PurdueGuy

+1, they're actually a lot more efficient than they are given credit for. Recently got 18mpg with mine on a trip to Yellowstone, which involved a lot of slow driving (not efficient), hills (not efficient), and overall climbing from about 4k ft to about 9k ft elevation and back again (not efficient). All that working against it, and it still got 18mpg from the 350 V8. And this is a 4wd model (2wd mode the whole time, but it is lugging around the extra weight of the 4wd system).

Funny, but what does this have to do with "the coasts"? There are a lot of places not along the coasts that this could easily apply to, and lots of places along the coasts that this wouldn't apply to...

You give us essentially no information, but want our advise? How can that advise be worth anything? I think most of us on here aren't so biased that we can't see the value of a non-GM truck.

That's a good point - for those that live in very hilly or even mountainous areas, sometimes the larger engine actually ends up giving better mpgs, because the engine isn't as overworked. It's also very unnerving to be in a car going over a mountain pass, and the car progressively loses speed as you climb, even with downshifting. People that live in cities or flat areas really don't understand how important some extra power can be for some situations that some people deal with on a regular basis.

Is there anything Honda can't do? First they make cars, then an airplane, now locomotives?

I always thought the cateras looked nice, but those 3.0L engines have a baaad reputation, not just for a few problems, but for being an absolute pain to work on. Same goes for the L-Series & early Vue with the same engine. The L-Series has some great characteristics, particularly being a VERY lightweight midsize car (just below or just above 3k lbs, depending on 4 or 6 cyl). If it weren't for electrical gremlins (seemingly also fixed toward the end of the model years) and the issues with the 3.0L, it would be a terrific car IMO (though not terribly exciting).

I'm confused... what struts? The only thing I can think of is that you're thinking of the 90's style tailgate 'burbans where the upper glass swings up (with struts) and the tailgate swings down. The 80's burbans have roll-down glass in the tailgate.

Looks nice, but 2wd doesn't cut it 'round here.

I will definitely be confusing this with the Prius from the side.

I'd still love to see GM manage to turn most if not all of the brands into true "brands", instead of separate divisions and dealerships. Have two, maybe three dealership networks. Chevy, Niche vehicles, and Cadillac, possibly pairing the niche vehicles with a Chevy or Cadillac dealer. The Niche vehicles include vehicles branded as Pontiacs, Saturns, GMC, Saab, Buick, or whatever new brand GM may want to invent, but those brands do not have the baggage that they currently do - dealership agreements, etc. Chevy does volume, Caddy does luxury, and this third division does everything else, with whatever name is best slapped on the product, as the market will support. There's support for a tough off-road vehicle? Great, design and build it, slap on the Hummer name. For a while, maybe there is no demand for rugged trucks, so don't make anything with the Hummer name. Better than scrambling to keep a brand alive and watering it down by slapping "Hummer" on a midsize car. Research shows that a mid-level midsize car might sell? Build it & call it a Buick. Heck, bring back Olds this way. *edit* In all reality, this would probably cost so much to do that it would never happen outside of some kind of bankruptcy restructure or something.

I'm asking you to not make assumptions, or state when you are, instead of presenting your guesses as facts.

The difference is that the numbers aren't known. 1. You don't know that GM is losing money from running the solstice/sky plant. They might be, but you don't know that. There is certainly an opportunity cost of under-utilizing a plant, and there are fixed costs that aren't dispersed across a large volume of product, but you don't know the numbers. They may be using some lean techniques that keep their fixed costs down, and don't require as much volume of product. I don't know that... but neither do you. 2. I want to say the Astra has been admitted to be a money loser. Let's say they're losing $2k on each one (ouch!). At 1k cars a month, that's $24k loss over a year. Hardly a notable contribution toward a brand losing "Billions". It's still a situation that needs fixed, but it does not significantly contribute toward you made up numbers. 3. Considering the shared costs with the other platform mates, the Aura may not need to sell in great volume to bring a profit. You don't know if the Aura is making or losing money. But of course you want to assume that Saturn is losing tons of money, so you need every car to be losing money, so you assume again that the Aura is. But, if you were honest, you don't know. 4. The outlook again has major shared costs with the other platform mates, especially the Acadia. It may not take much volume to make a profit. But again, you assume it's losing money, because that fits your agenda. But, you don't know that. Yes, GM has admitted to losses with Saturn. What's the difference? There is a HUGE difference between a brand losing millions and billions. You still unreasonably act as if Pontiac is losing money, when it's not. You want to kill whatever you want to kill, ignoring real, known numbers and making up your own to back up your own ideas of what GM should do. I'm not necessarily against killing Saturn. It isn't selling in great volume, and it's buyer base has been thoroughly confused. The plan to move the brand upward toward mid-level cars doesn't seem to be working. The brand originally meant to sell small cars has lost sales incrementally with each new iteration of small car (S-Series sold very well, Ion not so much, Astra has been essentially a flop). There are many great reasons to claim GM should kill Saturn that don't require MAKING UP NUMBERS. So please, come back to reality and back your arguments with facts.

