Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Center Point, West Virginia

Center Point, WV Car Consumer Discussions

This is not something that blew up overnight

by steve_ on Tue Nov 18 07:21:33 PST 2008

"As has been said many times as the domestic auto industry continues its frenetic unraveling, there's plenty of blame to go around, and a portion of it lies with the unions. The United Auto Workers has rarely been out of the conversation of what's ruined Detroit Inc., but arguments centered on the notion that fat, uncompetitive unionized labor is the root cause of Detroit's ills are specious - and little more than an excuse for some good-old-fashioned union-bashing." Yeah or Nay on Bailout, But Don't Blame Detroit's Problems Only on Labor (AutoObserver)

.

by anythngbutgm on Tue Nov 18 07:01:16 PST 2008

However, now that these vehicles can all be equipped pretty much the same way, it does dilute their status in the overall brand hierarchy. Exactly. It also makes the argument that GM has too many brands to support. When there is this much overlap, it just dilutes the mission that each brand once stood for. Again, why is there a Cobalt SS when your supposed "Sporty division" makes do with a base model G5? What the hell is the G3 doing in the Pontiac lineup? What is Pontiac? A lineup of rebadged Chevies (minus the Holden G8) What is GMC? An entire lineup of rebadged Chevies What is Saturn? An entire lineup of rebadged Chevies (minus the Opel Astra) What is Buick? A lineup of rebadged Chevies and a cheap Cadillac The lines are too blurry here. And I think they are blurry to the GM execs as well. For example, remember those commercials when the Lacrosse came out and the guy was playing on the racetrack with his kids while daydreaming of taking off ramps like it was a Ferrari? The Lacrosse is a dull, spongy, soft sprung pillow, yet you'd think the advertisments were making it out to be a 3-series or even an Acura TL. It sure was priced like one when they first came out... Now you can get them for less money than a Cobalt. Then you look across to GM's supposed "everyman car" and you find an Impala SS that looks much more racy and blows the Lacrosse away in exterior quality (interior is still as cheap as the Lax). Why "step up" to an inferior Buick? Or the Aura. When the car made the rounds of the auto show curcuit, GM was touting the car as "Saturns interpretation of an Acura TL". I kid you not. The concept had sharp, racy lines, a center mounted dual exhaust with beefy chrome tips and a 6-speed manual plucked out of a Holden. I mean, the car looked the part for sure, and sure, the end product was a dull, watered-down shadow of its former self but still, why wasn't this car a Pontiac G6 in the first place? The G6 is laughable as a performance car and Chevies own Malibu is a major step up on the interior and exterior styling/quality. Why "step up" to an inferior Pontiac? Is Saturn supposed to be above Pontiac as well? To GM, I have one recommendation. K.I.S.S. ;)

Re: the original kojak's car [stephen987]

by andre1969 on Tue Nov 18 06:59:13 PST 2008

For the '70s survivors out there (like me), here's a '75 Century Colonnade Coupe. (note the Century script on the lower front fender). The Regal from that year had a more formal roofline. Yeah, the quickest way to tell the Century/Regal apart, other than looking at the badging, is the roofline on the coupes. The Regal used a more formal roofline, which it shared with the Cutlass Supreme, Grand Prix, and Monte Carlo. The opera windows had a forward slant to them, but had more pronounced corners. And the rear window, IIRC, was sort of vee'd toward the center of the car. The Chevelle/Malibu, LeMans, Century, and cheaper Cutlasses used a more fastback roof. I think what might lead to some confusion though, is that there were several quarter window treatments available. Standard was a large, triangular window that made for a slim C-pillar. It was popular in 1973, but became less so in the later years. Pontiac didn't offer it at all in '76-77. One option was a louvered quarter window, which was common in cars like the Pontiac Grand Am, Laguna S-3, and LeMans Sport Coupe. I can't remember seeing any Cutlasses or Centurys with it, though. The other option was the small opera window, which is what the Century you posted is sporting. That, plus the landau padding, give the roof a more formal look, that at a quick glance might look like the roofline of a Regal, Grand Prix, etc. But to see them side by side, the difference would be much more noticeable. But then, just to be annoying, in 1976 the Century coupe started using the more formal roofline. There was a Century Special that still used the more fastback roof, though. Also, to add to the confusion, when the cars went to rectangular lights for 1976, the treatment was different on coupes versus sedans. Sedans, both Century and Regal, used the stacked quad headlights, with the turn signals mounted inboard of the lights, while the coupes used more conventional side-by-side lights, with the turn signals underneath them. BTW, I like that '75 Century coupe you posed, Stephen. That color looks close to my '76 Grand LeMans, although my vinyl roof is burgundy as well. I wonder how white would look on it, if I ever needed to replace it?

Re: [steve_]

by kernick on Tue Nov 18 05:34:54 PST 2008

"It may be the first of many such bankruptcies as a study by the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, predicts a wave of supplier bankruptcies About 3 years ago I was in a Business / Project Management program with some folks from Sylvania, and the horror stories of quality demands and price cuts from the auto manufacturers were making the business already untenable. I remember several of our teachers saying that the worst companies dealt with the government, and the 2nd worst was those that dealt with the auto industry. The point being is that if you could get any other business you would; before you'd deal with these guys. Ford, GM, and Chrysler has squeezed many of the suppliers so much over the years, in order to keep costs lower, that now they have no reserves to whether a storm. The Big3 ate their food, ate their seed, and now there's a large storm.

