Another Great Car becomes an Orphan

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Today the Pontiac officially becomes an orphan with the expiration of all the dealer agreements for that great brand. An icon in American Auto history is now history, what a shame.

The second car I owned was a 1955 Pontiac Star Chief 2 door hardtop with full leather interior and that neat lighted hood ornament. Wish I had it today!

Jim

[rocketraider]

Some people will say GM had to do it in order to survive. That it was a critical business decision.

Maybe the bonehead MBA's in charge during the 80s and early 90s should have made better critical business decisions.

As it stands, GM now has: an entry-level brand (Chevy), duplicate truck brands (Chevy-GMC), two luxury-priced brands (Buick-Cad) and nothing in the mid-price market. What kind of market strategy is that?

Add in that they offer absolutely nothing that appeals to me, and it is not hard to understand why they have lost my new car business. The last modern GM I owned turned me against even a used GM offering.

The traveller has come home.

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Some people will say GM had to do it in order to survive. That it was a critical business decision.

Maybe the bonehead MBA's in charge during the 80s and early 90s should have made better critical business decisions.

As it stands, GM now has: an entry-level brand (Chevy), duplicate truck brands (Chevy-GMC), two luxury-priced brands (Buick-Cad) and nothing in the mid-price market. What kind of market strategy is that?

Add in that they offer absolutely nothing that appeals to me, and it is not hard to understand why they have lost my new car business. The last modern GM I owned turned me against even a used GM offering.

The traveller has come home.

The problem is multidimensional. I really don't think there has been anyone associated with any of the U.S. car makers since Harley Earl and Lee Iaccoca retired that understood designing and building automobiles the public would get excited about. Though an honorable mention has to go to DeLorean when at GM. GM's problems actually began in the 1960s, Ford's began (again) in the late 1970's and we have to be realistic Chrysler just never got it completely right after WWII.

As I see it there is nothing but one basic car being built by any of them today. There are no mid level cars in the sense of low price, mid price, and luxury offerings. One has to even question the existence of a luxury offering considering the inside of a so called luxury car has no pizzaz and all the gadgets are available on the low price models. I would also note the overall quality of what is supposedly a luxury vehicle is no better than the low priced offerings. It's a weird day when one sees pickup trucks on the showroom floors that are more luxurious and ride better than a so called luxury car. That is what I came away with thinking on a visit to a dealer showroom last week.

The last decade a consumer could expect to buy a car they really wanted or could avail themselves of different interiors and paint jobs was the 1970s and from that point on things just basically went totally to hell. I personally think the last really great road cars built were the mid '70s full size Lincolns and after my recent trips to dealers I have decided to find one with relative low mileage and have a modern 4 speed overdrive tranny put in it. Thankfully Ford is still using the same bolt patterns and the tranny swap can be done for around $4 grand giving that big old 460 a chance at getting close to the same or better fuel economy as the last of the underpowered Town Cars, which aren't all that good on fuel consumption.

I just can't see paying $40,000 or more for a car I really don't want and rides like hell on the road. Makes more sense to me to put $10 to $15 grand into a real vehicle to bring it up to date so to speak.

The U.S. auto industry will not be out of the woods until they get back to offering cars with greater visual and comfort appeal to consumers.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Jim Rohn]

Here is a nice tribute video:

[1937hd45]

The percentage of Americans that CAN, and WANT to buy a NEW car must be very small. The last new off the lot vehicle we bought was 1986. If want a new car I'll rent one for the weekend.

[Dave@Moon]

You can't make shoes for 1956 and expect to sell them in 2010, why should anyone expect to sell "exciting" cars now? "Exciting" is over. Chrysler has built almost nothing but well-styled "exciting cars" since 2003 (Magnum, Charger, Challenger, PT Cruiser, 300, Crossfire, etc.). Where did that get them? (Answer, building Fiat 500s starting this spring.)

