Does Mark Reuss Think Large Cars Have a Future? “Absolutely”

Personally, I couldn't care less what they call it.

Same here ... ESPECIALLY since Ch#$r%*et's OWN PRESS RELEASE states it will be a NEW NAMPLATE TO THE BRAND. Translation ... it canNOT be Monte Carlo, Chevelle, Bel Air, etc., since ALL OF THOSE are OLD nameplates to the brand. PERIOD.

Not my fault if you haven't believed my warnings.

I grew up in coupes. Period. Our family did not get a sedan in the 'family' until I bought my '99 Bonneville in 2003. Putting car seats in the rear of the car was not a problem. Getting in the backseat of the car in the rain was never a problem.

Ditto that.

Another ditto here. My parents had a '68 Impala SS (a real one, that is), followed by a '76 MC, and an '81 MC (mine since '99). Our 1st 4-door car? A 1982 Chevette to replaced "my" '76 MC.

I used to despise 4-door cars, since I am single and don't (or ever will) have kids. When I was shopping for my winter warrior, I wanted a 2-door '77-79 CC, but I ended up with the sedan. Didn't like it at first, but now, since the MC nameplate has the FWD connection, I like that my NO-FWD-connection Caprice Classic is 4-door to distinguish it from the MCs. Still, I prefer coupes.....

Cort | 38.m.IL | pigValve + paceMaker + cowValve | 5 MCs + 1 Caprice Classic

CHD.MCs.CC + RoadTrips.hobbies.RadioShows.us66 = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

* rNwJumpStartCruzNite | 5:30-10:30p; SAT, 05/12/12 | BeefVilla, 1225 W Spring St, S Elgin IL *

"Confusing what is real" __ Linkin Park __ 'Crawling'

Thanks for this quote as it really shows how out of touch you are with the average car buyer. The majority of the people who buy em use em.

I take it you never had to put a car seat in the back of a 05 GTO or 2011 Camaro before? Or you never had to wait till kids squeezed into a back seat while you are standing in the rain waitig? Also my C pillars in my coupes were all greater blind spots than any sedan B pillar. That is why I am so good with mirrors today.

You're clearly mentally handicapped with your logic. Most of my friends driving sedans drive solo, almost always. First, as Balthy noted, not everybody has kids. Second, kids spend only about 20% of their childhood in car seats. I grew up in coupes. Period. Our family did not get a sedan in the 'family' until I bought my '99 Bonneville in 2003. Putting car seats in the rear of the car was not a problem. Getting in the backseat of the car in the rain was never a problem. As a 6'4" 300lb teenager, I had no problem jumping into the rear of the '74 Nova, '81 Cutlass, '69 Firebird, '70 Tempest... probably more, I can't recall.

I don't question that some people use them, but I just don't see it. I can't get into most sedan backseats smaller than a W-body. My feet don't fit in the floorwell... or I have to side sideways.

OTOH, I spent a day recently putting children in car seats in the back of the GF's Corolla (about the only time in 5 years, I have observed the rear seats used)... it was a PITA. The roofline is low, so removing the kids from the seats involved bending them so you didn't remove their heads... and trying to close the buckles was difficult, as I had to stoop, jammed near the door's hinges to see whats going on... don't want to get any child parts caught in those buckles.

My parents had a good reasoning for putting us in the back seat of a coupe... we weren't likely to open the door and fall out. The children I had in the backseat were already reaching for the window switches and door handles while they were in the child seats. Sure, there are child locks... but they can be a hassle... so are window lockouts. Back in the days before everything had power locks, ensuring all the doors were locked was a PITA. Back in the '80s two people I knew with sedans had people jump into the backseat at traffic lights... thinking it was a taxi! That's not secure to me.

Finally, you are comparing the blindspots created by the B-pillars to the blindspots created by the C-pillars. The problem with your logic is that I'm not sitting behind the C-pillars. The B-pillars are blocking my ability to look left and right at a intersection. And sitting behind the B-pillars is not unique to me... most of my taller friends and family end up sitting behind the B-pillar. I can only imagine in a T-bone accident how much of my skull will be ripped open by the B-pillar and seat belt harness. I know how to use my mirrors to see around the C-pillars fine... where do you suggest I install extra mirrors so I can see to my left?

I stand by my words. Useless doors. Safety issues... added parts... and subpar functionality, even for loading stuff into the car. And still, a styling ugliness... but I leave styling out, as its too subjective.

Wow how do you argue with flawed thinking like this?

You can make all the claims you like about the pro's and con'd of the number of doors but the fact remains the majority of the market wants 4 doors be it a car or SUV.

You have to look at how the market has changes and who the buyers are. When Coupes were more popular most of the market for new cars were men. Today Women buyer are now at least 50% or more in some segments. They for the most will buy cars for different reasons than men as they are less emotional about the purchase in most cases and more practical. That accounts for all the mini vans sold over the last 30 years. If it were up to guys buying them they would have never lasted.

