GM: Bring back the Geo

[speediva]

Originally Posted by vivid2012

extra $.30-.50 more per gallon of diesel? that's a big deal for me.

That's what I'm saying... you pay more for the diesel version of the Jetta, and while you get great gas mileage, you're paying more for diesel fuel. It hardly balances out in the long run...

[CivicSpoon]

Originally Posted by Murco

The Geo products were just Asian cars with GM badges - the Prizm was a Corolla, the Storm was an Isuzu, and the Metro and Tracker were Suzuki. Even though the were only badge cars they didn't have the reliability rep of the parent companies that built them and sales were always soft.
Building cars like the older CRX or old Geo Metro couldn't happen today. Those cars didn't have multiple airbags (later Geo's had d/s only) and ABS, no OBDII systems, and their structures wouldn't pass muster in crash testing today. Plus, today's car buyers want killer stereos with i-pod integration, bluetooth, navigation, leather (in even the cheapest cars), 5-star crash safety ratings, 150k mile service-life, minimal maintenance, and go-anytime reliability....
All those features add weight, and the government required many of those safety changes (the heaviest) while raising CAFE standards. Today's cars have all that and much more plus most can protect you in an America populated by big SUV's.
Think about it for a moment, power will always increase as a result of better efficiency so power being up is pretty incredible when you consider mileage is going up as well. Even a new Z06 Corvette gets 27MPG!!!
Yes, there will always be a market for basic cars but if you look at the history of companies that focus on them, or mileage, they have historically failed. As another poster said, there is a huge number of vehicles competing in the lower end of the market and the products have never been better! The new Jetta diesel gets better mileage than the Prius and is much, much more enjoyable to drive. The golden age of cars is now!

I was specifically referring to gas mileage. I realize that all the safety features and such do add a tremendous amount of weight. But the point I was trying to make is that it's 15-20 years later. Car manufacturers should be much further along than they are, when designing engines and more aerodynamic vehicles. I realize that the average consumer was buying up gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, but car companies should have known. Everyone knows the old saying of "history repeats itself" (ala 1973). They knew, like everyone else, that eventually there would be a huge price increase for oil products. It would have saved thousands of factory jobs as well, but that's another story.

[Murco]

Originally Posted by speediva

That's what I'm saying... you pay more for the diesel version of the Jetta, and while you get great gas mileage, you're paying more for diesel fuel. It hardly balances out in the long run...

It will when you factor in the expected lifespan of these cars. The Jetta diesel will reliably run 200K+ miles with no more than regular maintenance, the Prius will need a new battery pack (estimated lifespan of 125K miles) at a cost of $3500 each.

[carbuzzard]

Originally Posted by CivicSpoon

I was specifically referring to gas mileage. I realize that all the safety features and such do add a tremendous amount of weight. But the point I was trying to make is that it's 15-20 years later. Car manufacturers should be much further along than they are, when designing engines and more aerodynamic vehicles. I realize that the average consumer was buying up gas guzzling trucks and SUVs, but car companies should have known. Everyone knows the old saying of "history repeats itself" (ala 1973). They knew, like everyone else, that eventually there would be a huge price increase for oil products. It would have saved thousands of factory jobs as well, but that's another story.

Car companies are busting their collective behinds to get better fuel economy and they have been all along. The weight increase makes a tremendous difference that's really hard to overcome. But aerodynamics, if you look at the numbers, some cars are down about .27 which a few years ago was concept car territory. There's more in the pipeline (so to speak), such as auto stop/start and more, so fuel economy will get better.

[Murco]

Originally Posted by CivicSpoon

I was specifically referring to gas mileage. I realize that all the safety features and such do add a tremendous amount of weight. But the point I was trying to make is that it's 15-20 years later. Car manufacturers should be much further along than they are, when designing engines and more aerodynamic vehicles.

I think you're selling the car industry short... It is an incredibly competitive business and manufacturers spend millions squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of cars. Any competitive advantage is seized-on by the other companies within a car's life-cycle. You also have to remember the law of diminishing returns in this subject... You can get as much mileage as you want, how much do you want to spend??

[Murco]

Originally Posted by Moppie

I couldn't disagree more.
Unless you consider the current range of badge engineered, consumerised, sanitized, disposable transport modules to be the golden age of cars.

In terms of reliable, safe, efficient, useful, and reliable cars there has never been more capable selection in world history.
In terms of fun to drive performance cars, it's much the same! Much more horsepower, much more capable suspensions and brakes, along with comfort, good mileage, great durability, and reliability than ever before!
As for the homogenized cars for the average driver, I agree. When that appliance of a car, dull as dishwater, absolutely numb Camry sells more than any other car in America you can imagine why the cars of character have fallen by the wayside or been bought-up by bigger fish. I do not miss most of them as some were truly wretched - Saabs were terrible, as were most every British car, and most every Italian car, and most all French cars... There actually were very few cars that were worthwhile 25 years ago so the laws of consumer interest must have taken it's toll on those cars and companies that genuinely sucked...