Who gets "excited" over a Toyota? A Subaru? A Hyundai? All of the cars that have been eating the "Big Three's" lunch since 1980 have been boring as he!!, and I'm the type of guy who's been buying most of them! And if you want to disparage that consumer for their choices, you're doing exactly what Roger Smith et al were doing in 1985 that created this whole mess.

The bottom line is that having an "exciting" car was great, when you only drove it for 3 years. Today you buy a car to drive for the coming decade. In 2010 most car loans are for 5.5 years or more, a length of time that would've been unheard of before 1980. (When I bought my first new car in 1986 you could only get loans over 5 years on a Volvo/Mercedes/BMW/Saab or similar expensive cars, and then it couldn't be more than 7 years no matter what.) That is what changed things.

How "exciting" is that PT Cruiser now? That "New" Beetle? That Crossfire which still has 3 years left in the payment book?

How "exciting" was that '58 T-Bird in 1969? That MGA in 1971? That Cordoba in 1988? (Setting aside the issue that a lot of them didn't live that long.)

People don't buy "exciting" cars in great numbers any more. Smart people right now are shopping the 2011 models that'll still be appropriate for their needs in 2019, and they know that any "excitement" will have long worn off by then.

Pontiac will be missed just like Mercury will, and Olds and Plymouth already are. Not for what they built, but for what they could've built.

Edited October 31, 2010 by Dave@Moon
Fixed first sentence (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

The percentage of Americans that CAN, and WANT to buy a NEW car must be very small. The last new off the lot vehicle we bought was 1986. If want a new car I'll rent one for the weekend.

They're going to sell about 12 million new cars this year in the U.S. The current U.S. population is 308.4 million people total (documented and undocumented). That's 1 car for every 25.7 people.

In 1970 those numbers were 8.4 million cars and 203.4 million people, with a ratio of 1 new car for every 24.2 people.

Given that cars today last 2-3 times longer than a typical 1970 model, that's remarkably consistent demand. The WANT is definitely there.

[R W Burgess]

Here is a nice tribute video:

"For people who think driving should be FUN!"

Maybe this explains it all? Can you connect fun with driving a "refrigerator"?

Wayne

[Guest]

"For people who think driving should be FUN!"

Maybe this explains it all? Can you connect fun with driving a "refrigerator"?

Wayne

I was sorry to see that on the "you tube" link they missed Pete Estes. Pete was the middle architect of the trio of Bunkie Knudsen and John DeLorean. If Pete haden't suck out his neck and gone against corporate policy ( no engine over 330 cubic inches in the new for 64 intermediates ) when he was Pontiac's general manager the Pontiac GTO would have never been.

I do remember that picture of the guy slumped over the last REAL Pontiac V-8 on the above link when it first appeared in Automotive News. I thought to myself I would never buy a Pontiac again because to me the engine is the very heart of the marque. Put a Chevy engine in a Pontiac and what you have is another Chevy. After they did that Pontiac was just another corporate car..

IMO General Motors forgot the formula that made Pontiac and Olds and all it's divisions different from one another and built different brand loyalty. Also when you let the bottom price leader invade the mid price field with the same luxuries which include interiors, accessories, transmissions, engine sizes and horsepower it's just a matter of time. For me it was the engine bit.

Don

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

"For people who think driving should be FUN!"

Maybe this explains it all? Can you connect fun with driving a "refrigerator"?

Wayne

Excellent description of so many of today's automobiles. And what about all those interior trim options?

If all houses were furnished on the same theme level as today's automobiles we'd all have yucky off gray sofas and chairs accented with genuine wood grain plastic, and of course all houses would be limited to three or four exterior trim colors. For automobiles to become any less imaginative we'd have to turn the clock back over 100 years.

Jim

[R W Burgess]

Excellent description of so many of today's automobiles. And what about all those interior trim options?

Jim

Let's see Jim, that would be grey, grey, dark grey, and light grey?

Wayne

[Dave@Moon]

Excellent description of so many of today's automobiles. And what about all those interior trim options?

If all houses were furnished on the same theme level as today's automobiles we'd all have yucky off gray sofas and chairs accented with genuine wood grain plastic, and of course all houses would be limited to three or four exterior trim colors. For automobiles to become any less imaginative we'd have to turn the clock back over 100 years.

