Wagoner on resigning in exchange for Fed aid: "I don't think it'd be a very smart move".

[Chazman]

Wagoner: GM needs federal help before Obama takes office

Jamie LaReau

Automotive News

November 10, 2008 - 4:40 pm ET

DETROIT -- General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner says GM's financial distress is so dire that it must line up financial assistance from Washington before President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

"This is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently," Wagoner said during an exclusive interview today with Automotive News. Now is the time to "overshoot, not undershoot" when it comes to assistance for the auto industry, he added.

In return for financial aid, General Motors is willing to offer the government preferred stock, set limits on executive compensation and speed the introduction of fuel-efficient vehicles.

But Wagoner said he is not prepared to resign in return for government aid. "I don't think it'd be a very smart move," he said. "I think our job is to make sure we have the best management team to run GM. It's not clear to me what purpose would be served. …"

Wagoner conducted his interview three days after GM posted its fifth straight quarterly loss and said it may run out of cash within a few months.

GM reported that it had burned $6.9 billion in cash during the third quarter, dropping its cash reserves to $16.2 billion. To stay in business, the company must maintain reserves of $11 billion to $14 billion.

Wagoner said the company's cash burn in the fourth quarter will ease to $1 billion a month. "We expect our fourth-quarter cash burn -- even with a very weak industry -- to be more like the first two quarters," he said.

Wagoner declined to say how much money GM needs from Washington. But he said GM's turnaround plan assumes industry sales of 11.7 million new cars and trucks next year.

"I'd say the funding request that's gone into Washington would cover us under that scenario," Wagoner said.

Without government assistance, the automaker will not survive if industry sales stay mired at 11 million units, Wagoner said. "I'd question whether the U.S. industry as a whole could survive that without support," he noted.

Even with government aid, Wagoner said, GM will have to do "significantly more restructuring" if industry sales stay this low. But if annual industry sales return to 15 million units in a few years, Wagoner said, "We'd be doing pretty good."

[Satty]

They cant limit executive compensation without government aid?

[Camino LS6]

They cant limit executive compensation without government aid?

It's called a bargaining chip,Satty. :AH-HA_wink:

[Satty]

Not a good one, it makes GM execs look greedy. The company is going under, losing a billion a month, but we're going to collect huge bonuses unless the government helps. Thats awful, if the powers that be at GM think like this, they deserve to be canned and get nothing in return.

[Robert Hall]

And Wagoner is a lifer who has proven completely ineffective during his tenure.. He needs early retirement (no pension) ASAP.

[Camino LS6]

I seem to recall that bonuses and salary were reduced for top execs at GM quite a while back...

Am I mistaken?

[ellives]

You can argue the merits of Rick and his buddies but I'll go to my grave knowing the UAW killed GM. If not for their ridiculous work rules and union contracts then for the inability to unionize the transplants. I really don't see an attractive solution to the issue at this point so let the chips fall where they may.

[Chazman]

I think it's time for Wagoner to go as well as the entire Board of Directors.

[Robert Hall]

I think it's time for Wagoner to go as well as the entire Board of Directors.

Agreed..I think they need a fresh start. The current group is obviously not effective.

[Satty]

Agreed..I think they need a fresh start. The current group is obviously not effective.

But they brought us the Camaro and G8.

[Robert Hall]

But they brought us the Camaro and G8.

True, there have been some excellent products during their tenure. But they have led the company to the brink of collapse.

[Satty]

True, there have been some excellent niche, low profit products during their tenure. But they have led the company to the brink of collapse.

Fixed

[Camino LS6]

True, there have been some excellent products during their tenure. But they have led the company to the brink of collapse.

Perhaps.

But then again, the company might be on the brink no matter who was running the show. The brink shifted one hell of alot closer in the last month or so through no fault of GM management.

[Chazman]

But they brought us the Camaro and G8.

They also sold controlling interest of GMAC - a critical strategic asset, and were the architects of the Fiat debacle.

BTW, the G8 sold 1000 units last month and unless GM gets a bailout, it may not be around long enough to deliver the first retail Camaro.

