The Corvette is a brand in its' own right. It does fit in it's lineup since it's one and only. As for the Viper, Dodge never really did follow the whole "Branding" thing that almost every other automaker in the world does. Almost all Dodges looked unique in their own rights, although that has changed recently. The Viper will stay unique as, much like the Corvette, is has virtually become its' own brand.

The Corvette, the Viper, the GT -- these are the Halo cars for the respective Big Three. They were never meant to be, look, or act like anything else in the lineup. For Mazda the same principle lies with the RX-8.

Well frankly I think the Solstice is rather ugly but is still very obviously a Pontiac in its' ugliest part -- the Front. The tacky slapped-on kidney grills on the front are far worse than those on the GTO. And put the Pontiac grills on a Monaro and you complain they should leave the Pontiac grills off it and you said that without the grills it would have been fine. But put the same Pontiac grills on a Solstice and apparently that's alright.

And the Sky is nothing more than an almost-copy of an Opel Speedster / Vauxhall VX220 externally. It's nothing new either and is another example of GM copying a design that worked elsewhere and bringing it to the US market. I believe someone said that same practice was called "plugging holes" in reference to the GTO. The design elements are totally new to Saturn, yes; the new look is part of GMs effort to move Saturn upwards in the marketplace. In the coming years Saturn will be getting a lot of Opel-like designs to go along with the Speedster making the design much more ubiquitous to the brand, and the Sky will look like every other car in the lineup much like the GTO does to Pontiac.

 

There are any number of fine individual "U.S." models -- the Corvette, CTS-V, etc. However, for "bread and better" models, the Japanese (including U.S. plants), now the Koreans, and soon the Chinese; simply offer a better value. In particular, almost every "mainstream" GM model has some glaring fault. Two that I most remember from rentals on trips were the Oldsmobile Achieva and I believe the Pontiac Grand Prix (it may have been a Grand Am). The Achieva was nominally a 4-seater, but was really only a 2+a very small two -- my two short-statured daughters barely fit in the back. The Grand Prix had a shift lever that "fouled" the (admittedly large) cupholder when it was in the "park" position. The new Chevy Maxx is ok, but just not up to a Honda Accord or even one of the larger Hyundais. I drove one and remember that the controls were clumsy.

Did anyone bother to acually drive the prototypes before they went into production?? You would think such glaring faults would have been detected.

Fortunately, with the RX-8 we have a true sports sedan.

 

No no... I didn't mean it asn an example of leading, but rather that they ARE using the latest technology in the new Mustang.

Drive by wire... reverse engineering?! LOL... that's a good one. It's been in use in aviation for a loooong time now. More like the auto INDUSTRY reverse engineered it from somewhere else...

I know it was an example, but please.. VTEC? I don't see anyone ragging on BMW for not coming up with Double VANOS before VTEC? Dude... someone is going to come out with some hot new technology before you sometimes... you can't ALWAYS win. Honda is the company that got variable valve timing started in the mainstream auto industry. Speaking of which... that came from their F1 experience. That could be anothe source of Us automaker's problems... NASCAR isn't F1...

 

I hate Honda. I've probably said it on this forum before. I've owned two... '89 Prelude Si (japan built) and a '93 Ascot (JDM). The Prelude was bought used about 2 years old. That damn car went through 3 timing belts in about 140,000mi. Twice it broke... once at about 68,000mi and again at about 120,000 or so. The third belt change was lucky, because it looked ready to break when I had it done. The car also went through TWO clutch slave cylinders. Did I forget to mention that due to Honda engine design, if the belt breaks your pistsons run right into any open valves? Yep... remachine the heads, new valves... fun fun. The Ascot wasn't as bad... I did very little to it and it kept on running... but it was a double carb engine... no fuel injection! That might have something to do with it...

Now my Mazda... no trouble at all. Good car.

I also had a '90 Mustang 5.0 LX and my father a '87 GT... no problems with either one... other than the infamous heater core break/leak issue.

 

Seeing as the Monaro and GTO look exactly the same (except for a different bumper/grill), you're basically saying that Holden designed their car to look like a Grand Am?

The only similar design element between a Grand Am and a GTO is the kidney grill, and even those are substantially different in shape.

 

Building GTO, Vette, etc... won't do anything for GM's bottom line. They may be good (?) product, but won't make anyone want to go out and buy a Cavalier.

The foreign makers got it right. Come out with good basic bread and butter cars that represent good value, keep the nameplate over many generations of the product and then halo cars will be something buyers aspire to. For instance, Honda built its automobile empire in North America on the Civic. Always kept the Civic name around, never a production year where there was no Civic. As a result the car now has a history. Those buyers will aspire to own an accord, maybe a prelude, maybe s2000. American carmakers typically kill off a nameplate in an attempt to erase a bad product. Remember the Omni? Pinto? That lack of consistency never engenders brand loyalty (with exception of nameplates like Corvette, Mustang).

If GM wants to survive, its got to make a great product and have it appeal to GenX and GenY price it below Honda. I think Scion is trying to do that. These buyers will then aspire to buy successively higher end products later. But it starts with a good product first.

Saturn was such an attempt, but the product was not good enough and they were going up against toyota and honda. They should have been going after Hyundai and Kia. By having devoted those resources to fighting Honda, Saturn let Hyundai and Kia take the low end market. Now that young drivers are hooked on the low end cars, Hyundai and Kia will start moving upscale. Today, hyundais are getting rave reviews. Not quite as good as the japanese, but many will buy hyundai before a chev aveo, no?

Now GM is in a squeeze. They relied on their truck and suv sales for too long, left the car market to up and comers.
I think Chysler looked around and saw all the minivans coming to the market and decided to go after the car buyer with innovative designs. Smart move, but even Chrysler needed some help from M-B.

Summary: there is no doubt that American carmakers can make a good product. They are just making the wrong products good. They have to make sure that the lowest end cars are great. Then apply that throughout the product line. That's how Honda and Toyota did it. People have to say, "If they can make this POS such a great car, imagine the Vette or the GTO."

People currently are saying, "Sure the Vette is good and the Cobra is good, but this is a POS and as soon as I have enough money, I'm getting a Mazda 3."

 

I don't think I will ever own another American car as a primary driver, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would definitely pick up a Mustang Cobra and a new GTO. They would be alot of fun to drive in small doses. That V8 power and throaty exhaust would be a thrill after the RX-8.

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/article...mod=TFFP1YAHOO

A 3 year old complained about the mustang backseats?! Come on... the freaking dimensions are VERY close to that of the 8...

Just another example of media bashing on the US makers...


http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coup...by/index1.html

Many assumed that a peek beneath the GT 500 would reveal an independent rear suspension, as with the 1999-2004 Cobra. Nope.

"Sure, we could've done it," notes Tai-Tang, anticipating this question. "We looked at the marginal handling improvement attainable by going to an IRS, and we didn't feel the gain justified the cost. The incremental benefit of an IRS is refinement, but not much more in terms of all-out performance. We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors."