The Decline & Fall of the Amreican Auto Industry by B. Yates

[longtooth]

I'm kinda under the assumption that Saturn would be a far greater asset if they had stuck to their guns relative to Saturn's independence, marketing, product design, and overall culture.

I think "rolling" it into the GM corporate umbrella was a mistake.

Think where Saturn would be today if GM had kept it's mission true and devoted the dollars to it in order to keep the cars as competitive as they were when they first came out.....

When's the last time any of us heard of a "Saturn Reunion?"

My sentiments too. I can't recall precisely when it was, but the initiative seems to have come undone when Wilmington was assigned the task of building the 'L' car.

With all that is transpiring and that which is still in flux I wonder how Saturn will weather it all. In the end, assuming GM fully rights itself, I could easily see the North American market resembling Europe where no single manufacturer captures no more than 20% of it all.

[A Horse With No Name]

I was a teenager in the '80s..I knew then that J cars and most FWD GMs were crap...I drove RWD then (5.0 Mustang), still prefer RWD today..

+1

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

I'm kinda under the assumption that Saturn would be a far greater asset if they had stuck to their guns relative to Saturn's independence, marketing, product design, and overall culture.

I think "rolling" it into the GM corporate umbrella was a mistake.

Think where Saturn would be today if GM had kept it's mission true and devoted the dollars to it in order to keep the cars as competitive as they were when they first came out.....

When's the last time any of us heard of a "Saturn Reunion?"

Given ten more years, Saturn, Scion, Suzuki and a few other carmaking names will be gone or irrelevant.

Chris

[The O.C.]

Given ten more years, Saturn, Scion, Suzuki and a few other carmaking names will be gone or irrelevant.

Chris

Hmmmm......well Suzuki is a tough one because their motorcycle, RV, and marine engine divisions (in the U.S.) are still doing quite well. Time will tell if they shutter the auto division here though.....

I think one way or another, Scion will continue to exist.

As far as Saturn, for right or for wrong, I could see GM keeping Saturn around alot more than something like Pontiac. Like others have mentioned in here, with more-and-more dealers consolidating BPG, it would be easier to pull the plug on "just" the Pontiac portion of that distribution channel than it would be to do an entire "Oldsmobile" with a division like Saturn that has a country-wide network of independent dealerships with no other franchises attached.........

[enzl]

Are we talking Cimarron here, or Cavalier? If you would put the Cavalier in the same class as an Audi, that's not even revisionist history, that's nuts. You gotta stack the Datsun 210s, the Civics and the Cavaliers together. GM had nothing to be ashamed of with the original J-cars. It was the later cars that didn't improve enough while the Japanese finally figured out what Americans wanted in a small car. That is the legacy that Smith and his cronies left behind: their clear disdain for small cars.

BMers were funky and ugly until the early '80s. So were most Mercedes. RWD has always shown up disproportionately at Barrett-Jackson & others, so to point out that a 240Z is a collectors items while a Cimarron is not is disengenous at best.

I worked at a Caddy dealer when the Cimarron sold well. Yeah, even as a 21 year old kid I could tell it was a glorified Cavalier, but driving the snot out of the car (as we 'lot lizards' did), the Cimarron was actually an okay ride.

For the record, when I worked at the Plaza II Hotel here, the cars I looked forward to driving the MOST were the Devilles and the Fleetwood Broughams of that era. I loathed the BMWs and Mercedes: stiff steering and suspension, smelly diesels. The Lincolns and Rolls/Bentleys of the day were too mushy.

The Mercury Zephyr/Ford Fairmonts were true turds of their day. The head chef drove a Fairmont wagon and I hated parking it. The Ford Granada was a neat little package. A girl I dated in highschool (yes, a girl) drove her mother's. The Omega was the only X-car I would have been caught dead in, although a friend of mine bought a Citation X-11 in mint condition a few years ago and it wasn't nearly as ugly as I remember the other Citations being.

Our biases are based on what we grew up with. My stepfather bought a Datsun 510 in '82. It was a 5 spd stick with those funny louvers on the hatch. It was actually an okay car to drive, but the entire thing rusted out in about 5 years. My mother was still driving their '80 Ford Econoline long after the Datsun died.