While I will probably continue to somewhat like/follow Saturn whatever it may be, I agree that this is a good philosophy for Saturn. Killing it is probably better than starving it and changing it's focus every 2 years, resulting in an ever alienating brand that confuses every customer.

It's not a valid comparison - the gov't isn't TRYING to get states to agree on a speed limit standard. They have a system in place in which the speed limit standard is used to set the amount of federal funding a state gets for roads. Therefore states that have need to build lots of new roads generally have lower speed limits, whereas the ones that do not need lots of new roads have higher speed limits. There isn't any strong reason, and there isn't any big movement to get states to agree on a speed limit standard. What would be the purpose of standardizing a national speed limit? Put speed limiters on cars so they can't speed? (Except that they still can in any areas that aren't at the max speed limit, plus being able to speed in a tight situation can help avoid an accident...) Also, our gov't doesn't have the money to fund a "moon landing" type project for emissions, and it's not fair to force that upon the private sector, which considering the economic status of our country would simply further destroy our remaining businesses.

If automakers have to build cars to meet the strictest standard... that's CA. It's a situation where suddenly CA has a lot of power by default, and "green" politicians can leverage one state to push their agendas. It's more a problem with politics than with the state of CA itself.

As has been said, that's completely different. Cars can easily be made to be compatible with all speed limit standards. You could add a crapload of emissions controls to all cars and make them meet the tightest emissions standards, and therefore meet them all, but emissions equipment generally works against mpg (as well as cost), which is the other thing that washington is pushing hard on the automakers. They're being pulled in both directions.

I'm well aware of opportunity cost. I'm just amazed that you continue to defend the making up of numbers, and are ignorant to your own agenda, even as you throw you own bias out there in the same sentence. I have said a number of times that at this point, it may be best to kill Saturn. The difference is I don't make up fake numbers to defend my points, and I consider multiple options. You continue to push your one idea of what GM should look like, and twist or create facts to justify it. Then claim you have no agenda.

I'm fine with 2 standards. 2 standards does not cause great difficulty or harm to automakers. I am not fine with CA dictating pollution controls to all other states. I am also not fine with more than 2, maaaaaybe 3, standards. That just gets stupid complicated.

But you made up numbers - pulled them right out of your butt like you always do. You ASSume that Saturn lost billions in the last few years alone. You made that up. You do not know that. I never claimed Saturn has been turning a profit in recent years - and you are right that it has been pretty well indicated that it has not. That is NOT the same as being able to say that Saturn has lost GM BILLIONS in the last few years. You have your own opinion/agenda, and I wouldn't be so annoyed with you pushing it if you could back it up with FACTS, instead of lying to push your ideas. Would you opinion change about Saturn if it were revealed that it has been very close to breaking even constantly for the last several years, instead of losing billions like you imagine? Probably not, but it would sure change how a lot of other people look at the situation. All I am trying to say is to STOP PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR BUTT. You can have any opinion you want, but back it with facts, not lies or made up numbers (same thing).

a) show me where Saturn has lost billions in the last few years. b) The sale of Saturn wouldn't have included any product or manufacturing facilities. Remember, Spring Hill builds the Traverse. It's also a terrific factory in terms of quality and productivity. Where is this "dead" factory? Or were you saying to randomly throw in some shuttered factory?

I also think this would be awesome to see. Advances in materials hopefully would allow for panels that have reduced gaps, while costing less. A new S-Series could include the ecotec engines (great engines, no need to have Saturn engineering their own this round). Include a quad coupe, sedan, and wagon, all at around 2500lbs and getting at least 40mpg highway, and start them off at a very low entry price. Also make them simple to work on like the original. I'm not holding my breath though - setting up a polymer production facility again is an extra investment that GM probably isn't excited to make right now.

Show me evidence that GM loses money on the G6.

Surely you have heard of Myanmar in the news in recent months. Hint: we as a country should avoid being compared to them in any way...

+1 for newegg. Very good prices, variety, and it's easy to get something replaced if you have an issue. Was building a new computer for my dad this december, and the mobo ended up having a problem. The replacement was approved instantly, no waiting to see if someone believed me or not. I've rarely had to get something replaced, but the two or thee times (across five or six computer builds) I have, it wasn't a problem (though it is frustrating to wait on shipping, but they are very quick to ship).

Cooperate with a European company? Which one you want, Saab or Opel? I think GM is big enough that it doesn't need any more access to foreign markets, or sharing among divisions or whatnot to achieve economies of scale. IMO, GM just needs to focus on doing what it does better, not be distracted by complicated deals where it hopes to capitalize on some other company's strength, rather than address it's own weaknesses... One thing we can hope this does, is kill off the deals between Chrysler and Chinese automakers for small cars.