Lexmex

They should go back to making classic designs, but add modern technology. When I get back to the states I plan to buy myself a classic late 1960s Mustang. Can you make cars like that Ford?

sc430blue

I read an article in MPH about cheap sports cars. They mentioned the best one out there right now is the C5 series corvettes. I believe they said something to the effect of "other than a few pieces falling off and minor glitches, this is a solid car." Thats unacceptable! Chevy was touting the refinement and tightness of the C5 back when it was introduced only to have parts fall off a few years later?! I have a 93 Toyota Landcruiser with over 300k miles and NEVER had a problem with it.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Er, that's exactly what the latest Ford Mustang is! I was at a Ford dealership and looked over a Mustang GT. Pretty nice, and a guy started one up to drive it someplace else on the lot, and WOW, what a great sound.

LexFather

U have to consider the C5 will be driven very hard, which means more wear and tear on a car. Sports cars will never be as reliable as most cars.

The Landcruiser is a legend, possibly the strongest vehicle every built. You can't compare to a C5

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

There's always anecdotes. I know people with Vettes who swear they're bulletproof and don't have 'things fall off'. On the flip side, we had a few things FALL OFF on our RX300. The liner on the top of the rear hatch door fell down and the dealer never could fix it. Don't misunderstand me though - we still LOVED it and regret selling it. The creaking sunroofs on 2GS have been a frequent problem for many (including me - the dealer eventually put an entirely new sunroof in).

The thing that's pretty bulletproof on Toyota/Lexus is the drivetrain - you rarely EVER see one stranded at the side of the road due to malfunction, whereas I've seen more BMWs, Fords, Chevy's, etc. in the past, although it's becoming rarer to see almost any brand just break down.

Chevy/GM's problem in the U.S. is FORGETTABLE VEHICLES. They do pretty well with trucks/SUVs - they're functional, if not beautiful and many people like them. I've known a ton of people with Suburbans who love them for all the stuff they can carry with their families, tow the boat, etc., and nothing else realy competes. Nevertheless, it's not exactly been a looker. Most of the sedans/coupes though are just boring, ugly, or cheesy or some combination. Cadillac's doing better and the 'V' models are pretty incredible but the quality and feel still isn't Lexus like.

RON430

Whatever GMs problems are, and there are too many for anyone to fully grasp, my guess is Bob Lutz is not the answer. He may be a good guy but all he is showing is that what little understanding he has of the car buying public, he has much less understanding about GM. And if they don't bring someone in who knows what needs to be done and how to go about doing it, they should be preparing bankruptcy filing now, not after they blow through tens of billions of dollars of stockholder equity. Here is a long piece and if you haven't seen it in May, Sports Car International, and don't want to read more than a sentence or two, at least skip to the end. It is about the Solstice but it could be about any GM car, with Lutz's backing or not:

"So what keeps the Solstice from being a two-men-out, bases-loaded, ninth-inning – sorry, make that 15th inning – grand slam? You start figuring that out as soon as you fall into the crazy-low seat, close the crazy-high door and sense that you might need to call Lassie to go and get help. A flat, cheap-looking, gray-plastic instrument panel towers in front of you while the door-panel oppresses your shoulder. Reaching around to adjust the seatback is like trying to open a pickle jar inside a mouse hole – we’re talking some real FiberFab kit-car stuff here. And don’t even think about taking your sunglasses off. Thirty years after Honda proved otherwise, Pontiac Division still thinks door pockets, storage cubbies and change holders are for sissies. Well, here’s a list of things that don’t fit inside a 2006 Solstice: My cell phone. My glass case. My left elbow. A bag of French fries. The change form a bag of French fries. My garage door opener. A toll booth receipt. My pen and notepad for writing scathing letters to Pontiac Division.

True, the car comes with not one but two glove boxes: one placed impossibly far down the passenger’s footwell, the other impossibly far off behind your right shoulder. Unless you’re Mr. Fantastic or happen to be transporting a well trained orangutan, forget about getting inside either one with out stopping and undoing your seatbelt. It also seems odd that the window switches are four inches too far back to be used by a human arm. Presumably, GM wants to capture the under served giant squid market.

