CaddyXLR-V

But how many workers would need to be let go, just because of efficiency? Lets say there was no competition, GM would still need to let workers go due to advances in technology, and they cant even do that. Just think of the job you do now, how many people and how much time would it have taken someone to do in 1910, or even in the 1950s? One person on a computer today, can probably do the job of 20 in 1950. One farmer can probably do the job of 100 farmers back in the early 1900s. That means people will have to be let go. We cant just employ people for the sake of employing people. The point is to advance our technology, and keep our technology one step ahead, that it why the US has long been #1.

Nope, no firebird, though I do have the same V6 as a firebird, except with a supercharger on it. It's a grand prix gtp, and it should be alot faster than it is.They are supposed to be about 15.1 in the 1/4 stock, but the best I got when mine was stock was 15.7. Since then I have added about 40hp, to get my current best time of 14.89.

She actually knew quite a bit about cars, more than I expected her to. Though whether it was through her experience or not, I couldnt disagree with her. I've can pick out some areas on my moms 04 malibu where GM could have paid alot more attention to the details. In the end, it all comes down to who can make the best product, with the least amount of cost. Right now, GM can make cars that are not as good as the competion, but still cost more to build, that is the problem. Not how many they sell.

Sounds fun, I was supposed to go last friday, to firebird raceway in chandler, az, but I didnt get to go. I did go a few weeks ago. The best I got was 14.89@ 94. I was hoping for alot better, but I had trouble getting traction, and on a few runs the tires spun up to about 45mph. I'm looking into getting a cam, and LSD. Once I do that I'll go back to see how much of a difference it made.

I'm not so sure its just image. I think there are alot of people out there who do know the difference between the products, and they affect the image. I was talking to one girl last week about cars. Shes 19. Her whole family has only owned European cars. Right now she owns a c230 kompressor, her mom owns a e55 AMG, and she will be buying an M3 soon. I asked her why she doesn't like American cars, and her answer wasn't what I was expecting. She said it's because they never pay attention to the details. I couldn't argue with her on that, because in many ways its true. I told her about the new Tahoe and she said it sounds like they may be learning, and said maybe in 5 years she will consider an American car. So to me, that sounds more like a product problem, than an image problem. Fix the product, image will follow. Sell more substandard product, and you will have more unhappy customers. Thats why selling more cars is not the problem.

Ok I admit, I havent really paid attention to the financial side lately. I give him props for making GM run as one big company, and not lots of little companies, which IMO, should have been done a very long time ago. All of the future vehicles coming out under his watch seem to be very promising, and it seems he has taken the right steps to have more attention paid to the details. I wouldn't imagine that it would be an easy task to fix 30 years of previous mistakes, and I dont expect everything to be fixed overnight.

Nothing. So the big question now is, what now? It would have been a much, much easier task to fix 15 years ago. But nothing was done. So continue to do nothing, or force everyone to accept change? You cant change the past, it's over and done with. GM has been digging itself a hole for the past 30 years. For that reason alone I give Wagoner props being able to make any positive changes at all. And to have vehicles like the GMT-900s get past the bean counters would be no small feat either.

lol you remind me of those infomercials selling miracle products. Just take this one little pill and you will lose 300lbs. I guarantee it. It can actually save you money. I think you are a great salesman, you even convinced yourself to believe that. How about giving us the solution to GMs real troubles, like having costs that are double what its competitors costs are? Why can much smaller competitors still make money, even though GM does more than double the volume? Obviously GMs trouble is not volume. And I dont care what plan you come up with about some crazy marketing scheme, it will not get GM a 35% marketshare. The only way to do that would be amazing, and class leading products, without increasing their prices. I'm sorry, but that would take drastically lower costs, something your miracle plan does not address. Plants would need to be closed even if GM were not losing marketshare, it's called becoming more efficient. How else can Toyota make half the cars GM does but still only have around 1/5 the workers, if not less? Or would you be in favor of throwing away all computers just to have a team of workers figure out equations on their own? Hey more workers it must be a good thing right?

Care to explain how that would save money? ~750k less sales=more money, how? GM's costs mostly all fixed. Downsizing and shedding brands means less money, not more.