[Robert Hall]

Fixed

Invalid. The mass stuff has been getting good also during their tenure also--Malibu, Aura, etc. And the '08 CTS.

[Robert Hall]

Perhaps.

But then again, the company might be on the brink no matter who was running the show. The brink shifted one hell of alot closer in the last month or so through no fault of GM management.

Meh..I still think a contributing factor to their problems now are a result of relying to much on trucks and SUVs for so long and ignoring cars..had they invested 5-8 years ago in developing world class cars, they could have been selling Toyota/Honda numbers in compact and midsize sedans in recent years..

Edited November 14, 2008 by moltar

[Camino LS6]

Meh..I still think a contributing factor to their problems now are a result of relying to much on trucks and SUVs for so long and ignoring cars..had they invested 5-8 years ago in developing world class cars, they could have been selling Toyota/Honda numbers in compact and midsize sedans recent years..

Certainly you have a valid criticism there, but to assume that it would have been enough to stave off this crisis is doubtful.

EDIT: It is also immaterial, given the punishing we will all take if GM is allowed to go belly-up.

[Satty]

Invalid. The mass stuff has been getting good also during their tenure also--Malibu, Aura, etc. And the '08 CTS.

The trucks have always been top notch, but that bubble had to burst. The bread and butter cars have improved, while the 1995 Lumina was about 5 steps down from a 1995 Camry, the 2008 Malibu is one step down from the 2008 Accord. They haven't gotten good enough fast enough.

[gm4life]

I know someone who actually has met Wagoner and has ties to GM lots of them. She is a very bright lady and has childern at the same highschool my son attended and my daughter attends. She just happens to teach there as well, and I trust her judgement and she says nothing but kind things about him. She also is very worried about fuel economy and being green and even though her and Rick don't see eye to clearly on everything she has nothing but praise for him and what he has done at GM. I don't think he is the evil or not effective person we make him out to be. We got the Enclave, Malibu, Solstice, G8, GTO, Lucerne, GMT-900's, STS, CTS and Traverse under this team could they have done a better job? I don't think much of one but it is nothing that killing the Unions won't fix seriously. GM has the product but the Unions keep shooting themselfs in the foot and not realizing keeping on asking for more and more is ultimately killing them. GM will soon have a great 5th Gen Camaro a new G8 ST, LaX and a Volt they should be very proud Lutz and Wagoner included. Both men have made some really good moves on tuff calls at GM. I think if the Union can go or at least get resonable agreements it would help GM out way more than 25 billion from the goverment. Then again they need both.

[Camino LS6]

The trucks have always been top notch, but that bubble had to burst. The bread and butter cars have improved, while the 1995 Lumina was about 5 steps down from a 1995 Camry, the 2008 Malibu is one step down from the 2008 Accord. They haven't gotten good enough fast enough.

And/or perceptions haven't shifted fast enough...

I do think that not maintaining a diverse portfolio at all times was a grave error. Even so, these are extraordinary times that are testing everyone (Toyota included). Without swift, smart, intervention by the feds, we are all in for a very rough ride the likes of which only those at the end of their lives can claim to remember.

[Croc]

And/or perceptions haven't shifted fast enough...

Disagree. That's an excuse, honestly. GM hasn't produced anything really to shift perceptions. To shift perceptions, GM needed to do things well in a big, dramatic way. Having a "great" car here or there doesn't do it. GM will not survive with a Malibu, the 900s, and a CTS. The rest of the lineup is fairly uninspiring and/or unmarketed. The SAAB 9-3 should be a huge seller. That's awesome product. But it isn't. Few SAAB dealerships and nonexistent marketing.

The entire Pontiac lineup excepting the G8 is mediocre at best, badly dated and chintzy at launch at worst. Buick has the Enclave. Lucerne is average-to-above-average, and the Lacrosse will thankfully be replaced soon by what is hopefully a far superior product. Saturn has...well IMO the VUE. I'm not impressed with the Astra, and as far as I'm concerned the AURA is not worthy of the praise it received. Cheesy fake wood trim, hard plastic complete with fake plastic "stitching" on the door sills, and basically an execution that is IMO as bad as that of the G6.

