evok

Again that is from "Styling Freeze", which is misleading.

If manufacturers took your advice they all would be out of business. Your interior examples are noted, but do you have any idea, the development cost for a new interior. There is a tremendous amount of testing that goes into an IP. Besides some soft surfaces, it is not cost effective to do what you suggest. Car companies have limited resourses and they have to balance those resourses over dozens of vehicles that are on the market and all the new programs that are in development. There are also marketing reasons why manufacturers cadence various body styles and engine offerings over the life of the program. To keep things fresh. What you rather see GM do, invest good money into bad with the current Ion or divert that money to the next generation Ion or move up the more profitable 900 utilites.

http://www.bobaedream.com/board/data/data_...elect=&content= GM-DAT Magnus

http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...?showtopic=1225 Since these two stories are related, it will help illustrate my points of inconsistancies in timing programs.

All vehicles will be required to have the classification system by 2006.

All: Do not get your shorts ruffled over this. This is just nonsense and means nothing, especially if you do not know the context. Design freeze is arbitrary to start the clock of program timing. Why, because it does not take into account all the upfront engineering, design, manufacturing, marketing and logistic work that occurred prior to "design freeze". That could be two to four years worth of work depending on to the significance of the program. Design freeze is not, some sketch in a styling studio but, for lack of a better phrase, completed blue prints of a vehicle. And I will say again, from when a program is initiated it still takes app. 4 years or so to bring a vehicle to fruition. That is just the way it is. This article is pure bunk.

Curtains and thorax bags will be standard really soon. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/12/04/173880.html

UAW leadership has to make the painfull decisions. The decisions that have to be made the rank and file will not like or accept but it is the UAW's president's job to understand the economic realities of the contracts and how it not only affects their members but also the companies. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger has to show himself to be a leader which in my opinion he has yet to do. Does anyone think this will be the pattern bargaining for the 07 contract with the US Big 3? Here are some specifics for the recently ratified NUMMI contract: Economic gains Year 1— UAW-represented NUMMI workers will receive a $3,000 upfront settlement bonus. In addition, the $1.61 cost-of-living allowance (COLA ) will be folded into base wage rates, bringing the base hourly rate for Division I (production) workers to $27.97. Division II (skilled trades) workers will receive a 30-cent per hour tool allowance; the new Division II base rate — including COLA fold-in and tool allowance — is $32.34 per hour. Year 2 — workers will receive a lump-sum payment equal to 3 percent of their qualified earnings in the previous year, plus COLA. Year 3 — workers will receive a 2 percent general wage increase, plus COLA. Year 4 — workers will receive a 3 percent general wage increase, plus COLA. As in the current UAW contracts with GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler, COLA adjustments will be based on the Consumer Price Index for Wage Earners (CPI-W) for all items except medical care. In addition, up to 2 cents of each future quarterly COLA adjustment will be diverted to help offset health care costs; this COLA diversion also tracks the current UAW agreements with GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler. Performance Improvement Pay Plan NUMMI’s Performance Improvement Pay Plan will be updated and reconfigured, increasing the potential annual payout for each worker from $2,400 to $3,000. Health care Health care coverage is maintained with only modest increases in co-pays for prescription drugs and doctor’s office visits. Effective October 1, 2005, prescription drug co-pays will increase from $5 to $10 under Kaiser and HealthNet plans and from $10 to $15 under the Blue Shield plan. The UAW and NUMMI also agreed to a mandatory mail-order program for maintenance drugs; the co-pay for a 90-day supply will be $10 under both the Kaiser and HealthNet plans and $15 under the Blue Shield plan. Also effective October 1, 2005, co-pays for doctor’s office visits will increase from $10 to $15 under all three plans. Pensions The new agreement improves basic pension benefits for future retirees. Over the life of the agreement, the monthly pension benefit will increase $47.45 to $51.65 per year of credited service. The annual lump-sum bonus for current retirees increases from $550 to $625, while the annual lump-sum bonus for eligible surviving increases from $330 to $400.

25 years ago, all vehicle manufactured in the US were produced by 4 US based manufacturers that employed UAW workers. Those were the days before Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyunda, etc. In 2004 there were app. 12 million vehicles produced in the US. App. 4 million of those vehicles were produced by non UAW labor. What does that mean to the manufacturers that have UAW workers. In the past, when contracts were negotiated, the UAW members received a raise, added perks and in general because of pattern bargaining, the added costs affected all manufacturers equally and that cost was trasfered to the public. Therefore app, 100% of the vehicles produced in this country were affected. Today the same is true only for 2/3 of the vehicles produced in the US. So GM, Ford and Chrysler Group for the most part have to absorb any new UAW contract cost. In todays environment, we have negative pricing. Car prices are not going up but actually going down in real terms. The playing field is no longer equal. So the US Big 3 have to cut cost some where. That means cheaper interiors, less advanced powertrains, less models which ultimately lead to less market share and less profits and of course plant closures. It is called the death spiral unless something gives. The only solution is that the UAW has to re-evaluate their stance and give a lot, or the transplants will have to unionize. I do not see the later happening.

Not a 100% sure. Because of the composite construction of Theta being a hybrid BOF/Unibody I suspect the sub theta vehicle to be just short wheelbase thetas. But I do not know for certain yet. But I do think that GMC photo in PM is legit and shot from design staff with a camera phone.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...html?page=2&c=y

Wildcat: Sorry about the mix up. I corrected my post.

