91z4me

The 3.6 DOHC and 4.7 Ultra series V8, possibly a SOHC arrangement although DOHC or 3V/cyl SOHC is possible, are expected to power the Lamda crossovers and vans.

D*mn you thought of that already didn't you? I did find a history of the Vector auto company, for kids, while searching the library of congress but I am sure it wasn't nearly the same level of detail. You wouldn't have heard of a "All Corvettes Are Red" type of thing for the 5th gen would you?

I am still trying to find the name of the book to learn who you are. :AH-HA_wink:

You do realize he would just sell off anything that would be profitable and then take his money and run, right?

I doubt that SAAB will have a RWD based drivetrain on any further models, 9-7 excluded it was a rebadge and a pretty quick one to boot. The 9-5 will go on EPII long and wide. I think there will be 2 different Epsilons one SWB 9-3 and Pontiac and one long with the longer one being wider, LaCrosse and Chevy midsize

GTR Skyline anyone? Also wouldn't it be 400Z since the 350Z uses a 3.5 L V6 and the Nissan V8 is a 4.0?

Good to know.

Rick NEVER pretended to be a car guy. He knew that he needed the right people so he brought in a bunch of people from other companies, Lutz included. I don't think Maximum Bob wants the reigns to the company. He is in his late 70s and has got a job which I am sure he loves. He gets to help shape the cars of the future without worrying about the board breathing down his back or worrying about the plants or other things. He just helps shape the cars, sounds like the perfect job if you ask me. Edit: That said I just lost a lot of respect for Mr. Wagoner. :angry:

I am intersted in speculation from our insiders at this point. Also I just want to keep tabs on this.

Actually I doubt the 4 cylinder Atlas cost very much to make. It uses the same pistons and conecting rods as the 5 and 6. It uses the same head minus 2 cylinders. It has probably the same or similar programing in the computer and the geometry of the intake and exhaust paths are identical per cylindger. Why not make a GREAT inline 6 and use it to make a GREAT inline4? Makes sense to me, logical and financial.

Dude you could paint that car baby poop brown and put a big turd on the grill and I would drive it.

I know of one that would fit. Look under the hood of the Suzuki Verona/Chevy Epica. I just hope some more power can be pulled from that little I6.

Yes and it will become more profitable each year that the Chinese market grows. The Korean market is also doing quite well. With Daewoo's lower cost for engineering I could see them becoming very integral to small car sales and design in the future.

Sound like it will be Epsilon based. Probably a preview of the next 9-3 front end and tail, for the vert.

CTS-V 500 300C If I had to Lexus IS Jaguar S type

Hows about not just 3 RWD cars again? How about 3 different RWD 4 seater platforms? It is looking like VE may get a plant in the US afterall. That is right Sigma, Sigma lite, AND VE in the US. Could be a VERY exciting show year for RWD fans.

In reality a better way to think of GM brands is to consider them marketing divisions. GM builds the cars that its marketing entities market and they are sold by dealers. Chevy doesn't sell the actual cars the dealers do and that limits the control of Chevy, the marketing division, and GM, the producer.

I think the SAAB should disappear from NA as quickly as possible. If it is making a profit in Europe or not should not impact its departure from NA. Let SAAB take away moneys from Europe's pocket and keep its NA budget for Buick and Saturn. I forsee SAAB and Satrun butting heads in a few years and GM doesn't need another Buick vs Oldsmobile battle. Buick I think will find its niche. A LWB Epsilon, Zeta, and 2 crossovers and it is complete. All product's could be versions of other divisions products and costs could easily be made up for with its higher price point.

Jim, the UAW is rallying behind you because they think that you carry enough clout to get their objectives accross the table. They don't look at things objectively as neither do you or anyone associated with GM, as I am sure you have heard. The problem with calling for a strike and a strong line with the union is that a strike will not help anyone. Lets say that the worker's in Delphi's plants strike. OK now GM is crippled because they have no parts to assemble vehicles. Now GM has to idle the entire factory work force, UAW members. GM looses a LOT of money everyday it idles a plant. By idling all the plants GM looses TONS of money that could be invested into new products. If a strike were to occur all work on future vehicles would come to a stand still. GM would be hurt and hurt bad. Until either the strike ended, and trust me GM will remember this come 2007, or until replacement workers were pulled in and brought up to steam. See the BIGGEST problem with the UAW is how they see themselves. Ask a person who works at say a Flint plant who they work for and you will most likely get this answer "I work for the UAW." That is the biggest problem right there. They don't see themselves as GM employees they see themselves first off as UAW members and as GM employees second. That is NOT how it should be. As for UAW members looking for leadership, sorry I don't see that. Their elected leaders will provide the only type of leadership they can muster, a false sense of leadership. Union leaders will come in 'demanding' action to help these employees. They will deny any concessions. They will put on a big show and blow a bunch of hot air. They might act tough but they aren't in the driver's seat right now. GM made the first move Delphi. Delphi is a crushing blow for the UAW. Eventhough nothing has been settled in this it set a precedent. The companies ARE willing to declare bankruptcy to get their act together. If the UAW doesn't blink then the court will do it for them. GM will be the nice big brother it is and say "Ok we will help out the UAW with some of these employees BUT remember this in a few years." Guys the writing is on the walls all you gotta do is read it now.