Both the G6 and the AURA have the same deficiency: a poor interior that mars an excellent exterior.

[hyperv6]

Unless you can bring someone in that can do any better becareful of what you wish.

Rick could have done better but with both hands tied behind his back with limited funds and union rules you just can't do what you need to do when you want to do it.

Also some of the moves looked good at the time they were done but Monday moring quarterback always see the errors better than the guy calling the shots.

Is there someone better out their? I am sure there is but untill you find them you better hang onto what you have as Rick has made some Mistakes he is not a Bill Ford.

[enzl]

Unless you can bring someone in that can do any better becareful of what you wish.

Rick could have done better but with both hands tied behind his back with limited funds and union rules you just can't do what you need to do when you want to do it.

Also some of the moves looked good at the time they were done but Monday moring quarterback always see the errors better than the guy calling the shots.

Is there someone better out their? I am sure there is but untill you find them you better hang onto what you have as Rick has made some Mistakes he is not a Bill Ford.

Bill Ford was smart enough to know he needed someone else to do the job!

We quickly forget that GM wasn't making money before the latest economic disaster. In years that the US (& World) were buying record #'s of vehicles, GM was either losing money or barely making 1-2% net...a well run, mass market manufacturer should be netting much more.

Change is scary---but the notion that an 'outsider' can't run GM is a farce. It's simply untrue---and besides, I don't believe others could have done much worse than 60-90 days from running out of money?

And, of course RW doesn't think his resignation is a smart move---for him. I'm sure he's a nice man--probably extremely charming as well---what else could explain his employment, given his track record? Who here can honestly state that they would have a job if they performed in their job as RW has in the last 8 years?

[longtooth]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Chairman Wagoner, given the implacable GOP component of the current U.S. Congress, Rick had best have a contingency to remain appearing as solvent as possible through at least the end of March '09. I don't see any 'give' in terms of GM getting their bridge-loan/rescue package/bail-out during any lame-duck session.

[Chazman]

Bill Ford was smart enough to know he needed someone else to do the job!

We quickly forget that GM wasn't making money before the latest economic disaster. In years that the US (& World) were buying record #'s of vehicles, GM was either losing money or barely making 1-2% net...a well run, mass market manufacturer should be netting much more.

Change is scary---but the notion that an 'outsider' can't run GM is a farce. It's simply untrue---and besides, I don't believe others could have done much worse than 60-90 days from running out of money?

And, of course RW doesn't think his resignation is a smart move---for him. I'm sure he's a nice man--probably extremely charming as well---what else could explain his employment, given his track record? Who here can honestly state that they would have a job if they performed in their job as RW has in the last 8 years?

Exactly right on all counts.

And what exactly does Rick want to do with the estimated $22B he will eventually ask the US Government for? Finance another 12 months of "cash burn"?

RW and the Board have made so many strategic blunders, it just plain doesn't matter if he is charming or not - it's time for a new approach.

I want GM to survive and thrive as much as anyone else here does. But to do that, GM must make some radical and tough choices. They must totally restructure their decision making process. GM must transform themselves from the bottom up. Will RW and the current Board do that? I don't think so. After that, there's nothing else to talk about.

[Chazman]

One more thing....

Ford's Mullaly demonstrates LEADERSHIP here. Ford has already said that they are prepared to to move forward even without a bailout. OTOH, rather than the strong leadership that GM is desperate for right now, Wagoner looks like a pathetic beached whale.

He won't resign, but cries that GM is finished in 30-60 days without help. He won't resign, but is getting screwed over by GM's own finance arm - which he and the Board made possible, by allowing Cerberus to take controlling interest in. Gee, had he not GIVEN Fiat $6billion to let GM walk away - he might have another couple of months to grovel with now.

To Rick Wagoner and the Board of Directors, I say grow some balls. Come up with a valid plan. Lord knows, you've had years of warning that this day would come. Show some leadership when GM needs it the most - or step aside.

