CaddyXLR-V

I don't care what the source is. That doesn't mean what theye're saying is incorrect. You're defending Obama like people here used to defend GM.

I considered selling mine, but now I don't think I will ever sell it.

Saturn would be entry level, while Saab could move upmarket slightly. Pontiac would be the performance car brand, and Holden will be predominantly Australian, and exporting cars like the G8, ute, Monaro to be used as Pontiacs.

Since GM might try to take Holden down too, why can't it be Saturn, Saab, Pontiac, and Holden?

If only people would search for the truth instead of just believing everything they hear. This will go ignored, and people will still be blaming the banks. The government pushing for more sub-prime loans, and loans to low income borrowers should tell you all you need to know. Fast forward to now, and where is the government placing the blame? Banks and CEOS. They are the governments scapegoats.

And the public will buy everything the president and government says. I can only see bad things resulting from this.

Outside the Corvette, and recently introduced Camaro and Malibu, we wouldn't be losing much IMO if Chevy went away either. But that doesn't mean Chevy should be killed. Name one brand besides luxury makes that has more than 2 performance cars? Miata and RX8 370Z and whatever they call the Skyline here Camaro and Corvette Mustang and SHO Charger and Viper and now Challenger- so Dodge is the only brand with more than 2. They still have sold plenty of crap over the years, but that isn't brought up evertime someone mentions the Challenger. Why is Pontiac the only brand that gets a bad rep for ONLY having 2 performance cars, and should have 3 if the GTO never went away?

I've been watching the whole series. Do the Celtics take pride in going to overtime and into 7 games? They could've ended this so many times already. I'm hope the Celtics take control next time and blow out the Bulls like they did in game 3.

That's the sad part. I think GM wanted to keep Pontiac, in some way, shape, or form, but the government just would not allow it. I will not buy from any automaker that is run, or even heavily influenced by our government. It is starting to make sense to me now. If GM planned on killing Pontiac, why would they have left Pontiac in their original plans even as a niche brand?

Not only that, but I think people are biased against Pontiac for some reason. Maybe it was their tagline. If they didn't say, We Build Excitement, their image wouldn't have taken as much of a hit for not building excitement. People only remember the bad. But tell me this. What cars in 1997 outperformed the Grand Prix GTP? Not the Maxima or Altima, not the Accord, Camry, no Subarus, No Dodges. The Ford SHO might be the only car in the same class, outside of luxury makes. What cars outperformed the Trans Am in 2002? The 05-06 GTO? The list of cars that outperformed them are very short. But because of bias, all that is remembered is the Aztek.

But then there are younger people like me, that have been around all generations of Pontiacs, Chevys, Fords, Chryslers, and realize the mid 70s through middle to the end of the 90s were dark years for ALL cars, not just Pontiacs. I can count on one hand the cars from 75-95 I would like to own, and that includes ALL car makers. I can't fault Pontiac for something when I see that all car makers made nothing I wanted for about 20 years. Where GM made their mistake, was the late 90s and 2000s, when they had the technology to make exciting cars for Pontiac again, but refused to. The Grand Prix GTP had 240hp in 1997, and only 260 ten years later, until the GXP was released. GM just set the brand aside for 10 years, and focused on Olds, then Cadillac, then Saturn and now Chevy and Buick. If I didn't know how incompetant GM is, I would have said GM was purposely trying to kill any goodwill Pontiac had so they could eventually kill the brand.

The G8 becomes very tempting at that price. If I didn't have so much other stuff going on in my life right now, I would probably buy one.

Could be a good thing. Destroy the excess inventory and prices might actually stabalize. Once prices stabalize the land alone will probably be worth what the whole house was going for.

This is exactly the reason the domestic automakers have a negative perception. Everyone believes whatever is popular at the time, no matter how true it is. If the media says banks are bad, everyone runs around saying how banks are bad and caused all our problems. I would rather have the banks in control, because they are actually strong enough to block some of the crazy regulations the government is going to try to pass. There are banks out there that are turning record profits in the middle of a depression, while our government is running record deficits. Tell me again, who would you rather control your business? The banks that got greediest were taken over by their competitors. Where is Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, etc? They were bought up by the more responsible banks. I've worked for 2 of the top banks. They are nothing like the country portrays them to be.

Just think about when Chrysler and GM are govt owned. Do you think there will be anyone from those companies lobbying to fight the restrictions the govt wants to place on autos? The govt will almost have free passes to pass whatever laws they want, and GM and Chrysler will have no choice but to support them. The govt basically is going to be controlling their resistance.

But the Union is the minority now, and not a reflection of the rest of the country. Unionized companies, in almost every industry, are falling behind their competition, and now the rest of the country(taxpayers) are paying to prop those companies up. You fight for higher wages by providing a benefit to your employer. If you generate income, you are valuable to your employer, and they will pay you more for it. If someone is willing to do your job for less, why shouldn't a company be allowed to hire them? The free market needs to set the wage rates, and straying too high, or too low from the free market rate hurts our economy.

Cerberus is only allowed to invest a certain amount in each investment. They couldn't invest more even if they wanted to. Just like they wouldn't be allowed to invest 100% of their cash all in one stock, they can't invest 100% of their cash into Chrysler.

Until GM files for bankruptcy, those cars you mentioned will not contribute to the bottom line. In fact, they probably take away from the bottom line due to GM's cost structure. Once GM fixes it's costs through bankruptcy, if they can make those cars and profit from them, they will. The government needs to keep out of the product decision process.

Political bias? It's one of Obama's stated goals to become more green. You're saying he won't be tempted at all to kill off some lower mpg cars, and force through some greener cars once the govt has 50% or more ownership of the company? I highly doubt that.

Well you know GM. As soon as there are signs of progress being made, they pull the plug.

It only makes sense the banks should get the biggest stake. They put up the most money. Why would the govt get 50% of the company, while only putting up 1/3 the money the banks have, while giving the banks only 10%?

Exactly. With the size of the US, there is no way we will have a mass transit system like much of Europe has. There will always be trucks, because there are still rural areas, dirt roads, mountainous areas that snow, people that need them to tow. So if there will always be trucks, do you want to be the one driving around in a Smart that gets run over by an F350? Do you want to stuff a family of 5 into an Aveo? Do you want to try to merge into 55+mph traffic with an 85hp subcompact? At some point, Americans are going to say enough is enough.

Z51 is 3350lbs. Base Corvettes are around 3150lbs

It won't happen like that. The Chevy will be dumbed down, to fit a wider range of buyers, including the 65+ crowd. Thats the problem with having brands that don't have a specific focus. Yes, it will get you more sales, just look at Toyota. But it doesn't mean the cars will be better.

To keep the same power to weight ratio of the current Corvette, a 2800lb Corvette would need 393hp. 3100lbs is already lighter than almost all of its competitors.