CaddyXLR-V

It did. The hp curve peaked at 6500rpm and torque at 4800rpm

I agree, and about dialing, I know where the numbers are without looking at the phone, just like I dont need to look at the keyboard to type. I hate when people think someone cant do something because of their age. Chances are if they cant do it when they are 16, they wont be able to when they are 30 either.

Why hold back one division just to help another division? How about making the other division even better? Lets make the Malibu a really bad car so we can sell some G6s doesnt really make sense to me.

Sales were declining for 7 year old trucks with a replacement coming soon? Who could have predicted that.

Best: Z06/Sky Worse: Uplander, and whatever the Pontiac minivan is called. Most bland: New Impala

Higher revving would mean less efficient, because there would be more friction at those rpms. The engine with a lower peak torque would also not need to rev as high to get going with traffic, like my Grand Prix with 280 torque at low rpms, I only need to rev to 2000 to get going with the flow of traffic, while a car with no torque until 5000rpms would need to rev above 3500, which uses more gas to get going with traffic.

That sounds like a good idea to me

Then GM could make a good profit, which can be used to upgrade all their other cars and bring us cars people really want. Then GM will sell more cars, and wont have to close half their plants.

GM also makes aluminum 5.3s, which I think is used in the new Impala SS, and SSR. The trucks still use the iron block. Those are pushrod engines. The Northstar engines are DOHC.

The cost of doing business is also going up since inflation is going up. But can GM adjust their prices to make up for it? No they cant. So just by giving their workers cost of living increases, GM would lose more money than the year before. Then raises on top of the cost of living increase, GM loses even more money. At that rate, GM will be dead. Then I guess GMs workers will really be able to feed their families right? Your posts are one sided. Lets raise everyones salary, but lets not raise prices of the products they produce. It doesnt work like that. The company they work for will either A.)raise their prices, if they can, which then what would be the point of making more money if your just paying out more money? Or B.) That company will fold, then what will all those workers do? Can they provide for their families then? Company folds= less union members The way I see it the unions are killing themselves off, I just dont want to see GM dragged down with them.

With gas prices being so high, I would still rather have a V8.

That sounds good to me.

I'm relieved. I thought I was going to be in the minority on this one, but it looks like I'm not. I voted low slung Grand Prix, although I wouldnt mind if we switched the name to Tempest. Not that I mind the name Grand Prix either.

I just dont see why its so hard to understand what you posted for some people. The Unionized manufacturers will need to cut costs somewhere else, like interiors, or pushrods engines, like everyone here complains about.

From the graph you posted the Honda engine looks to have more of a peak than GM engines. GMs torque curves a flat and smooth until the redline, then it drops off. The graph you posted is up and down, it looks like a graph of the stock market. GM engines hit the peak soon and stay there. By the time you shift 3 times to get in the powerband the race is over.

I would actually like the CTS more if it was a little smaller, and available as a coupe. Well, I'd like it with the Northstar too. I dont really like big cars too much. But thats just me.

You got all that from what I said? I wasnt talking about the worth or value of the person, I was talking about the value of the job being done. I didnt say they are scum because they make $20,000 a year. I said the job they do allows them $20,000 a year, for whatever reason. Maybe thats the job they choose because they dont care about making more, or having a more demanding job. Thats their choice. I didnt say they are scum for making that choice. We live in a capitalist economy. If you want to make enough money to make a living on, that is up to you. Never did I say a person making $100,000 a year is worth more, or a better person than someone making $20,000 a year. Not every person with a college degree should be entitled to make more money either. You twisted everything I said to reflect the person themselves, when I was specifically talking about the job they do. A job is only worth so much, and if thats not enough for you, get the skills needed for a job that pays enough.

I have to agree, that is the hottest hatch. I hate hatches, but I would love to own that car.

I think it would help alot. Even it doesnt sell that much, it could still bring alot of recognition to the whole Cobalt line. And I dont think AWD should be limited to only the 250+hp version, it should be available with the 170 and 205 hp versions as well. Then GM could offer a sport tuned suspension for the AWD models. I think it would put the Cobalt a step ahead of the Civic, Neon, and Focus and other compacts. GM needs to find a way to make it available on the G6 as well.

This is what I disagree with. Just because someone only makes $20,000 a year, that doesnt automatically make them underpaid. Someone can be underpaid who makes $100,000 a year, and someone else making $20,000 a year can be overpaid, depending on their job, and level of skill it takes to do their job. We cant just raise salary of the person making $20,000 a year because he cant live on that much. There is a difference between underpaid, and not getting paid enough to live on. We cant just raise the pay of everyone to $50,000 a year. The only thing that would accomplish, is raising the price we pay for everything. If fast food workers start getting paid $50,000 per year, that burger that cost $1 before is now going to cost $4. So they may be making more, but the actual amount they can buy with their money will not change. Then the people that were making $50,000 before, would actually be able to buy less with their money.

The only problem I see with GM building cars to a price point, is that GM has higher costs than most other auto companies, and that meeting that price point means less of a car than the other companies can make for the same price.

How about reading what I wrote again. GM controlled the prices. That means they charged enough to make a profit. Now GM is charging less than cost to keep factories running and sales up, because they have pricing pressure from a dozen more companies than their were 30 years ago. And like you always say, stuff is getting expensive. GM doesnt magically get stuff cheaper than the rest of the world, and GM has to comply with alot more laws and regulations than they did 30 years ago. How much money GM made 30 years ago is irrellevant now in 2005.

So many arguements made about how UAW should get so much, they have every right to strike and whine about their job. They get 95% of their pay even when there are no cars for them to build. If we invest in them, does that invest in our future as a society? To pay a worker $50,000+ for a job that requires no more than a high school education, who blames the company that pays them for every problem, and they should be paid more? But a teacher, who has the responsibility of teaching, and raising our very future, is living the high life with $52,000? A teacher should be able to invest in his future, isnt that the point of getting paid? But by having higher paid teachers, maybe we could also get higher quality teachers. Getting paid $50,000 after 6+ years of college is hardly any incentive to do the best they can do. There is a shortage of teachers, yet a surplus of line workers. Economics suggest one is overpaid, and the other is underpaid. I'm sorry for thinking someone who has the commitment to sit in college for an additional number of years after high school to further their skills and education should be paid more. I realize their are people out there that dont need college to be smart, and can be smarter than someone who has a degree. But the majority of the population doesnt have that gift, and if they want to earn more, they will need a degree.

I would really like to know if Kappa is profitable selling only 2 roadsters. Will 40,000 units a year cover the cost? It seems like kappa is only suitible for low volume, so even if GM developed a new platform that could be used for sedans and coupes, it couldnt be built like kappa due to the higher volumes compared to the roadsters. Could GM make a new platform that could sell about 100,000 and be profitable, but still inexpensive?

So the best we can hope for is for GM to be working on a Kappa II for the next gen Solstice and Sky, and that they will make Kappa II flexible enough to be used for something with a backseat?