[Satty]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and

expecting different results

Seems to me Rick is asking for money to finance GM doing what it has been doing for the last decade. With Rick in charge, GM is dead within a year, without Rick, GM very well may be dead within a year, but at least they'll have made an effort.

[hyperv6]

Bill Ford was smart enough to know he needed someone else to do the job!

How many years did it take Bill to get out of the job he should have never taken? 2 Years?

Every time a Ford has run the company they have run it into the ground. This includes Henry when he would not let go of the T model.

Also Edsel Died before ever got started. He was the only Ford with a clue.

Edited November 14, 2008 by hyperv6

[dwightlooi]

Meh..I still think a contributing factor to their problems now are a result of relying to much on trucks and SUVs for so long and ignoring cars..had they invested 5-8 years ago in developing world class cars, they could have been selling Toyota/Honda numbers in compact and midsize sedans in recent years..

GM was in a bind to begin with circa 2003. UAW shackles, a car lineup that wasn't competitive, an overflow of out of focus brands, etc.

The whole Union thing is very much like the socialist thing -- let's set artificial prices and standards based on collectivist racketeering rather than market forces. It hurts the industry, the company and ultimately costs job opportunities by encouraging foreign production and importation. There is something very wrong with the economics of a unionized workforce striking for more wages and benefits and a company kowtowing to that when were the company to advertise those positions for 2/3rds the pay they'll have a long line of applicants. HOWEVER, the Union thing took 50 years to fester and couldn't be fixed by Wagoner or anyone in a couple of years if ever. It may even take the dissolution the entire company or industry to reboot this issue and defeat the spectre of runaway unionism.

The car lineup was the way it was when the current team inherited the General. And, there is every indication that they did the right things to fix that. The trimming down of brands wasn't done, but again it may be easier said than done.

As far as the focus on SUVs first, it WAS a sound strategy. The idea was to get the GMA900s out ASAP because back then it was still the biggest revenue generator. Regardless of whether they will be in the future and whether the model lineup is unbalanced, the idea was to get them out ASAP so you can have REVENUE ASAP to develop cars and crossovers.

Edited November 14, 2008 by dwightlooi

[SoCalCTS]

Wagoner must go!

He is an ostrich with his head stuck in the ground! How could the leader of the world's largest auto company so misunderstand the auto industry?

He should quit now.

[thegriffon]

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Chairman Wagoner, given the implacable GOP component of the current U.S. Congress, Rick had best have a contingency to remain appearing as solvent as possible through at least the end of March '09. I don't see any 'give' in terms of GM getting their bridge-loan/rescue package/bail-out during any lame-duck session.

That's merely an excuse. There is politicking go on here more than any actual opposition. The truth is the Democrats don't want to do anything that Bush can take credit for, even this late in the game. If they can blame the Republicans for their own objections, then even better. Who have you heard opposition from? Two or three Representatives and Senators? All the administration is asking for is authorization for funds, which the Democrats did not want to provide. Some even explicitly state that they think a bailout for GMAC, Chrysler Finance and Ford Credit under the current finance plan is all that's needed, showing their vast ignorance of the issue.

[thegriffon]

What "other approach" do you expect? Everything people are demanding has been done already! Wages are being slashed, employees trimmed, the healthcare burden passed to the union. How is firing management making an effort? All you'll be doing is putting ina new team to take the credit for what the old team actually did, provided of course the new team does not completely f— it up. Ford is not merely in debt, they are hocked to the hilt—the entire company is mortgaged, they can't sell anything to raise money if they wanted to (sell yes, raise money, no). Ford can struggle on, yes, but only until Obama takes office.

You can't look at the result in isolation—you have to understand the position they were in at the turn of the century and what the current management team has done to turn things around. GM paid Fiat $2billion to get out of the deal, at the behest of it's bankers who would not finance a takeover. They are still getting Fiat's diesel engines, including brand-new state-of the art engines in the Insignia—before Fiat gets them itself. If that's all you can think of to blame the current management with, you need to think a lot harder.

