Stop the presses! GM has a hit! Well, at least a hit with the media. In fact, the mainstream automotive press loves the new Chevrolet Malibu so much they’re ready, willing and able to tell the world that this is it! The product-led turnaround that GM’s quintessential non-car guy, CEO Rick Wagoner, predicted seven years ago. Arriving as it does immediately after GM’s new two-tier labor contract with United Auto Workers, the new ‘Bu seems the literal embodiment of a corner turned. But is it? Is the new Chevy a harbinger of a new dawn for the beleaguered America automaker?
The new Chevrolet Malibu is hardly Detroit’s first “world beater” since the transplants transplanted stateside. Some of these automobiles never deserved this appellation (e.g. the old GM J-cars)– and proved the point in the commercial marketplace. Others fully deserved the plaudits. Even as its market share erosion began in earnest, The Big 2.8 has produced some genuinely remarkable, class-leading cars. So, what happened to them?
Cast your mind back to the turn of the millennium. What was the “wonder car” from Detroit that year? That’s right: the new Ford Focus. It was Car of the Year on two continents. It was an American-built small car that Americans actually wanted. And yet here it is, just seven years later: a finalist for TTAC’s Automotive Hall of Shame; an awkward-looking car that’s so uncompetitive in its class that even FoMoCo considers it little more than “place holder” for a future replacement.
Recalls were the first sign that the best of the best wasn’t so good. While the Focus never approached Vega-levels of self-destruction and lacked the “massive single flaw” of the Pinto, the Focus was recalled 14 times (steering, structure, suspension, etc.) in 2000, and another 10 times the following year. However much they liked their hatchback, the recalls had a damping effect on actual and potential customers’ enthusiasm.
All those warranty claims sliced the Focus’ thin profit margins. Rather than significantly renew or refresh the car’s mechanical components to keep pace with (never mind outpace) its inexorably improving competition, Ford “de-contented” (i.e. cheapened) the [American] Focus and used low price to keep its competitive hopes alive. Marketing support simply disappeared, as FoMoCo moved onto the Next Big Thing. Ironically, a lack of focus transformed a Car of the Year into a TTAC Ten Worst finalist.
Ford is hardly the first automaker to fail to maintain new model momentum. Volkswagen’s entire history post (original) Beetle is the same story writ large. Chrysler also has a long, sad history of slowing but surely extricating defeat from the jaws of victory.
It is hard to explain the Neon’s impact when it first hit the market in 1994. It was good looking, well-sized and American-made. The combination of the spiraling Yen and special bare-bones construction gave the Dodge Neon a solid price advantage. The ever-paranoid Japanese media even dubbed the Neon “the Japanese car killer.”
Flash forward 13 years and the Neon is toast, while the Corolla and Civic are still here, still selling in vast quantities.
While the Neon had some early mechanical issues, they were not Focus bad. The Neon’s troubles arrived later, as the model aged. Thanks to beancounting, the car’s mechanicals weren’t built to last. The Neon morphed from “new car” to “heap” after just a few years. As a result, resale value dived low and stayed there. The difference in depreciation confirmed the fact that Toyota and Honda were selling their cars on “value” not “price."
Believe it or not, this came as something of a shock to Toyonda; their management had no idea of their own strength. The men who designed the Neon literally paved the transplants’ way to prosperity. As for the former “killer,” the Neon received only one half-hearted update. By the time it vanished, most of the kids who got stuck with one had no idea how revolutionary the car had once been.
What does this mean for our friend the Malibu? First, it’s far too early to declare victory. The slow rollout brings hope that Malibu’s quality will be kept high. But no one will know what’s what until real volume hits the streets. Even then, it will take a couple of years to see if the ‘Bu’s bits are built to last— a key quality for success in this segment.
And after THAT, there remains the nagging suspicion that GM, a company with well over 100 models spread over eight brands, will repeat its history of neglect, aggressive corner cutting and itinerant marketing.
For those of you who say of course GM’s learned its lesson, two questions. What has been done to fix the Saturn Aura’s less than stellar gearbox? And when was the last time you saw an ad for the car? Well exactly.
113 Comments on “The Truth About the Chevrolet Malibu...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Good points. Victory that is less than long term is not victory at all.