Jim

Let's see Jim, that would be grey, grey, dark grey, and light grey?

Wayne<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Have either of you guys seen a housing development built since 1980, or any house professionally remodeled since then? Replace the word "gray" with "tan" and you've got it.

I don't like it any more than you do, but it is what people want when they're going to live in or drive something for so long that almost any color choice would be out of style and a value deduction when it came time to sell it. I've got a nice, blue interior in my '96 Ranger..., but I'd bet I'd get more money for it in gray.

I don't remember seeing a similar blue interior on a Japanese or German car in the last 20 years+. Funny how they're not going broke.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Dave@Moon
added underline (see edit history)

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Have either of you guys seen a housing development built since 1980, or any house professionally remodeled since then? Replace the word "gray" with "tan" and you've got it.

I don't like it any more than you do, but it is what people want when they're going to live in or drive something for so long that almost any color choice would be out of style and a value deduction when it came time to sell it. I've got a nice, blue interior in my '96 Ranger..., but I'd bet I'd get more money for it in gray.

I don't remember seeing a similar blue interior on a Japanese or German car in the last 20 years+. Funny how they're not going broke.

Nonsense! If you think the majority of the public wants "BLAH" then how do you explain all the Oohs and Aahs over mid '50s through early '70s cars at any general brand car show.

Attempting to achieve or maintain profits have driven a bean counter mentality to the design tables. When a car maker only has to buy and have on the line one or two interiors and limits paint jobs to four colors their production cost is obviously lower. What they haven't figured out yet is that is one of the things that has been retarding their sales. And going back to the 1990's it was the car makers financial arms that pushed five year car loans, not thinking about the fact that they were placing the buyers in an upside down position and that the cars wouldn't be worth squat as a trade-in once paid off. Little wonder people hold on to cars longer than thirty years ago, they haven't had a choice! In the long run it can be called shooting yourself in the foot over expediency to make sales rather than to reduce production numbers. The auto makers dug themselves a hole they couldn't get out of, and neither could the buyers. Should sound a bit familiar as that mentality is exact the same thing that brought about the sub-prime real estate loan problem. A sub-prime loan is a sub-prime loan whether on a house or a car.

[Dave@Moon]

Jim, I've already made the points that:

#1. Cars are selling, and at quite the same rate as how they've sold in the past for decades;

and #2. The car companies that are doing the selling tend to make the most boring products of all.

I'd make the point that today's cars are made much better and are therefore routinely lasting 15-20 years and 200K miles+ because of that, but I don't think in a discussion like this making valid points matters much any more.

[Dave@Moon]

Nonsense! If you think the majority of the public wants "BLAH" then how do you explain all the Oohs and Aahs over mid '50s through early '70s cars at any general brand car show.

For the same reason the public oohs ans aahs over skateboard tricks, albino kangaroos, and the Jackass movies...., because it's different. Different isn't always better, or desirable. Following too closely the whims of what's oohed and aahed at can be folly in marketing.

Just ask the guy who approved the Edsel, or the 2002 Thunderbird.:eek:

Like it or not, the Camry and Accord are successes on par with the Impala and the Mustang in automotive history. They didn't suffer lost sales due to limited color choices or banal body lines, so why would anyone think the Pontiac G6 or Plymouth Neon did?

Design just doesn't sell cars in the long run like it used to any more. Period.

[Guest]

I don't remember seeing a similar blue interior on a Japanese or German car in the last 20 years+. Funny how they're not going broke.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My 94 Nissan D-21 HD pick up has a all blue interior. Some 350 & 370 Z's have persimmon leather. Sentra SER's & SER Spec V's have had combination charcoal/red seats/ door pannels. 370 Z has a wine interior.

I do admit the pickings are pretty small. My 62 Catalina had three trim levels and five color choices for interior.