The current team revamped manufacturing totally—they made vast improvements in efficiency and quality, which enabled them to cut costs. They shifted to lean manufacturing in a big way. They rationalized and revitalized design and engineering. They cut duplicate models, and eliminated overlap. They accelerated the intro of a near-complete program because they saw the market would not last. They expanded overseas in a big way, because that's where future growth and profits were and are, not because they were looking at replacing American workers (an accusation I hear repeatedly). They bought Daewoo for a steal and turned it into a growth and profit powerhouse whose importance is only increasing every day. When Toyota could not give away the Echo (they still had some to sell last month) they brought in the Aveo and instantly boosted the segment to a significant portion of the market. While Ford is still talking about EcoBoost, the new Insignia has just two naturally aspirated engines, but three turbo gasoline engines and several more diesels. Finally, they have slashed wages, gotten ridden of most of the higher-paid older workforce, with more to go, and have off-loaded the enormous healthcare burden. If GM is still here in 18 months with the current management you will be amazed at how good things are looking, with no major changes to strategy. Now I know you can all think of things you think they should have done differently, like importing the Holden Sportwagon, or reviving the El Camino as a Chevrolet, but you're dreaming if you think that would have made an iota of difference right now. I know that a lot of you are worried and even scared, but chucking a hissy fit and looking for scape-goats won't fix anything.

Edited November 15, 2008 by thegriffon

[Chazman]

You can't look at the result in isolation—you have to understand the position they were in at the turn of the century and what the current management team has done to turn things around. GM paid Fiat $2billion to get out of the deal, at the behest of it's bankers who would not finance a takeover. They are still getting Fiat's diesel engines, including brand-new state-of the art engines in the Insignia—before Fiat gets them itself. If that's all you can think of to blame the current management with, you need to think a lot harder.

The issue with the Fiat deal was allowing a "put" in the agreement. Why in the world would (at the time) a powerful GM want a struggling Fiat to have such control over them? I was a very poorly crafted deal - for GM. Also it was $2 billion in cash with an additional $4 billion in stock. The whole point of the deal was to get Fiat's intellectual property on the Fiat diesel. I submit that something like that could have been done for MUCH less than $6billion.

The current team revamped manufacturing totally—they made vast improvements in efficiency and quality, which enabled them to cut costs. They shifted to lean manufacturing in a big way. They rationalized and revitalized design and engineering. They cut duplicate models, and eliminated overlap. They accelerated the intro of a near-complete program because they saw the market would not last. They expanded overseas in a big way, because that's where future growth and profits were and are, not because they were looking at replacing American workers (an accusation I hear repeatedly). They bought Daewoo for a steal and turned it into a growth and profit powerhouse whose importance is only increasing every day. When Toyota could not give away the Echo (they still had some to sell last month) they brought in the Aveo and instantly boosted the segment to a significant portion of the market. While Ford is still talking about EcoBoost, the new Insignia has just two naturally aspirated engines, but three turbo gasoline engines and several more diesels. Finally, they have slashed wages, gotten ridden of most of the higher-paid older workforce, with more to go, and have off-loaded the enormous healthcare burden. If GM is still here in 18 months with the current management you will be amazed at how good things are looking, with no major changes to strategy.

I will say that the aquisition of Daewoo was a brilliant move, and GM has been able to capitalize on it. I also agree that moving up the 900's was a smart move at the time and pretty much agree with the rest of your statement too. But for every Daewoo deal, we have a GMAC debacle.

Wagoner and the Board have always been alittle behind, alittle slow for the situation at hand. Too mired in old guard culture to move quickly and decisively and too concerned about next quarter's numbers over the long term health of the company. They've done a decent job oversees, especially Asia and Eastern Europe, but GMNA is an unmittigated financial disaster. And really, they've had years, even decades to prepare for this.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Chazman

[enzl]

What "other approach" do you expect? Everything people are demanding has been done already! Wages are being slashed, employees trimmed, the healthcare burden passed to the union. How is firing management making an effort? All you'll be doing is putting ina new team to take the credit for what the old team actually did, provided of course the new team does not completely f— it up. Ford is not merely in debt, they are hocked to the hilt—the entire company is mortgaged, they can't sell anything if they wanted to. Ford can struggle on, yes, but only until Obama takes office.