OK so lets say they invest in GM, the company that pays their salaries a novel idea I know. Now they have a tiny intrest in the company. Lets say they get 1 person on the board of directors. Who do they choose? The leader's of the UAW aren't exactly experts on the workings of a multi-national, giant company like GM are they? They don't have the industrial expertice of many of our insiders who have studied the industry for decades. Basically they don't have the capability to make informed decisions that are good for the company's future. Also would they really have the companies best intrest at heart? Lets use an example, would a UAW member have voted on starting studies to determine the cost/benefit rational behind bringing the Holden designed and built Monaro to the states as the GTO? They would see it as GM using its overseas power to take away workers from the US. Workers that could have built the car here. Workers that would strengthen their position on the board, because as we all know human beings are in essensce selfish creatures who do what they do for them and if it benefits others then great if not then that is fine too. Now would the UAW hire someone who knows the industry and the workings of said giant company? Probably not but lets play devil's advocate. Who do they hire? Bob Lutz is a global product specialists. He has worked for MANY auto companies and has seen what has worked and what has not. He was already brought in, does GM need another person like that sitting in a boardroom, NO. Do they hire a 'investment specialist' from Wall Street? Basically this would be someone who doesn't know autos, who has probably never changed his own oil or worked in a factory, who comes from money and will die in money. This is NOT the type of person who GM needs on the board. They would be doing what Kerkorian is doing, looking out for short term profits. Basically buickman your not coming up with true answers. You seem to be trying to feel out the best ideas so you can use them to garner support. I am a 24 year old male with no connection to the auto industry, save personal intrest in a company I like. I know you have decades of experience but look I just took an idea that you thought was good enough to throw in the lake and see if you got a bite and I refuted it as useless and unneeded within a couple of paragraphs. Wasn't this what happened in Willmington this year? You were shut out and put out because you don't know enough to be of anything more than an annoyance to the board. I think a lot of your ideas have merit but your audience is wrong. You should be directing your ideas to the dealers, because hey it is what you know. And I am sure you know it well, your experience speaks for itself. But in the board room you pose no threat to anyone other than yourself. When you bring up ideas that are not thought out completely you discredit yourself. I advise, one again, that you put your differences with Rick Wagner aside and move on. Your 'plan' isn't going to be sold now or EVER to the board. You should reformulate your ideas and make your target the dealers. They need tons of help. The service, sales, and localized marketing need to be improved to help the overall company. But the dealer's are individual entities not controlled by GM. They are franchises, as I am sure you know. You are well respected among this group and you carry power with your experience. Please heed my warnings step back and pick a new audience, re-think your plan and go anew.

Most workers couldn't care less if they were making televisions or cars so long as they get their money, trust me I know quite a few UAW members, and my mother is a member of the steelworker's union. They have no business being represented on the board unless they own stock.

Hogan I thought that TE was going to Spring Hill. Did I miss something?

When did they let you back. <_<

Spring Hill is getting Theta/Epsilon based crossovers for Caddy and SAAB. Nothing to see here, move along people.

They will be based on both Theta and Epsilon II. They basic structure would probably be Theta based, it is more advanced, and would have AWD capability. This structure is rumored to underpin the BRX and 9-4x. The Caddy will most likely be 7 seat and the 9-4 I will guess will also be 7 seat. We will see the BRX this autoshow season most likely at NY. I expect the Caddy to use the 2.8 HF and 3.6 HF and 6 speed auto with AWD standard. The 9-4 will most likely be FWD with AWD optional and use the 2.0 turbo 4 standard with the 2.8 HF turbo optional. The kicker is if we will see a Chevy version. It would replace the MaXX which we know is dead past the redesign. Heck I could see calling it MaXX only or it could have a Retro wagon flair and be called Nomad. Either way I will be happy.