Don

[Guest bofusmosby]

Being born in the mid 50's, I know that I have not driven or owned nearly as many cars as others here on this forum. That being said, my wife bought a 2008 Pontiac G-6, and to be honest with you, thats the best car I believe I have ever driven! Even though this is one of the "sporty" models, it would never match up with the old Pontiacs. However, with her car only having a V-6 engine in it, that dern car has great pick-up! The gas mileage is up there as well. It has many of the fancy bells-and-whistles that higher priced cars have. I guess how it performs over the long haul will the true test. If we can get at least 10-15 years out of it, then I'll know.

Of course, we ARE a 2 Pontiac car family.

[1939_Buick]

Now even the lowest price cars have air conditioning, electric windows, remote unlocking, power steering, and many more bells & whistles. They even have radios - CDs as standard !!. Its not that many years ago these features were only in luxury cars. The low price cars have moved up market with features, hence the market has flattened. Not as much difference between features in high price & low price cars as there was 10 - 20 - 30 years ago.

Edited November 1, 2010 by 1939_buick (see edit history)

[Dynaflash8]

The last decent Buick was built in 2005, not pretty but large, thrifty and fast. I've had two LeSabre's and three Park Avenue's since 1995, some new, some used. Now I'm stuck with a 2005 Park Avenue that I can't replace. I don't think it's quite as well manufactured as the 2001 Park Avenue was even though it's exactly the same car. Maybe it has a few quality compromises as GM was heading for bankruptsies. Still, it gets 31.3 to 32.3 mpg going from Florida to Virginia and back. My concern is, what do I do when it wears out? I don't like being on long trips with a car much over 100,000 miles. I guess I'm a throwback with that fear. The current Park Avenue has 60,000 miles on it. I have a 2007 Chevrolet Suburban tow vehicle and I literally hate that thing, but I can't afford to replace it with another Suburban, so there may be a pickup truck somewhere in my future. Automobiles are priced out of the market of most middle class people now unless they buy the trash currently being offered...which I call "toy cars". Somebody mentioned the Charger. Yes, good looking, but rides like a truck. There is literally no automobile being produced in the World today in gray, gray, gray or tan, tan, tan that I would ever want to buy if I had all the money in the World and wanted a new car. So, what to do?

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Jim, I've already made the points that:

#1. Cars are selling, and at quite the same rate as how they've sold in the past for decades;

and #2. The car companies that are doing the selling tend to make the most boring products of all.

I'd make the point that today's cars are made much better and are therefore routinely lasting 15-20 years and 200K miles+ because of that, but I don't think in a discussion like this making valid points matters much any more.

Well Dave I suggest you find different sources of information for your points.

1. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Auto sales in the U.S. have been in general decline since 1973 with a couple of spikes in 1985 and 1987. You may see a graph at: U.S. Automotive Vehicle Sales History | RECESSION.ORG And then if sales are just so darn great how can closed dealerships, closed production plants, and companies being bailed out by the government be a fact?

2. No car company has exempted themselves from offering the mundane and blah. If you or anyone can name one please do, along with the specific model on the showroom floors today. No limited interest/specialty market vehicles please!

3. Yes, cars are more likely to live 200,000 or more miles today than 20 or 30 years ago, but the public is paying the price for automobile companies to insulate them from their own incompetency in performing routine maintenance. Many, many well maintained automobiles and light trucks from the '50s, '60s, and '70s managed to log well over 200,000 miles. All it took was proper oil changes and chassis lubrication at prescribed intervals.

Jim

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

For the same reason the public oohs ans aahs over skateboard tricks, albino kangaroos, and the Jackass movies...., because it's different. Different isn't always better, or desirable. Following too closely the whims of what's oohed and aahed at can be folly in marketing.

Just ask the guy who approved the Edsel, or the 2002 Thunderbird.:eek:

Like it or not, the Camry and Accord are successes on par with the Impala and the Mustang in automotive history. They didn't suffer lost sales due to limited color choices or banal body lines, so why would anyone think the Pontiac G6 or Plymouth Neon did?

Design just doesn't sell cars in the long run like it used to any more. Period.

