Actually the rental car companies did. Not the general public. The used car market thrives w/previous rentals...which is why you see many of them on the road.

 

Yes...fleet sales were a good part of it, but the Grand Am was still popular with the masses in spite of it being all show with no go. The former Grand Prix, especially the supercharged GTP, was show WITH go.

I think another problem with the G6 is that awkward tail-end-jacked-up wedge look like what a cat does when you pet it and it sticks its butt way up in the air. I can't speak for everyone, but that look turned me off immediately. This shot shows that pretty well:

http://cars.ign.com/articles/492/492021p1.html

 

I've never driven a G6, but it looks ok. Ugly steering wheel. All that said, I just never took this car seriously. It was another GM car. Whip it around some roads and cue the rock anthem. I think if GM or Pontiac wants to be a conetender, they need to take thier marketing and advertising more seriously. Is this car really a Camry-killer? Prove it.

 

I think the sluggish sales has a lot to do w/ this fact. I could've sworn I even saw the new Mustang in a rental car ad!?!

 

And to top off everything said here, GM seems so utterly stupid to have killed the F-body cars, Camaro and Firebird. They were crappy, especially the Camaro but they sold well. They were affordable and fast. How do you do such a silly thing? They bring over the Holden, called it The Goat but charge $35K for it. You could get a Z28 for $27K or less and burn the rear tires to the rim. GM needs an enema.

 

No......that is the problem. The F-Bodies did NOT sell well. In the last full year of production (2002) the Mustang outsold them 4 to 1. Part of that was because the F-Bodies were so shoddily built. They were notorious not only for integrity problems like squeaks, rattles , water leaks in the T-Tops, and trim falling off but also serious component failures of important things like fuel pumps and oil pumps that could....and often did.....leave you stranded.
Like it or not ( and I assume by your post that you do not ) F-bodies were cheaply built junk that was good for burning up their rear tires in drag races and little else.....and even with winter tires they were a spinout waiting to happen in the tiniest amount of rain or snow on the road.

I'm sorry....I'm not trying to offend you or be rude.....but I have to tell it not only as I see it but what history has shown with these cars. And, to be honest, the Mustang had some of these same limitations......and the fact that the previous-generation Mustang platform went back to the 1978 Fairmont....a mediocre car at best even at that time. The Mustang, however, survived because it had a little more solid (if not much ) build quality and a much more dedicated set of followers and loyal fans, and the sales figures proved it.

 

I'll agree that Mustang probably outsold one but I can't believe it outsold both Camaro/Firebird combined. If so, okay but I'd be surprised. WHen they came out in 1993, they definitely outsold Mustang. I had 2. A 93 and 96. What I should have said is GM is stupid because they had the opportunity to improve the quality and keep them selling. Here's an example. My 93 would get hot at idle. In fact the manual said not to let the car idle too long. Through lots of research I learned the problem could have been fixed with a 5 dollar part that GM refused to add to the car in production. It never overheated but it did spill the coolant a few times. I still loved the power, the sleekness, the big wheel wells, etc. I had the best looking Camaro's in town. I couldn't deal with the breakdowns another minute. I found many loyal F=body lovers who were hurt by the poor quality and GM left us hanging. I will never forgive them.

 

I think this has been pretty well summed up - GM comes out with a MUCH better car, raises the price A LOT and the car does not sell. Let's be real here, the old Grand AMs could be had for dirt cheap and a LOT of people bought them because of this. There is a huge difference between a $16K car and a $27K car - the problem is that a lot more people can afford the cheaper one.

In summary, it is going to take GM a long time before they can start commanding higher prices - people don't forget easily.

 

That is a very good point. They need to start with low prices and work up. Even the Caddys are very overpriced.

 

and I came within inches of posting that same comment about the Caddys. They need to make their AWD STS for $55K - I'd even look at it then!

 

About fifteen years ago, Ford almost replaced the Mustang with a front-drive derivitive of the Mazda MX-6, a fairly popular sport-coupe at the time that competed with the Toyota Celica and Honda Prelude. The outcry from Mustang owners, loyalists, and auto magazines was tremendous. Ford's marketers were overwhelmed.....to the point that they cancelled the whole proposal and instead re-marketed the potential replacement as the Ford Probe, which ended up selling alongside the Mustang instead of replacing it. And today...... where is the Probe? Long dead and gone....while the ol' Stallion gallops on.
Unfortunately, while the passing of the F-Bodies did draw some criticism, it was nothing like the outcry that Ford had to endure.
Now.....my personal opinion on it? Even though, as I've stated, I don't consider F-Bodies good for much else than drag racing and laying rubber.........on a DRY surface........ I would have liked to have seen them stay in production and get better quality control and more refinement to their mechanicals.....but ths is one area where GM is brutal. Money is the game at GM.......if a car or car line makes money, it stays. If not, it goes.....period. This is not my thinking as an auto enthusiast, but is the reality of management at GM. GM made a rare exception to this policy when it stuck with Saturn at first even though that division was not very profitable, but now even Saturn, while not completely getting the ax, is being forced with massive changes into buisness-as-usual at GM. Lutz, true, is an auto enthusiast, but he is also a shrewd buisnessman.