VenSeattle

Hmmm... I could drive down this weekend... or take the Train. Train would be better... Hmmm... http://www.portlandautoshow.com/

Compared to what? The SL isn't any better from what I can tell. KBB & Edmunds both show it holds its resale value similar to other vehicles in its class.

Cadillac DTS?

I compared the engineering cost to a complete clone of a another vehicle (9-7x) but that's beside the point. I better understand what you’re trying to say. I'm shocked that it actually cost so much to engineer a floor shifter for a platform that already offers it on other vehicles (the Deville/DTS even offered both). You do not know how much I wish you would have been successful against the bean counters. The lousy POS console that the 97-01 PA had was horribly flimsy and didn't match the interior quality found in the rest of the vehicle (luckily, pressure-relief points kept most of the pieces from breaking off… I could re-attach them. The writing pad was a complete joke. I’m left-handed.) I'm much happier with the 02-05 console I have but would have preferred the shifter to be on the floor. I just like the exterior/interior styling of the Park Avenue better than any of the other G-Platform siblings. I agree that if Buick would have provided a floor shifter in the 97 PA (optional for base; standard on Ultra) it would have appealed more to import buyers. At the time the LS400 only had 250-260hp. A 240hp Park Avenue Ultra with a floor-shifter would have been an appealing & less expensive alternative. It's a shame that the Lucerne can be $5,000+ less expensive than the Park Avenue and offer both almost a decade later (decade too late).

Okay... Beside the powertrain (which an update should be coming), what standard & available "features" are becoming common place on $26k-$34k sedans that the Lucerne is lacking? I can only think of one feature: Power telescoping Steering Wheel -- Other than the hard lower dash plastic (which is low gloss and nicely textured) I really can't see how you can fault the entire interior as an "embarassment at $26,000."

What he said! Whitewall... or Whitewall and Chrome The Impala SS rims make the Caddy look custom, but any GM person will know you're putting Chevrolet Rims on a Cadillac.... not classy IMO.

The UV8 is the NorthStar's successor. It's part of a new family of engines that the eventual V12 will come from.

Bobo is right. It's www.gmfamilyfirst.com. When I was with EDS, that is where I had to go.

I've had two years of Spanish and only 101 in French. I plan on continuing them both, but I'ml focusing on Spanish at the moment.

Yes I watched it... thought it was great. It's one of the few shows I actually watch these days. I just bought Season 1 on DVD. The other show I want season 1 for is ROME. Can't wait for Season 2 to start.

Hehe... Happy Birthday NOS!

Yes, GM paid the development costs to have column shifters and bench-seats for 4 vehicles. The costs couldn't have been that great when compared to a single rebadge like the SAAB 9-7x. Remember that the previous Century, LeSabre, & Deville were predominately bench/column only, and accounted for approx 300,000 annual sales. I don't see it as a waste when it's a minor engineering cost for retaining 6-figure sales. However, when GM is building an entire "4-vehicle/ 7-bodystyle" line-up catering to 32,000 sales... I find it a waste.

Do you know what is NOT illegal in Washington? Heh...This shocked a lot of us up here.

Uhm... it was Jim Press who made the generalized comment, not a C&G member. He didn't say from DCX, VW, or BMW. He said "new car from Germany." If the Toyota Motor sales president and chief operating officer says it, then it must be true.

The interior styling may be a let down to some, but it looks like it held up VERY well in this 11 year old car. It still looks new (minus the after-market wood trim package). The mid-90's weren't as dark as people want to believe. GM turned a new leaf with the new G-platform vehicles.

The shift in production is for Epsilon II. I believe the Cadillac BLS & current SAAB 9-3 are still built in Trollhattan. Even if the production shift is the cause for 2005, then try explaining the $200 million they lost in 2004. Half a Billion in losses for the passed two years alone.

Yeah, a Lambda-derived sedan platform would have been perfect to go up against Ford's "P2/D3/whatever Lincoln calls it" platform...

How about this one? I've always thought the Q45 would make a great Buick flagship.

Happy Birthday Croc! What's up with your new sig?

Simple google search should suffice for credibility at the moment (remember SAAB has their own engineering & design teams. The SAAB 900/9-3 & 9-5 aren't simply rebadged GM products.)... A review on the 1996 SAAB 900: SAAB 9-5: Epinions review...

