Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Automotive' started by Snikle, Jan 8, 2018.
You’re very correct right there.
I wouldn't mind if they kept mid engine vettes to a more limited production number as long as they keep the front engine, but if they make it solely mid engine it'll kinda ruin it for me
Remember that the engine is where the center of gravity of a car is located. Having an engine in the middle moves the center of gravity towards the middle. Which means that the new corvette has better control at high speeds over the front engine corvettes.
I don't think, that, that would be a great idea, 'cuz, I loved the front enginered Corvette, but hey, at least it's beautiful!
I'd rather have a mid-engine DB11 than a Corvette C8. GM is complete garbage, except for a few spared cars (modern era, old-school GM was somewhat decent).
What's wrong with GM?
Designs that makes Russian vehicles look marvelous, stupid decisions that make Honda seem like classic Nintendo, and recalls that make Toyota feel innocent.
...buying out Opel and Vauxhall, and mishandling the company Fiat.
The Corvette was meant to be innovative and different when it came out, recently it has been a copy & paste of the past generations up to modern styling.
It's simply returning to its roots and what it should have been all along.
The only reason any company tries to keep an old style going is to bring in the buyers who saw that style when they were young, but couldn't afford it. When they start to see the average age of a buyer drop, that means they don't have to cater to the nostalgic buyers (where the $$$ is) and can change things up to meet expectations of the new buyers.
Opel and Vauxhall have had, and still have, a decent reputation in Europe that GM would have to establish with a new brand, and making more cars on GM platforms helped the economy of scale.
And if "mishandling" means "providing them with some of the most reliable stuff in their history", then I agree.
Like their economy is doing any better than many companies like PSA Group, Ford Motor Company, RR Holdings, etc... which I'm saying they'll die sooner than the others do.
Also, they're trying to be relevant... when they barely are to me.
Any economic indicators of that you can bring?
Because to me, GM seems very future-prepared, being diversified into diffetent markets and price ranges and doing decent research into electric and self-driving cars. They have the volume and the designs to stay relevant for years.
Also, not relevant to you.
...ahem, the dead Pontiac, Saturn, Oldsmobile, and Hummer brand would like to talk to you. They were born as to look promising, and besides, they had some quality somewhat. Then GM shoots the gun all because of poor sales, which I'm sure might as well end GM if the first problem they encounter is low economics.
Why does a company need to keep a low-sales brand?
...Then why did they give up Opel and Vauxhall for PSA Group to re-own them, huh? Opel/Vauxhall sales were pretty bad, although not Saturn levels, but still.
Because Opel and Vauxhall, as well as most modern European GM operations, weren't financially solid.
...not a surprise when GM in 2010 was hit hard with *close* bankruptcy.
Then why are US and Chinese operations OK?