evok

From the teaser released I do not see what is exactly obvious that the car in question is a rebaged Commodore.

It was only about 13 years from when Oldsmobile last sold a million units to the announcement that it was being phased out. In 2000, the year the phase out was announced Olds sold less than 250k vehicles for the year. And that included a lot of Achievas and Intrigues to fleet. The fact is, by 1992, Oldmobile was selling well under 400k vehicles. Again, those numbers were propped up by fleet sales. The fall of Oldsmobile did not take 30 years, the fall of Olds took just about 5 or 6 years from their peak sales of over a million vehicles per year. That is the math I believe balthazar is refering to.

I think memory lane is fun: GM Recalls Nearly 200,000 Vehicles for various defects.... DETROIT (AP) (2/10/05) -- GM also is recalling 17,815 Buick Raniers, Chevrolet Trailblazers, GMC Envoys and Isuzu Ascenders from the 2005 model years because the windshield could fall out in a crash. Adler said certain humidity levels can loosen the adhesive used to bond the windshild to metal, which can increase the chances of the windshield popping out of its frame in a crash. WASHINGTON (AP) -- (October 28, 2005) General Motors Corp. said Friday it was recalling about 100,000 sport utility vehicles in 20 northern states because corrosion can affect latches on the two backseat doors, potentially allowing the doors to open while the vehicle is being driven. The recall involves the 2002-2003 models of the Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT and GMC Envoy XL and the 2003 model of the Isuzu Ascender Oh - Last but not least. This was my favorite. 2002 CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER SUSPENSION:FRONT:CONTROL ARM:LOWER ARM Recall Date: 04/12/2001 Summary: VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES. UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM BRACKETS MAY FRACTURE. THIS FRACTURE COULD RESULT IN SEPARATION OF THE FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM FROM THE FRAME. Consequence: A SEPARATION COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF VEHICLE CONTROL, RESULTING IN A CRASH. Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM BRACKETS. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN BY TELEPHONE ON APRIL 4, 2001. THE FOLLOWUP LETTER TO CONSUMERS WAS MAILED MAY 3, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-222-1020, OLDSMOBILE AT 1-800-442-6537, OR GMC AT 1-800-462-8782. Potential Units Affected: 30476 Notes: CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER 01034 I can go on all day with this if you want to continue with this stupid discussion.

But looking at the sales, the market is evolving yet at a much slower pace than the US market. Europe is a bigger market than the US. And slowly but in a very steady fashion (sound familar) Toyota is selling about a million vehicles a year in the market, Hyundai Group is heading toward a million and is outselling Honda 2:1, etc. This would have been unthinkable all but a decade ago. These manufacturers have all but doubled their sales in Europe since the late 1990's. Just like in the US there is the home town bias or gravitation toward the hometown, but the sentiments are changing. The merits of the product are becoming more important than where it was built. Therefore, if Cadillac follows through with their program plans and the product is as well thoughout as the NG CTS, by early next decade Cadillac as a brand could be selling 30k+ in that market.

The NG CTS is the whole package and will have a first rate diesel as you point out. If there is a market for them in Europe that will be the first test of the markets reaction with a first class, no compromise product. I was surprised when I looked at the SRX numbers in Europe when I posted the data. At this point only time will tell. PS - I for one do not have my hand on he pulse of the Euro market. I know what the data shows, I know what europeans tell me but to me I have to listen to the people that are there to understand if Cadillac can pull it off.

Oh young man - ZL1's input to me is far more relevant then your 2 cents. He lives in Europe and probably has a better perspective than you on the real market. I listen to people that add to the discussion.

He has trouble thinking for himself. As for your question, the diesel was originally in the plans. During the product development they were pulled. Orignally they were to use IIRC an Isuzu 3.0l v6. Getting back to reality, I am surprised the current vehicles are doing as well as they are. The NG CTS will determine if they have a future in Europe. As for enzl's comments on Fiat, the deal with GM was good and could have been better. Just too bad GMNA had to implode again.