I was referring to the Cimmaron----with all due respect, there isn't a Caddy of that era that holds a candle to the 240Z in significance...that's all I was trying to say.

The RWD Germans of the time set the stage (along with the Audi quattros) for what was to come...almost all legitimate entry level lux contenders today are RWD with AWD as an option, so the Germans were on to something, albeit each had flaws that wouldn't see the light of day in today's market, just as Honda began its long journey to market dominance with its Civic & Accord models that remain the real winners amongst its current product--I have less regard for the variations on these platforms, but that's where the market has taken them, for better or worse.

The way I see it, the Japanese and Germans cracked the market with their 80's product in a big way--and the Det3 only reinforce that notion since their product has moved towards the competition, rather than the other way around.

We're in interesting times, my friends...

Edited September 24, 2008 by enzl

[frogger]

That reminds me of the fight between Jim Kenzie and Bob Lutz about 5 years ago. The Toyota Star wrote a scathing piece on the 'new' Grand Prix. I wish I'd kept it, but they really harped on it. So, Lutz called up Jim Kenzie (who writes for a lot of the car mags up here in the hinterland) and challenged him to a duel: bring any import you want in the same price range to GM's testing grounds. Kenzie brought the (then) new Maxima. They both drove it around the proving grounds and the Pontiac wiped the asphalt with the Nissan. Jim Kenzie printed a huge retraction in the Star; even Laurence Yap (a real import humper) printed a mea culpa, saying that 'we car journalist types sometimes have pre-conceived notions before going into a test.' Yeah, right. Tell me something I didn't know!

Back on topic, I think most of us agree that the '80s are best forgotten. I could print an entire page of woes from my two (new) cars of the '80s: a '82 Dodge Rampage, followed by a '87 Dodge Shadow ES. Both pure crap. But I am wise enough to know that I would not judge MoPar of later years, based on my experiences with those 2 cars.

Here is the original review Kenzie wrote about the Grand Prix pre-Lutz intervention.

http://www.wheels.ca/article/28664

[balthazar]

CARBIZ- are you sure Kenzie's is the review you are thinking of? There was one by Dan O'Neil ('Neil' ??) that referred to the GP's grilles as 'Hitler's moustache', and then things really got bad. I read the Kenzie link above- it is nothing really bad and nothing compared to O'Neil's, which tripped over it's own outmoded cliches, and that is the one I recall Lutz challenging the writer on and arranging the head-to-head w/ the maxima and some others. Correct me if I am wrong...

[Sixty8panther]

The J-cars were a Joke, but sadly the FWD-is-the-silver-bullet

mentality of the 1980s is still with GM, amongst a lot of other

backwards thinking and poor decision making.

Keep outsourcing America, soon no one in the US will be able to afford anything, if it's not already to late.

Agreed. Strange that you say that, being such a masochist otherwise.

[balthazar]

>>"...there isn't a Caddy of that era that holds a candle to the 240Z in significance...that's all I was trying to say."<<

Well, as the 240Z came out in '70, I would easily put the '67 Eldorado up against the z in the broad category of "significance". It elevated the personal luxury coupe to it's then-zenith, was an engineering & stylistic (completely unique here) tour de force, and was nearly as quick as the Z despite being over double it's weight (16.5 @ 83 vs 17.2 @ 81). It lags the z in collector value, but I've been puzzled for years as to exactly why this era E is where it is. They are far more common that earlier 'E's...

[enzl]

>>"...there isn't a Caddy of that era that holds a candle to the 240Z in significance...that's all I was trying to say."<<

Well, as the 240Z came out in '70, I would easily put the '67 Eldorado up against the z in the broad category of "significance". It elevated the personal luxury coupe to it's then-zenith, was an engineering & stylistic (completely unique here) tour de force, and was nearly as quick as the Z despite being over double it's weight (16.5 @ 83 vs 17.2 @ 81). It lags the z in collector value, but I've been puzzled for years as to exactly why this era E is where it is. They are far more common that earlier 'E's...