Oh yes, design does sell cars and trucks, along with functional benefit. That is why Ford's F-150 pickup is the over all sales winner month after month after month. In some months achieving sales nearly equal to that of Camry and Corolla combined, as well as combination of Accord and Civic.

Top 10 Best-Selling Cars June 2010

• Ford F-Series: 46,502
  
• Chevrolet Silverado: 30,994
  
• Toyota Camry: 28,435
  
• Honda Accord: 26,792 (includes 1,848 Accord Crosstours)
  
• Honda Civic: 26,474 (includes hybrid)
  
• Toyota Corolla: 21,876 (includes Matrix)
  
• Chevrolet Malibu: 20,720
  
• Ford Fusion: 18,412
  
• Hyundai Sonata: 17,771
  
• Honda CR-V: 16,041
  

Comparing any individual 4 door vehicle with Mustang just doesn't make any sense. Mustang is a niche automobile aimed primarily at the Female market, always has been even in the "BOSS" years. Now comparing apples with apples Mustang verses Camaro, Mustang has out sold Camaro and comparable imports in overall sales since its introduction in mid 1964. Unfortunately, neither Mustang or Camaro has the interiors to back up their very successful retro exterior designs, though neither had exactly exciting interiors when introduced.

There is a litany of vehicles that car makers, both domestic and import, have introduced over the years that were marketing failures, not just Edsel and the retro attempt at T-Bird.

Jim

Edited November 1, 2010 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history)

[Larry Schramm]

Dyanflash8, I would like to give you some confidence in the GM vehciles. I currently have a 98 Chevrolet Astro van that has 228,000 miles. From Detroit area it has been to Fla twice, Chickasha,Ok., and Hershey in last year. The trips to Fla once was towing a trailer with one of the Buick trucks on it. With good maintenance, the cars just run & run & run.

[poci1957]

1. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis Auto sales in the U.S. have been in general decline since 1973 with a couple of spikes in 1985 and 1987. You may see a graph at: U.S. Automotive Vehicle Sales History | RECESSION.ORG And then if sales are just so darn great how can closed dealerships, closed production plants, and companies being bailed out by the government be a fact?

Hi Jim, I took a look at the chart you reference here and it is not entirely right. During the last 10 years (through 2008, that is) auto sales in the U.S. ran 14-17 million per year, but that included fleet sales, imports, trucks, and everything. This chart may only be counting domestic manufacturers or it may be excluding fleet, import or truck sales, but it is excluding something.

As such, I would agree with Dave that the market overall has been fairly stable since at least the mid-1980s. What has changed IMO is that instead of the Big 3 selling 80% or more of that number they are now at 50%. So 4-5 million units a year are now Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais and Kias rather than Olds, Buick, Pontiac and Mercurys. And I firmly agree with both of you that these are bland and plain cars with no sex appeal. Todd

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Hi Jim, I took a look at the chart you reference here and it is not entirely right. During the last 10 years (through 2008, that is) auto sales in the U.S. ran 14-17 million per year, but that included fleet sales, imports, trucks, and everything. This chart may only be counting domestic manufacturers or it may be excluding fleet, import or truck sales, but it is excluding something.

As such, I would agree with Dave that the market overall has been fairly stable since at least the mid-1980s. What has changed IMO is that instead of the Big 3 selling 80% or more of that number they are now at 50%. So 4-5 million units a year are now Toyotas, Hondas, Hyundais and Kias rather than Olds, Buick, Pontiac and Mercurys. And I firmly agree with both of you that these are bland and plain cars with no sex appeal. Todd

Understandably we would all hope that auto sales from all U.S. Retailers of all brands domestic and foreign would reflect an annual rate of 14-17 million per year, unfortunately they don't according to Edmonds. In actuality Ford, GM, and Chrysler sales currently make up only 45% of all retail (consumer) sales which for the last several years has not even been close to the 17 million you suggest. For example this year's current running rate reflects total sales of all brand through U.S. Dealers this year will reach only slightly less than 12 million units, 2008 saw a sales of 12.6 million units. I skipped 2009, because it was painfully depressing, as we all know.These numbers do not include any fleet sales, which eventually have an affect on used car values and sales as they enter the retail market.