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Murco

In terms of reliable, safe, efficient, useful, and reliable cars there has never been more capable selection in world history.
In terms of fun to drive performance cars, it's much the same! Much more horsepower, much more capable suspensions and brakes, along with comfort, good mileage, great durability, and reliability than ever before!.

While modern cars are a lot safer and more reliable, the variety has gone.
For example mid size sedan's and hatchbacks are built on only a very small number of different platforms.
GM have one platform shared by all their brands, Ford and Mazda share a plateform between all thier brands, same with VW Audi Group. Then theres Toyota, Honda, Nissan/Renult, Subaru, BMW, Mercedes, Fiat and Citroen.
Thats 95% of the worlds midsize cars (hatchbacks and sedans) and only 11 different platforms with 20-30 different badges on them.

While modern sports cars are also safer and more reliable, I don't agree they are necessarily faster, in some cases they are slower, and again, they suffer greatly from badge engineering and platform sharing.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by Murco

You also have to remember the law of diminishing returns in this subject... You can get as much mileage as you want, how much do you want to spend??

Originally Posted by Murco

There actually were very few cars that were worthwhile 25 years ago so the laws of consumer interest must have taken it's toll on those cars and companies that genuinely sucked...

Sadly true. While many were great designs, bad management, short term thinking and general incompetence meant many suffered from poor reliability and even worse build quality.


I do wonder how close modern cars are getting to the law of diminishing returns.
There is a massive difference driving a car from the early 70s when compared to a car from the early 90s, but much less difference when compared to a car from now.
The Same 20 year gap does not yield the same difference in safety, performance and reliability.

[carbuzzard]

Originally Posted by Moppie

For example mid size sedan's and hatchbacks are built on only a very small number of different platforms.

Have you driven both the Mazda2 and the Fiesta? They're very different cars in execution. Platforms are the most basic of elements, not the final product with different finishing touches. That's what GM did in the '70s and it almost killed them, though of course they were simultaneously meeting demands of new safety regulations, fuel economy standards (and customer demands), and emissions rules.

But I digress. Think of a platform as the foundation of a house. What one builder builds on it can be very different from what another does.

[batvette]

Originally Posted by uRabbit

Because Europe (along with most other nations) are not pig-headed and as America... "/

Well thanks but leave me out, this is one American who is savvy enough to know how pointless it is to compare the US and European auto markets. European cities and life in general are far more urban centric oriented, people there tend to live far closer to where they work- and their cities are closer together. Their cities are also not very accomodating of larger vehicles, their streets and property lines having been laid/drawn out many centuries ago.
America's personal transportation topography was mapped in the 50's by the federal interstate highway system and is oriented toward coast to coast travel and shared with commercial heavy transport.
The Prius would never have been built for only a Euro or Japan market, where a 1500-2500 lb compact makes much more sense.
Americans are not willing to get on an interstate highway and get between 18 wheelers going 70 mph with a little car like that.
That certainly doesn't make us ignorant.

So now you know.

However there is some merit to similar criticisms that we are "marketed to" by the big three, they shoved SUV's at us for years when fuel costs were low until everyone thought it was an extreme hardship to not own 3 tons of steel with 8 cupholders even if you were doing a solo commute in the damn thing.
Most of those numbskulls got upside down in their auto loans the last time fuel prices soared, they didn't dip enough again to make surburbans and the like fly off the lots quick so probably ended up screwed.
But hey 8 cupholders. Yo.

I was kind of peeved about that marketing-SUV's-to-avoid-CAFE-but-reap-luxury-option-profits thingy (and I just coined that terminology, would you believe?) because among other things it killed the Firebird/Camaro and made similar vehicle choices sparse. Everybody wanted SUV's because they were told so.

I won't even get into the stupidity of the beautiful Camaro they did bring back (and it IS pretty!) has NO business being 4,000 god damned pounds. Same with the Challenger. WTF is THAT about?

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by carbuzzard

Have you driven both the Mazda2 and the Fiesta? They're very different cars in execution. Platforms are the most basic of elements, not the final product with different finishing touches
But I digress. Think of a platform as the foundation of a house. What one builder builds on it can be very different from what another does.