Might I suggest you read - GM was caught with their pants down. There was nothing to cover up because their screw up was uncovered.

It is really is too bad GM did not build the recalled vehicles to the regulations they are required to. In which case they would not have had to recall the vehicle because they do not meet the standards. It really is a shame people are that naive that they believe everything are told or choose to selectively believe what they want. Regardless it is only January 25, 2007. The year is still young.

GM did not have a choice in the matter. Also, the GM spokesmans comments are not entirely truthful. http://199.79.180.162/prepos/files/Artemis...07V014-1242.pdf Recalls Summary Make / Models : Model/Build Years: CHEVROLET / COBALT 2005-2006 Recall Number: 07V014000 Summary: CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES NOT EQUIPPED WITH OPTIONAL ROOF-MOUNTED SIDE IMPACT AIR BAGS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 201, 'OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT.' Consequence: IN A CRASH, HEAD IMPACT PROTECTION MAY BE INADEQUATE. Remedy: DEALERS WILL INSTALL ENERGY ABSORBING PLASTIC TO THE HEADLINER TRIM TO REDUCE THE SEVERITY OF HEAD IMPACTS IN A CRASH. THE MANUFACTURER HAS NOT YET PROVIDED AN OWNER NOTIFICATION SCHEDULE FOR THIS CAMPAIGN. OWNERS MAY CONTACT CHEVROLET AT 1-800-630-2438. Notes: GM RECALL NO. 06217. CUSTOMERS MAY ALSO CONTACT THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION'S VEHICLE SAFETY HOTLINE AT 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), OR GO TO HTTP://WWW.SAFERCAR.GOV.

GM might have had a global foot print but GM never was Global. Hell, GM was never run as a singe business unit in NA until recently. As for your other comments about crash needs, that is incorrect. There still are plenty of difference but decisions are made to design globally where it makes sense to be globally compliant. How about I say, your posts are as fact laden and accurate as Fargo's.

I must say you are rinky dink of a poster - might I suggest you search Harbour. You might learn a thing or two.

Cadillac, Corvette and Hummer Europe (CCHE) = A dealer network and a very limited dealer network selling niche vehicles. CCHE has only been in place a couple years and yet this dealer network is selling about 1/4 of the vehicles as the Lexus dealer network.

I think many of you forget that MB, Audi and BMW are full line manufacturers in Europe and offer those same vehicles in the US at a premium. The MB S-Class, Audi A8 and the BMW 7-Series account for less than 40,000 sales in Europe - The MB C-Class, Audi A3 and the BMW 3-Series account for almost 600,000 sales in Europe and are the some of best selling small cars in that market. The BMW 3 - Series sells more of that model in Europe than Cadillac in the US and that means it sells more than the Chevrolet Cobalt. Maybe Cadillac should rebadge the Cobalt for Europe. It can be argued they might have a better chance of success than with the larger BLS if success is only measure by gross volume for the brand.

Lexus 2003/2002 GS300 ............................ 881- 1,400 GS430 ............................ 283- 400 IS200.............................. 7,388 -8,430 IS300.............................. 810- 1,409 LS430............................. 866- 1,103 RX300 ............................ 7,751- 5,051 SC430 ............................ 858- 1,473 Other .............................. 4- 27 Total Lexus ...................... 18,841- 19,293