The last paragraph on the Aura hits the spot. The media has focused on the V6 Camrys problems, the Aura had an almost identical (slightly higher) score in CR. Zip in the press.
Why? IMO we expect excellence from Toyota and a mis-step is “news”. Problems from GM are not “news”.
Personally, I think this will come down to an underrated factor, TRUST.
I really do not think GM is restoring it with the public (every high reliabilty score seems to be offset by one or two low ones). Time will tell.
Bunter
Only thing I’ll disagree with here is the assessment that the Neon was “good looking”. Good Lord that thing was ugly.
GM should offer free scheduled maintenance to 3y/36k miles and/or Hyundai-like warranty.
And offer its highest selling volume dealers (say top 15%) $$$$/subsidies to refurbish their showrooms to Audi-like looks.
GM has to consistently build quality and desirable cars before people will come back. They can’t let them sit in purgatory and not update them as the competition has been doing for years before they worry about warranty and incentives.
This article confirms two points:
1. Detroit can build a world class car when they want to.
2. They still have a long way to go before people will think of them in the same vein and Toyota or Honda.
GM can be proud of the Malibu now. It’s a rather good looking beast (though, that front grille NEEDS to go!) and it’s creating a buzz and a good pop. But as Mr Bunter1 says “anything other than long term victory isn’t a victory”. I remain sceptical that this car will be all that it’s cracked up to be. You see, the Malibu can be good looking, talked about even bought in high levels, but there one other quality the Malibu needs to have…..profitability. If the Malibu doesn’t generate substantial profits for GM, then all of this is a next door to pointless exercise.
This is where, I fear, GM may come unstuck. In their pursuit of profits, they may have cut a few corners which prevents the Malibu from being a good car to being a great car. If people start having warranty claims on the ‘Bu then GM will be back at square one. This is supposed to be their halo car, their flagship, their Camcord killer. If they can’t produce a class leading car in this segment, then what’s left? GM need to stop thinking short term and start thinking long term. The Malibu has had a good start, let’s work on it.
I like the Malibu, I really do. But is this the model ready to take the Camcords on or does it need another generation…….?
The press may be loving the new Malibu, but when I walked throuhg the GM booth at the Central Florida International Auto Show everyone was ignoring “The Car You Can’t Ignore”. At the same time, the new Accord couldn’t get a moment’s rest.
Also the Experience a GM was a joke – but thanks to the lousy attitudes of the GM employees running it, I wasn’t laughing.
I own a Hyundai – the 2006 (new style) Sonata. GREAT CAR!!! 2 years next month – 35k on the clock. Zero defects (not one single warranty repair, just oil and tire rotations). Even my doubting wife (when we bought it) said the other day how much she loved the car.
I USED to own a Pontiac before – I can’t count the number of warranty repairs in the first two years. And Hyundai has a 5 year bumper to bumper (which I haven’t needed to use). GM still only has a 3 year B2B.
It will take more than hype and media to get me back to a GM (or any North American) product. Where’s the warranty to back this all up? A (subjective) pretty face won’t cut it any more.
Didn’t Hyundai just reduce their new car powertrain warranty from 10 yrs down to 5? I guess maybe beancounting is killing their profits, having to repair 6 and 7 year old cars for free…
melllvar:
The press may be loving the new Malibu, but when I walked through the GM booth at the Central Florida International Auto Show everyone was ignoring “The Car You Can’t Ignore”. At the same time, the new Accord couldn’t get a moment’s rest.
Ironic. Can anyone report what’s going on at the LA Auto show, or has that one not yet opened to the public?
Don’t bring up the Focus and the Neon. I had friends who had both (early production years). The Focus was am abomination. If Canada had lemon laws, it would have been taken back three times over. The Neon was better, but not much. Ugh.
The new Malibu has to be bullet proof for the first 2-3 years of production. Period.
I love the points you make about the Neon, I really thought the car had great potential. I drove a 97 Plymouth Neon for a number of years, my father hated the car, we tore down the engine and put it back together to fix some leaks, then a few months later it throw a rod. The interior was cheap but I thought it was a decent little beater. Now I drive a 97 Honda Accord and realize that the Neon was not so nice, especially when the value of the same year Accord is 5 times higher and the Accord isn’t that much bigger.
