regfootball

rip on it for what you can. escalade brought BIG dollars into caddy at a sorely needed time. rip it, but the public paid huge for them.

biz, your post hit a lot of right things. I do think the VW version will fix many of the Doge/Chry flaws with the seating. they did try to outsmart themselves. styling is a flaw. new vans look like cargo vans. last gen looked like stretched puffy wagons. money is tight, and chrysler knows it and is already 5k off list on these things. still for me, as nasty as it is, i might just do a 3 year old freestar and live with the crudeness. at least the 2nd row is comfortable and i can likely find something in the 10 grand range.

Chrysler's demise may well rest on abandoning the Intrepid size FWD line, focusing on RWD and Hemi's, and then tanking it on the Sebring / Avenger. RWD may not pan out to have saved Chrysler like everyone thought when the 300 first came out.

odyssey is decent but its not isolated enough from bumps and transmissions of the road through the steering. cabin is not hush quiet. it holds the road decently. power is alright. cabin is ok. the mouse fur velour is very 80's. dash is kind of grandpa. both the toyota and nissan are worthy of a look, even if the ody may drive the most like a car. chrysler really hosed up the 2nd and 3rd row seats on the new vans. both the swivel and go and stow and go are flawed in termed of seating comfort. they do nice tricks, but their primary function suffers because of it. the vw routan kinda fixes the things about the grand caravan that are deal killers, the boxy upright rear, bad 2nd row seating, cheap dash. the more loaded T&C interiors are not bad once you get in there, like I did at the auto show this past weekend. the dodge's more spartan gray interior really is not up to the task. i'll say this, there are big deals to be had on these right now. I wouldn't get one unless it had the 4.0.

insignia is better!

not according to the order guide for 09

funny how everyone that thought RWD was the big end all, RWD and Hemi focus may be the thing that sidetracked Chrysler and will ultimately kill it. meanwhile, people scoop up fwd cars. like the old intrepid was.

i have no issues with this, buickman. how much does nardoofie make?

a friend whose pilot lease is due this summer tells me his wife (she dictates what they get even though he makes all the coin) has said they will be getting a new highlander as their next vehicle. wanna take a guess why? keep in mind she has NO clue about anything related to cars, however she does read magazines, and watch tv, and surf the net.

saturn buyers don't really want RWD sedans

USA and Canada SHOULD merge. the US dems would rejoice from getting socialized medicine and higher taxes and the enrons that pump the repub machine would be ecstatic for all that oil they could profit from even more.

http://www.autoextremist.com/current/ plenty of delorenzo rant about the koreans and vw too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/brain_diesel_dc Diesel fumes can affect your brain, scientists say

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080307/volvo_relocation.html?.v=1 Volvo Relocating US Headquarters From Southern California to New Jersey (dang, who's gonna buy my condos now?, another one leaves irvine)

hey, i'm reasonable

just like there is no way to differentiate all the umpteen different bland asian brands is that a forester? no, it's a rav.....wait. it's an outlander! no.....hold on...............oh yeah, that's a rogue. wait! it's a CRV! gm brands are better differentiated than all the soulless asian crap.

mits needs badly a new galant and endeavor. and a murano competitor. the eclipse is a neatly unique option for coupes although it may pay off to revert to the last gen eclipse formula next time. outlander is the funtionally best of the rice cute utes, engine aside. it has a USEFUL cargo area and ginormous seating and is not ugly like the crv and not cheap and tinny like the rav 4 and its not tiny and girlie like the rogue. honda would rather sell high school boy fart can civics than build something that could take on the evo. toyota knows they have no cred as a performance car maker so they are too wuss to even try. it shocks me that subaru has an sti when their bread and butter is estorgen laced stuff like the LL bean cars and stuff.