As for what anyone needs the truth is a Chevy Spark sized car with one door is all most really need on their daily commute. So if you want to play that card that would mean we don't need V8 engines, Corvettes, Camaro's etc. The bottom line is that GM is giving the market what they want and what they are buying. It is no longer build it and they will come to us as the MFG must give the market what they clammor for. Does that mean we always get what the enthusiast wants? no but it keeps a company from going chapter 11.

I love the new CTS coupe but I fear that it may not be back in the new CTS. Sales are low but at the price point it is they can afford lower volumes. Time and market demands will tell.

Yesterday I saw a Chevy Sonic on the road. I am unimpressed because it looks too much like a squished Cruze to me. It is a common lament that MFGs. do not make many (or sometimes any) enthusiast cars these days. The reality is is that even in the 1960s and 70s, common cars were the bread and butter that allowed for enthusiast cars. That is still true: there is no way that the new Camaro could be built if there were no Malibus and Impalas sold right now. I have wanted a RWD sedan equivalent to the Camaro since the G8 died along with Pontiac itself. I am still disappointed that the XTS is the last FWD DTS and NOT the next-generation Lucerne since Cadillac NEEDS a real flagship. Ultimately, we all have to be somewhat more patient than usual because GM will actually release these products to us. Now, if they announce that the Camaro sedan (with new name) comes out in 18 months, that will be a cause to celebrate. I would say that GM still needs to put one out just because Chrysler still has GM over a barrel with the Charger/300 twins. Also remember that FORD will NOT put out a RWD sedan again anytime soon in the USA, even if it means Lincoln may die as a result.

You can make all the claims you like about the pro's and con'd of the number of doors but the fact remains the majority of the market wants 4 doors be it a car or SUV.

Of the buying market... which are 50+ year olds. If cars could choke down the runaway pricing, so that we were living in the "golden years" of the '60s when people earning $1~2/hr... about double minimum wage could afford to buy NEW cars, younger people would buy... and many would want coupes, IF they were exposed to the benefits. Plus if a youth movement was spurned by the domestics, you would potentially help get the economic machinery moving in this country again... instead of a limited number of 50 year olds sending 50% of the car buying dollars overseas on beige foreign appliance cars.

Incidentally, I don't mind 4 door SUVs nearly as much as sedans. They are like the wagons of the past... generally larger front and rear doors, so you aren't as likely to be sitting behind the B-pillar and adults can get into and remain in the rear seat without needing to remove their heads and legs first. They are simply not as much of a compromise.

As for what anyone needs the truth is a Chevy Spark sized car with one door is all most really need on their daily commute. So if you want to play that card that would mean we don't need V8 engines, Corvettes, Camaro's etc.

No, you still need two doors, because while there are a lot of sedan drivers driving solo, they do spend a decent percentage with 1 passenger. For the top 5 sedan drivers (myself included) that I can get a decent sampling of, I would guesstimate a breakdown something like... 65-70% solo, 29-35% 1 passenger, and less than 1% more than 2... which works out to be about 2-3 trips a year with a 3rd or 4th passenger. To me, I should not have to put up with the amount of discomfort I put up with for 99% of the trips in a sedan for the benefit of a handful of people who can climb into the rear of a coupe.

Don't get me wrong, I hope... and I'm sure that other sedans' backseats are getting a better workout... but by spot checking the drivers around me, its not by much.

Finally, your logic of equating doors to cylinders is simply not valid. I use, at least once, on 99% of my trips, the entire power of the engine. In any case, I'm sure any study, if done, would show that the average driver uses a higher percentage of their engine than the percentage of their doors.

You can make all the claims you like about the pro's and con'd of the number of doors but the fact remains the majority of the market wants 4 doors be it a car or SUV.

Of the buying market... which are 50+ year olds. If cars could choke down the runaway pricing, so that we were living in the "golden years" of the '60s when people earning $1~2/hr... about double minimum wage could afford to buy NEW cars, younger people would buy... and many would want coupes, IF they were exposed to the benefits. Plus if a youth movement was spurned by the domestics, you would potentially help get the economic machinery moving in this country again... instead of a limited number of 50 year olds sending 50% of the car buying dollars overseas on beige foreign appliance cars.

Incidentally, I don't mind 4 door SUVs nearly as much as sedans. They are like the wagons of the past... generally larger front and rear doors, so you aren't as likely to be sitting behind the B-pillar and adults can get into and remain in the rear seat without needing to remove their heads and legs first. They are simply not as much of a compromise.

As for what anyone needs the truth is a Chevy Spark sized car with one door is all most really need on their daily commute. So if you want to play that card that would mean we don't need V8 engines, Corvettes, Camaro's etc.