When you look at the Solstice on paper, at least it’s obvious someone is trying. An adventurous, crowd thrilling design: a front engine, rear drive layout with wishbones and coil-overs all around: a perimeter structure very similar to that of the Corvette: clever uses of the corporate parts bin that, with the exception of the seats, don’t cramp the car’s style. Where things fall apart is the execution. The all aluminum, 2.4 liter, 177 horse four is buzzy and grudging. There’s a hard rubber coated feeling to all the controls, as though everythings carved out of handballs. The shifter doesn’t snick into gear, it bumps there. The clutch and brake pedals don’t spring, they just sort of give way. The steering, while accurate and predictable, is dead feeling and heavy. If not for the thrash of the oversized Ecotec engine, you’d think you were driving a late model Camaro.

And that, in fact, is the secret that might save the Solstice yet. Once you abandon all hope of Miata like sparkle and try beating the heck out of this car like a Corvette or Mustang, things start to work themselves out. Sports cars are all about involvement, attention and a cooperation between car and driver. Muscle cars are about results attained laughably, cheaply and easily – you ask a sports car, but you tell a muscle car. So let’s review: Rough, cheap, made out of leftover parts, all about the looks…. That’s either a muscle car or Angelina Jolie, and I don’t se Brad Pitt hanging around anywhere.

Making this mental leap helps explain everything: the clumsy controls, the cheap plastic, the debacle that is the interior. Even the wackadoodle, scissor-fold ragtop – which alternately takes up what little trunk space there ever was or hampers the already bad outward vision – is clearly a product of muscular form over day to day function. You have to walk al the way around the car to snap down its two functionless flying buttresses every time you put up the top or open the trunk; this chore would seem a little less onerous if they helped cut the terrible wind noise, but they don’t.

That upcoming turbocharged GXP version – a four or five grand option good for 260 horses – should give this car some of the kick it needs to expand on its muscle car soul. At a more rational displacement of 2.0 liters, the Ecotec four should be less buzzy and thrashy as well.

Does that mean the Solstice’s main chapters might yet be as bright as its preface? The overall quality will always be hampered by GM’s refusal to pay for more robots, but the kit car-ish failures that plagued this one should work themselves out over time. (Before the delivery guys gave me the keys, one of the tonneau flaps broke and a top-cable fell off. The differential was already whining, and a badly designed seal in the deck let water pour in the trunk when it rained. Juicy stuff for a car critic.)

The real irony here is that the Solstice was created to symbolize a new start for GM – to be physical proof that the giant now sees the error of its ways. But for now, anyway, it actually showcases how Gulliver got himself tied down in the first place: A bred-in-the-bone refusal to just step in, suck it up and do a car right for the sheer sake of doing it right. What GM still doesn’t seem to acknowledge is that it’s not just about boring designs; it’s about the self defeating meanness and half-assedness that seem to pervade every product it makes. The Solstice doesn’t just say, “We’re GM, and this is the kind of exciting car we can build.” It also says, “We’re GM, and even our mea culpa’s dash gets the same awful plastic that RCA uses on TV sets.”

Lexmex

All except the quality. Every person I know down here has had some glitch or part fail them. In addition, performance wise they can do pretty well at my track. I asked some family members who had the original 60s Mustangs off the dealer lot and never did they encounter any problems in the first three months of ownership.

manila_boy

guys let's put it this way, we don't need to compare GM and Toyota-there's nothing to compare about the two (except toyota has more reliable vehicles). Toyota has the best sales over GM subs. for how many years. here's how i think about it, how many manufacturer's does GM has??? i beleive there's eight of them (correct me if i'm wrong) ...then how many manufacturer's does toyota has??? ONLY ONE!!! i count Lexus and Scion as toyota WHY??? because when u pop out the hood it still says TOYOTA!

please tell me if my thoughts are "ok"-this the only thing that gets stuck to my head everytime someone tells me that this n that car company sells more than or better than toyota.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Hehe, I think your thoughts are definitely 'ok'.

L-Finesser

Lutz. Rhymes with Putz. This guy has been a bust. Time for him to hang it up and smoke his cigars in Florida.

Lexmex

Just imagine the golden parachute this guy has waiting for him on the Florida retirement...makes me sick.