The ultimate fact is prolonged ownership of new cars purchased is for whatever reason resulting in a continuous decline of auto sales by dealers in this country. We all know this is not likely to reverse until our national unemployment figures drop by at least 50% or more. The latter will not be happening anytime soon, though isolated pockets have seen a decrease in unemployment over the last two months.

If cars with more pizzaz were to suddenly appear in dealer showrooms next week it is unlikely they would cause any great change in sales simply because the public is not at all convinced the so called recession is even close to being over. As long as we have stagnation in the economy in general nothing is or will improve the automobile sales numbers.

Jim

[Dave@Moon]

....For example this year's current running rate reflects total sales of all brand through U.S. Dealers this year will reach only slightly less than 12 million units, 2008 saw a sales of 12.6 million units. I skipped 2009, because it was painfully depressing, as we all know.These numbers do not include any fleet sales, which eventually have an affect on used car values and sales as they enter the retail market.....

Jim

They're going to sell about 12 million new cars this year in the U.S. The current U.S. population is 308.4 million people total (documented and undocumented). That's 1 car for every 25.7 people.

In 1970 those numbers were 8.4 million cars and 203.4 million people, with a ratio of 1 new car for every 24.2 people.

Given that cars today last 2-3 times longer than a typical 1970 model, that's remarkably consistent demand. The WANT is definitely there.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Any questions?

[Dave@Moon]

Oh yes, design does sell cars and trucks, along with functional benefit. That is why Ford's F-150 pickup is the over all sales winner month after month after month....

....Comparing any individual 4 door vehicle with Mustang just doesn't make any sense. Mustang is a niche automobile aimed primarily at the Female market, always has been even in the "BOSS" years. Now comparing apples with apples Mustang verses Camaro, Mustang has out sold Camaro and comparable imports in overall sales since its introduction in mid 1964. Unfortunately, neither Mustang or Camaro has the interiors to back up their very successful retro exterior designs, though neither had exactly exciting interiors when introduced.

There is a litany of vehicles that car makers, both domestic and import, have introduced over the years that were marketing failures, not just Edsel and the retro attempt at T-Bird.

Jim

First of all, you know good and well that I was talking about success in terms of sales by comparing Camry and Accord to Impala and Mustang. Ignorring that both Camry and Accord combine boring design with huge sales doesn't make any point at all.

Second, and amusingly, you cite a pickup truck as an example of design driven sales. I've got nothing against the F-150, or it's design, but truck sales are at least 50% fleet sales to businesses. Do you really think U-Haul is buying Fords for their looks? Even better, do you really think anyone is cross-shopping Honda Civics and F-150s?

Besides that, have you checked the color palate of F-150s lately? See ( See Ford F-150 Color Options - CarsDirect ). For the exterior: 2 blues, 4 reds, a gold, 2 whites (one more than 20 years old), 2 silvers, and a black. Oh, and if you buy 2 of the 6 models offered you can then go wild and avoid the grey interior with tan!:D:D

[Guest Jim_Edwards]

Any questions?

Certainly! Why do you think there is any direct relationship between "Want" and the fact people are not buying new cars as often and haven't been for nearly three decades? The fact a car could be driven longer (more years) has never kept people in past times from buying a vehicle they wanted. Do you believe people really want to drive a car for over five years? A car that looks old and smells like heck when one get into it, and has an interior that is beginning to look like what it is; five years old and used up. Yes, used up! The whole thing used up and not worth fixing if something requires more than very simple repair because in all likelihood the repair cost will exceed the value of the car. All the detailing in the world is not going to keep a five year old car from being a five year old car.

So why have more people not been buying more new cars?

Clue: 1. They really don't see anything exciting enough to motivate them to buy something new more frequently even if they have the means. 2. Funky long term financing programs across all brands have left many, many consumers unable to buy as often as they might otherwise be inclined to do.