No, you still need two doors, because while there are a lot of sedan drivers driving solo, they do spend a decent percentage with 1 passenger. For the top 5 sedan drivers (myself included) that I can get a decent sampling of, I would guesstimate a breakdown something like... 65-70% solo, 29-35% 1 passenger, and less than 1% more than 2... which works out to be about 2-3 trips a year with a 3rd or 4th passenger. To me, I should not have to put up with the amount of discomfort I put up with for 99% of the trips in a sedan for the benefit of a handful of people who can climb into the rear of a coupe.

Don't get me wrong, I hope... and I'm sure that other sedans' backseats are getting a better workout... but by spot checking the drivers around me, its not by much.

Finally, your logic of equating doors to cylinders is simply not valid. I use, at least once, on 99% of my trips, the entire power of the engine. In any case, I'm sure any study, if done, would show that the average driver uses a higher percentage of their engine than the percentage of their doors.

Wow Quotes with logic like this I really don't know what to say. In fact in fact I don't think anyone could really add much to that.

Well your logic must correct with all these coupes on top of all yearly sales list. and all the car companies must blind to all this pent up demand for coupes. Damn they should hire you as a consultant. Better yet you had better e mail them quick and let them know so they can get right on it.

That last paragraph is a real hoot! Make sure you send that one too! LOL!

hyper, he's got a solid point WRT the ABA issue, 'whether you like it or not'.

The ever-pursued 'youth' demo falls farther & farther beyond the manufacturers reach, in spite of the spin, hype & wishful thinking of the ad men.

The buyers are families, parents & grandparents, not 20-somethings. Everyone pursues them, but they're not a factor.

Also true of the passenger-capability issue. The ad men love to show/brag about seating 7 or 8 in an SUV/minivan, and we're asked to believe that 'the majority or the market wants this, so that's what they build', yet sedans have dropped from 6 passengers to 4. There's a hoot for you. You need to realize that a considerable amount of what manufacturers build is decided by them as opposed to the consumer.

hyper, he's got a solid point WRT the ABA issue, 'whether you like it or not'.

The ever-pursued 'youth' demo falls farther & farther beyond the manufacturers reach, in spite of the spin, hype & wishful thinking of the ad men.

The buyers are families, parents & grandparents, not 20-somethings. Everyone pursues them, but they're not a factor.

Also true of the passenger-capability issue. The ad men love to show/brag about seating 7 or 8 in an SUV/minivan, and we're asked to believe that 'the majority or the market wants this, so that's what they build', yet sedans have dropped from 6 passengers to 4. There's a hoot for you. You need to realize that a considerable amount of what manufacturers build is decided by them as opposed to the consumer.

There is a llttle valid point to anything if you beat it long enough.

The fact remains there are no Cruze, Sonic and many other coupes because they sit on lots and sell no where near the sedans. In fact they make cars like the Sonic 5 door look like a coupe but sneek 3 more doors on to get people to buy it as the 3 doors sales have dropped so much.

No matter how you spin in the coupe have been dropped for the lack of demand.

I wish they would offer more intersting coupes. I would be interested in one for myself but I also accept the fact that my wants and likes are no longer the norm on the market.

Some companies got so deperate like Mazda they added the odd extended doors to an RX7 that would have been much nicer looking without them. That was one car most people buy that could care less about a back seat because sports cars are not expected to have a good back seat.

The 130R was interesting but with the Camaro going to this style coupe I think it was a hint at the size and direction of the new Camaro but not so much the styling.

Again if there was so much demand everyone would offer one on each model and that is just not happening. In todays market the models we see most often reflect the consumers demands. That is why we have 50 different types of small SUV like vehicles on the market today.

There have even been stories in the past pointing out the consumers today look to Utility, Reliability and MPG of a vehicle as much or more than many other aspects including styling. That would explain the Juke. .

We beat this to death by now and all have made out points. Time will prove who is right here. I think we will find we will have a coupe coupe options but don't expect a great return of these styles of cars unless market demands change.

Time and the over all change in technology will settle this for us as we see how society over all changes in regards to vehicles.

hyperv6 ~ >>"Some companies got so deperate like Mazda they added the odd extended doors to an RX7..."<<

But did it sell even 1 more RX-7?

>>"The 130R was interesting but with the Camaro going to this style coupe I think it was a hint at the size and direction of the new Camaro butnot so much the styling."<<

>>"Again if there was so much demand everyone would offer one on each model and that is just not happening."<<

Yet.. there is STILL no 4-dr Camaro, Mustang, Corvette, Beetle, Miata, 370Z, Challenger..... Just saying.

>>"Time will prove who is right here. I think we will find we will have a coupe coupe options but don't expect a great return of these styles of cars unless market demands change."<<

BTW- I, nor anyone else here, said they expected a 'great return' of coupes.... but of course by claiming that 'something will continue to be uncommon unless it becomes common' does leave a bit of CYA wiggle room to proclaim an internet discussion victory.