Plus the last couple of years of the Neon I thought looked great and very sporty. I test drove a 2000 (I think) R/T but was not impressed with it’s performance. They should have kept the Neon or redesigned it and made it better instead of replacing it with that nasty thing, the Caliber, can you say YACK!? WTF? Seriously.
I thought the Malibu was a great car, especially compared to a Camry, but I don’t trust GM to make a car that wont self distruct after the warranty ends. I think Lutz’s comments confirm they have already given up and moved on the next thing instead of backing this car up 200%. Until they start putting there focus into the product/customer and not on quick profits they are toast.
And the fact they didn’t fix the Aura’s problems even before the Malibu came out are telling about how much they really care.
The new Malibu has to be bullet proof for the first 2-3 years of production. Period.
More like the Malibu needs to skate through it’s first 100k miles with little more than a minor hiccup here and there before people’s attitudes about GM start to change.
I throw the first gen Chrysler LH cars into the mix. The cab-forward design was striking and sleek, taking the jellybean Taurus to the next level.
I remember the automotive media went nuts over it too. But it wasn’t enough. The reliability wasn’t there (one owner remarked Chrysler should throw a spare transaxle in the trunk, because its gonna fail at 70,000 miles) the design was neglected…and then it was forced to die a tragic death.
Well written article. And Detroit, please don’t screw this one up.
I drive a 1998 neon with 165,000 miles on it every day– were it the heap you so badly want it to be– it’d have had a mechanical fault in the last 11 years, no?
It hasn’t.
I redline it often, and haven’t replaced the timing belt yet. Sounds fairly durable to me.
Our industry leaders suffer from what is called “The Dog Syndrome”. When we pet a dog, the dog is thinking that it is good and will last forever, not unlike the auto manufacturers. When they produce a decent car, instead of trying to improve it, they just think it will be decent or competitive forever. And by the time it is realized that they have fallen behind (if they ever realize) it is too late. The boards just keep scratching (giving bonuses) management and they in turn think it will go on forever. When are they going to realize that their masters (consumers) have left the house never to return.
Can anyone name a single US car nameplate which has been kept fresh, competitive and reliable with complete redesigns every five years or so?
Toyota and Honda keep all of their volume vehicles in the hunt all the time. Why can’t GM, Ford or Chrysler?
The UAW has one thing right, management failures are at the root of Detroit’s competitiveness problems. It’s ironic that said managers are paid many time more than their better performing Japanese counterparts.
I worked for many years as a semiconductor product engineer, where our focus was always on discovering and fixing root cause problems. Treating secondary symptoms feels like you are doing something, but is rarely effective. You must get to the core of the problem and fix it there.
I hate to generalize from a single fault, but one thing that always sticks out in my memory is that the Neon had available power windows, but ONLY for the front windows! That is, you could get crank windows all around, or power front and crank rear windows. Who was in charge of that decision? Incredible.
Neon was the final nail in the coffin for the Detroit 3, in my household. Head gaskets. 3 times, for 2 Neons, both new. (They were both commuter cars). Nuf said.
Wasn’t the Neon R/T just an appearance package with the racing stripes and nicer seats. I remember riding on one as a passenger for about 5 minutes and thought the car was a joke, pathetic even for the day and I wasn’t even driving just riding in it. It flexed so much in the 6 blocks we went in it I wasn’t sure the car would stay together and as I remember the car was only about a year old at the time.
I agree with Sajeev the LH’s were darn nice at the time. I drove a lot of them when I worked at Budget as a shuttle driver and was impressed, the New Yorker was my favorite and the Intrepids as ugly as they were, were a hoot. I didn’t own one so I can’t vouch on reliability but they were sure miles ahead of the Ford’s at the time, what total junk those Turii were.
Sajeev: Chrysler did redesign the LH cars for the 1998 model year, and reliability and build quality were greatly improved. Considering that the cars originally debuted for the 1993 model year, a five-year lifespan isn’t necessarily a sign of neglect. Note that the Honda Accord and Civic are now on a five-year cycle.
Now, whether Chrysler improved the LH cars enough is certainly a matter of debate, but the bottom line is that Chrysler was moving in the right direction in how it treated the LH cars.
Sajeev Mehta:
Well written article. And Detroit, please don’t screw this one up.
Keep your fingers crossed … or not. Detroit will need a miracle of biblical proportions in order to “not screw this one up”.