What’s Good for G.M. Is Good for the Army

by rockylee on Mon Nov 17 20:10:18 PST 2008

AMERICA'S automobile industry is in desperate trouble. Financial instability, the credit squeeze and closed capital markets are hurting domestic automakers, while decades of competition from foreign producers have eroded market share and consumer loyalty. Some economists question the wisdom of Washington's intervening to help the Big Three, arguing that the automakers should pay the price for their own mistakes or that the market will correct itself. But we must act: aiding the American automobile industry is not only an economic imperative, but also a national security imperative. When President Dwight Eisenhower observed that America's greatest strength wasn't its military, but its economy, he must have had companies like General Motors and Ford in mind. Sitting atop a vast pyramid of tool makers, steel producers, fabricators and component manufacturers, these companies not only produced the tanks and trucks that helped win World War II, but also lent their technology to aircraft and ship manufacturing. The United States truly became the arsenal of democracy. During the 1950s, advances in aviation, missiles, satellites and electronics made Detroit seem a little old-fashioned in dealing with the threat of the Soviet Union. The Army's requests for new trucks and other basic transportation usually came out a loser in budget battles against missile technology and new modifications for the latest supersonic jet fighter. Not only were airplanes far sexier but they also counted as part of our military "tooth," while much of the land forces' needs were "tail." And in those days, "more teeth, less tail" had become a key concept in military spending. But in 1991, the Persian Gulf war demonstrated the awesome utility of American land power, and the Humvee (and its civilian version, the Hummer) became a star. Likewise, the ubiquitous homemade bombs of the current Iraq insurgency have led to the development of innovative armor-protected wheeled vehicles for American forces, as well as improvements in our fleets of Humvees, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, trucks and cargo carriers. In a little more than a year, the Army has procured and fielded in Iraq more than a thousand so-called mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles. The lives of hundreds of soldiers and marines have been saved, and their tasks made more achievable, by the efforts of the American automotive industry. And unlike in World War II, America didn't have to divert much civilian capacity to meet these military needs. Without a vigorous automotive sector, those needs could not have been quickly met. More challenges lie ahead for our military, and to meet them we need a strong industrial base. For years the military has sought better sources of electric power in its vehicles — necessary to allow troops to monitor their radios with diesel engines off, to support increasingly high-powered communications technology, and eventually to support electric propulsion and innovative armaments like directed-energy weapons. In sum, this greater use of electricity will increase combat power while reducing our footprint. Much research and development spending has gone into these programs over the years, but nothing on the manufacturing scale we really need. Now, though, as Detroit moves to plug-in hybrids and electric-drive technology, the scale problem can be remedied. Automakers are developing innovative electric motors, many with permanent magnet technology, that will have immediate military use. And only the auto industry, with its vast purchasing power, is able to establish a domestic advanced battery industry. Likewise, domestic fuel cell production — which will undoubtedly have many critical military applications — depends on a vibrant car industry. To be sure, the public should demand transformation and new standards in the auto industry before paying to keep it alive. And we should insist that Detroit's goals include putting America in first place in hybrid and electric automotive technology, reducing the emissions of the country's transportation fleet, and strengthening our competitiveness abroad. This should be no giveaway. Instead, it is a historic opportunity to get it right in Detroit for the good of the country. But Americans must bear in mind that any federal assistance plan would not be just an economic measure. This is, fundamentally, about national security. Wesley K. Clark, a retired Army general and former supreme allied commander of NATO, is a senior fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles. -Rocky

Re: 2009 Maxima v 2009 Mazda6 [aviboy97]

by out4cat on Mon Nov 17 16:50:18 PST 2008

Look very closely at the new Maxima, just saw one on the sales floor at my usual dealership and some of the panels on the interior can be moved with low pressure applied by hand. Also the sport package seats had uneven cushioning on the passenger seat which gave the leather a wrinkle look on the right side of the center bolster. The styling is quirky to say the least, in front of the A pillar there are so many styling cues that it actually crowds the overall design. From the A pillar to the C pillar it is plain Jane look of the Camry/Lexus ES and then the rear window down to the trunk lid is all Altima. The side fender flares are right out of the Titan/QX 56 trucks so to make a long story short, the design is just over crowded to get attention, definitely not a timeless look. I can't even begin to tell you what a disappointment the CVT transmission is. The interior is OK, nothing strikingly unique there except for a copy-cat dash from the Infinity. Although sleek and unique, the design of the Mazda 6 is more timeless, less crowded, and definitely not quirky. No CVT is a big plus and even the one I saw in light blue the other day caught my eye, definitely a futuristic sleek look similar to the MB CLS and new Passat CC. Remember the Maxima is a 35K car mostly because it is Japanese yet the thing is built in the U.S. The Mazda is way lower in price. The HP difference as you pointed out is not that big a deal and with the CVT on the Max, getting the HP to perform can be quite a task. I would suggest a look at the Pontiac G8 V6 but who knows what will happen to GM in the near future. Bottom line, picking a car is certainly based on different subjective preferences and it is a decision to be made by no 1 but the actual buyer/leasee. Good luck either way.