evok

FOG you are an idiot. Might I suggest you cross your legs because there is already enough crap coming out of your mouth. Don't take my words out of context. 8 years on these boards - and you still have not matured.

Legitimate? Logical? Besides your arguments are not logical and not legitmate, GM's pickups only load one cable strap at a time.

Spoken like true simpletons. First, off the minivan market is still huge, contributing to over 1,000,000 sales a year. Second, the sliding doors are the most import difference between a van and traditional 4 door wagon. Why you might ask? Simple, try loading children and child safety seats in a tight parking space with a vehicle that has traditional opening doors compared with the minivan sliding doors. Access might be easy in the lambdas with the big doors, but that alone because of the size and geometry of the doors makes it more difficult when you are parked next to someone at the mall. Sorry, minivans have a stigma but they are more functional for a mom loading her family when it comes time to run errands.

First off fleet sales are not bad if there is a true demand for it. Good example of that are Ford selling CVs for police conversions. There is a true demand and ford has the product to fill it. The problem is particularly for the Big 3, when it is cheaper (lose less money) to fleet the vehicles to Rental Agencies because closing plant is not cost effective because of labor agreements and cutting the cost of labor is not an option.

Metamucil anyone?

LOL

Yes and what GM needs really needs is more niche Kappa derivatives... By your logic GM should have folded and put out the lights years ago. And who is to say that the lambda vans were not competitive? Have you seen them? Did you know the product and content specs? Do you honestly know the reason why they were cancelled? I will risk and say NO to all.

1990 --------- 2005 BMW 63K ----------- 266k MB 78k ------------ 224k Lexus app. 60k -----------302k Cadillac 258 ----------235k Lincoln 230k ---------123k Total US market 1990 -----------2005 ----------------app 12mill --------app 17 million It appears from the above data it worked out very well for the Germans. Bigger question is, how did that work out for the domestics?

Or the UAW/CAW can organize at the transplants in NA and level the playing field. The playing field just needs equilization and there are solutions. Organizing is one of them.

The first couple quarters of the year reflect that. GM pulled the 4-5 grand rebates off the 900 utilites compared to the 800s. I did the math and it just seems to works out. GM probably makes 2 -3 grand on the SS and high option model and they probably loose 2-3 grand on the base. Depending on product mix, breaking even with Delta would be a success. Sigma makes money on the product mix.

Oh ehaase, the old coot is probably just constipated and needed to vent. He is probably out of Wild Turkey and has the shakes.

Yes the prices are outrageous. And I am sure everyones bulk email folder is filled with generic Viagra spam for cents on the dollar compared to the Pfizer. Though I do not claim to holder the answers there is a problem. http://www.tv.com/30-days/show/36402/summary.html Check out the minimum wage episode.

I will leave how to do it to the experts and tax people. My intent is all entities doing business in the US and that includes foreign subsiduaries that are incorporated in the US. If you sell here you pay. That is my thought. The how, well I could not outline the specifics.

You rely too much on a quote from Lutz that cannot be independently verified. Are they making money on the entry-level vehicle at $13k, the $20k SS or the whole GMX-001 program? But looking at GM’s NA earnings over the past two years, GM is not making money so there goes that theory. Even when I factor out the losses from assets write-downs and GMAC the situation is red. Call me a skeptic! As for your statements about tooling amortization; well the quick answer is those costs are insignificant compared to the variable costs. I.e. materials, and manufacturing are most of it, not tooling and development.

In your case I would worry about it. There is something wrong with your air bags and in your case with the LSS, I would make sure the airbag module under the seat I believe is not corroded or wet. GM has history of that problem in these vehicle. Bags go boom w/o a crash.