Please go back and read exactly what I said. Let me reitterate my initial comments. I have said that the spy photos were not: 1) An Americanized Holden that will be imported into the US/NA. 2) And, the prototype was not a GTO. Because your speculation was wrong, I chose to nip the rumour in the bud. Please do not put words into my mouth. I wrote nothing about GM's Global Vehicle Development Process. BTW: The globalization of GM is not news. This has been in the works now for about 10 years or so. That was the intent behind the "greek letter" architectures. The problem was what was planned as common turned out different. All that has happened over the past couple years with Global VDP has been GM as an organization put safe guards in place to assure that what is needed to be common will stay common and that different engineering centers will not take liberty with programs to deviate off the mark. Also different global engineering centers will be responsible for different architectures. Here is an example of how the organization was flawed. Holden was to use Sigma for there VE cars. Sigma was too expensive for their market and Holden decided to develope their own architecture fitting their own needs and not use what was to be the global rwd architecture. Hence zeta as we know it was born. The global VDP process will prevent that from happening again that is unless it is given the blessing from GM corporate. The safe guard is Holden would now have to ask the global strategy board approval to do what they did. One of the MANY reasons zeta was axed this past winter was that zeta did not conform to the global bill of process for manufacturing. Just like the problems with epsilon. This is going to take a full product cycle to work out. I do not know for certain as to the specifics behind the NA zeta architectural symantics at this time but it would be my guess, that it is not the Holden zeta that is discussed in the article.

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/05/03/057990.html Here we go. The Daewoo that started it all.

You bet your a$$ I am watching. After watching UofM and Iowa loose... Buckeyes better keep the Big 10 alive. AJ Hawk has been awesome.

NS: You have been for a while beginning to sound a lot like me, for good or bad. Keep up the good posts and analysis. Good work and thought. Keep it up.

http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons//AH-HA_wink.gif

As Flybrian has stated the posted data that started this thread is meaningless without production, and the issue for the recall. Most recalls are not influenced by the government and almost all are always voluntary and for a small population of vehicles. Manufacturers have been recalling vehicles way before the feds have been counting them. Recalls have little to do with regulation-compliance but more to do with tort concerns and customer satisfaction that MIGHT have a POTENTIAL negative impact on safety which is up to the discretion of the OEM. Counting recalls is just nonsense. It shows nothing.

:(

No that was piss poor info passed on by Autoweek a while back. From what I have heard AWD for EPII might not be in the cards either. Notice I used the word might.

Don't know. But I would expect the Lambda to be a good indication. We still have almost 2 years before the Vue is due.

The problem is Kappa is really not an architecture in GM lingo and neither is the Corvette/XLR Y-Body. They both are more along the lines of a platform. As I said earlier in this thread, in GM's need for speed in getting the Solstice to market, they boxed themselves into a corner by using the the kappa tubular structure. There are significant packaging issues with that platform for anything beyond 2 seaters or possibly tight 2+2 as in the concepts when translated from stage to showroom. If the possibility of throwing in a larger motor if it can be shown to fit would seriously throw off weight distribution and vehicle dynamics. You add 100lbs up front you are going to have add 100 lbs in the rear. Now kappa weights as much as a Vette. It is a shame but true. GM would have to seriously redesign the platform from the firewall back to make it practicle. But then it would not be kappa. Kappa is not a revolution but a managerial exercise in orgaanizational behavior to speed product development and get some excitement back in the company.

Lutz is the father of the Solstice and without him there probably would not be a Solstice or a Sky. Prior to Lutz, there was no Solstice program. The couple of points I was making: From a product development perspective and getting the vehicle to market as quickly as they did, a lot of the up front (hard part) engineering of the platform was done. This probably save a year if not more in gestation time. So as a result, to "rush" the program as quickly to market as possible, kappa is a platform with limited flexibility. Lutz also needed a high profile project to make his mark on the organization fast. With Solstice he did not have to kill programs that were already in development, recadence launches or spend limited resourses. This was a pet project that did not cause the organization to go into disarray or disrupt product development but showed quickly what he is in the process of doing with the rest of product development. Finially portfolio and design work on a lot of stuff that never gets a GMX/T code or will ever see the light of day on the road. Kappa was just one of those projects that happen to make it to market for some of the reasons I mentioned above.

To add to Chazman's comments in response to Cadillacfan's, here is some insight into the Solstice and Kappa as explained to me: 1) The design for the Kappa architecture was for the most part complete when Lutz arrived at GM. Meaning the math data for a small sports car platform was sitting as 1 and 0's in a mainframe. So it was off the shelf in many ways from a technical perspective. 2) The Solstice styling was for the most part complete when Lutz steped on board. He championed the orgaization to develop a running prototype using off the shelf parts for NAIAS in record time. 3) Most import, the Solstice from 2002 concept to 2005 production was a mechanism for Lutz to push to product development organization. In essense the Solstice and Sky were managerial exercises.

NS: We have had this discussion before. Kappa sucks as a flexible architecture. It is not that easy to stretch. Not saying it is not possible. The problem is the center structural tunnel. There would have to be a lot of rework to the structure to make it practical for a 3 Series sort of car. The kappa platform would need a significant amount of rework to the point that it would not be recognizable as a kappa. So the cost benefit is just not there. GM as I have said before, would be better off, developing a flexible small car rwd platform and base the next generation roadsters off that and use that as a basis for a 3 Series type vehicle. Kappa by design is horrible for anything other than sports type cars.