Yes they are... the last gen 900/9-3 and current 9-5 are on the last gen Opel Vectra platform which also became the Saturn L-Series. The 9-5 platform is an extended wheelbase version of the old Vectra platform.

I didn't indicate which side I was on. I left it undecided. I was not defaming SAAB or blaming it for its current state. I merely commented that SAAB is burning money... "the reason why" did not pertain to my point. But I will go ahead and state my position: GM has obviously been investing in SAAB. The last two generations of 900s/9-3s were on GM platforms. The 9-5 was mostly new as recently as the 1999MY and received a facelift for 2006. SAAB was never more than a niche premium brand and has been a two product line-up for as long as I can remember. SAAB has had several "slogan/tag lines" and numerous marketing attempts trying to promote the "SAAB-ness" of the brand while playing down GM's roll. GM added free mainenance for SAAB owners. SAAB has also maintained their own staff of SAAB engineers and designers to oversee product development. All this takes money. The market didn't bite. The all new 9-3 product line didn't set sales on fire. GM added a couple new products: 9-2x & 9-7x. Market still didn't bite. I came across this article that mentioned a $530 million upgrade GM paid for SAAB's Trollhattan plant. It also discussed a now defunct $3-Billion product plan that GM had for SAAB. GM originally wanted SAAB to become equal to Cadillac, at least in Europe... that was a blast from the past. I almost forgot about that. It was so long ago, and hard to believe now. But, proof of investment is there. You may disagree with the decisions (allocation, reallocation, cancellations, etc) but it's there. SAAB didn't get the entire $3-Billion investment (which the current 9-3 sedan, convertible, and now wagon were part of) but the product didn't meet sales expectations either and SAAB's expenses continue to be paid for out of the GM corporate account which is running dry at the moment. A 38,000 customer base in the US isn't anything to be proud of... especially when it involves a 4 vehicle product line to manufacture (two exclusive to the US) in order to reach those 38,000 buyers. GM's primary reason to hold onto SAAB is because SAAB's "international/European" reputation as a premium/luxury brand. SAAB only sold 82,000 in Europe for 2005... that was a good year. Toyota, Nissan, & Honda are all preparing to launch their luxury brands (or already have) in Europe which have no pre-established presence. Since GM has decided to push for Cadillac to go global, I'd prefer GM concentrate on Cadillac's performance in Europe's Luxury market and Buick & Cadillac in the US luxury market. GM already has a head start with Cadillac in Europe compared to the Japanese premium brands. Yes, I say GM should sell SAAB. As originally stated, SAAB loyalists don't even want GM to own SAAB... so it would be a win/win if GM would sell it to someone else. I don't think SAAB is a lost cause. I just think someone else can do better. GM doesn't need SAAB to accomplish its goals and SAAB shouldn't continue to suffer while finding its place in GM.

Semantics... either way: 1) a Bev Hill's teen with a credit card or 2) a terminally ill patient on life support they both burn through cash... so WHY are you taking exception to my comment? You can try putting words in my mouth but I never indicated a bias towards SAAB or GM being the problem. Besides, you were originally using the "lack of GM product investment" as a defense to your assumption that SAAB hasn't cost GM a lot of money over the past several years, when I've shown you that SAAB has cost GM quite a bit. If your point was what Turborush said then you should have said it instead of "taking an exception" to something you yourself have finally conceded to (see quote). Turborush's post had no contradiction to my post. It just helped in explaining why SAAB isn't profitable.

Uhm... he said... Uhm... and I replied... The cost is at least in the Billions so far, because GM's been paying every penny since 2000. GM hasn't broken even on the investments to develop the new 9-3, refreshed 9-5, rebadged 9-7x or 9-2x. Oh... and not to mention the costs to maintain "SAAB specific" facilities and the annual salaries of all the "SAAB specific" employees in Sweden (between 5,500-6,000 employees) My original post had nothing to do with GM's mismanagement of SAAB or neglect of SAAB's line-up. He only took exception the the "SAAB has burned through a lot of GM dollars" comment. Please reread my original post for verification. Your point is different from his "exception".

If that's the case, then why is SAAB unprofitable? What (of any consequence) has GM spent money on in the past 5 years? I think the investment costs for SAAB's versions are attached to the SAAB division... and SAAB still isn't turning a profit so all the costs haven't been recouped.