Wrong. Not true.

agree and will add: 1) Real tort reform. 2) Total healthcare reform - insurance, hospitals, pharms, all the way to the band-aids we buy at CVS. 3) TAX on ALL large businesses "incorporated" in this country to pay for the prescription drug plan, reform medicare and medicaid. This money should go into a trust and equilize the corporate playing field. Toyota, Sony, ACME US operations, whatever will have the same obligations if they want to do business in this county. There is no reason why if I or anyone need to go to the hospital in this country for whatever "reasonable, likely" reason, should go broke. F' the insurance excuse. The US only has the best healthcare system for those with insurance. But has anyone actually looked what the insurance companies are being charged by the system. It is out uncalled for. Hell I also follow the pharmaceutical industry. Do you know where the clincal testing is being conducted these days becuase the cost in the US is escalating, China and India. The US popluation in some studies cannot even take part in early potentialy life saving studies. This is valid and the FDA will use this data to determine marketability. This is a f'in joke. The system is broke and dysfunctional. In either case - I throw out ideas above which may not be the exact solution. But I am certain of this. The system needs to be funded and the playing field equilized. You want to talk about the pension system and SS benefits not being properly funded. What about all those businesses hiring illigal aliens in this country that are not paying Medicare and SS taxes and yet these aliens put a burden on the state healthcare system becuase they cannot afford to pay cash for their medical needs in this country. 1000 bucks for a couple of stiches or a couple thousand to fix a broken limb. The system does not work. Anybody that says the US has the best healthcare system in the world is full of $h!, a fool or a politician. You want reform, the US government should invetigate and fine businesses that hire illegals now for tax evasion. Where are those billions going?

It is called the Death Spiral.

Yes – Exactly where to begin? “The CTS: Hard to believe that in 7 pages no one mentioned that the CTS sales have increased during the life of its first generation. This car has done more to change the long-term state of Cadillac than the Escalade ever will. I personally don't care for the car's styling but to call it anything other than a major success is nonsense.” No one ever stated the CTS was not a success. It was arguably one of the most dynamically styled product to come out of GM and specifically Cadillac since the 1967 Cadillac. And also it was the most athletic sedan to come out of GM ever. But the reoccurring discuss has been by some including myself, that Cadillac at this point is still a one or two hit wonder and that even the CTS sales success compared to the Catera hides ongoing problems at the division. By comparison the CTS in 5 years 2002 – pres) sold an estimated 250k vehicles as opposed to the 94k Cateras (1997 – 2001). Here is the retail vs. fleet break down for comparison, such that I will remove the spin from the Jim Taylor source you quote from. 2002 - 37,976 SOP 2003 - 49,392 2004 - 57,211 – 55,609 app. retail 2005 - 61,512 – 56,899 app. retail includes the GMS promotion. 2006 - 55,708 – 48,187 projected retail But in the period 1997 – 2001, Cadillac sold app 500k Devilles. From 2002 – pres. Cadillac sold app. 375K Devilles/DTS. Not only that the historic fleet number for the Deville is app 30% of sales and the further erosion of the brand is further put into perspective. The Deville sales are artificially inflated even as the sales dropped by almost half since 2000. In summary, many traditional Cadillac customers moved over to the cheaper CTS, which maybe viewed as a better product compared to the Deville for the money. At the same time it now takes 2 products to get the same volume as the Deville a few years ago. And GM heavily incentivised the CTS with cheaper total lease deals compared to the competition starting I believe in 2004 and continues with that plan today. And let us not forget that 2005 included the GMS campaign that created demand based upon price. So Jim Taylor’s statements that you quote from do not show the true picture. The CTS only had 3 full years of production using Taylor’s dates with plenty of incentives and some fleet thrown in for good measure. There is more to the story than a quote from a GM PR. Go and check what BMW can do with 7 years of sales. It does not fluctuate much. My statements are not intended to show the CTS a failure or a success but just attempts to paint an accurate sales picture at the division. The STS and SRX are out right sales duds. Heritage is a good thing – but history has shown Cadillac rested on it for too long. As for your “new money” comment, that is irrelevant given that Lexus is the US luxury sales leader. The market seems to think Lexus is the benchmark and care more about the vehicles today than yesterday. Shall I add Benz and BMW to this discussion? How long have they been around? Sales at Cadillac will be down this year and next assuming Cadillac does not begin to donate cars to the Good Will to keep the plants running. Sales have been flat since 2004. Your opinion is irrelevant given that the market does not seem to agree with you. Let us go down memory lane for a second with some road tests. Heck the only comparison tests I remember Cadillac winner were against Lincoln and a few one on ones against aged vehicles like a 2003 Allante’ vs a 20 years old design SL. BTW without the NS the Allante trailed in previous test. And have you personally driven an 84 Sedan Deville for comparision against those plodding Benzes? Enjoy: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...rticleId=103123 "Sure, these cars are fine cars, fine Detroit cars," wrote Car and Driver. "But if Cadillac truly expects to set world-class standards, it's going to have to build cars that are more than conventional General Motors packages made nice. We think Cadillac is capable of better things." http://www.q45.org/cd1989comparison/ http://www.q45.org/cd1995comparison/ There are enough road tests provided to show that Cadillac just did not get it for a long time, no matter what your opinion maybe. Heck in a 1990 MY luxury car comparison (above), a 10 year old design MB SEL420 still ranked ahead of a contemporary Seville at the time. And two years in 1992 the Seville would be replaced for a third time and still did not do well against the competition. Here is a blurb about the Allante road test I mentioned above: http://www.welovecadillacs.com/past_models/allante.html "A 1992 comparison test of the Northstar-powered Allanté by Car and Driver placed it above the Jaguar XJS V12 convertible and the Mercedes-Benz 300SL. Although the car got big points for its new engine, it was criticized for its handling, which was the result of its front wheel drive layout. Ultimately, it was the rapid rise in the retail price of its competitors that won the test for Cadillac. At that time, the Allanté's $64,843 as-tested price seemed a bargain compared with the $71,888 Jaguar and $90,335 Mercedes-Benz." That sounds about right from what I remembered and typical of a GM win. It won on price. Sounds wording used in recent CTS-V reviews also. History has shown countless times during the past 25 years that Cadillac just did not get it. And those Bangled BMWs outsell Cadillac in every market they compete. Your opinion is not shared by the global market either. Dare I begin to compare MB, BMW et al, global market sales compare to Cadillac. Even the “new money” Lexus is selling better in Europe than Cadillac. I wonder why? Me too!

