evok

Who says they don't already do that for their white collar staff!

Some of you need to do some better research on the SAAB story. GM was only a 50% partner in SAAB and Investor was the other 50% owner during the 90s. Any investment into SAAB during that period were matching investment by both partners. If one partner does not want to invest neither will the other.

No the target sales for the XLR was 5000.

LOL

Did not see it coming? Give me a break. GM has been warning about the perfect storm for years no. Read their SEC filings. Actuall read what Devine has been talking about since he replace Losh. GM has been pretty open about their problems if anyone actually took the time to listen. It was just a matter of time when it would hit. The same goes for DPH and Ford. In DPHs first SEC File, I think it was in their first 10k, they stated their problems. .

I see it a little differently but with a big assumption. Toyota can afford to build the trucks and incentivise the product if need be to reach the 200k market. Though I believe the 300k in 2009 is on the verge of being unrealistic. That is unless Toyota just decides to flood the market with product. 2007 my will be a tough year to launch the Tundra with the expected hype of the 900 launch. My assumptions is gas prices remaining where they are today, particularly for the buyer you describe above. All things being equal, the pick up market could grow in 2007 with the new Tundra but I do not see lost sales at the Big 3. Much like with the addition of the Nissan Titan. But all bets are off if fuel costs go up. The "Macho" buyer in my opinion will rethink something he really does not need. That goes across the board. And usage studies do show, most PU buyer do not need one.

Wouldn't be the first time I am quoted in the auto press.

The new Tundra's will be monsters, riding on 3 different wheelbases. And the they will be big. And I mean big. Bigger than their their Big 3 counter parts. Toyota has done their homework on these trucks. Lets put it this way, these will have the longest wheelbases in their class. This is not a shot fired across the bow of the Big Three. The Tundra, is a torpedo fired directly at mid ship. I am on the fence if Toyota will convert 200k - 300k buyers and fill the plant with orders. But, if a product can take on the Big Three's bread and butter this is it.

Let us look at what GM actually said: Lutz said "I know where it (Camaro) fits in the overall enthusiasm ranking. If it was a question of what would you like to do, I would obviously do this one first." But, he added, "We can't always follow our enthusiasm. We have to do what's right for the business." "We have a big plan for rear-wheel drive," says Gene Stefanyshyn, vehicle line executive for what GM now calls its global rwd architecture. But Opel no longer is considering such a car, says Hans Demant, managing director of Adam Opel AG. Says Demant: "It is just too big" for Europe. The rest of the Autoweek article is just speculating. So as I said earlier, be careful what you read. What you read could be just opinion and not based upon what was said or actually going on. No where did I read, where a GM executive stated anything about the POTENTIAL rwd programs besides the POTENTIAL for Camaro's return. Only Stefanyshyn said that there are big plans. Autoweek was thinking out load. The article should have said, based upon concept cars shown using zeta, vehicles likely to be converted to rwd and leaked information on the internet, the following vehicles are candidates for rwd.

Keep that thought and disregard EVERYTHING you read in the press, including this thread.

And I had the good fortune of having lunch with John Smith the day before the press release was filed. He really was embarrassed for Cadillac and GM. It was his integrity, that GM released the updated numbers.

Not a problems. You know how rumours get started on the net.

And I will quote myself: "But in summary, the 2 door portfolio is getting crowded if the CTS Coupe and Camaro get the go ahead." If is a speculative term. My posted were directed at explaing if something happens, something else will not happen in the context that Cadillac and Chevrolet are foundation brands within GM and therefor will command more resourses and product.

Please read my posts. I have never said there will be a CTC or that it will be linked to a Camaro if that in fact does return. I am not indicating but stating at this time there is no sigma based Cadillac Coupe. Numerous reportes on message boards where anybody can speculate are not facts.

Who says?

Dude - you should know better than that. Nothing is certain until it is on a dealers lot. Where is the GMX002 and the GMT361 etc.

Nothing is certain.

Don't get too excited, GM is just thinking out load.

What you heard is wrong for reasons I have been saying in earlier posts.

The Saab story is more complex than that if I remember right. GM bought Saab from Investor AB I believe but I think Investor AB pick the auto group up from Defence. I would have to search the net to be sure.

Kerkorian suggestion to sell Saab and Hummer is really not a feasible proposition and here is why: Hummer: Hummer has no assests. AM General builds the H1 and H2 and GM build the H3. Hummer does not have a manufacturing plant of its own or tech facility/people. If GM were to sell the brand because Hummer is not a company or division, whoever bought it would have to invest billions in new product. GM would have to sell the current product to the suiter until the time that product was ready. An example is what BMW was forced to do with Roll Royce. Saab: Much like Hummer, Saab is in the same situation. From a corporate perspective it is just a brand without a dedicated corporate structure of its own. Saab was integrated into GME a few years ago. About the only asset that I am aware of is the Swedish plant. Again, whoever bought it would have to spend money on product.

GM US Sales: 1980: 5.1 mill Market Share: 44.7% 1985: 6.1 mill 40% 1990: 5.0 mill 35% 1995: 4.9 mill 33% 2000: 4.9 mill 28% 2005: 4.5 mill 26.5% Possibly in the distant future. But not in the near term. That is not a true statment. Mainstream manufacturers build vehicles for specific markets. Your example used to hold true but since the 1980's the Japanese have been designing vehicles that are unique to NA for their volume products. The European Accord is an Acura in the US. For your Corolla example: www.toyota-europe.com Though you will see more of OEMs cross marketing vehicles as niche products. Such as Toyota and the Scions, GM and Saturn/Opels etc. GM is addressing the issue you raise in a more rational approach of global platform usage and global commodity sharing. The US market is reaching saturation level. Barring any unexpect economic problems, the US market should remain around the 16.5 - 17 mill levels for the near term. Based upon GMs product plans, any increase in Toyotas levels should come at other OEMs expense. The market has leveled for the not to distant future.

I am basing my my comments on my understanding as to the status of the program, including the lack of supplier involvment as well as a first hand understanding of the vehicle development process including timing and program milestones. In front of me, is GMs Vehcle Development Process Bible. Let me assure the board, when the suppliers are brought on board, within hours of that happening, information will make its way to the message forums. Each day that passes moves the clock back app. 30 months until any zeta vehicle hits the showroom. Please for the last time, there is no such thing as a 12, 18 or 24 month program in the real world. That is just Wall St. symantics. If you do not believe what I have said read rlseditions comments here: http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.ph...1482#post901482

Not going to happen. That is fact. Vehicle develpoment just does not work that fast.

Read my posts in the GTO concept thread. I have already answered that question. There is nothing but speculation in that article. Denny Mooney said nothing more than what is already been said in public. OZ is GM zeta homeroom.