Variance

Link: http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant Detroit. Every once in a while, a story comes along that gets us shaking our heads in bemused disbelief. But this week's story may just take the cake. Rick Kranz and Peter Brown reported in Automotive News that J Mays and Jim Padilla have decided that internal design constraints have cost Ford dearly in terms of design "reach" - and that they're going to free up the design process so that Ford's mainstream designs won't suffer from the calculated blandness that they've displayed all too frequently of late (e.g., Ford Five Hundred sedan, Freestar minivan, etc.). Padilla and Mays took great pains to explain how Ford's internal design parameters for packaging and technology had hamstrung Ford designers to the point that design executions were reaching the street watered-down and devoid of personality - and they are going to take steps once and for all to eliminate this brand of internal over-think and built-in hand-wringing. In the interview conducted at the Frankfurt motor show, Mays said, "Padilla is saying, 'Design leadership is our goal, and I want it there.' It is equal to quality. It is equal to anything else we do because it is going to improve people's quality if we produce an incredible design. Bill (Chairman Bill Ford) is saying it." My immediate question, just off the top of my head, is - why the hell has it taken this company so long to realize what everyone else in this business has been talking about for at least five years now? And while Mr. Mays joins in the chorus blaming Ford's built-in design constraints and bureaucratic processes as the reason for Ford's lackluster design performance, I have to ask a few questions of him at this juncture. Wasn't it you, J, who had the temerity to say (after the debut of the gorgeous new Mustang and the production version of the Ford GT) that the Ford Five Hundred was exactly what America wanted - a blandly conservative sedan with lots of room? And as proof of your contention, didn't you point to the runaway success of the Camry to validate your vision for Ford's sedan of the future? Even though it looked more like "retro-futurism" as applied to the VW Passat? Wasn't it you who was even quoted in The New York Times as defending the Five Hundred's VW-Audi-esque look with a flippant, "You can never look too much like an Audi, can you?" which instantly became our Autoextremist Bonehead Quote of the Year for 2004? This was the car that was supposed to lead Ford out of the wilderness and finally give them a passenger car entry to compete with the best family sedans out there? But all Ford insiders could muster (off the record, of course) was that at least the Five Hundred (and its Mercury Montego cousin) were "light years better than the Taurus," which wasn't exactly saying much, either. And wasn't it you, J, who coined Ford's future design look as "urban toughness?" Although the new Five Hundred obviously hadn't received the benefit of that new thinking yet - so we preferred to just call it "urban blandness." But the new Five Hundred does hold eight golf bags (halle-frickin-luja!), so there's that at least. Devoid of even a whiff of design "reach" - the new Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego were destined for rental car Hell the moment they hit the showroom floor. Wasn't it you, J, who was charged with the responsibility of injecting the Ford design staff with new energy when you arrived? After all, wasn't it you who took credit for the Audi TT and the Concept 1 VW, when it was others (notably Freeman Thomas) who were the real creative brains behind the designs? And wasn't it you who devoted all of your top design talent's time on your patented "retro-futurism" push, instead of trying to actually move the ball forward and shape Ford's mainstream design future? That was you, wasn't it, J? I know designers live in a bizarre world where the concept of "lead time" takes on an almost eerie cadence with little rhyme or reason after a while - where new models bearing next year's date are being introduced in the spring of the year before, and final designs for a model scheduled for four years down the road are being "locked-in" just a few months after the current version of that same model is making its debut. But that's no excuse for Mays playing the blame game and pointing fingers at the "process" or the nebulous "internal constraints" at this point. After all, it was on Mays' watch that Ford overpromised and underdelivered when it came to their mainstream cars. My assessment of J Mays has always been that he can marshal his design troops to do retro cool with the best of them (Mustang, Ford GT, Shelby Coupe), but when it comes to creating contemporary, mainstream, bread-and-butter design "hits" - he just hasn't delivered. And judging by his performance over the last several years, I haven't seen anything that would lead me to change my opinion. The great designers have been able to deliver mainstream hits along the way, one way or the other. That was Bill Mitchell's particular genius at GM. He had an uncanny knack for taking the pulse of design trends around the world, and then assimilating and packaging them into mainstream car designs that were a bit risky, always visually arresting - yet contemporary in their appeal - which is why GM dominated the design business for so long in the '50s, '60s and early '70s. Ford only has itself to blame for the sorry state of motorized blandness that they find themselves in. They can hang it on their internal design constraints all they want, but the fact of the matter is that they're behind the curve and seriously lagging behind the competition in getting visually attractive mainstream vehicles to the street. Ford can't survive on Mays' "retro futurism" alone. They must deliver mainstream hits that have as much visual punch and appeal as the sensational new Mustang. And until they do, they can blame whomever or whatever they want (sunspots anyone?) - and it won't make one damn bit of difference. Detroit is on the ropes and out of time, and Ford is just now figuring out what they need to do? Add to this the fact that Mays has actually suggested that Ford's design future would be about being distinctive without being polarizing. Huh? How will that get Ford anywhere? Playing it safe at this point is a dead-end for Ford. They need to pump up the volume and unleash all the talent they can muster - with or without J Mays. So, in the interest of the common good, I'm going to offer up a simple new industry design standard that should help Ford (and every other manufacturer, for that matter) to get their priorities straight. This new Autoextremist design standard is encapsulated in the initials "GFD." Those initials stand for Great F---king Design - and I recommend they be tattooed on every designer's ass in this business. And in conjunction with those initials, the one question that must be asked before any design should be allowed to see the light of day is this: Is it GFD? Because if it isn't GFD, ladies and gentlemen, it's real simple - don't do it. That doesn't mean doing "Acceptable for the Target Market Design," or "The Best We Could Do For What We Were Given to Work With Design," or even the dreaded, "It's Better Than Our Competition Even Though We're Three Years Late With It Design." No, it's really simple. If it isn't "GFD" - then go back and tweak it or re-do it until it is. Save all the precious speeches, the patented design lingo bullshit and stop playing the blame game. Stick to those three simple letters, and you'll be a lot better off. And if Ford or anyone else can't muster the courage to do "GFD" - then I'll be glad to add three more initials to predict their future prospects - NVG - as in Not Very Good. Not very good at all.

