Repair-It

Sure but the point is that you can buy the car for less, and lease it.

Nobody is cross shopping these cars anyway. And they are a very small part of the market. But, does the SS help sell Malibus? Probably does. But even that is questionable because there is zero marketing for the SS. As if they don't really want to sell it (and let the enthusiasts find it).

Unrelated, but that is a hell of a good snapshot from your phone. All the detail in the shadows and didn't lose much in the brightest part of the sky. And sharp enough to read the AAA sticker on the Oldsmobile in front of you.

Yeah not bad for an almost 3 year old phone. 20MP. If only the OIS worked right...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_Lumia_1520

Camera phones were Nokia's big thing for a long time.

kevm14 wrote:Ok but in terms of full line comparisons:

Ford | GM
Fiesta ST | (no entry)
Focus ST and RS | (no entry - imagine how good a Cruze SS would be based on how good the Cobalt SS was)
Fusion Sport | (no entry - no performance versions of Malibu)
Taurus SHO | Chevrolet SS (wins on performance, space, soul)
Mustang | Camaro (wins for performance, sales numbers say otherwise)
Raptor | (no entry - GM had an entire Hummer lineup and all they got was shit for it - now they have to build a Baja truck for pavement bros to be considered competitive?)
GT | depends. Will a mid-engine Corvette be required to take this car on? We will see soon I think. I think Corvette spanks this anyway as the availability, price and overall performance of the line of Corvettes is proven by sales and testing.
(no entry) | Entire Cadillac performance lineup, which is like four cars (ATS-V, CTS Vsport, CTS-V, CT6 twin turbo)

If we stick to affordable cars, you are really just talking about the Fiesta, Focus and Fusion. The Fusion Sport I think does not matter. The industry has seen "performance midsize FWD sedans" for decades and again, for the price, you are into Maxima SR territory (not that the Maxima is automatically better, but this is a dwindling segment). Most people would rather lease a BMW 3-series with fake leather seats than pay $34k for a turbo AWD Fusion.

So, Fiesta and Focus. GM has no hot hatch. Are hot hatches of critical importance? What about my comparison of the past 15 years? Why is the 2016 lineup the only way to determine which brand has a better performance image? So now the past only matters when the car is bad, but not when it is good? What the hell sense does that make?

Cadillac bitch slaps Lincoln for performance but I guess that doesn't matter?

Its almost like Ford and GM aren't competing any more, except in the heads of enthusiasts and NASCAR fans...

But seriously, the Ford lineup is the Ford of Europe lineup, there are no Ford of America things outside of trucks and (maybe) Mustangs.

Also, SHO (Police Interceptor) competes with the Caprice in the Police Fleet market, while the Taurus competes with the Impala in the rental car fleet market.

Its almost like Ford and GM aren't competing any more,

I have heard this a lot lately and I think you make a really good point. I seem to be holding on to the earlier times where there was the whole Camaro vs. Mustang vs. the Dodge whatever because it sucked anyway...

Lately when I continue this rivalry, a lot of people tell me: "Who cares. It isn't about Camaro vs. Mustang, it is America vs the world". This really resonates with what you said about GM and Chevy not competing. Ford and GM are competing with the Europe and Asian car companies, not each other. It is a whole different dynamic than the past that I still reference. Back in the 60's, there was no foreign competition except for the exotics (Ferrari/Porsche), etc.. So, the fighting/advertisements were American companies vs. American companies. Now there is actual competition from the foreign markets, and all 3 of the big three almost went bankrupt recently (whether you want to believe it was all of them is another argument, but GM was not the only company in trouble...).