Fair enough. I was making a 70's reference--and there's simply nothing Caddy intro'ed after '67 that will have the impact that the Z had in its' day---and little to suggest collectors will flock to a mostly misbegotten collection of mediocrity--The original Seville? The 'last' American 'vert (Eldo)? are the only 'maybes' in the whole rotten bunch.

One of GM's gravest errors, IMO, was allowing Caddy to slide into punchline territory. Instead of having wonderful, leading edge tech to trickle-down they merely followed their worst instincts and pimped a bunch of crap with shiny wrappers.

The current CTS-V might break the string--but that's a hell of a long time to be mired in almost complete awfulness.

Edited September 29, 2008 by enzl

[balthazar]

Well, IMO you are grossly overstating ("bunch of crap") : mercedes was scrambling to boost power, performance & amenities as Cadillac climbed to dizzying marketshare and nearly 400K in sales by the late '70s.

In the late '60s the mainstream mercedes sedan was undersized, underpowered (82 MPH from a gas 6??) and under-equipped. I've seen mid-late '60s MBs up close: tinny & spartan- 1 step removed from a Beetle. They learned a great great deal at the feet of the then-master... yet strangely, no one knocks mercedes of the period as being woefully uncompetitive with the market.

BTW- the Seville absolutely had a much larger impact in it's segment (at least from the other domestics, but not just there) than the z did in its, but '76 is straying from your implied circa 1970 era. But there's no 'maybe' about the Seville.

According to the press (if you value stranger's opinions in this fashion), the CTS absolutely breaks your 'string'.

[enzl]

Well, IMO you are grossly overstating ("bunch of crap") : mercedes was scrambling to boost power, performance & amenities as Cadillac climbed to dizzying marketshare and nearly 400K in sales by the late '70s.

In the late '60s the mainstream mercedes sedan was undersized, underpowered (82 MPH from a gas 6??) and under-equipped. I've seen mid-late '60s MBs up close: tinny & spartan- 1 step removed from a Beetle. They learned a great great deal at the feet of the then-master... yet strangely, no one knocks mercedes of the period as being woefully uncompetitive with the market.

BTW- the Seville absolutely had a much larger impact in it's segment (at least from the other domestics, but not just there) than the z did in its, but '76 is straying from your implied circa 1970 era. But there's no 'maybe' about the Seville.

According to the press (if you value stranger's opinions in this fashion), the CTS absolutely breaks your 'string'.

M-B's were spartan, under-equipped & slow (mostly) in the 60's, but they were built like vaults---the 70's Caddy's were fancy Chevy's & other proletarian underpinnings with lots of frosting...only the Seville and the last US 'vert could arguably make any car-guys cut, IMO.

The CTS, assuming it stands the test of time, has every possible chance, but the CTS-V is the lone product that is an absolute home-run, a 'Standard of the World' product that roars out of the box.

Either way, that's a skimpy resume to present as a 'premium' automaker. Think of all the great product that BMW, MB, and Audi have intro'ed in that timeframe---even Infiniti's original Q or Lexus' segment defining RX can lay claim to setting a trend or just being a major bad-ass product. If the current CTS and the first Seville is what Caddy is bringing to this party, they're simply underdressed.

[CARBIZ]

Well, being a 'car guy' and having driven most of the cars we are yakking about when they were new, I have to say any of the Datsun Z cars are not in the same category as a Caddy of the same era. Even the Eldorado, after it's downsizing, catered to a different market. In my valet days, I much preferred the late '70s/early '80s DeVilles, Fleetwoods, etc over their contemporary MB or BMers. That was just my opinion then as a young 20-something who got to drive all the luxury marques of the day.

Cadillac in particular made two big mistakes in that era: the 8-6-4 debacle and the horrid late '80s Devilles, etc.

The other problem Cadillac began to have is not something that they had any control over - namely, not building cars that the self-appointed experts liked.

Enzl, you yourself pointed out that the CTS-V is the only 'worthy' Cadillac these days. Says who? Who the f$%k needs a car that goes that fast and will attract that many tickets? Only a 60 year old will be able to afford the insurance - and those guys will just look silly in the car. Cadillac wasn't supposed to compete with Ferrari, but now they must to be considered 'worthy.'