You can't look at the result in isolation—you have to understand the position they were in at the turn of the century and what the current management team has done to turn things around. GM paid Fiat $2billion to get out of the deal, at the behest of it's bankers who would not finance a takeover. They are still getting Fiat's diesel engines, including brand-new state-of the art engines in the Insignia—before Fiat gets them itself. If that's all you can think of to blame the current management with, you need to think a lot harder.

The current team revamped manufacturing totally—they made vast improvements in efficiency and quality, which enabled them to cut costs. They shifted to lean manufacturing in a big way. They rationalized and revitalized design and engineering. They cut duplicate models, and eliminated overlap. They accelerated the intro of a near-complete program because they saw the market would not last. They expanded overseas in a big way, because that's where future growth and profits were and are, not because they were looking at replacing American workers (an accusation I hear repeatedly). They bought Daewoo for a steal and turned it into a growth and profit powerhouse whose importance is only increasing every day. When Toyota could not give away the Echo (they still had some to sell last month) they brought in the Aveo and instantly boosted the segment to a significant portion of the market. While Ford is still talking about EcoBoost, the new Insignia has just two naturally aspirated engines, but three turbo gasoline engines and several more diesels. Finally, they have slashed wages, gotten ridden of most of the higher-paid older workforce, with more to go, and have off-loaded the enormous healthcare burden. If GM is still here in 18 months with the current management you will be amazed at how good things are looking, with no major changes to strategy. Now I know you can all think of things you think they should have done differently, like importing the Holden Sportwagon, or reviving the El Camino as a Chevrolet, but you're dreaming if you think that would have made an iota of difference right now. I know that a lot of you are worried and even scared, but chucking a hissy fit and looking for scape-goats won't fix anything.

You've managed to cherry-pick most of their best decisions without acknowledging their mistakes:

Bottom line: They couldn't make money in a 17 million unit market! Excuses about legacy costs make my ears bleed---they could have gone to the Union years ago, opened the books and let the UAW judge for themselves that the structure was untenable...

Instead they denied, avoided and outright lied about the financial health of the company. The results are there for you in naked view! They're 60-90 days away from a liquidity event!

The selfish, short-sighted, arrogant and disingenuous management team has taken an ICON and reduced it to a pauper's grave. I can't see how that can be defended on ANY level.

[The O.C.]

The trucks have always been top notch, but that bubble had to burst. The bread and butter cars have improved, while the 1995 Lumina was about 5 steps down from a 1995 Camry, the 2008 Malibu is one step down from the 2008 Accord. They haven't gotten good enough fast enough.

Trucks haven't been perfect themselves either though.......we still don't have power-folding third-row seats in the GMT-900's as one example.....

[Camino LS6]

I'd raise a couple of points here:

- The best moves that current management has made have yet to take effect, and when they do it will make an enormous difference.

- Whatever mistakes they have made, they don't even begin to rise to the level of the misconduct and out right hubris of the AIGs of the world who get a blank check. Seems a bit unjust to me.

- The calls for the current management's removal smack of the need for vengeance rather than the needs of the company.

- Most importantly, it is critical that these loans be secured immediately to prevent permanent damage to the entire economy on the scale of Depression.

I have no particular allegiance to Wagoner or the current board, but these issues distract from the overwhelming need to take action now - and so should be tabled for the moment.

[haypops]

I have no particular allegiance to Wagoner or the current board, but these issues distract from the overwhelming need to take action now - and so should be tabled for the moment.

Well said.

[regfootball]

The trucks have always been top notch, but that bubble had to burst. The bread and butter cars have improved, while the 1995 Lumina was about 5 steps down from a 1995 Camry, the 2008 Malibu is one step down from the 2008 Accord. They haven't gotten good enough fast enough.

you're not qualified to say that. have you driven both?

I have. the malibu is just as good of a drive, actually feels more solid on the road. the accord lets through more of the road, not in a good way. the interiors are on par. in terms of design the malibu is nicer. the accord plastic is not all that good. depending on the color scheme, it probably would be considered a draw. the accords center stack is atrocious.

the new accord is not the holy grail. the new malibu is not crap.

ah, that's right, you just buy into the stereotype.

drive it yourself.