Not those 2, but I have driven and worked on plenty of shared platform vehicles. Those that share a platform and are significantly different are the exception to the norm, and when it comes to badge engineering the differences are non-existent.
While platforms can be used as no more than a basic foundation, current use of them is very different, with more use of shared components and only cosmetic changes to separate the models.

Originally Posted by batvette

However there is some merit to similar criticisms that we are "marketed to" by the big three, they shoved SUV's at us for years when fuel costs were low until everyone thought it was an extreme hardship to not own 3 tons of steel with 8 cupholders even if you were doing a solo commute in the damn thing.

Be interesting to see if the US market does change with collapse of the big 3 and their over reliance on SUVs built on out dated designs.

The US market is very different to the rest of the world. Not only are the consumers different, but it tends to be heavily protectionist, and operates on a different scale to Japan or Europe.
But, Honda Toyota and Nissan have proven it can be cracked and infiltrated successfully, all 3 brands are now well established in North America.
The current problems leave the door open for VAG to also enter North America and claim a big chunk of the market.

[mika3585]

I got to ask this does anybody know that geo's are a America made car that Chevrolet
Made them really And really geo prizm have good mpg and its fast for a little 5 speed manual car

[Murco]

Originally Posted by uRabbit

Big Oil has killed the car market.

This escaped my attention the first time I read through this thread, how has "big oil" killed the car market, and what is your definition of so-called "big oil"? Are you not more concerned about big government? Are you one of those who blasts Exxon-Mobil profits? If so, please notice that Exxon only made .02 cents per gallon of gas they sold and the federal government made .23 cents per gallon! Who is really the "big" problem??!!

Originally Posted by GeoRandy

When my Metro wears out, I'd like to be able to buy another....new, off a dealership lot.

Yea, you're probably the only one who does. Those cars were horrible when new and I doubt yours has gotten better with age. What killed your car is the market's lack of interest in a tiny, tinny car that had awful crash protection and sketchy handling at anything above 50 mph.

Originally Posted by GeoRandy

There are a lot of things wrong with The United States right now, and if we don't all start to do something about it, collectively as a group, we're doomed. It feels like there is no guidance and that should be governments job. Everybody keeps screaming for the government to be doing less when really we should be electing representitives and insisting they insure that our infrastructure is updated, fresh clean water will be available aplenty, transportation will be economical, and that our children are educated and disiplined to better their own plight. We need goals, as a country, and planners in government who are interested and concerned for the well-being of the populous.

I don't know where to begin with this paragraph but I'll start with your belief that government is the answer to everything. Let me assure you, government "guidance" and "planning" is the shortest path to the lowest common denominator. You have to look at the history of government intervention, or just look at cities or states in the US that are "government heavy" such as Detroit, Washington DC, or California. All are BROKE and BROKEN, EPIC FAILURES! Who among Washington DC's 452 congressmen has any background in building cars? How many are doctors? How many are teachers? How many are road engineers? How many are home builders? Hell, how many have even held jobs in the private sector? I'll answer for you, in order - 0, 3, 2, 0, 0, 63... Very little to no experience in these fields yet you want them to plan for these industries and your life. Are you serious? Most of these people are career politicians and are only interested in 2 things, controlling your world and lining their pockets and power structure while they do it. Does that sound like someone you want to entrust your future too? EVERYTHING the government has ever done, outside of the military, has caused unintended consequences that have ranged from just too expensive to disasterous. Our current economic woes were directly caused government policies and planning. The United States didn't become the greatest country on Earth because of government, it did so because for the first time in human history men were unburdened by governmentl largess! The larger the government has grown the worse things have gotten for America.
Read some history and re-evaluate your perspective...

Originally Posted by mika3585

I got to ask this does anybody know that geo's are a America made car that Chevrolet
Made them really And really geo prizm have good mpg and its fast for a little 5 speed manual car

And here is an example of government run education!

[TomsForeign]

Originally Posted by Murco

And here is an example of government run education!

LOL Thats to funny.

I can't comment on anything political really because I don't follow it at all. I will say though, the first company that comes out with a nice little AWD fuel efficient crap box in the US will get my $$. Badge it a suzuki, chevy, geo, whatever It's $75 a week for me to drive my 4x4 SUV and thats just a 15 minute highway ride every day.

[speediva]

Originally Posted by TomsForeign

LOL Thats to funny.

I can't comment on anything political really because I don't follow it at all. I will say though, the first company that comes out with a nice little AWD fuel efficient crap box in the US will get my $$. Badge it a suzuki, chevy, geo, whatever It's $75 a week for me to drive my 4x4 SUV and thats just a 15 minute highway ride every day.

Go for an old Subaru!

Admittedly, I don't know what the SVX is actually supposed to get mileage-wise, but even my Forester can pull 24mpg city!