The trouble is the 30-something year olds write the car mags and they declare what they like or don't like. We can thank them for the past 15 years wasted on the pursuit of horsepower once again, instead of fuel mileage.

And why wouldn't the Datsun 'Z' cars be more 'desirable' at the auctions? They didn't sell as many as Cadillac did. Any cursory glance on eBay will produce pages and pages of late '60s/early '70s Cadillacs still on the road and available - that alone will determine the ultimate selling price.

[balthazar]

>>"M-B's were spartan, under-equipped & slow (mostly) in the 60's, but they were built like vaults---the 70's Caddy's were fancy Chevy's & other proletarian underpinnings with lots of frosting...only the Seville and the last US 'vert could arguably make any car-guys cut, IMO."<<

You have been misled. '70s Cadillacs had nothing to do with Chevrolets- neither on top nor in the underpinnings; the closest product to your theory would be the original Seville, but even there physical sharing only runs about 10%. The 'E', of course, shared it's underpinnings with the Toronado, but nothing from Chevy. And Cadillacs of this period were also overbuilt and very solid.

Thing of it is RE mercedes - there's just not much to stress a structure when 82MPH is all you can muster, and the 'luxury' car in question, with options, weighs but 3000 lbs. From pics, the interior door latches & window cranks (!) are dead ringers for VW's. Comparitively, it's quite pathetic, really (the largely intangible of body structure aside).

I don't see a lot of "great" product from the german brands in the '70s at all- so they don't pale Cadillac in comparison, IMO. Mercedes had a long dry spell between the '55 gullwing and a creeping return to relevence in the late '70s. Oh; not saying neccesarily it was bad product- just not 'resume-fluffing'. BMW had 1 car of note in it's history up to & including the 2002, then not much else there until the '80s 3-series. Add in the lacking luxury and performance aspects of the later 2 inbetween these periods and you don't have much of a platform of 'greatness' to stand on.

[Camino LS6]

Anything small in the late 70s and early 80s was pure crap. The rest of the cars were just ok at best.

In the 70s, anything from Japan was purchased either because it 1) was cheap as hell to buy or 2) was cheap as hell to fuel. The cars themselves were very basic, low quality,rust -prone, slow, weak-sructured pieces of utter crap that people literally laughed at.

By the mid 80s, they were several orders of magnitude better cars. However, they were still prone to extensive rust and the gradual failure of most electrical components.

Japanese cars never really were worth a crap until the late 80s.

By that time, Detroit had shot itself in both feet... several times.

I see the late 70's and 80s this way: Japan had no place to go but up, and Detroit had no place to go but down.

A sad set of circumstances.

[enzl]

Well, being a 'car guy' and having driven most of the cars we are yakking about when they were new, I have to say any of the Datsun Z cars are not in the same category as a Caddy of the same era. Even the Eldorado, after it's downsizing, catered to a different market. In my valet days, I much preferred the late '70s/early '80s DeVilles, Fleetwoods, etc over their contemporary MB or BMers. That was just my opinion then as a young 20-something who got to drive all the luxury marques of the day.

Cadillac in particular made two big mistakes in that era: the 8-6-4 debacle and the horrid late '80s Devilles, etc.

The other problem Cadillac began to have is not something that they had any control over - namely, not building cars that the self-appointed experts liked.

Enzl, you yourself pointed out that the CTS-V is the only 'worthy' Cadillac these days. Says who? Who the f$%k needs a car that goes that fast and will attract that many tickets? Only a 60 year old will be able to afford the insurance - and those guys will just look silly in the car. Cadillac wasn't supposed to compete with Ferrari, but now they must to be considered 'worthy.'

The trouble is the 30-something year olds write the car mags and they declare what they like or don't like. We can thank them for the past 15 years wasted on the pursuit of horsepower once again, instead of fuel mileage.

And why wouldn't the Datsun 'Z' cars be more 'desirable' at the auctions? They didn't sell as many as Cadillac did. Any cursory glance on eBay will produce pages and pages of late '60s/early '70s Cadillacs still on the road and available - that alone will determine the ultimate selling price.