I mean, I laughed and thought it was kind of cool at first but it's starting to get progressively freakier. :blink:

1. Sky 2. Aveo (can't really count the Aztek as they don't make it anymore) 3. Cobalt sedan

Now this may be just me but I don't think "likely price gouging" should be counted as a con against a car.

Link: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/jedlicka...e&src=reviewers Dan Jedlicka's Rating: 8 out of 10. Bottom Line: New, under-$20,000 genuine sports car is creating lots of excitement for General Motors' Pontiac performance division. Pros: Racy styling Decent acceleration Low price Cons: Little standard equipment Tiny trunk Likely price gouging Expert Review The fact that General Motors rather quickly has produced a 2006 production version of Pontiac's sexy 2002 Solstice auto show concept sports car is almost a miracle. GM has had a sad history of killing promising 2-seaters just when they got good. (Remember the Pontiac Fiero and Cadillac Allante?) And a nifty sports car proposed by Pontiac was shot down in the 1960s by GM because it feared the car would eat into Chevrolet Corvette sales. The Solstice thus is Pontiac's first sports car because the 1980s Fiero coupe was initially developed as a two-seat commuter car. Dream Car But GM didn't have its product czar, Bob Lutz, around then. A veteran of BMW, GM and Ford European operations and the old Chrysler Corp., Lutz arrived at GM U.S. headquarters in 2001. One of his first projects was making a genuine Pontiac sports car—not a slick, costly two-seat cruiser like the Ford Thunderbird. His dream was to build an affordable, desirable sports car. The Solstice is just such an auto with a $19,420 list price—or $19,995 after a $575 freight charge. There were more doubters than believers that Lutz could pull off the car for less than 20 grand. The main Solstice rival is the iconic Mazda Miata, which arrived in 1989. It's been redone for 2006 and starts at $20,435. Ironically, Solstice show car designer Franz von Holzhausen from GM's California studio has left GM for Mazda, a Ford Motor affiliate. Exciting Styling The latest Miata retains its familiar handsome shape, but the Solstice has a more exciting look. Its rakish styling features Pontiac's twin-honeycomb grille, sexy curves and two retro-style head fairings on the trunk lid that look as if from slinky 1950s sports-racing cars now considered works of art. Pontiac is able to introduce the Solstice for less than 20 grand because it dipped into GM's vast global parts bin for such things as the engine/transmission, seats, mirrors, switches, controls, fog lights and even back-up lights. Parts came from GM vehicles ranging from sedans to sport-utility vehicles, but everything works in harmony in the Solstice. There's no shame in parts sharing because it's common in the auto industry to hold down vehicle costs. Little Standard Equipment Standard items include power steering, an adjustable steering column and an AM/FM/CD sound system, but not a heck of a lot else. Optional items include air conditioning, cruise control, anti-lock brakes, an AM/FM/CD/MP3 player, polished steel wheels, an Onstar and XM satellite radio, remote keyless entry and power windows, locks and mirrors. Of course, a Solstice buyer doesn't really need some—or any—of those options. They add performance-robbing weight and complexity, but only hard-core sports car buffs will do without many of them. Most buyers will want at least air conditioning and power windows and locks. And they'll probably get them because it will be hard to find a Solstice at a Pontiac dealer that doesn't have lots of options—let alone get a kind of deal on the in-demand car. Dual front airbags are standard, but forget side airbags or an anti-skid system because they're not offered. Draws Stares My bright red test Solstice drew more stares than any car I've driven in a long time, regardless of cost. It especially drew favorable reactions in downtown Chicago with its top down at lunch hour on a sunny late-summer day. One person asked if it were a Mercedes-Benz, but many mouthed the word "Solstice" because the car has gotten lots of pre-sale publicity, including appearances on NBC's "The Apprentice" and "Las Vegas." The Solstice is the first car built on GM's Kappa small-car, rear-wheel-drive platform and has a