No - I am unsure about the logistics of building the SLS over in Lansing and I have yet to check into it because I cannot do it at the moment.

From your fmcsa link: "S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions." For the last time - The purpose of laminated glass for the windshield is for occupant impact safety during a crash. Yes there are visibility requirements for all glass but that was not the question you responded to and your answer does not reflect that. FMVSS No. 205 does not address remaining visually clear upon impact. There is no stated purpose or performance requirement for that characteristic Also, Laminated glass is not required on other window openings other than the front. That does not mean that tempered glass is more safe than laminated glass for the side windows. The standard just does not require it at this time. There have been recent studies that show that laminated glass maybe more safe for the side windows and that there maybe benefit during rollover crashes preventing occupant ejections because it does not shatter. But with the advent of rollover side bags, occupant containment maybe achieved through other means. In practice the shattering of the tempered side glass creates a portal for either full or partial ejection resulting in app 10k fatalities a year. Again that does not mean tempered glass is more safe. There just are no requirements for laminated glass and there maybe better strategies to improve occupant protection. And yes the OEMs can use laminated side glass. Joan Claybrook encourages that. So yes the OEMS can - and not as you state can't. Now I am going to watch the BIG game.

No: I posted the purpose from the Standard. What I assume you posted and I do not feel like digging through the Federal Register to verify, may, be from the Preamble to a vintage FMVSS No. 205 publication. But the Preamble is not regulatory. Your original post that I replied to was just silly. Your subsequent replies were just deflecting your original statements.

I agree.

§ 571.205 Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. S1. Scope. This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09...9cfr571.205.pdf The Reg Text. Again you lie, mislead or do not understand.