Other than frosting, what really separated a 70's Caddy and its tech and the similarly sized Chevy, Buick or Olds? BOF, carbs and compromised FI systems? Power trunklids? Tufted leather and nice plood?

The German cars of the time brought SOHC/DOHC, unibody construction, safety advances and, most importantly, they set a trend in what defined & constituted lux products that continue today....where are the BOF land-barges with solid rear axles gone? ---they're called pick-ups, nowadays.

The current CTS-V will be a classic--and current CTS is a real competitor to the German/Japanese entry lux onslaught. The 70's Caddy was an evolutionary deadend. That's simply fact, whether mag writers liked them or not.

The 240Z is more than just rare--it's representative of a new way of thinking for the Japanese at the time---creating a better mousetrap that continues today with their lux forays and hybrid frontrunning.

[enzl]

>>"M-B's were spartan, under-equipped & slow (mostly) in the 60's, but they were built like vaults---the 70's Caddy's were fancy Chevy's & other proletarian underpinnings with lots of frosting...only the Seville and the last US 'vert could arguably make any car-guys cut, IMO."<<

You have been misled. '70s Cadillacs had nothing to do with Chevrolets- neither on top nor in the underpinnings; the closest product to your theory would be the original Seville, but even there physical sharing only runs about 10%. The 'E', of course, shared it's underpinnings with the Toronado, but nothing from Chevy. And Cadillacs of this period were also overbuilt and very solid.

Thing of it is RE mercedes - there's just not much to stress a structure when 82MPH is all you can muster, and the 'luxury' car in question, with options, weighs but 3000 lbs. From pics, the interior door latches & window cranks (!) are dead ringers for VW's. Comparitively, it's quite pathetic, really (the largely intangible of body structure aside).

I don't see a lot of "great" product from the german brands in the '70s at all- so they don't pale Cadillac in comparison, IMO. Mercedes had a long dry spell between the '55 gullwing and a creeping return to relevence in the late '70s. Oh; not saying neccesarily it was bad product- just not 'resume-fluffing'. BMW had 1 car of note in it's history up to & including the 2002, then not much else there until the '80s 3-series. Add in the lacking luxury and performance aspects of the later 2 inbetween these periods and you don't have much of a platform of 'greatness' to stand on.

Technically, you're correct about 70's Caddy's--but you and I both know that there were no significant real differences. No unibody construction, no engine advancements, no trickledown to give---other than electric doodads---what did Caddy do then that really matters today? Where was the art of car building advanced?

It's not that the Germans were so great, its that GM stood still. Rested on questionable laurels and let its marketplace dominance slip. We're both grading on a curve here--as others have said, the 70's were not the pinnacle of car designing and building--but almost all that ills GM today can be traced to this period.

Edited September 30, 2008 by enzl

[Robert Hall]

Technically, you're correct about 70's Caddy's--but you and I both know that there were no significant real differences. No unibody construction, no engine advancements, no trickledown to give---other than electric doodads---what did Caddy do then that really matters today? Where was the art of car building advanced?

It's not that the Germans were so great, its that GM stood still. Rested on questionable laurels and let its marketplace dominance slip. We're both grading on a curve here--as others have said, the 70's were not the pinnacle of car designing and building--but almost all that ills GM today can be traced to this period.

The way I look at it, it was a huge difference in philosophy and contexts for the products...in the '70s-80s, Cadillac was very old-school, building old-time soft, quiet, flashy American traditional luxury cars--much as they had been building in the '50s, while the Germans were building very modern, very serious, sober luxury cars that were more about solidity, performance, and driving experience...two very different approaches to luxury. Differences in realities. As far as Cadillac of today, the DTS and Escalade (even though it's a truck) are in the old-school tradition while the CTS is more towards the German approach.

As an aside, Balthy's posts always crack me up, he reminds me of a know-it-all, grumpy 75 yr old guy that's always whining about the young kids of today and how things were better in 1950 or whatever... I am surprised that he's apparently in his '40s..seems much older from his posts.

