Gm

[Landshark]

Originally posted by Chicane


How do you figure? I drove my last car hard for 85,000 miles, had no problems. I know quite a few neons (some even boosted) with over 150,000 miles. A few over 200,000 miles. I really believe it's not really the car, but the owner. Look at my SVX. It runs great. It has 144k on it. HOwever, I've seen some SVXs that run like crap, had beat up interiors, and had tranny problems. Why? Their owners didn't take care of them very well.

- Rob

my best friend is a Service Manager at a Chrysler/Plymouth dealer. he never has a shortage of work (or horror stories).

a guy at work traded in his new Sebring after a year and a half because "it was a nice looking car, but it was a piece of garbage."

Consumer reports rates the the reliability of the Neon as POOR.

i could go on and on, but if you're a MOPAR fan, not much is gonna change your mind.

[Shadow248]

Originally posted by Chicane
On a side note, GM is responsible for some of the ugliest things driving around: Aztek, Avalanche, Monte Carlo, the new Cavalier, the Sunfire, the Buick Rendevous,

oh yeah, also the most BORING line up of any marque: BUICK. I'd rather have a freaking razor scooter than a new buick. BLECH. Talk about coma-inducing.

- Rob

THE NEW MONTE CARLO UGLY?!!! ARE YOU ALL INSANE!?!

I never thought that to appreciate the beauty of an SVX you had to depart from all rational thinking! Apparently I was wrong because this is the only place I have ever heard ANYONE speak of the new Monte as anything but awesome looking.

The new Cavalier and Sunfire are marginal, but I wouldn't call them ugly. Remember we are SVX owners. The Avalanche is one wicked looking truck, especially considering it's competition: the elderly looking F-150 and the SCARED TODDLER look of the Ram. As for the Aztek and Rendezvous, im with you. Apparently people don't buy those for their looks cause they are selling like mad. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. OK well maybe dead. But no way else.

Buick may be boring, but nothing beats Ford's realization of the most unoriginal, undesirable car line on the planet. There is not a single car that i can think of with the Ford name that would make me look twice...even once. The Mustang could if it wasn't essentially 24 years old.

GM is the largest automaker on the planet...a company does not get that way without knowing a little something about the business. You may think some of their cars are ugly, but remember MONEY TALKS, and they've got plenty of it.

[paddlesnz]

Originally posted by alacrity024


now here's where i'm a little curious.. the first time i heard of this, i assumed that saab would simply rebadge a wrx and give it a leather interior..

now it looks like the 9-2 might get its own body and just roll on an impreza chassis..

but what about the motor? will we see a saab with a pancake motor? that'd be pretty neat, i'll admit.. but i kind of like the "affordable boxer" as a subaru-exclusive thing..

-adam

Here's a sketch of what the 9-2 might look like.

http://forums.caranddriver.com/cgi-b...=9&t=002844&p=

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by Shadow248


THE NEW MONTE CARLO UGLY?!!! ARE YOU ALL INSANE!?!

I never thought that to appreciate the beauty of an SVX you had to depart from all rational thinking! Apparently I was wrong because this is the only place I have ever heard ANYONE speak of the new Monte as anything but awesome looking.

The new Cavalier and Sunfire are marginal, but I wouldn't call them ugly. Remember we are SVX owners. The Avalanche is one wicked looking truck, especially considering it's competition: the elderly looking F-150 and the SCARED TODDLER look of the Ram. As for the Aztek and Rendezvous, im with you. Apparently people don't buy those for their looks cause they are selling like mad. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. OK well maybe dead. But no way else.

Buick may be boring, but nothing beats Ford's realization of the most unoriginal, undesirable car line on the planet. There is not a single car that i can think of with the Ford name that would make me look twice...even once. The Mustang could if it wasn't essentially 24 years old.

GM is the largest automaker on the planet...a company does not get that way without knowing a little something about the business. You may think some of their cars are ugly, but remember MONEY TALKS, and they've got plenty of it.

Calm down, man - all I said was that the car was ugly. I didn't call GM a bunch of morons. I don't like the cars that they build or their corporate philosophy, but I certainly agree with you that they didn't get to be number one by accident. They did it by building decent cars. Now they're riding on that success by building crap.

Come on, comparing the SVX and the Cavalier is ridiculous. First of all, it's apples to oranges. One is an economy car and the other was a flagship meant to change the image of an entire brand. Each car's design, build quality and features (and the attention paid to those aspects of each car by its manufacturer) reflect this.