Time and the over all change in technology will settle this for us as we see how society over all changes in regards to vehicles.

This is one of the more pointed statments here on like some.

Regulations have put most MFG in a box and technology determines the size of that box. The key it to put product into that box people will buy.

This has lead to changes in market wants and needs. MPG. Utility, Affordability, Reliability are all great factors anymore. Styling is a factor but not to the degree as it once was. Just look around at some of the cars they are selling in great numbers to the public but how either plain or ugly they are. The people see greater value in these other factors and are willing to give a little on the styling.

The greatest thing that pains me is to see how little pride people have in their cars. To many anymore they show as much interest in the freezer in the garage as much as the car it shares space with. This is one trends I would love to see reversed but with the Green beating of our kids in school many are gowing up with the idea autos are a necessary or unnecssary evil if you can ride the bus.

I agree with you on the styling vs. other needs (particularly MPG) issue/divide. The "Green beating" would be less acceptable if the kids were less distracted by modern conveniences (especially MP3 players and smartphones). Prior to 1975 or so, the car was the ONLY thing to take pride in. After 1990 or so, that pride went into other things and cars are still fairly expensive. There are still some people who take pride in their cars --- for different reasons. Exterior styling is nice, but a great interior is far more important. At least with older cars, upgrades can be made with relatively little fuss (especially car audio systems).

As long as the United States is not as small as Britain or France, cars will never be a necessary evil. Why? Freedom of movement will always be a good thing.

I agree with you on the styling vs. other needs (particularly MPG) issue/divide. The "Green beating" would be less acceptable if the kids were less distracted by modern conveniences (especially MP3 players and smartphones). Prior to 1975 or so, the car was the ONLY thing to take pride in. After 1990 or so, that pride went into other things and cars are still fairly expensive. There are still some people who take pride in their cars --- for different reasons. Exterior styling is nice, but a great interior is far more important. At least with older cars, upgrades can be made with relatively little fuss (especially car audio systems).

As long as the United States is not as small as Britain or France, cars will never be a necessary evil. Why? Freedom of movement will always be a good thing.

The Geen part is only part of it and I agree. Electronics are almost the #1 factor to youth of today and that is why we are gettting all the intergration of these items into cars. It used to be engine size and now it is how well the I phone or pad works with the cars systems.

73-75 is a good choice of years but if you look at it this is when cars started a trend to become more of an applicance. This is when American cars were on the decline in styling and peformance while Imports were cheaper got better MPG and had less quality issues even if they were more basic.

I agree too on size of country. The factors that effect Americans is country size and the fact we have always been for the most a country that is used to going when we want to where we want. That is something many other countries have never have had avaiable to them. We all may live one planet but we are still not nor ever will be the same.

There will always be a group of auto enthusiast but I am sad to say we are no longer as large or strong of a group we once were. The MFG will always have a offering but not in the great ranges we once enjoyed.

So if we took the G8 and converted it to run on CNG at the current prices of $2 per thousand cubic feet or about 20 cent a gallon, it just might change peoples minds.

Personally CNG is the right mid step as they work towards electric cars that can go hundreds of miles on a charge and be quickly recharged just like a normal Fuel car. Yet to get there, there has to be a mid step and with the US having the 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world, we can kick the Arab oil need and bring back cheap energy and rely on ourself's.

You can get a Home Fueling Station for about 5K, this would really make it awesome to have a CNG truck, SUV or car and not have to pay the slave rates at the gas station.

^ you just substitute an irrational response to FWD instead.

QFFT

So if we took the G8 and converted it to run on CNG at the current prices of $2 per thousand cubic feet or about 20 cent a gallon, it just might change peoples minds.

Personally CNG is the right mid step as they work towards electric cars that can go hundreds of miles on a charge and be quickly recharged just like a normal Fuel car. Yet to get there, there has to be a mid step and with the US having the 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world, we can kick the Arab oil need and bring back cheap energy and rely on ourself's.

You can get a Home Fueling Station for about 5K, this would really make it awesome to have a CNG truck, SUV or car and not have to pay the slave rates at the gas station.

That would be great except for two things: where are the CNG stations if you lack the land to have a home fueling station AND how much is it to convert cars from gasoline to CNG?

So if we took the G8 and converted it to run on CNG at the current prices of $2 per thousand cubic feet or about 20 cent a gallon, it just might change peoples minds.

Personally CNG is the right mid step as they work towards electric cars that can go hundreds of miles on a charge and be quickly recharged just like a normal Fuel car. Yet to get there, there has to be a mid step and with the US having the 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world, we can kick the Arab oil need and bring back cheap energy and rely on ourself's.

You can get a Home Fueling Station for about 5K, this would really make it awesome to have a CNG truck, SUV or car and not have to pay the slave rates at the gas station.