The new Malibu faces a serious problem in that I believe folks are expecting a bit too much.
It is important to remember that the legendary reliability and quality that the Japanese manufacturers created in the past was actually due to them “over-engineering” their products to truly be better than those of the domestics. This did cost them some extra coin to do back then, but the trade-off was increasing market share.
Any sensible person that can look at GMs piss-poor financial situation and see that there is NO money to spare! GM is already maxed-out in terms of expenses and also hobbled by it inability to generate any profits from these types of vehicle sales.
Needless to say it is a given that GM had to do some serious cost-cutting up front to get this Malibu to market at a competitive price point. On top of this notion, GM is GM! This is the company that has shot itself in the foot time after time with such POS cost-cutting measures like plastic intake manifolds and poorly made defective CONSUMABLE products like bad head gaskets. Lets and in the insult of bad manufacturing processes to the mix!
The car companies that produce good products do so because they have spent decades constantly improving their manufacturing processes, and being very discriminate with their suppliers.
These are practices that GM has NOT been following for several decades. GM is the company that is known to simply release products to market because it is time, not because the product is ready for market.
Now, after watching GM continuously commit the same crime over the course of 3 decades YOU believe they have been rehabilitated?????
Smart money STILL says avoid GM at all cost!
Buying a new Malibu is like jumping off of a cliff! Since Gms resale value in stuck in the toilet if you are not happy with your Malibu you will be STUCK with that damn car unless you are ready for a quick and dirty trip to the cleaners.
whatdoiknow1 nailed it.
My second, closer look at the Malibu confirms the bean counting suspicions. The trim around the inside of the doors and on b-pillar is hard, crappy, pebble-tone plastic. Some of the interior trim on the LTZ I looked at didn’t fit right, and the sliding cover to the cupholders was already broken. There was untrimmed flashing from the mold on the driver’s b-pillar cover.
Great looking car, same old GM.
jthorner :
November 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Toyota and Honda keep all of their volume vehicles in the hunt all the time. Why can’t GM, Ford or Chrysler?
Money and bad management.
If they had made good business decisions 10 or 15 years ago they wouldn’t be so far in the hole that they can’t make good business decisions now.
I think the Ford Focus is the absolute greatest example of this.
If they had spent the money to be competitive with this car when it first debuted they’d have the money to make the new one competitive.
They didn’t, so they don’t.
Chrysler not only had the Neon, they also had the “cab-forward” cars: Intrepid/Concorde and the new New Yorker. So why didn’t their world-beating cars take over the world? This was the start of a 7-year period of rock-bottom gas prices, and the erstwhile Big 3 went for the high-margin SUV market and let their car development languish.
Same deal with Ford. Go back to 1992 or so, you had a Ford lineup that was very competitive, from the Protege – I mean Escort – up to the freshly restyled Crown Vic. Then they were dumbfounded with the mega-hit Explorer and the rest was history.
Toyonda, well, they kept doing what they were doing, making their cars incrementally better. In 1992 a Taurus was every bit as good as a Camry. By 1999, Camry was leaps and bounds better, but who cared if Ford jellybeans sold slowly when they could turn a $10,000 profit by slapping a seven-seat cab on an F-series chassis? Just ship the excess out to fleets and be done with it.
Well, now it’s a different world. Every auto maker’s success is absolutely dependent on small and midsize cars. The Neon wasn’t do-or-die for Chrysler. Nor was the Focus for Ford. GM has obviously poured their heart and soul into the Malibu, and they know if they can’t get American butts back into their cars, they’re dead. So don’t look for anything other than GM’s best effort here on marketing and continued development. I’m not saying they’ll succeed, just that they’re not going to neglect this car.
Excellent editorial.
The LXs replaced the LHs. But the second gen LH was allowed to run a year or two longer than it should have.
Chevrolet has kept the Corvette fresh. Does that count?
I’ve seen it the most with Chrysler.
The Neon was great, briefly, and after its flaws were revealed what did they do? Nothing. Look at Corollas and Civics… they didn’t have long-lasting bodies in the beginning, but that changed. Why couldn’t Chrysler change what was wrong about the Neon? Then the PT Cruiser. Big hit, good for them, and then what? The Intrepid… how can you kill off such an important model? Without replacing it! Now we have the 300, the golden boy which almost saved Chrysler. I’d bet they’re not even working on the second generation yet.