Never heard anybody speak poorly of the Monte Carlo? Well, here you have it:

That is one ugly effing car, man. And here's why it bugs me, personally. First, I agree with Rob - it looks like it was designed by separate teams who never got to talk to eachother. Second, it's made to look like a NASCAR race car and my opinion of NASCAR is hardly a secret around here. The body looks like a thin skin that's draped over the car. NASCAR's popularity in this country is both staggering and disappointing (to me personally) at the same time, so why these design cues strike a chord with the American car buyer is obvious. But I hate NASCAR - I hate every little thing about it - so therefore I can't stand the Monte Carlo.

There are lines on that car that I simply don't understand. From every angle, I find features that bring to mind the question, 'what were they thinking???'

GM's attention to detail (or lack there of) is obvious even when standing 20ft away from that car. There's a crease that runs from the fender to the front edge of the door - and the crease doesn't line up. This isn't something I've noticed on one Monte - once you see it, you'll notice it on every one.

[sfsvx]

Originally posted by Bobb
They all will be looking forward to the new 2054 Suby-Saab-Chevy. take care BOBB

I think the actual name will be "Chevrosaabaru".

[sfsvx]

Originally posted by Shadow248
GM is the largest automaker on the planet...a company does not get that way without knowing a little something about the business. You may think some of their cars are ugly, but remember MONEY TALKS, and they've got plenty of it.

Keep in mind that GM is still number 1 only because they started so far ahead of the rest of the pack. If you look at their loss of market share over the past 30 years (from well over 50% of the total US market to something like 20% now, I think), it's kind of sad from a business perspective.

[Bobb]

Hi Dick, I like it, but don't give them any ideas. Take care, BOBB

[Chicane]

Originally posted by Landshark


my best friend is a Service Manager at a Chrysler/Plymouth dealer. he never has a shortage of work (or horror stories).

a guy at work traded in his new Sebring after a year and a half because "it was a nice looking car, but it was a piece of garbage."

Consumer reports rates the the reliability of the Neon as POOR.

i could go on and on, but if you're a MOPAR fan, not much is gonna change your mind.

You know, I don't exactly recall any starving toyota or honda mechanics either. They seem to have plenty of work, just like ANY car manufacturer. As for Sebrings, I don't know much about them, so I can't comment on them. As for the neons unreliability...argh... this is the reason I HATE consumer reports. Okay, when the neon was first introduced, it had a faulty headgasket design, that was prone to fail and leak. The headgasket was COMPLETELY redesigned in 1997, and was a multi-layered steel (MLS) gasket. THis COMPLETELY solved the problem. Neons, from mid 1997 onward, have NOT had any headgasket problems. The transmissions are reliable, the engines are reliable, and for YEARS AND YEARS, Consumer reports continued to call them unreliable. Well, they've gotten enough hatemail from the neon community to fill a garbage truck, and at LAST they rate the neon as having 'average' reliability'. pfft. Morons (not you, consumer reports. They're the same people who claimed the neon did 0-60 in 9 seconds. When questioned why their times were so pathetic (car and driver had more like 7.3-7.5) they responded they 'didnt put the gas pedal down all the way because they thought most consumers would never 'floor it''. ARGH. MORONS! I hate that magazine.).

- Rob

[Chicane]

Hear hear Mr Pockets, I agree 100%. I'd rather have a razor scooter than a monte carlo.

- Rob

[Shadow248]

I wasn't yelling, I was expressing extreme surprise. I still don't understand, and totally disagree with anyone who says the Monte Carlo is not a sweet car. Yes it could use some excess power, but apparently that's not in the public's interest right now.

My reference to the SVX had nothing to do with the cavalier. To compare the two would be ridiculous. My comment was simply to make the point that, of all the people who's opinions i've heard, only a fraction think the SVX looks good. So i'm saying that seeing as this site is about such a controversial car, it's funny that we have such strong opinions about much more popular cars. In other words "who are we to talk". That was sort of my point.

GM loses alot because they have so much to lose. If you compare their losses pound for pound, to other car makers, you'll find they are doing alot better than most. Much better than the other domestic car makers. They had 50% of the market in the 1970s...when the foreign companies had like 5%. Now there are alot more companies fighting for a piece of the pie. But GM still brings in around 35%. Yeah they built some less than groundbreaking cars in the last decade, but I don't see what the problem is with that, because that's what most of the companies were doing anyway, excluding the luxury segment. I mean look at the Civic, Accord, Avalon, Maxima, Taurus, Intrepid...the list goes on and on. All yawn inspiring cars. GM was one of the first companies to take the "tuner" approach to their more mainstream cars...look at the GP turbo (the car that inspired Ford's SHO), then GM answered back with the GTP. That was one of the battles that showed the rest of the world that there was interest in that sort of vehicle. My 1996 GTP can still run with the majority of todays sports cars (in it's price range). So how is that boring?