Edited September 30, 2008 by moltar

[balthazar]

>>"Technically, you're correct about 70's Caddy's--but you and I both know that there were no significant real differences."<<

Not in construction techniques perhaps, but if that's your criteria of reference, why not just say 'Cadillacs of the '70s were nothing more than shiny Fords or Plymouths' ?? The bottom line is your post attempted to portray '70s Cadillacs as simplistic rebadged Chevys, whether you spelled that out exactly or not. That sort of BS is not going to fly; be straight.

>>"No unibody construction, no engine advancements, no trickledown to give---other than electric doodads---what did Caddy do then that really matters today? Where was the art of car building advanced?"<<

These things mercedes had earlier than the '70s. MB had unit-body construction in the '50s, tho they were far from the first: Nash, Chrysler, Lancia, Opel all had it earlier still.

So what was mercedes' advancements during the '70s? Were they just 'shiny Nashes'?

They sat on their laurels, too, by your definition.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"As an aside, Balthy's posts always crack me up, he reminds me of a know-it-all, grumpy 75 yr old guy that's always whining about the young kids of today and how things were better in 1950 or whatever... I am surprised that he's apparently in his '40s..seems much older from his posts."<<

And as to your posts, sir; they always remind me of a wide-eyed idealistic teenager, whinnying about how NEW!! and BETTER!! really is the be-all, end-all just because the box sez so, and whining about how yesterday is so 'yesterday' and nothing from last week is worth a cup of spit... I am surprized you are coming hard up on 40 when you seem much, much, much younger from your posts. :P

I'm only a couple years ahead of you moltie, but I've observed & been keenly interested in a great many elements of the past throughout my life, so I have a plethora of first-hand impressions to draw conclusions from RE 'then' vs 'now', most esp. about automobiles, but hardly limited to that.

Car-wise; there's a TON more case studies out there other than '69 'stangs.

[CARBIZ]

Anything small in the late 70s and early 80s was pure crap. The rest of the cars were just ok at best.

In the 70s, anything from Japan was purchased either because it 1) was cheap as hell to buy or 2) was cheap as hell to fuel. The cars themselves were very basic, low quality,rust -prone, slow, weak-sructured pieces of utter crap that people literally laughed at.

By the mid 80s, they were several orders of magnitude better cars. However, they were still prone to extensive rust and the gradual failure of most electrical components.

Japanese cars never really were worth a crap until the late 80s.

By that time, Detroit had shot itself in both feet... several times.

I see the late 70's and 80s this way: Japan had no place to go but up, and Detroit had no place to go but down.

A sad set of circumstances.

+1

One thing that those who didn't live it don't understand is that a 83 hp, carburated 4-banger, mated to a 3 speed slushbox of the day (which is what MOST Americans and Canadians demanded), were fairly anemic to drive and not that great an improvement on fuel mileage. Of course the Japanese cars suffered the same fate, too, but far more of them were sold with 4 and 5 speed manual trannies that masked the horrid power of the smaller engines.

Case in point, when my father traded in his '69 Chrysler 300 for a '76 Ford LTD, he was horrified at how much less power the vehicle had, yet the gas mileage wasn't significantly different. Detuned, more pollution control - Detroit began pissing off its loyal customers - especially those who didn't understand why their '83 Citation was gutless and underpowered, compared to the '72 Cutlass being traded in.

When I drove my step-father's '79 Datsun 510 (with a 5 spd stick), it felt almost as peppy as my '67 Polara that had a 318, but the gas mileage was significantly better than my car. Then again, 12 years is a very long time in the car business!

Still, Japanese cars didn't impress me much then - nor do they today.