Lexus Europe Sales ........2005/2004 GS 300/GS 430................... 4,896- 643 IS 200/IS 300...................... 3,523 - 7,169 IS 220/IS 250...................... 2,160 – LS 430................................ 771 - 1,158 RX 300/RX 330/RX 400h ..... 11,279 - 11,329 SC 430................................ 640 - 772 Other................................... 71 - 51 Total Lexus........................... 23,340 - 21,122 Cadillac Europe.........2005/2004 CTS..................................... 639 - 673 Escalade ............................. 52 - 31 Seville ................................. 70 - 127 SRX .................................... 1,035 - 361 STS..................................... 293 - 1 XLR..................................... 63 - 75 Other................................... 33 - 35 Total Cadillac ....................... 2,185 - 1,303 "CSM Worldwide's Madeira believes that products like the Escalade, SRX and Hummer H3 show Cadillac in Europe is just trying to sell a few more cars at high margins, rather than seeking to maximize sales." Given all the words Madeira said, this was about the only intelligent thing he said. Looking at Lexux's numbers it seems that is their strategy also. And all the words he had to say about the BLS, it is not a half bad effort for what it needed to be given GM did not have a small rwd platform, it is adding some volume to the plant in Sweden and giving Cadillac another entry for their Euro dealer network.

Unless I have been living under a rock these past few years - I would have to surmise that the state of the Big 2.5 US manufacturers are probably at their nadir. Those observations in the DOT report were made almost 30 years ago and observation number 1 and 2 still hold true today and number 3 only to a less degree. Toyota has already surpassed the Chrysler Group in US sales and on the verge of taking the number 2 spot from Ford and the global number 1 from GM. With the 4thQ financials due over the next couple weeks, I suspect the red ink will continue to flow from all three in NA. To varying degrees the Big 2.5 still have not righted themselves and the 1980 observations very relevant today.

I am currently rereading Maryann Keller's book about GM in the 1980s "Rude Awakening" which was published in 1989. She cites a 1980 Report to the President by the DOT on the state of the US Automobile Industry. "The report spared neither management nor labor in its criticism. Management was accused of tolerating production inefficiencies, poor quality, and shortsighted product development. Labor was cited for expecting pay increases, regardless of the competitive consequences of high wages and the impediments thrown in the way of higher productivity. Even the government was criticized for imposing environmental and other regulations on the industry without regard for the cumulative impact on the automakers." That report was released almost 27 years ago. Has the situation changed significantly in that time?

In 1999 Buick sold close to 150k LaSabres and another 50k Park Aves.

CR did not lie but CR did not contact an independent 3rd part to verify the results prior to going public with the results. A responsible organization would have conducted a review of the anomoly prior to issuing a public warning. Also - even if the results were valid, the public warning was not put into context. What CR did was irresponsible.

Simply, CR f'ed up and they f'ed because of their incompetence resulting from their arrogance. The IIHS is transparent. The NHTSA by its nature has to be transparent. CR because they are not transparent and forth coming and open for debate got caught with their pants down. I hope the child seat manufacturers take CR to court and sues them for slander. What they did just was not RIGHT.