Get over it Dave, the auto makers have lost sight of their consumer base in attempts to save themselves from their own incompetency and with that loosing sight they are in trouble and will stay there until they wake up. They have forgotten "you sell the sizzle not the steak." There is no sizzle to vehicles that have both the exterior and interior appeal of a cheap casket.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Peter J.Heizmann (see edit history)

[Bob Hill]

Actually I think Pontiac orphaned great cars a long time ago. After about 1980-1981 Pontiac had little that interested me. I admit I fell for the Fiero and it was a fun little car but even it didn't last.

Pontiac (and GM as a whole) had very little to offer IMHO. The Corvette and possibly the new Camaro are about the only two GM produced cars I would consider owning. I would consider a Chevrolet/GMC truck (still not sure why they produce both but....) with a Duramax diesel and Allison tranny for my next truck purchase.

I fell out of love with GM when my wife's CTS started making horrible engine noises at 85K miles even with great maintenance.

[Dave@Moon]

Certainly! Why do you think there is any direct relationship between "Want" and the fact people are not buying new cars as often and haven't been for nearly three decades? The fact a car could be driven longer (more years) has never kept people in past times from buying a vehicle they wanted.

They're going to sell about 12 million new cars this year in the U.S. The current U.S. population is 308.4 million people total (documented and undocumented). That's 1 car for every 25.7 people.

In 1970 those numbers were 8.4 million cars and 203.4 million people, with a ratio of 1 new car for every 24.2 people.

Given that cars today last 2-3 times longer than a typical 1970 model, that's remarkably consistent demand. The WANT is definitely there.

I'm bored. Edited November 2, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[TG57Roadmaster]

I'm bored.

And I'm thinking you and Jim need to take this Vulcan Mind-Meld

dispute to the nearest Trekkie Convention.

TG

[Dave@Moon]

[keiser31]

They'll be missed.....

[Ron Green]

A lot of talk about GM's boring and problem plagued vehicles, however I must be lucky as mine continue to serve me well.

The 2005 Bonneville GXP with the Northstar V8 is an incredible car in my opinion. Add heated leather seats and all the goodies and you have a comfortable car that has plenty of go power. Ditto the G8 with the Northstar V8, just not as roomy and soft riding. I will never understand why the development of the Bonneville stopped and it was dropped in 05 however they were never advertised. You see them running around here everywhere.

[Guest]

A lot of talk about GM's boring and problem plagued vehicles, however I must be lucky as mine continue to serve me well.

The 2005 Bonneville GXP with the Northstar V8 is an incredible car in my opinion. Add heated leather seats and all the goodies and you have a comfortable car that has plenty of go power. Ditto the G8 with the Northstar V8, just not as roomy and soft riding. I will never understand why the development of the Bonneville stopped and it was dropped in 05 however they were never advertised. You see them running around here everywhere.

_______________________________________________________________

I agree Ron, They are great cars. The only problem is they are not Pontiac's. They are corporate cars. Pontiac stopped engineering their own cars somewhere in the early 80's. Loyal Pontiac customers knew the difference.

Don

[LINC400]

Three things killed the mid price divisions.

1. These divisions were originally supposed to bridge price gaps between the high end and low end divisions. Instead of occupying their own price point like they did on the past, they overlapped. There used to be barely any overlapping between the high end of one divison and low end of the next. By the 1980's, there was only a few hundred dollars difference between the same car with different badging. Instead of Pontiac competing against low end Mercurys and Dodges, they were competing against Oldsmobile and Buick and even Chevy.

2. The cars used to have their own engines. Putting a Chevy engine in everything killed the point of paying more for a more prestigious division. Bodies were always shared between divisions. In the 1950's you had to look pretty hard and know cars to see how a body was shared between divisions. The average person wouldn't know. By the mid-1980's, it was just the opposite. They pretty much all looked the same. Even the ones that didn't share bodies. You had to look pretty close to see different taillights and grilles. Many did not feel compelled to spend extra for barely noticeable differences.