That would be great except for two things: where are the CNG stations if you lack the land to have a home fueling station AND how much is it to convert cars from gasoline to CNG?

You do not need land for a home fueling station. The over all size of a Home CNG Fueling station fits on the wall next to the gas line and you pull the hose to your car and fill it.

Conversions can run from 500 to 5000 depending on the type of vehicle.

Model T's were appliances, GM turned out new looks every year to get more sales. Four doors are what most car buyers want, it's not 1970 anymore. Coupes will be around for Auto Shows, but will never sell as they did in the Baby Boomer era 60's/70's.

And I agree about that old car shows get boring with same old 50's songs and fake Elvises. Seen enough '57 Chevys where I don;'t even look twice. How about some variety?

Model T's were appliances, GM turned out new looks every year to get more sales. Four doors are what most car buyers want, it's not 1970 anymore. Coupes will be around for Auto Shows, but will never sell as they did in the Baby Boomer era 60's/70's.

And I agree about that old car shows get boring with same old 50's songs and fake Elvises. Seen enough '57 Chevys where I don;'t even look twice. How about some variety?

Large cars are perfect for CNG, room for the tanks and the ability to give the customer what they want.

Just hope that the US does not adopt the stupid pedestrin laws of how cars have to be people friendly for when you run them over otherwise we all end up with egg shapped auto's.

Model T's were appliances, GM turned out new looks every year to get more sales. Four doors are what most car buyers want, it's not 1970 anymore. Coupes will be around for Auto Shows, but will never sell as they did in the Baby Boomer era 60's/70's.

And I agree about that old car shows get boring with same old 50's songs and fake Elvises. Seen enough '57 Chevys where I don;'t even look twice. How about some variety?

Large cars are perfect for CNG, room for the tanks and the ability to give the customer what they want.

Just hope that the US does not adopt the stupid pedestrin laws of how cars have to be people friendly for when you run them over otherwise we all end up with egg shapped auto's.

The problem is the US regs mean little anymore as cars now will need to meet global needs since they will be selling most of these cars world wide with only a few changes.

Model T's were appliances, GM turned out new looks every year to get more sales. Four doors are what most car buyers want, it's not 1970 anymore. Coupes will be around for Auto Shows, but will never sell as they did in the Baby Boomer era 60's/70's.

And I agree about that old car shows get boring with same old 50's songs and fake Elvises. Seen enough '57 Chevys where I don;'t even look twice. How about some variety?

Large cars are perfect for CNG, room for the tanks and the ability to give the customer what they want.

Just hope that the US does not adopt the stupid pedestrin laws of how cars have to be people friendly for when you run them over otherwise we all end up with egg shapped auto's.

The problem is the US regs mean little anymore as cars now will need to meet global needs since they will be selling most of these cars world wide with only a few changes.

I can see that most of the car can be designed to meet the world market, just have the bland ped safety nose on Euro models and give us sculpted beauties for the US!

Model T's were appliances, GM turned out new looks every year to get more sales. Four doors are what most car buyers want, it's not 1970 anymore. Coupes will be around for Auto Shows, but will never sell as they did in the Baby Boomer era 60's/70's.

And I agree about that old car shows get boring with same old 50's songs and fake Elvises. Seen enough '57 Chevys where I don;'t even look twice. How about some variety?

Large cars are perfect for CNG, room for the tanks and the ability to give the customer what they want.

Just hope that the US does not adopt the stupid pedestrin laws of how cars have to be people friendly for when you run them over otherwise we all end up with egg shapped auto's.

The problem is the US regs mean little anymore as cars now will need to meet global needs since they will be selling most of these cars world wide with only a few changes.

I can see that most of the car can be designed to meet the world market, just have the bland ped safety nose on Euro models and give us sculpted beauties for the US!

I really don't see them doing two totally different noses. Head lights and things like that are easy to change but entire noses get much more expensive. Each year our cars get closer and closer to just one model and soon I expect there will be few differences other than the tune of the suspensions, bolt in options that are popular to some markets and engines. We are almost there now.

I really don't see them doing two totally different noses. Head lights and things like that are easy to change but entire noses get much more expensive. Each year our cars get closer and closer to just one model and soon I expect there will be few differences other than the tune of the suspensions, bolt in options that are popular to some markets and engines. We are almost there now.

Ya, look at the current Chevy lineup...Spark, Sonic,Cruze and the new Malibu are all global models w/ few appearance differences between markets...

Bland is cheap to build - that's why we have it.

Sedans aren't the car of choice, they are the car of no choice.

One-size-fits-all.

Empty, and passionless.

No choices, just least-common-denominators.

Bland is cheap to build - that's why we have it.

Sedans aren't the car of choice, they are the car of no choice.

One-size-fits-all.

Empty, and passionless.

No choices, just least-common-denominators.

Styling cost no more or little more to make a good looking car vs bad looking. . The fact is they put on what the majority wants and that is what you get if you like it or not.