And talk about beating a really dead horse...we are still talking about the NEON...c'mon! I mean i can defend any poorly rated car in the same manner as was demonstrated earlier in this thread by saying "they fixed this and that and then it was OK"...but the bottom line is, though geared toward middle aged greenpeace members, Consumer reports is one of the most respected sources around for that sort of info. Im sure they get lots of hate mail whenever they bash a car. That's the way it goes. In the end, all the cars are tested in the same manner and rated in the same categories...the neon didn't measure up in their test. It happens.

[Landshark]

i also think the Monte is ugly. the new GTO is much better looking, IMHO, and the new Pontiacs are nicer without all those Ferrari-wannabe side stakes. Bob Lutz appears to be using some much needed good taste when he approves the new designs.

as for the Neon, apparently Consumer Reports STILL thinks its unreliable, because that's what they said in their RECENT auto review. i won't say CR is to be taken as law, but it sure as hell wouldn't be considered a wild-ass exaggeration to call a Dodge unreliable.

how did a thread titled 'GM' AGAIN end up as a Neon discussion? Rob, we all know you like Neons and used to own one, but please give it a break. i learned that you should consider your audience when you write. i would say its safe to assume that the majority of SVX owners on here neither care about, or even like Neons. i lived and breathed 928's before coming on here, and i was on a 928 message board for 5 years (longer than the SVX Network existed?). i've read many books and articles about them, have driven quite a few, and could go on for days discussing them. i try not to, because i'm sure the majority of people on here DON"T CARE. i will mention them from time to time if there's something that can be compared/contrasted to the SVX, because they are both heavy high speed touring GT's. the Neon, on the other hand, isn't even in the same class as the SVX - its a light, economy car. i'm not saying DON"T EVER TALK ABOUT OTHER CARS BESIDES THE SVX, just think before you turn the next thread into a Neon education seminar, m'kay?

[benebob]

Originally posted by Chicane


You know, I don't exactly recall any starving toyota or honda mechanics either. They seem to have plenty of work, just like ANY car manufacturer. As for Sebrings, I don't know much about them, so I can't comment on them. As for the neons unreliability...argh... this is the reason I HATE consumer reports. Okay, when the neon was first introduced, it had a faulty headgasket design, that was prone to fail and leak. The headgasket was COMPLETELY redesigned in 1997, and was a multi-layered steel (MLS) gasket. THis COMPLETELY solved the problem. Neons, from mid 1997 onward, have NOT had any headgasket problems. The transmissions are reliable, the engines are reliable, and for YEARS AND YEARS, Consumer reports continued to call them unreliable. Well, they've gotten enough hatemail from the neon community to fill a garbage truck, and at LAST they rate the neon as having 'average' reliability'. pfft. Morons (not you, consumer reports. They're the same people who claimed the neon did 0-60 in 9 seconds. When questioned why their times were so pathetic (car and driver had more like 7.3-7.5) they responded they 'didnt put the gas pedal down all the way because they thought most consumers would never 'floor it''. ARGH. MORONS! I hate that magazine.).

- Rob

Now Rob you do understand how Consumer Reports rates the reliablility of their cars right? They send out questionaires to all of their subscribers asking them in detail to describe work done to the cars over the past year. Then they compile everything for each model and year then compare it to all other cars in the same class. The only way to fudge it is if a whole lot of the cars owners blatantly lie about what went wrong with the car in the past year. If they don't receive over I think its like 2000 survey's per model back then they don't put any stats down for that model year. They rate purely by science and real world tests.

As for their 9 second acc. time on the neon. They have always and always will use real world tests in acceleration. No 4000rpm and drop the clutch since this will give much more false impressions about a cars acceleration ability. How many people actually do this while driving on the street? Last Vette I saw that they tested came in in the high 5 sec range. It shows what the car would do in normal driving conditions which is a whole lot more useful to 90% of the population that a track 0-60 time.

[Uncamitzi]

You mean the neon isn't a GM?...






retreats..never to return to this thread....

[WestCoastSVX]

Originally posted by Mr. Pockets


GM's attention to detail (or lack there of) is obvious even when standing 20ft away from that car. There's a crease that runs from the fender to the front edge of the door - and the crease doesn't line up. This isn't something I've noticed on one Monte - once you see it, you'll notice it on every one.

Dang it, Nick, after I read this yesterday I saw two Monte Carlos in town and noticed that crease problem right away on both of them. Makes it look like the door isn't lined up on its hinges or something.

[Mr. Pockets]

Originally posted by MacGyver


Dang it, Nick, after I read this yesterday I saw two Monte Carlos in town and noticed that crease problem right away on both of them. Makes it look like the door isn't lined up on its hinges or something.

Making stuff in three dimensions is most of my job, so crap like that catches my eye pretty easily. Now, of course it's possible that that's the only quality problem on the car, but since that's an obvious one, I seriously doubt it.

I mean, come on - at least make the body look like it was made well. Sheesh...