[Robert Hall]

-- -- -- -- --

>>"As an aside, Balthy's posts always crack me up, he reminds me of a know-it-all, grumpy 75 yr old guy that's always whining about the young kids of today and how things were better in 1950 or whatever... I am surprised that he's apparently in his '40s..seems much older from his posts."<<

And as to your posts, sir; they always remind me of a wide-eyed idealistic teenager, whinnying about how NEW!! and BETTER!! really is the be-all, end-all just because the box sez so, and whining about how yesterday is so 'yesterday' and nothing from last week is worth a cup of spit... I am surprized you are coming hard up on 40 when you seem much, much, much younger from your posts. :P

It's a side effect of working in the computer industry..I'm always looking forward, not dwelling on or in the past...the past is gone..I'm living for today and tommorow. The tech industry tends to lead to idealism, a belief that anything is possible with effort. It's also one of the reasons I'm a liberal (progressive, open-minded, looking to the future) and not a conservative (looking backward, bound by tradition, stuck in the past)..

Anyway, it's all moot...GM has made mistakes in the past, as have other automakers. More importantly, where are they going now? What's GM going to look like in 5 years?

Edited September 30, 2008 by moltar

[A Horse With No Name]

It's a side effect of working in the computer industry..I'm always looking forward, not dwelling on or in the past...the past is gone..I'm living for today and tommorow. The tech industry tends to lead to idealism, a belief that anything is possible with effort. It's also one of the reasons I'm a liberal (progressive, open-minded, looking to the future) and not a conservative (looking backward, bound by tradition, stuck in the past)..

Anyway, it's all moot...GM has made mistakes in the past, as have other automakers. More importantly, where are they going now? What's GM going to look like in 5 years?

...and I find myself locked out on two accounts, because I love both the old and the new, so I seem to alienate both groups with equal passion.

Seriously, I think GM is on the right track, and I like where there products are going...in about 2003 or so I could have seen myself never buying another GM car. Right now, I'd kinda like to never be without one again.

Cobalt, I like it, the Cruze, Volt, Solstice, Sky, Aura, Malibu, Equinox is nice, Enclave is wonderful as is the Lucerne, CTS is awesome, C6-z06 is world class, G6 is a good car for its price point...

I am actually getting optomistic about the future and about GM

Chris

[Robert Hall]

...and I find myself locked out on two accounts, because I love both the old and the new, so I seem to alienate both groups with equal passion.

Seriously, I think GM is on the right track, and I like where there products are going...in about 2003 or so I could have seen myself never buying another GM car. Right now, I'd kinda like to never be without one again.

Cobalt, I like it, the Cruze, Volt, Solstice, Sky, Aura, Malibu, Equinox is nice, Enclave is wonderful as is the Lucerne, CTS is awesome, C6-z06 is world class, G6 is a good car for its price point...

I am actually getting optomistic about the future and about GM

Chris

Overall, I've been liking what I've been seeing from GM in the last 2-3 years...in the near future, I'm esp. looking forward to the CTS coupe and wagon, and the Camaro. But I worry that besides some Cadillacs and the Corvette, there won't be many (any?) RWD models in, say 5 years... I'm not really a FWD fan overall..

[balthazar]

Yea, but how many cars are you going to buy? You did state 'Cadillac is next', or was that someone else? If you like the CTS, why do you worry about what other cars GM has or doesn't have that you aren't interested in?

-- -- -- -- --

>>"...the past is gone..I'm living for today and tommorow."<<

The past is as gone as much as tomorrow never arrives. One's plans for tomorrow --in as much as a certain chain of events is predictable, which is to say it's not in the least-- can have as much effect & guidance on 'today' as recognizing & valuing (not "living in" ) the past. In fact, the present always builds upon the past - even in your industry that must be true. The future is the only intangible of the 3.

It's all in how one looks at things. But to dismiss the past entirely is to stick one's head in the sand.

Don't get me started on your blatant stereotype of liberals/conservatives.

[Chicagoland]

I read C/D cover to cover many times in 80's when young car fanatic. I remember the cover of the April 1979 issue, said of the X cars "GM blows everyone into the weeds". In theory the cars were good, just the quality and locking rear brakes killed them. But then the basic car platform lasted to 1996 as the renamed 'A' car.

Also, C/D loved the Pontiac 6000 STE and even had the Caprice on its 1st "10 Best list".

And, the T and J body cars were very successfull in other countries [look 'em up]. They did OK here too, just didnt have "yuppie appeal" and were around too long.

Edited October 8, 2008 by Chicagoland