Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeT
I think I was the one who mentioned the Impala. The V6 hasn't been dropped completely from the '14 Impala, but it's no longer standard. The standard engine is the 195-hp 2.5L non-turbo four-cylinder. Any way you slice it, that's a pretty major downgrade from the tried-and-true 3.6 DI V6 that's standard in the '13 Impala... and the '14 Impala is slated to costs thousands more.
|
Taking away content and charging more is going to be a losing proposition for the next Impala. They will be odd man out in their class with a NA 4-cyl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
All these import companies showed up on American soil with 4-bangers when Americans were paying too much for gas—no, not by today's standards—and provided an alternative to the less efficient domestic products. GM market share drastically shrank. GM used to be over 50% of American car sales, but now that number is below 20%.
|
I have to disagree with your logic here. GM's market share slide over the last 45 years occurred for many reasons, and not reducing horsepower enough is not very high on the list. To some extent, the gas shocks in the 70s hurt, but what has been the excuse for the last 30 years?
The problem was for a lot of years they were shoddily built, and far behind their competition in terms of reliability/durability, fit/finish and build quality, refinement, handling, content, etc.
GM did offer small, 4-cyl cars, even in the early 70s. What turned people off to GM was they were unrefined junk. Engine failure at 50K miles was common, and some were known to literally rust away in a few months sitting in climate controlled dealer showrooms.
While the durability and build quality improved somewhat, though not enough, over the years, the other issues still lingered. The current Impala didn't die on the vine because it didn't offer a small 4-cyl, but because in terms of chassis dynamics and content, it was a relic...a 1990s car trying to sell 15 years past its time. Remember the 2004-2007 Malibu? The Cobalt? The Aveo? All of the last Pontiacs except the G8? The W-body LaCrosse and Lucerne lineup over at Buick? Can you really look at that lineup of cars and argue that not having smaller, less powerful engines in them was the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Blur
GM has room to take back that market share by taking away the one good reason to buy imports, fuel economy. If GM can compete on all platforms with all types of engines, there's a good chance that those sales will convert to future GM sales. That is how you get market share. GM should ambitiously attack imports with cars that are like imports, but they have to do it with American styling. The Camaro is a great example of American badassery when it comes to styling. Imagine putting a smaller, lighter Camaro against the slow FR-S.
|
You're half right and half wrong here. Yes, GM needs to compete on all platforms with all types of engines, and if they could do that, they would take back some market share.
However, such a thing involves actually competing on platforms...which means if they want to compete against the FR-S, they need to have a comparable platform, and Alpha isn't it. Trying to turn a 3300-3400 lb Alpha based Camaro into something comparable to a 2700 lb FR-S is a battle lost before it even begins, particularly when the turbo FR-S arrives. And thus, trying to change and sell an Alpha Camaro into something that appeals to the FR-S buyer will not succeed in stealing FR-S sales, it will only give the Camaro type buyer less to buy. You are not going to be able to attract both the niche that wants a small, ultra light 4-cyl sports car and the one that wants a larger, torquey, more powerful car with the same car. If you want two different markets, you need two different cars.
You have to compete, but you cannot copy, either. You have to give your buyers a unique reason to choose your car. With today's level of competition, and the number of choices out there, you can't just be the same. Some people like Pepsi, and some like Coke. Changing Coke into Pepsi wasn't a reason for Pepsi drinkers to switch to Coke, it was just a reason for Coke drinkers to stop buying.
Yes, GM needs smaller, efficient 4-cyl cars to compete against similar offerings like the Camry, Accord, Civic, etc....The answer is to build a competitive Malibu or Cruze that competes with those cars. Turning the Camaro, a car that sells for reasons having nothing to do with economy, into an economy car, is not the right strategy. All that does is take away the characteristics of the Camaro that give that car the unique selling point responsible for its success.