Edited November 15, 2008 by regfootball

[Satty]

I've ridden in, but not driven, an Accord coupe. Neither the Malibu nor the Aura matches is around town.

[regfootball]

Disagree. That's an excuse, honestly. GM hasn't produced anything really to shift perceptions. To shift perceptions, GM needed to do things well in a big, dramatic way. Having a "great" car here or there doesn't do it. GM will not survive with a Malibu, the 900s, and a CTS. The rest of the lineup is fairly uninspiring and/or unmarketed. The SAAB 9-3 should be a huge seller. That's awesome product. But it isn't. Few SAAB dealerships and nonexistent marketing.

The entire Pontiac lineup excepting the G8 is mediocre at best, badly dated and chintzy at launch at worst. Buick has the Enclave. Lucerne is average-to-above-average, and the Lacrosse will thankfully be replaced soon by what is hopefully a far superior product. Saturn has...well IMO the VUE. I'm not impressed with the Astra, and as far as I'm concerned the AURA is not worthy of the praise it received. Cheesy fake wood trim, hard plastic complete with fake plastic "stitching" on the door sills, and basically an execution that is IMO as bad as that of the G6.

Both the G6 and the AURA have the same deficiency: a poor interior that mars an excellent exterior.

9-3 doesn't sell because its too high pruiced, but it is a fantastic car that gets dissed because its competing in the luxury class. it should be positioned between VW and Acura. Saab as a whole needs to have price cuts then the goodness of their offerings when the new ones arrive will shine through.

G6 would be a good car with a brand new interior and some NVH. G8 needs a smoother v6 powertrain and AWD option.

Vue is very good, have you driven one? Astra, same thing? Or are you simply judging it on cupholders?

I suppose you like the CRv, yeah that's automotive excitement in a can.

Edited November 15, 2008 by regfootball

[Satty]

The Astra isn't nearly as good as the Rabbit or Cooper. It has some ridiculous flaws.

[regfootball]

I've ridden in, but not driven, an Accord coupe. Neither the Malibu nor the Aura matches is around town.

you can't say you've driven an aura XR and flogged on its paddle shifters? the accord doesn't have paddle shifters.

[regfootball]

The Astra isn't nearly as good as the Rabbit or Cooper. It has some ridiculous flaws.

such as? have you driven it?

this you know from scca in the prius.

rabbit's not bad, but the 5 cylinder is no paradigm of smoothness and it uses 20-40% more gas than the astra. the astra is more sprite feeling and not so nose heavy. i've seen user reports, one in particular where an astra owner got rid of his mini for the astra. based on merit.

Edited November 15, 2008 by regfootball

[Satty]

Wooooo....paddle shifters, most important thing any car can have. I bet those paddle shifters in the Taurus X shift super fast.

[Satty]

Yeah, I took a rather long test drive of an Astra, and the ridiculous flaws were quite apparent at the end of the drive. The armrest, the outward visibility, etc...

[regfootball]

Wooooo....paddle shifters, most important thing any car can have. I bet those paddle shifters in the Taurus X shift super fast.

the aura xr is a very good drive. very good power and handling. no deficit to any honda i'm aware of. the interiors are equal.

there's really no difference between the two cars. unless you prefer ugly, then the accord wins.

[regfootball]

Wooooo....paddle shifters, most important thing any car can have. I bet those paddle shifters in the Taurus X shift super fast.

it has to when its trying to escape that ugly ass toyota venza that's trying to keep up with it.

[Camino LS6]

Let's not veer so far off-topic in this thread - too much is at stake.

[regfootball]

Yeah, I took a rather long test drive of an Astra, and the ridiculous flaws were quite apparent at the end of the drive. The armrest, the outward visibility, etc...

um, there's no visibility issue on the 5 door.

if you are having visibility issues, try removing that 24/7 tunnel vision you have going all the time. or lay off the sauce before you grab the keys.

[Satty]