1. I value the opinions of the Forumites,

   and

2. Even the wiseass answers are rather entertaining.

My question is this: What is your perception of certain makes of car?

For example, My perception of GM's brands are as follows (in approximate order of ascending expensiveness):

Saturn:

I amost forgot to include Saturn before I hit the "Submit" button. Saturn is an odd duck, manufactured for odd ducks. It's a good car that promises very little excitement and delivers just that. It's cheap, fairly reliable, easy to buy, and the dealers don't make you wonder if you've been ripped off once you've signed the contract. The best part about Saturn is that when you walk onto the dealer's lot you aren't circled by eager salesmen like so many vultures circling a dying animal.

Chevrolet:

People who buy Chevys simply want or need transportation. They can't afford (or don't care) to purchase a more expensive car, and they can find almost any type of automobile they want in the Chevy line-up. Most of the Chevy models are transportation appliances, with the exception of the trucks (dealt with separately), the Camaro, and the Corvette.

The Camaro is Chevy's nod to the fact that some folks want some sort of sporty car, and are willing to endure poor ergonomics, odd styling, and eccentric interior layouts to get it. The Camaro (along with Poniac's Firebird) is something of a Neanderthal. You might laugh at it, but you have to admit it's powerful and capable for the price.

The Corvette is really an anomaly. It's as if the corner convenience store stocked caviar. It's a car I admire and respect, but do not want. Lot's of people do, however, and it draws people into the showrooms so they can be sold something a bit closer to their price range.

Chevy Trucks:

About half (or less) of the people who buy trucks actually require a huge cargo box to carry things around in. The rest just want that "rugged" image. If you want economy, handling, room for passengers, and loads of cargo space, buy a car and rent a trailer.

Pontiac:

Pontiac is rather like Chevy except their cars are supposed to be more "sporty" (whatever that means) than their Chevy counterparts. To be honest, Pontiac does tune the suspension of their cars a bit more towards the handling side of the ride/handling equation. I myself favor the Pontiac line-up over the rest of the GM line-up, but I'm not a Pontiac-or-nothing kind of guy, either.

GMC Trucks:

What do you do if you want a truck but want to be able to boast it's a "better" kind of truck? You buy a GMC instead of a Chevy. It used to be that GMC trucks were supposed to be tougher than Chevy trucks (despite the fact that they were identical except for the badges). Now GMC is trying to tart up their trucks and give them a patina of "luxury". Somehow I can't imagine hauling a load of manure in any vehicle with leather seats.

Buick:

This is grandma's car. What do you do when you want luxury but aren't rich? You buy a Buick. Buick (I had one and only one ever) has what they proudly refer to as the "Dynaride Suspension". This sounds to me like what it is: A dinosaur suspension set-up. Buick suspension tuning is calibrated for ride. Handling is something Grandma (except MY mom) doesn't know how to use, so it's tuned to be as cushy as possible. Of course this means it floats and wallows, but for some folks, that vague queasy feeling you get on twisty roads isn't the car's fault, but the road's.

Oldsmobile:

This is your father's car. It isn't tuned as softly as a Buick, but if Juan Manuel Fangio were still alive, he wouldn't have one unless they did something about that suspension (I understand that Oldsmobiles have improved since I last drove one, but we're talking perceptions here).

Caddillac:

Caddillac is a relic of a bygone age. Once the "Standard of the World", Caddillac has rested upon its laurels so long only people who can remember when Caddillac meant quality really want one. If grandpa can afford one, that's what he drives. It has all the image of luxury that one could want, but is desperately trying to convince people that it's really an alternative to Mercedes or BMW. They're trying hard, but never quite seem to make it into that league. Maybe next year.

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

Chevy: Don't know much about them except what my dad and friends say. They tell me that Chevy used to be a great truck company, but unfortunately the quality of trucks have dropped and have been replaced by Fords and Dodges in quality.

Dodge: What can I say? Dodge is trucks. They look cool, they last long(from what I've heard) and they can do just about anything. Dodge cars also look really great, but as to their durability and endurance, I don't know yet.

Long live the Ford Taurus Station Wagon! Rolls Royce of Station wagons!

Ford: Built Ford tough. Except for the lemons. Like the 1993 Ford Taurus Station Wagon, Maroon, NB license number BHQ-637.. That car went through a lot. Came from Quebec, we bought it with 82 000 Km on it. It went to Florida and back, lost it's A/C, lost a motor mount, burned oil on the engine exterior... Like I said, a lot. We eventually sold it last year and my dad leased a 1996 F-150. But Fords do last long. My dad had a 1979 F-150 for the longest time. Most he ever did to it was put a lift kit on it, replace the box and front clip, and the doors. Everything else worked fine. Now, the Broncos (full size) have shitty bodies. The rust real quick.

Dodge: Don't know much about Dodge, except that their transmissions are crap. Wear out real easily.

GM: Don't know much about these either, save that my neighbour is a strict GM guy. (except for the Ford Explorer that he and his wife drive...) He had a 1979 El-Camino SE until this summer. Was working pretty good. Needed a bit of fixing up, but still pretty good. I don't like GM much myself, but that's just me....