rigid, mostly hand-welded chassis because Pontiac will annually build only 20,000-30,000 Solstices and such welding saves money. The plusher Saturn Sky two-seater arrives next year and will use the same rigid platform, which doesn't allow convertible rattles and cowl shake. Fairly Quick Acceleraton Powering the new Pontiac is GM's 2.4-liter dual-overhead-camshaft 4-cylinder engine, tucked under a large hood that opens in clamshell fashion—as does the trunk. This aluminum 16-valve engine produces 177 horsepower, which is enough to propel the fairly heavy 2,860-pound Solstice to 60 mph in a fairly quick 7.4 seconds if you rev it hard. A 5-speed automatic transmission won't be offered for the Solstice until 2006, and the car's 5-speed manual gearbox must be shifted a lot to get the best performance. GM said a 6-speed manual—available for the Miata—didn't improve the Solstice's performance. Happily the Solstice transmission is fun to shift. Its gearshift has fairly short, easy throws and works with a decent light clutch that has only a moderately long throw. But third and fourth gears must be used most of the time because overdrive fifth gear is strictly for highway cruising; floor the accelerator pedal in fifth gear at low speeds and acceleration is virtually nonexistent. Estimated fuel economy is 20 mpg in the city and 28 on highways. One might think such a small car would get a few more miles per gallon, but its weight and numerically high (for quick acceleration) 3.91:1 axle ratio don't allow higher fuel economy. More Power Coming The Solstice needs more power for passing maneuvers on highways, but Pontiac likely will introduce a turbocharged or supercharged version with more than 200 horsepower later next year. A coupe version also may surface, although a removable hardtop is more likely to initially be offered. Occupants sit very low in the Solstice, with elbows sticking up when arms are placed over the sides of doors. It almost feels as if you're wearing a metal collar. The high body sides don't present visibility problems, but they also don't stop a fair amount of wind rush from entering the car with its top lowered at even 40 mph. One must get out of the car to open the decklid to operate the manual top, which has a glass window and defroster. But top operation is fairly simple, and the top folds neatly into the clamshell rear deck area. It fits snugly when raised, although it creates rear blind spots in that position and thus could use larger outside rearview mirrors. Go-Kart Agility Steering is nearly perfect, with superb feel. It's quick, but not so darty that a sneeze almost puts a driver in an adjoining lane. The Solstice also has nearly race-car reflexes, thanks to a nearly 50-50 weight distribution, wide tires on 18-inch wheels and a sophisticated all-independent suspension with anti-sway bars. Quick lane changes can be done with no tire squeal, body lean or instability. It's almost like piloting a go-kart. The ride is smooth for a car with only a short 95.1-inch wheelbase, although rippled roads cause the Solstice to get a little jittery. The brake pedal has a progressive action, and stopping distances are short with the all-disc brakes. Sporty Interior The minimalist interior looks plenty sporty and has good room for two tall occupants, although some budget-grade materials are used. The "motorcycle-inspired" gauges, though are sometimes hard to read quickly because they're too deeply recessed. The comfortable bucket seats are supportive, but their controls need to provide a larger range of comfort settings. The controls are mostly large and easily reached. There are three cupholders, but little interior room for small items. The glove compartment is tiny, but a small covered storage compartment with a flimsy cover is between the seatbacks. Poor Trunk Space Trunk space is poor with the top down, partly because a high fuel tank occupies a large center area of it. Solstice owners should plan on traveling light with a few pieces of soft luggage—even with the top raised. There's no room for a spare tire, so one ends up with a "fix-a-flat" can of spray sealant that won't be appreciated if one of the large tires goes flat. The Solstice comes in red, silver, blue, green, black, white and gray paint. Whatever the color, buyers of the car should be prepared to pay a premium price.