3. Instead of building and designing their own unique cars, domestic manufacturers started copying foreign cars. A 1965 or 1975 Bonneville buyer would not look at a Toyota or Honda. But by 1990, there was not much difference in size, style, price or equipment. So why not look at them? And many did, and bought them instead.

Also I agree that boring does sell nowadays. Cars like Challengers and Camaros get lots of press and praises in auto magazines. But a bland Accord or Camry will always outsell them. People will not take out 5+ year loans on something considered impractical or trendy.

Edited November 2, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest]

Three things killed the mid price divisions.

1. These divisions were originally supposed to bridge price gaps between the high end and low end divisions. Instead of occupying their own price point like they did on the past, they overlapped. There used to be barely any overlapping between the high end of one divison and low end of the next. By the 1980's, there was only a few hundred dollars difference between the same car with different badging. Instead of Pontiac competing against low end Mercurys and Dodges, they were competing against Oldsmobile and Buick and even Chevy.

2. The cars used to have their own engines. Putting a Chevy engine in everything killed the point of paying more for a more prestigious division. Bodies were always shared between divisions. In the 1950's you had to look pretty hard and know cars to see how a body was shared between divisions. The average person wouldn't know. By the mid-1980's, it was just the opposite. They pretty much all looked the same. Even the ones that didn't share bodies. You had to look pretty close to see different taillights and grilles. Many did not feel compelled to spend extra for barely noticeable differences.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll just add a note from my Standard Catalog of Cadillac book when it says

"By the early 70's, cars like Chevy Caprice and Ford LTD were making their impact felt in the low rungs of the luxury-car market. This meant that Cadillac's stood out less from the rest of the pack".

If Cadillac was feeling it, how do you think Olds, Mercury and Pontiac was doing?? Well it took longer than I would have thought but reality has prevailed and now they are all history

Don

[Big Beat]

Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, Chevrolet/Cadillac. It seems that the current business model requires only two brands per company, one standard, one upscale. GM has now alligned itself with this new reality. And if it hadn't been for Buick's popularity in China, it would be just as gone, too.

I dreamt of owning a 1960s Pontiac in my teens, and owned one in my 20s. I still have a soft spot for the "good ones", right up to the early 1980s. But it has been a very long time since a Pontiac interested me. While sad, it's not surprising at all.

[rocketraider]

I've been in the market for a 2-4 year old Grand Marquis for several months, but have yet to buy one. Know why? BECAUSE EVERY ONE I'VE FOUND HAS BEEN EITHER WHITE OR SILVER! AND I DON'T WANT A WHITE OR SILVER CAR!:mad:

If I can't stand the appearance or color of a vehicle, I'm sure not going to turn loose of my money for it.

Have either of you guys seen a housing development built since 1980, or any house professionally remodeled since then? Replace the word "gray" with "tan" and you've got it.

HOA's have a lot to do with that, and those also are a bane on our existence. It's why I'm glad I have some acreage around me, and am actually looking to buy a little more "land cushion". I can foresee VIR's presence eventually creating a covenanted subdivision around me when the elderly landowner passes and her kids won't be able to sell that farm fast enough.

Guess what Moon. Some of us still appreciate style and color. God forbid a Williamson should ever become a Stepford consumer.

Re: Edsel. The E-car was a victim of economic recession (shades of future past!) and its own hype. We should wish carmakers would be as daring with their styling again, even if the underpinnings are conventional.

I've noticed no one ever said an Alfa-Romeo or LaSalle looked like an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon.

[John_Maine]

If Ford, Chrysler and GM had the 80% market share that they used to have rather than less than 50% now, there would be room in their line-ups for Mercury, Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Plymouth. They used to just have to deal with Volkswagen, Renault and a few other obscure foreign makes. Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai and Kia have taken the place of US nameplates.

[Dave@Moon]

Guess what Moon. Some of us still appreciate style and color.

I think I've been pretty clear that I'm in that camp as well. We are, however, a distinct minority among modern automotive consumers.