The American Car companies are fighting to survive against the foreign competition. Ford seems to compete with the commuter segment, offering AWD powertrains and generally good aesthetics (At least with the Fusion and larger). I would say Ford is mostly going against the Hondas and Toyotas. GM is more focused on performance sedans, more going after Germany and Trucks/SUVs/crossovers. The Trucks really only compete with Ford, and Dodge, since they are the only ones that bring real Full sized competition. GM also competes with the Tacoma with the Colorado. Ford doesn't really have anything in that segment until they revive the Ranger. GM also schools the large SUV market with the Tahoe/Suburban. GM is very focused on the higher end crossovers with the Acadia and Buicks. I am not sure the Chevy's are really taking from the CRVs and RAV4s yet. I guess GM has cars for the commuter also, like the Cruze, which they made look exactly like a Civic. I am not sure that people are ready to buy a Malibu or Impala over an Accord or Camry yet. I don't care because I don't want any of these.

So, the part I am waving the flag on is the muscle cars. I don't really see foreign competition for the Camaro/Mustang/Charger/Challenger/Corvette/Viper.

Toyota all but gave up with performance until the new BMW Supra returns... Honda has nothing except the overpriced, over complicated NSX supercar, and Nissan, never mind, they have nothing except Shitsubishi. Hyundai has the Genesis, I think they are the only company actually trying. Mazda supposedly has an RX-9 but until that actually surfaces with specs, and proven reliability, the jury is out.

So, why can't I make fun of the Rustang? There is not really foreign competition for the Camaro, except maybe the M2/4.

Another discussion, which may require it's own thread is: "why are performance cars, now better than ever, not in demand?"

My answer is 2 parts:
1. Cars are crazy expensive, not for what you get, but relative to income/cost of living expenses.
2. Lower end and basic cars have better performance that past sports cars, and the average person doesn't need/want better than that performance.

Example:
Look at this write up for a 1985 IROC:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/19 ... c-z-page-3

This was so good in the 80's they say they if it was rare, people would pay 100K for it. In the 80's!

This car had 215 HP at 3500 lbs. Today that equals nothing special. So if most "regular" cars have 80's Z28 performance, which was great in it's time, most people don't need more than that. Which is available today at low cost.

billgiacheri wrote:...and Nissan, never mind, they have nothing except Shitsubishi.

They have the GTR and the 370Z. Those are more slightly performance focused than the Maxima or Leaf or whatever Misubishi still makes (Montero Sport?).

But yes, I agree with your answer.

billgiacheri wrote:2. Lower end and basic cars have better performance that past sports cars, and the average person doesn't need/want better than that performance.

On my most recent work trip one guy ended up with a V6 Mustang rental for a weekend. He was impressed at the performance it offered. I'm pretty sure it was the fastest car he had ever driven. If normal people are impressed with the performance of with what is essentially a base model "pony car", imagine how they feel about the V6 model of the family sedan they need to buy to haul the kids around.

Camry - 268 hp
Accord - 278 hp
Maxima - 300 hp
Impala - 305 hp

Also, most of the minivans and car-based SUVs have the same or similar powertrains available. Don't forget about all the 300+ hp light duty trucks available.

Normal people wouldn't know what to do with a 400+ hp performance car. They can barely keep their Camrys on the road.

Yeah, I forgot about the 370Z. I should give Nissan a little more credit. That is an attainable sports car. Which I guess was kind of my point to the question: "Why aren't people buying performance cars since they are so good?". I did mention the Viper, which would validate the GTR response for competition. (The GTR is also pretty respectable)

I didn't include the Miata, BRZ, and FRS because most people need a back seat, so I can understand if 2 seaters are a niche market.

billgiacheri wrote: 2. Lower end and basic cars have better performance that past sports cars, and the average person doesn't need/want better than that performance.

Example:
Look at this write up for a 1985 IROC:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/19 ... c-z-page-3

This was so good in the 80's they say they if it was rare, people would pay 100K for it. In the 80's!

This car had 215 HP at 3500 lbs. Today that equals nothing special. So if most "regular" cars have 80's Z28 performance, which was great in it's time, most people don't need more than that. Which is available today at low cost.

Similar to what I was saying here: http://forums.kevinallenmoore.com/viewt ... 073#p10560