Number of choices now that is what cost money. That is why power windows and other options were made standard. Settlmire pointed out the F body got power windows standard as it was cheaper to build them all that way.

Bland is cheap to build - that's why we have it.

Sedans aren't the car of choice, they are the car of no choice.

One-size-fits-all.

Empty, and passionless.

No choices, just least-common-denominators.

Styling cost no more or little more to make a good looking car vs bad looking. . The fact is they put on what the majority wants and that is what you get if you like it or not.

Number of choices now that is what cost money. That is why power windows and other options were made standard. Settlmire pointed out the F body got power windows standard as it was cheaper to build them all that way.

Wrong.

The beancounters decide, not the majority.

They are the source of the bland, as beancounters are not creative.

In a world with too many manufacturers, this is a losing approach.

It is a slow death instead of a quick one, but a death just the same.

Fewer platforms and more bodystyles is the way to go.

Only the manufacturers who stand out by offering more variety will advance.

Bland is cheap to build - that's why we have it.

Sedans aren't the car of choice, they are the car of no choice.

One-size-fits-all.

Empty, and passionless.

No choices, just least-common-denominators.

Styling cost no more or little more to make a good looking car vs bad looking. . The fact is they put on what the majority wants and that is what you get if you like it or not.

Number of choices now that is what cost money. That is why power windows and other options were made standard. Settlmire pointed out the F body got power windows standard as it was cheaper to build them all that way.

Wrong.

The beancounters decide, not the majority.

They are the source of the bland, as beancounters are not creative.

In a world with too many manufacturers, this is a losing approach.

It is a slow death instead of a quick one, but a death just the same.

Fewer platforms and more bodystyles is the way to go.

Only the manufacturers who stand out by offering more variety will advance.

I have to agree with what you have stated here. The manufactures who can standardize on 2-3 platforms at most and create style that meets global government regulations and yet still give a style for the local market will be the one to win.

The storm is brewing on the horizon and not all car makers will survive. There is still way to much production capacity, way to many makers trying to survive by making millions of lemmings (auto's) and not enough consumption that can support this over building. The world economy is going to be painful especially in the socialist counteries that have thrown out their current gov for new ones that promise to keep spending. Implosion is coming to the European Union. Those that can change with the times will survive.

My crystal ball tell's me we need to move to CNG as a logical step towards all electric auto's. With CNG you can still have long cruising distances, reliant on our own gas as the 2nd largest Natural gas supplies in the world and this will give them time to figure out how to get the battery packs to go 300-400 miles on a charge and how to quick charge the battery pack so people can take long road trips. The VOLT is great, but again that is still a baby step with us needing oil from over seas.

I'm certainly with you on CNG, dfelt.

Wrong.

The beancounters decide, not the majority.

They are the source of the bland, as beancounters are not creative.

In a world with too many manufacturers, this is a losing approach.

It is a slow death instead of a quick one, but a death just the same.

Fewer platforms and more bodystyles is the way to go.

Only the manufacturers who stand out by offering more variety will advance. : All sayeth Camino LS6

Explain Toyota's and Honda's success in the last 40 years. Neither make exciting cars.

Simple.

When Toyota and Honda did what they did, it was creative and innovative. They filled the niche of inexpensive, economical cars with a degree of dependability that others were ignoring at the time. They built a reputation from it.

The trouble now is that a terrible, pervasive sameness crosses all brands - and there are too many brands for the market.

This demands new innovation and approaches, following the established pattern of several sizes of sedan with a handful of option packages will never break any new ground.

Bold is what is called for today - variety squeezed from a smaller number of platforms yet with a greater number of variants saving the expense of so many separate platforms that yield very similar products.

People use their vehicles in an infinite number of ways, and the compromise of a watered-down least common denominator sedan just like the other guys' car will not fix anything. The right way is to use one architecture to obtain as many viable solutions as possible, thereby controlling cost while increasing variety and appeal.

Done properly, this would increase sales while reducing expenses without resulting in the blandness of piecemeal beancounter solutions. Beancounters only see the details, they are not strategists, and strategists are what is most needed.

Innovation, variety, and a firm identity will set some manufacturers apart, and those are the ones that will survive.

Today the choices are lead or die, following will not get it done.

Speaking of large cars and styling, I do not understand why Ford and GM have not debuted full size cars based on their pickup truck lines. For CAFE purposes, they would be categorized as light duty trucks (if an '81 Eagle SX/4 is a "light duty truck", nearly ANYTHING can be classified as such). Otherwise, take the brawny and popular good looks of the F150 or Silverado and lower it to car height and weld on a rear section with a decent sized trunk. Most of the front end and doors could be reused. The extended cab becomes a full sized coupe... the crew cab becomes a sedan. Side windows and rear doors could potentially reused, as well.