Aren't they both alot lighter than the Lucerne though? That should be taken into consideration when comparing engines. 4013lbs, Length: 203.2 in. Width: 73.8 in. for the Lucerne, 3560 lbs Length: 197.2 in. Width: 72.8 in. for the Avalon 3576lbs Length: 188.2 in. Width: 71.7 in. for the Passat.

Yes, rational thoughts can be amazing at times can't they?

They sell the most. Where did the half billion gallons come from? That sounds like BS. That would be equivalent to 667,000 Large suvs, all getting 10mpg better than they do now. I dont think the market is anywhere close to that, and 10mpg more per truck would cost alot more than $2900 per vehicle.

Cadillac wouldn't be doing the work........the tuner would.

Agree, I even like it more than the CTS, which seems to go against everyone elses opinion here.

You are blind because of your hatred for Wagoner. That is your drive, it is in every single post you have ever posted on here. You dont care about GM. You care about removing Wagoner. GM threw money at Olds in the late 90s, Olds got some of the best technology GM had at the time, with engines based off the northstar, the 2nd gen Aurora was a great car, but no one bought them. Olds was on life support when Wagoner became CEO. GM will not be losing money for the next 5 years, they just need the cash to make it through to when the contract will be negotiated, and some retirees start dying off. He is setting the stage for the future by buying out the workers, and cutting what is not needed, instead of trying to make a profit in the short term. Selling GMAC will get GM through the tough times, while returning it to investment grade, then things will start to get easier in the next few years. Your the only blind one here. It's not a coincidence that everyone of the insiders here dont agree with you either. Are you calling them blind too?

Why would they not be profitable? They are already based off an existing car. They would be tuned by an outside tuner, and marked-up accordingly. They are not meant to sell alot, they are more for image. GM could never make a DTS-v. 400+ hp to a FWD car? It's not going to happen. STS is the flagship, and has been more expensive than the DTS even though it is smaller.

It is not his fault GM needs to sell them off. GM has been declining since Wagoner was in his 20s! All the cars that came out the past 5 years were done under someone elses watch. HHR, Tahoe, Solstice, and Lucerne, are all selling at list price or above. I bet the Aura will also. And the next CTS. Why does that have to be said 500 times for it sink in?

Yes, if that were GM it would have said:"While all other companies switched to superior 5 and 6 speeds, only GM continues to use the outdated 4 speed. There is no excuse to still use that outdated technology in a vehicle of this class" But it's Toyota, so it's ok. Nevermind that GM's 4 speeds are fuel efficient and reliable.

Mortgages? Dismantling GM because they sold the mortgage division? Your just grasping as whatever you can to badmouth "Red Ink Rick" aren't you? What the hell does mortgages have to do with building great cars? GM= General Motors, there is no motors in mortgages. GM just raised cash for the employee buyouts, and returned the mortgage division back to investment grade. Yet you find a way to spin it as a bad thing. You say you want to see GM succeed, and that is your whole purpose, but to me it looks like you would rather take GM down just to bring your enemy Rick down. Your just mad because Rick shot you down, now you have to come whine to everyone here 10 times a day about him. Get a life. Go sell some cars or something.

To me, it seems like GM took everything I like about my Grand Prix, made it worse, then called it Monte Carlo. And I drove a 2000 Mustang V6, and that car will definately outhandle my Grand Prix GTP or any MC, and had a 5 speed, something not available on the W bodies. If only Grand Prixs were RWD with a manual

I really dont see how that is sad. I find it sad that the union workers have it so much better and think they are too good to accept any less. I dont have a contract with my employer(Wells Fargo), but I love working there.

Not only does the math not add up, but more than half of GMs losses for 2005 were due to employee buy outs, and Delphi. $1600 per car is $12.8 Billion. So without the employee buyouts and delphi, which GM wont have to pay every year, if GM could save $1600 per car, GM would be making about $8 Billion a year.

So was car in his driveway, or still on the delivery truck?

Well I dont think her statements would help out future reviews from CR any....

The probably find it hilarious. It is their entertainment.