You just get the feeling that when a new Toyota or Honda comes out, the engineers immediately get to work on the next one. You don’t get that feeling from the Big 3.
NickR :
November 20th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Don’t bring up the Focus and the Neon. I had friends who had both (early production years). The Focus was am abomination. If Canada had lemon laws, it would have been taken back three times over. The Neon was better, but not much. Ugh.
I leased a 2000 Focus, drove it for 75,000 km and never had a problem. I returned it twice for recall work. The dealer returned it to me the next day all cleaned up and ready to go. It was a small inconvenience, but nothing to write home about.
I loved driving the car. Not quite the smile that my old RX-7 used to bring, but the car handled superbly and the engine, although not a winner, also wasn’t a loser.
Can anyone report what’s going on at the LA Auto show, or has that one not yet opened to the public?
I was there on Saturday. I didnt spend much time in the Chevy section, but from what I saw they had a single, lonely Malibu tucked away off to the side. They should have had that thing plastered all over the place, but instead, front and center were a couple of celebrity Vettes, and 2 huge stages pushing the Volt and E85.
At least for the few minutes I was there the Malibu seemed pretty much overlooked by the crowd.
” … I saw they had a single, lonely Malibu tucked away off to the side.”
How is it that GM has it’s marketing in such a mess? They launch the Malibu with a huge advertising campaign, but don’t have supply up and running to feed the dealers. They go to the LA auto show and pitch vapor-ware instead of selling what they have. Duh.
The great extinction of the American Independent Automakers happened during a period when GM and Ford where fighting it out for market share. The first casualties were everyone else. Today in the US family sedan market Toyota and Honda are competing with great vigor while everyone else fights over the leftovers. Nissan and Hyundai are doing a credible job on their piece of the fight, but the 2.8 continue to loose ground. Even as good as the new Malibu might be, it isn’t going to turn the tide in part because GM isn’t acting like they actually care enough to turn the tide!
iNeon> No head gasket problems? Seriously? Then y ou must be one of the very few lucky ones. A friend of mine bought a 96 Neon and it was great at first. I was so impressed with the bang-for-buck factor that I got a 98 myself. Then we both started having problems. Head gaskets on both cars, water leaks, faulty factory exhausts, etc. I’ve owned 6 cars and that was the worst. Good riddance.
As for the Focus, I’ve never owned one but a couple of my friends have. Constant problems, including a seat that broke and literally started sliding back while my friend was driving. Being 5′4″, you can imagine this was a bit of an inconvenience for her. Her and her friends called it the F*ckus, because it always f*cks us.
Has anyone written a book that parallels the GM(or Ford) corperate culture with our American government?
I see a lot of similarities and I was curious if anyone has done any real studies on this.
the Focus was recalled 14 times
Did the Focus have all these recall problems in Europe as well?
If not, what was the difference? Did FoMoCo NA do its usual hack-job of de-contenting it with cheap crap parts?
” … I saw they had a single, lonely Malibu tucked away off to the side.”
Not exactly true. They had two ‘Bus along a main aisle in the middle of the Chevy display. Still, not as prominent as I’d expected. There were people checking them out, but not big crowds. There were much bigger crowds around the CTS. The big crowds in the Chevy area were around Leno’s Corvette, the Volt, and the Camaro concept.
I don’t think the crowds were any bigger around the Accord, but in fairness it was getting late by the time I got there. Around that time I looked at the Lincoln MKS for a full revolution on the turntable and nobody else came within 10 feet of it.
Wait, what’s wrong with the Aura’s transmission? I have the same one in a G6, and it performs flawlessly.
At least, I assume you’re talking about the 6-speed automatic.
To tie this conversation back to a long-standing TTAC/GM discussion – how much better would the Malibu be without the Aura taking some of the platform’s R&D money? Would that increment of funding be enough to put the Malibu over-the-top, so to speak? I would estimate that in total, GM’s investment in this chassis’s transition to the US market is probably commensurate with what it should spend to make a first-rate vehicle. But the funding was split between two vehicles and two design teams.
This also brings us to the point that this program was a relative bargain for GM-NA compared to developing a completely new vehicle platform. Why would a company the size of GM even consider taking $$ shortcuts when they’ve already save a bundle by using the Opal chassis?