People are already lowering trucks in the aftermarket. Why not try a limited production run to see if this idea would work.

I personally think a Crown Vic that looked like a F150 or a Caprice that looked like a Silverado could look pretty good. If someone felt like mocking up something in Photoshop, I'd love to see it.

I know the detractors will immediately come back with full size cars are dead... or GM has no money... but that's why I would use 80% of the light truck parts bins.

Probably not what you mean, but the still born Chi platform was to be the replacement for the Lucerne/DTS and was based on the Lambda crossovers.

Speaking of large cars and styling, I do not understand why Ford and GM have not debuted full size cars based on their pickup truck lines. For CAFE purposes, they would be categorized as light duty trucks (if an '81 Eagle SX/4 is a "light duty truck", nearly ANYTHING can be classified as such). Otherwise, take the brawny and popular good looks of the F150 or Silverado and lower it to car height and weld on a rear section with a decent sized trunk. Most of the front end and doors could be reused. The extended cab becomes a full sized coupe... the crew cab becomes a sedan. Side windows and rear doors could potentially reused, as well.

People are already lowering trucks in the aftermarket. Why not try a limited production run to see if this idea would work.

I personally think a Crown Vic that looked like a F150 or a Caprice that looked like a Silverado could look pretty good. If someone felt like mocking up something in Photoshop, I'd love to see it.

I know the detractors will immediately come back with full size cars are dead... or GM has no money... but that's why I would use 80% of the light truck parts bins.

Such a mutant vehicle sounds like it would be hideous. Trucks bodies are way too tall and square to make decent looking car bodies.

The Bel Air concept, and the production SSR followed that recipe - but I think we've seen the last of any BOF cars.

Such a mutant vehicle sounds like it would be hideous. Trucks bodies are way too tall and square to make decent looking car bodies.

Its within 10% the proportions of the outgoing Crown Vic. Look how thick and slab sided the 300C and Charger are. And who says tall and square is not the next fad? Its perceived as manly, otherwise it would not be used on the pickup trucks. The current styling has to end soon, as you can only design so many angry guppies.

If it proved popular, they could cut the roofline in the 2nd gen.

The Bel Air concept, and the production SSR followed that recipe - but I think we've seen the last of any BOF cars.

It would only be BOF because thats what the parts bin has. If popular a second gen could be non-BOF.

Such a mutant vehicle sounds like it would be hideous. Trucks bodies are way too tall and square to make decent looking car bodies.

Its within 10% the proportions of the outgoing Crown Vic. Look how thick and slab sided the 300C and Charger are. And who says tall and square is not the next fad? Its perceived as manly, otherwise it would not be used on the pickup trucks.

10% seems optimistic...a door from an F150 looks to be a foot taller than a CV door..likewise for a Ram body compared to a 300C, or Silverado/Tahoe compared to an Impala.

A truck body sits on top of a ladder frame, different than a car body dropped into a parameter frame back in the BOF era...it would be a tall, ungainly looking beast. Not to mention trucks usually have old-timey leaf-spring rear suspension.

Not to mention trucks usually have old-timey leaf-spring rear suspension.

However, the 2013 RAM will feature an air suspension as an option...

Not to mention trucks usually have old-timey leaf-spring rear suspension.

However, the 2013 RAM will feature an air suspension as an option...

Doesn't the current Ram have IRS.... At least in light duty form...

Probably not what you mean, but the still born Chi platform was to be the replacement for the Lucerne/DTS and was based on the Lambda crossovers.

I would still love to see what the designers had in mind for these cars based on the Lambda platform.

The real truth here is what is wrong with most products and even the TV shows we watch.

It is not directly the bean counters but the people who call the shots not willing to take the chance or risk on doing what they think is right.

Take TV for example. American Idol becomes a big hit. The show is cheap to make and is popular beyond anyones dreams. For the most it is just more trash reality [non reality] TV. So now that it has been a hit other networks say why risk a lot of money and my job on a show that may turn out like House that may be good or fail like many do is 6 weeks or less? Lets just do a copy of what Fox did and call it the Voice or America has talent or in Fox's case the even copies themselves with the X Factor.

Creativity is stiffled today with the big amounts of money that need to be laid out for new car models and many other products or projects. People responsible for these play it safe as they know they will be out on their ass if they make a mistake and cost a lot of money. It is easier to pass things off the easy way and not take risk.

Lutz points out in his book on how a designer did not put chrome around the side window area on a car. Lutz told him that the car looked cheap without it and asked if the designer thought it would look better with it as he thought. The designer said it would look better but it would put him over budget.

Lutz pointed out if the chome would add to the cars styling and image and make it sell better the cost over run would be over looked but if the car failed in the market because it looked cheap then it would come back to haunt the designer. Lutz pointed out to the designer it was better to take the risk and break the rule vs playing it safe. He showed the man he had a lot more to lose buy not doing what was right,

The Bean Counter is part of the issue here or I should say the fear of the bean counter is the issue. The real fact is the people at GM need to be let to do what they do and what they feel is best to make a car that the public wants.