you know, it's funny. your pontiac strategy sounds good and workable. it is a shame they are not implementing it. but my real question is, if you kill pontiac, now what is your avenue for selling that same type of car? Chevy? ok, let's have a FWD Malibu, a RWD alpha sedan, a FWD Impala, a RWD Impala (because all the older folks like sport tuned suspensions), a RWD Caprice (because the impala and caprice don't overlap), cobalt sedan, hmmm, what else? again, all toyota sells is vanilla appliances. toyota has only really ever been asked to design and build appliance cars. Pontiac is a performance brand. kill pontiac and insert it into toyota's lineup. ok, that's the same thing as trying to insert it into chevy's. Toyota's only performance heritage is let's see.....supra? what else? the person who wanted the performance car and is hell bent on the zeta or alpha isn't gonna want the toyota badge on it, and the person who wants an appliance will be confused as hell and won't make of it as a toyota either, which muddies up the brand. to some degree that makes you question the SS line and the camaro. valid argument, except a car like the camaro has legacy that toyota products do not. by killing brands you give GM no avenue to sell the type of models you are killing. chevy and cadillac cannot absorb the attributes of the other brands. you would confuse chevy and dumb down cadillac. another thing. i really doubt it's neccessary for caddy to be completely toe to toe with mercedes for example. i would not settle for caddy being third tier junk like acura, but there is no reason for caddy to have sell 6 figure MSRP's to be worthy. the number of brands is not the issue. it's the rate at which they are bringing out the product and lack of speed in decision making.

I saw this at the autoshow on saturday up close. it's a nice looking concept. I'd clean up some of the lines a bit, but overall it's nice.

suzuki's only true suzuki here is the SX4. even their new pickup is stolen. so yeah, they should go. at least mits makes the evo. subaru, toyota, half of honda, kia, hyundai, all can go. mazda and nissan can stay because there is a little product distintineness there. IMHO. because they all sell redundant stuff. blandmobiles. GM get's criticized for having so many brands but the proliferation of all the same bland type of crap cars from japan and korea is the same deal. With Nissan we get nice trucks like the Xterra. we get a GT-R. we get RWD infinitis and FWD altimas. BTW, Suzuki's motorcycles and ATV's suck too. Yamaha or Kawasaki anyday for this guy. Or BMW or KTM or Victory or some Harleys even.

I HOPE YOU CAN RECOGNIZE SATIRE WHEN YOU SEE IT

reading about how Kia's management treats their US employees and how they want to do business here makes me question why people are stupid enough to buy a vehicle made with their name on it at all. much less work there to help promote their mission. most folks do not care. they throw up their hands and give away the farm. because they would rather be negative and make people here in our country the scapegoat. and we have this obsession with welcoming the outsiders in on a white horse when really what they are riding in on is a vacuum cleaner, raking up our cash we leave littered by the driveway. griffon has it right. they are not going to increase r/d and advertising just because they cut brands. the net effect is not going to be that different. especially when you consider Gm would immediately go down in market share.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, DEALERS ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ARE OVERHEAD IN THE PROCESS, AND HONESTLY THE CUSTOMER WOULD RATHER SEE MANY OF YOU GO UNDER TO BE TRUTHFUL. the customer doesn't care if denny hecker or red mccombs needs to make the payment on one of the many commerical real estate buildings they own, or the huge excessive salaries and profits a dealer owner makes. or the sales manager etc. if a customer could, they most likely would prefer a factory direct experience to make the buying process easier and cut the profit, fat and overhead out of the price of THEIR car. I am for eliminating the dealer and their greedy mugs as much as possible in this equation to the point you still get sufficient vehicle service after the sale. we criticize the car companies to make them take out the fat in manufacturing and design and management, it's time the dealers pay in blood and get rid of the fat and gravy train. downsize your 275 man op. to stay in budget, like GM has to do. stay lean.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE....YOU CANNOT CUT YOUR DEALER NETWORK IN HALF OR MORE OVERNIGHT. IT WILL BE A CONTINUOUS PROCESS THAT OCCURS OVER YEARS. LIKEWISE THE SAME REASONS YOU CANNOT GO FROM 8 BRANDS TO 2 OVERNIGHT.

it's not head in the sand. i come at more from things GM has done right lately instead of constant focus on negative woe is me BS. as if to assume it's written in stone there is no way for GM to trend upward. which is the BS i am calling you and EVERYONE on.