Ford - Firestone was the first thing that popped in my head. Does anyone remember the congressional hearings on the that not so minor scandal? Or Ford overrating HP figures on the Cobra, GM accounting irregularities (SEC investigations), DPH management in court, etc. Dare I touch Chrysler and their first generation airbag killing kids, lift gate latches popping open on the vans ejecting occupants, Generation III/IV seatbelts unlatching and I will not even touch their general quality in the 1990s. Therefore I may conclude that the relatively recent headlines I mentions are a tad more serious than the allegations against HMC for a 4% overstatement on MPG. Give me another 5 minutes and I am sure I can think of some more that are not on the tip of my brain at the moment.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A.../701190403/1148 Magazine retracts results because some test crashes were conducted at speeds higher than it reported. David Shepardson / Detroit News Washington Bureau Advertisement Get free headlines by e-mail NEW! Get text alerts on your cell phone About the problem What happened Consumer Reports retracted its recent report on how infant car seats perform in side-impact collision tests. Why it happened The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration contacted Consumer Reports and raised questions about the simulated vehicle speed used in the tests, which was reported to be 38 mph, the same speed the government uses for side-impact tests, but actually was much higher. Why it matters The seats may perform differently at different vehicle speeds. What's next Consumer Reports will retest the seats and issue a new report. Sources: Consumer Reports, Detroit News research Printer friendly version Comment on this story Send this story to a friend Get Home Delivery WASHINGTON -- Consumer Reports magazine retracted a report Thursday that condemned most infant car seats for disastrously failing its independent side-impact crash tests and pledged an internal review to explain what went wrong. The findings, released Jan. 4 and published in the February issue, showed a test dummy infant flew 30 feet across the lab, a third of the seats flew out of their bases and just two of 12 seats tested performed well. The report shocked parents, prompting dozens of calls to the government and car seat makers. Consumer Reports withdrew the report after federal officials said the actual speed of the tests was nearly twice as high as the magazine reported. The episode threatens to tarnish the magazine's image as an unbiased and accurate evaluator of vehicle safety and quality. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the government arm that regulates auto safety, said Thursday that its own tests showed side-impact tests conducted by an outside lab for Consumer Reports were actually in excess of 70 miles per hour -- far above the 38.5 mph cited by the magazine. When NHTSA conducted its own 38.5 mph tests, all of the seats performed well. "They stayed in their bases as they should, instead of failing dramatically," NHTSA's administrator Nicole Nason said. "Consumer Reports was right to withdraw its infant car seat test report and I appreciate that they have taken this corrective action," Nason said, adding she "was troubled by the report because it frightened parents and could have discouraged them from using car seats." Magazine spokesman Ken Weine said the magazine would conduct "an internal review of all aspects of the story." The Detroit News has learned that Consumer Reports used an established crash test lab, Calspan, based near Buffalo, N.Y., to conduct the child safety seat tests. The lab also does a significant amount of testing for NHTSA, although it doesn't test child seats for the government........ Now this was issued a couple weeks ago: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650221338,00.html Those deadly 'unsafety seats' Deseret Morning News editorial As it turns out, child safety car seats "fail disastrously," according to a recent report in Consumer Reports — even in fender-benders at 35 mph. Unbelievable. We wouldn't be surprised to learn that those car-seat companies also make safety nets from spaghetti for acrobats and safety goggles from cellophane. Yet even those would pale in comparison to putting the toddlers of America at risk. When a safety device is itself unsafe, the implications go well beyond irony. Of the 12 seats tested, Consumer Reports could recommend only two — Baby Trend Flex-Loc and the Graco SnugRide. They sell for about $90 each. One small crash dummy was even hurled 30 feet after being carefully strapped into one of the bogus seats. Just the mental image of that should get companies scurrying to make things right. or Study Warns Parents: Buyer Beware Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version For More Information Child Seat Check Consumer Reports Child and Booster Seat Ratings story by: Courtney Gousman EVANSVILLE - A newly released study done by Consumer Reports says there's a good chance the car seat your child is riding in, may not protect them. NEWS 25 took that new study to the local medical community for reaction. Consumer Reports did safety tests on 12 infant seats. Only two of those seats came back with a stamp of approval. The tests done by the company show Evenflo's Discovery model with the infant seat flying off its base. Consumer Reports claims this model even failed to meet Federal Government standards. "We found actually quite a few failures. Most of the seats we tested did not perform well," says Don Mays of Consumer Reports. The company says just because it's on the shelves, doesn't mean it's safe and you should be picky when picking a car seat. The consumer reports tests show some of the seats that met Government standards will not protect your child in an accident. Federal Government guidelines mandate car seats pass a 30-mile per hour frontal crash. Consumer reports tested 12 seats at 30 mph head on, and 38 mph in a side impact. Ten of the twelve seats performed poorly on the tests. An expert in child safety seats says this report should be taken with a grain of salt.

Don't know of many turbos packaged between the cylinder banks.

Let me summarize: Flint: Why People Buy Cars Detroit does not get it! Vehicles are a tool! Vehicles must be versatile tools for it to be worth 30 grand. My comments to Flint: AH - OK - Yea sure! (As I scratch my head.) Yea, what exactly does Detroit not get? They are very good - great at building versatile tools. But exactly how does your editorial help Detoit design, build and market vehicles people want?