I don't why they bothered camoing it. It probably looks pretty much the same as the current Wrangler.

Heritage High Roof.

Well, it wouldn't work as an avatar since C&G limits avatars to 90x90 pixels or 50 kilobytes (both of which that is well over). It's pretty much impossible to compress it to those parameters and be intelligible. EDIT: Or not apparently. :P

This good?:

Here's my contribution:

I get the feeling it's used to test some really top secret weaponry and all that but is there something more to it than that? :huh:

This puts me in mind of that FOX special years ago questioning if the moon landing was real.

Oh, that explains it then. :)

Best looking Hummer, IMO. Man, you must be doing pretty well for yourself. Three 2006 cars according to your sig.

I'm not exactly a pro but I'd be willing to give it a shot.

No pics, but in Stamford, Connecticut (pretty much anywhere in the county, for that matter) you can see quite a few expensive vehciles. I saw an NSX recently and a Porsche Carrera GT about a month ago.

What I really hate are the PC nannies that whine about certain TV shows and video games because their children are exposed to it. Here's a thought: Try and actually parent your damn kids. "Well, I can't watch them 24/7." Cry me a fucking river. :rolleyes: Teach them what is appropriate and what isn't and you won't have to.

What the hell?! You can't censor "boobs". "Boobs" should be free and out in the open.

One thing though, I wish they would take that "Pontiac" off of the front of the GP. It kind of ruins the clean look of the front.

Yes. That looks hot. :cheers:

I think a yellow Sky combined with all the chrome on it would be too gaudy.

A little late but I regularly see a red C6 Corvette in my college parking lot. I wouldn't be suprised if it belonged to a student. (Rich kid area.)

How about: This post has been brought to you by Blackviper. Blackviper does not give a fu*k what you think. If you don't like it, he'll run you down with his '95 Grand Am. If you talk shit about the Fiero, he'll hunt you down and make you eat your parents. Blackviper hates you and is going to kill you.

Link: http://www.edmunds.com/future/2007/chevrol...v..0.Chevrolet* What Edmunds.com Says: With GM quickly falling behind its competitors in the full-size truck segment, look for GM to pull out all the stops to assure that this Silverado has everything it needs to compete. What We Know: Major changes will be necessary on this stalwart design in order to keep it competitive against its longtime rival, the F-150, in addition to relative newcomers such as the Nissan Titan and next-generation Toyota Tundra. When the new Silverado appears, probably in 2007, it will feature a far more elegant cabin than the current model along with a new GMT-900 platform. A more powerful range of engines is a certainty, but efficiency is also likely to play a major role as the Silverado may very well become the biggest user of GM's Displacement on Demand technology. Look for safety to play a prominent role as well with more extensive airbag protection and wider availability of StabiliTrak. Pictures at link.

I actually thought that for a while, too.