The jury is still out on reliability. If this turns out to be a reliable car then the above doesn;t apply. But if not then it does. It’s a shame, really, that they’ve left the door open to ridicule at all.
ca36gtp-
Your car maybe just fine. Even in a car with higher than average problems it is usually in single percentage points or low doubles.
Anything that get near 50% of the cars, from anyone is bizzar.
An example, 3.5M engines are in teh infamous “Toyota sludge” family. Actual reported cases are in the single digit thousands. tenths of a percentage, doesn’t even show on surveys.
Sucks to be one of the few.
Anyway, probably 90% that you’re OK.
Bunter
I went to the LA Auto Show on Saturday. GM’s area was a mess. No coherence (amongst the brands or GM overall) and a billion SUVs & pickups for Chevy. Buick was a sad afterthought and Saab had 2 or 3 cars kind of there, but basically another sad afterthought. GM put absolutely NO EFFORT into their displays at the show – basically stuck some cars/trucks out there with some pathetic display hardware and that was it.
I was just curious, because the article makes it sound like a design problem, and thus affecting all applications, not a reliability issue.
Not exactly true. They had two ‘Bus along a main aisle in the middle of the Chevy display. Still, not as prominent as I’d expected.
Ah, I must have missed those since I was in a rush at the time. Still, I think they were extoling the G8 on a rotating platform in the Pontiac section, so I was surprised the ‘Bu didnt get at least a raised stage or something.
The Taurus has to be the ultimate example of allowing a winner to devolve into meaninglessness through neglect. We’re talking top selling car in the land down to rental fleet filler down to nothing at all in a blink of the automotive eye.
Detroit has a bad habit of losing interest in boring old mainstays in favor of pretty young things. But Ford has to take the cake on this; it wasn’t that many years ago that Taurus, Focus and Ranger were top five sellers in the US. Yes, Ranger. Where are they now?
The new Malibu is a great looker. And pretty affordable too. There are a lot of GM naysayers out there. This car could change a few prejudices.
My Son has a 2003 Focus. It has 110,000 km, is a hoot to drive, and has never had any problems. i think by 2003 they had all the launch problems sorted out. But of course the bad press was now all over the place. Nonetheless it is still has been one of the only CR recommended small US made cars.
I dont understand the logic of its barely refreshed 2008 replacement which looks more or less the same to me – except that the wagon and 5 door i liked are gone. if they didnt want to do anything really substantive, it would seem they should have just saved all the tooling money and lowered the price or included synch for free or something. The new one is not going to fool anyone, and reminds me of what GM did with the venture to uplander minivans.
The later year Foci were much better cars. But the damage was done. I am sure that there were a few good first year cars. Christ, there are still two Lada Niva’s and a Volare in my neighbourhood. The Malibu can’t afford first year teathing troubles.
Redbarchetta
Has anyone written a book that parallels the GM(or Ford) corperate culture with our American government? I see a lot of similarities and I was curious if anyone has done any real studies on this.
No one has the stomach for it.
ca36gtp-
A design problem does not necessarily cause failure across the board. Those type usually show up well before production (even at Land Rover).
I maybe a matter of haveing left too small of a factor of safety in a part or assembly that only some users are exceeding. It could be designing with too much variance in tolerances in the parts and only parts at the extremes of the specification may be failing.
Speaking as a mechanical engineer I can assure you that there are many ways to have a design failure that will not cause universal problems.
A person can own a statistically unreliable vehicle and still have a very good experience with their particular one depending on things like the variances cited above (and others), and things they can control like car care and driving habits.
Take care, wish you the best with your transmission.
Bunter
See, what I thought the writer was talking about was not necessarily a failure, but that the gearbox itself was simply not designed good.
For example, the way GM’s FWD 6-speed manual became known for not being very smooth and having a notchy feel to the shifting.
GM has a FWD 6 speed manual? What is it in, I didn’t even know they offered any manuals in the FWD cars they make. I stopped caring about there trannies when they went auto in practically everything.
It was designed by Opel, but made it across to the US in a couple cars. It was in the 2006 G6 GTP, and briefly in the 2007 G6 GT, but no longer.
I think it’s still used in the Saab 9-3 and 9-5.
The reputation for its shift action is not stellar.