from there!

 

The masses don't care whether a vehicle has a 4-speed instead of a 7-speed automatic transmission, or a 3.0L DOHC V-6 with variable valve timing instead of a 4.0L SOHC V-6, as long as it meets their fuel economy and performance expectations. GM is able to do this with older technology and shouldn't be faulted for it just because a small group of enthusiasts disapproves. Take the Corvette, for example, which uses a pushrod V-8 engine to achieve 26-28 highway MPG! That's pretty good if you ask me, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to build an engine like this than one with more "modern" features like DOHC, variable valve timing, etc. When GM's fleet of vehicles starts to lag in fuel economy and performance, then I might buy the argument that their lack of innovative technology is what's hurting them.

SVT trannies, eh? You mean like the Tremec 6-speed in the Cobra??? :D J/K, I know what you mean. I don't think a CVT transmission is a selling point for most people. And regarding hybrids, these vehicles are only good for shaping the image of a company at this point. No manufacturer makes a decent return on their investment in this segment yet. The volumes are too low and the extra tech is too expensive to make it very profitable at this point.

 

Not to mention the fact that it takes the customer forever to actually realize any cost savings associated with the better gas mileage.

 

Maybe the Vette has a larger following, but the Camaro/Firebird has a large enough following to be at least equal to that of the Mustang. I'd like to see them come back with some updated technology to challenge the Mustang again.

 

This is true, I'm not sure why they got rid of it in favor of the GTO. I guess that was thier attempt at being preceptive to new market needs.

 

My understanding is that the Mustang was trouncing the F-body vehicles in sales. I would agree that there were probably just as many F-body enthusiasts as there were Mustang enthusiasts, but these are people who would only consider buying the V-8 versions. Now consider the fact that the base V-6 models have historically accounted for about 70% of Mustang sales. Camero/Firebird V-6 models weren't selling nearly as well as the V-6 Mustang, so they just weren't viable programs. The popularity of the V-6 Mustang is what has kept it alive.

 

The Camaro wasn't dropped in favor of the GTO. The Camaro was dropped because it was hemmoraging money for GM. It had been a money loser for many years and they finally cut the cord. The GTO was brought over to be a GTO, and does a damn fine job of it, not to fill any lost gap in the market.

 

No the Firebird was dropped in favor of the GTO. They are obviously targeting a very similiar segment. The GTO does do a damn fine job being a GTO.... but why did they make the car look so boring? The last gen Trans Am WS6... now that looks like a muscle car.

My prediction is that they won't bring back the Firebird as long as the GTO is around.... but I think we'll see a resurgence of the Camaro at some point as a lower cost Mustang competitor.

 

The Firebird was dropped because the Camaro which was 2/3 of the platform sales was dropped. The factory was shut down because the line couldn't provide enough sales to keep it open. They were literally dropping every year for 20 years before GM finally threw in the towel. In '95 the sales fell in half. Towards the end of its' life it was dropping at a rate of almost 20% a year. Pontiac didn't even begin working on bringing the GTO over as a Holden from Australia until well after the last Firebird rolled off the line.

And the GTO looks boring because that's what a GTO is supposed to look like. The original GTOs were nothing more than souped-up Tempests and certainly didn't look very exciting. The original GTO looked like every other Pontiac just as the new one does.

Personally, towards the end the TransAms/Firebirds started looking like rejects from an Alien movie which is arguably one reason why the sales plummetted so badly towards the end.

 

The GTO is suppose to look boring.... wow, I guess GM has done it again. That was a genious design decision that's obviously paying off for Pontiac in both sales and critical acclaim. The fact that the car is a Holden tells me they were plugging holes and needed to do it fast.

 

GM should have just left the styling how it was on the Monaro. I don't care how they try to justify or rationalize it -- making the GTO look like a Grand Am was just plain dumb.

 

I agree...

I cant see one viable reason for doing wht they did with the GTO.. not one

 

After a crappy '04 year the '05 GTO is selling very well and hitting expectations. They're generally difficult to find on lots, particularly in the color that one wants, as most dealers only have 1 or 2 at a time.

The critical response of the US media I find a little funny personally. The European media, in stark contrast to the US media, loves their Monaro both on and off the track. In fact Top Gear and Fifth Gear some of the most well-respected auto media in the world, both used almost exactly the same phrases to describe the driving experience of the Monaro as they did the RX-8; and if you've ever seen their reviews of the RX-8 you know they loved it. And these are stodgy European-types that one wouldn't expect to enjoy an essentially American muscle car, and neither did they. They were very surprised by how well the car drove and handled.

That same Holden is sold under a LOT of different names throughout the entire world including Holden Monaro, Vauxhall Monaro, Opel Monaro, and Pontiac GTO. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when what you have works fine. GM wasn't filling holes all around the planet as fast as possible, it was fulfilling market demand with a car that is extremely popular throughout much of the world.

The reason that it makes sense for Holden to make it is because the GTO was meant to be a limited production vehicle, with expectations around 16,000 units. GM doesn't have the flexibile facility design in the US to produce a vehicle of such production numbers while Holden had a brand-new flexible facility in Australia that was under-utilized. Their production facility needed some more units to produce, the cost to R&D it was cheap, Holden had a car that was immensely popular throughout the world, and GM could have used a car in the GTOs range in the US -- it was a perfect, sensible fit for the company as a whole. It would have worked better if GM wasn't losing money on the '04s but GM has had a good year with the '05s. Even selling them at cost (which it must be near because the Monaro sells for a great deal more throughout the rest of the world) GM is able to get production numbers high enough so as not to lose money on the plant itself.

The styling difference consists of nothing more than a different front bumper, a few people have imported them, they're not that pricey at all. It's not like they changed the entire car. They could have brought it over as-is, but it would've looked awkward in the lineup with it's definitive Holden looks; same with the Vauxhall version.

 

Gee, then I guess Dodge and Chevrolet both made huge mistakes by not styling the Viper and Corvette to look like a Neon or Cavalier. Oddly enough, many people seem to like these cars anyway, even in spite of this "akwardness."

Why do you think there's so much buzz surrounding the Solstice and Sky? Because someone at GM finally grew a pair and realised that you don't build a brand by making every single car in your lineup resemble a cheap ugly econobox.