I also blame the public for settling for the Camry and Accords. If they had not been accepting of these cars in great numbers it would have forced the MFG to take more chances to gain the publics attention.

To just blame the bean counters alone is a little short sighted. They have a share in this but the designers not willing to take a chance and make a call as well as the public that settles share in this too.

The fact is GM has played it safe for years and today due to Lutz changing the rules and removing the fear they have stepped it up as they are taking chances they never would have done accept for years ago.

But we also have to be realistic and understand what the kind of vehicles people want today are. GM can take more risk but they can't be stupied either. They still need to invest billions and sell so many of that model to make max profit. It is all about making money in the end but they still can make a great car doing it. GM is in a tight box on what they can do but I think they are now expanding in better dirctions now and we will see the improvment over the next 10 years of models starting with the ATS.

For the most part large trucks make poor cars we have already seen that. Also people buy trucks because they like trucks, that is why the small Car based SUV's look like trucks but really for the most parts are more car than truck. MFG found a way to make a Mini Van like a truck and now they all are looking for ways to make a version that stands out. This is where I think GM took a Lutz risk and did a Truck like Terrain and a car like Nox. This is a good example where they made a vehicle the same but different very well. It is diffcult to do much more with out running up cost.

10% seems optimistic...a door from an F150 looks to be a foot taller than a CV door..likewise for a Ram body compared to a 300C, or Silverado/Tahoe compared to an Impala.

10% was not meant to be the ratio of CV to F150... I'm saying that shoulder/roof ratio for a CV is within 10% of the shoulder/roof ratio of the F150.

A Silverado with a 3" drop sitting next to a older B-bod is not far off. I feel part of the high roof feel in pickups is the short cab. Compare a crew cab to a Crown Vic. Unfortunately, I don't have exact measurements... but lets play this game... 5.3 ground clearance, 58.3 total height... 53 inches roughly floor to roof. Silverado (couldn't find easy stats for F-150) 12.8 ground clearance, 73.8 inches total height... 61 inches. It comes close to 10%... 53+7.8 (15%) = 61. Still, I'm just using this as a rough guide... the "sedan" version of a F150 could use some different parts to narrow any awkwardness.

A truck body sits on top of a ladder frame, different than a car body dropped into a parameter frame back in the BOF era...it would be a tall, ungainly looking beast. Not to mention trucks usually have old-timey leaf-spring rear suspension.

True, the truck uses a ladder frame, but the body still bends to cover it. Its not radically different in cross section than any other BOF/unibody car I ever sliced in half, as few cars are truly low slung anymore.

Leaf springs... BFD. Half the cars I've owned had them. I'm sure Ford or GM could fix this in version 2, should the concept prove popular.

In the end, this may be a solution for me in the future, since GM probably ain't building any more comfortable cars for football players. I guess I'll be giving a pickup a 3" drop and adding a locking hard cover to the bed. Blah.

Trying to bring the thread back to the realm of the rational and realistic, it sounds like near-future GM full-size cars will be a mix of Epsilon II models (LaCrosse, XTS, next Impala), next-gen Zeta II (next Commodore, Chevy SS), and a future large RWD flagship platform for Cadillac, maybe? (not a stretched Alpha)...

The future big RWD platform is called Omega... and you'll likely start to hear more bits and pieces about it in the coming months.

I expect the Omega may replace the Zeta at some point. I expect it to be a all new platform that will be expandable for several sizes. I also expect it will be going through the weigh reduction like the ATS did.

Zeta II may carry on with a couple models but I could see the Omega replacing some of the Zeta lines.

Expect the Omega to be the base of more than one car.

I agree the future will be a mix of FWD, RWD and a few AWD models in the full size class. This is where the market is right now. This is the the models in demand right now and GM looks to be giving each option in each line.

Also note the Riv name was reupped by GM. It may just be the normal retrademarking of the name but I have a feeling the Zeta or an Alpha coupe may be going to Buick and the RIv name would be perfect there.

A Riviera coupe (2dr kind) would be great, been too long since the last one...

I expect it to be RWD too even though it should be FWD.

I expect it to be RWD too even though it should be FWD.

Why?

It didn't start that way after all.

I expect it to be RWD too even though it should be FWD.

Why?

It didn't start that way after all.

Because it was FWD for most of its life.

1963 - 1978 = 15 years of RWD.

1979 - 1999 = 20 years of FWD.

Most of the Riveras buyers remembers today were FWD.

However, it is all moot because I believe it will be RWD.

If it's RWD, won't the whiners just moan 'It should've been a Cadillac'?

There were Rivieras before the sixties...

There were Rivieras before the sixties...

They were trim lines... or body styles.