pow

I love how they give you pepperoncini and cheesy, runny "garlic" sauce.

Most cars these days have inflated speedometers to compensate for aftermarket upsized wheels.

All our cars are fine - the Volvo is 21 y/o and even that won't die - so unless something radically different comes to the market, like an electric car, we won't be buying new for a while. However, a "cash for clunkers" program, which has been effective in Germany and Britain, might get me to replace my Passat earlier than planned. A 2011 Fiesta would be very tempting by the time I graduate...

They sold it to a privately-owned Chinese-based company... not China. And besides, the consumer HUMMER brand has nothing of national importance to the US. Sichuan Tengzhong won't exactly be getting secret, advanced military technology. Instead, they will invest in a HUMMER that's been starved of resources, keeping the same management team, dealership base, 3,000 workers, headquarters, and operations.

When cars were America's idols STATUS: A Cadillac, this one a 1958 Eldorado, topped GM’s “Ladder of Success,” a shrewd marketing strategy that welded a link between who we are and what we drive. --- Dan Neil June 1, 2009 If you were to walk up to a typical New York executive in the 1960s -- think Don Draper in AMC's "Mad Men" -- and tell him that General Motors Corp. would be in bankruptcy by 2009, he would have thought you were delusional, or perhaps a Communist. GM was more than just the world's largest and most admired corporation; it was the final vindication of the American Way, the perfected and even divinely inspired example of democratic capitalism that stood opposed to the airless atheism and nullity of the Soviet system. Or imagine that you were somehow able to drag Nikita Khrushchev from the United Nations podium into the street to confront -- no, behold -- a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz. Nearly 19 feet long from its Jayne Mansfield-like bumpers to its rocket-like tail lamps, a lyric in steel and mirrored chrome, as bright and beautiful as a ripe plum is sweet, and yet just ever so slightly obscene. Khrushchev would have dropped his shoe. Surely a company, a country, that could produce such an object would last forever. At the height of its power, GM represented 10% of the national economy. It controlled more than 50% of the light-vehicle market. Its products, research and management methodologies were the standard of the world. Along the way, GM had, rather accidentally, invented American consumerism. Longtime Chairman Alfred Sloan's program of "planned obsolescence" -- making annual, often minor changes in the products in such a way as to make last year's model hopelessly unfashionable -- put Americans on the acquisitive treadmill they are panting on yet today. Another of Sloan's big ideas was the "Ladder of Success," whereby the company's brands -- Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick and Cadillac -- corresponded to ascending social status. The Ladder of Success was, in fact, an automotive caste system, a program of class stratification. Armed with the power of modern scientific marketing and advertising, GM was able to weld an existential link between who we are and what we drive. A society obsessed with mobility had found its muse. Chollos and homeboys cherished that '62 Impala. Redneck country boys had to have that 400-cubic-inch Trans Am. Texas moms loved their blot-out-the-sun Suburban. Playas rode up on Escalades and Hummers with 22-inch wheels. The diversity of GM's product offerings became a lens through which to diffract American life, which is another way to say GM traded in automotive identity politics. When GM President Charles Wilson lightly said in 1953 (during his confirmation hearings for secretary of Defense) that "what was good for the country was good for GM, and vice versa," he synthesized a very big idea: GM and the U.S., each vast conglomerates, each general and united in their own ways, had undergone a de facto merger. The final chapter of that merger plays out this week as GM weathers a reorganization that will leave the federal government owning 70% of the company. In the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, it's hard not to see GM's bankruptcy as a signal moment in a larger history. If mighty GM can fail, cannot also the United States? And the answer is, absolutely. This is the lesson of GM's bankruptcy, and it has little to do with market share and miles per gallon. It's a rebuff of the notion of exceptionalism. Any organization that fails to sufficiently safeguard its means of self-correction and reform, that forsakes long-term investment for short-term gain, that piles up debt year after year, will eventually fail, no matter how grand its history or noble its purpose. If you don't feel the tingle of national mortality in all this, you're not paying attention. Many will step forward this week to recite the familiar litany of complaints against GM: It treated its customers poorly; it built boring and awful cars that alienated generations of buyers; it built binge-drinking dinosaurs and murdered the electric car. It bet the farm -- or at least southern Michigan -- on America's lust for big iron, trucks and SUVs, which left GM undefended when gas prices peaked at around $4 a gallon last year. Its executive leadership was myopic and insular, its board packed with thumb-twiddling cronies. If corporate mismanagement were a crime, you could lock up every one of these guys and throw the key in the Detroit River. In his book "The Fifties," David Halberstam described what many regard as the moment of GM's original sin: In 1958, after a long-standing prohibition, it became permissible to discuss the company's stock price in management meetings. From there, it was only a matter of time before the company twisted in Wall Street's wind and strategic decisions were calibrated according to dividend pennies. I have my own theory. In 1999-2000, GM had a golden opportunity to right its ship by backing Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore. This might seem counter-intuitive, at least, since the auto industry has long postured against Democratic candidates as being pro-regulation and anti-business. Gore himself is an avowed enemy of the internal-combustion engine. And yet, by backing Gore, who had the support of organized labor, GM would have gained enormous goodwill with the United Auto Workers, goodwill it desperately needed as it attempted to downsize in the new century. Gore also argued for universal healthcare, a program that, had it become reality, might have relieved GM and the other domestic carmakers of that burden. In testimony before Congress in 2006, GM's former chairman, Rick Wagoner, said the company had spent $5.3 billion on healthcare in 2005 alone, more than it had spent for steel. Elsewhere, Wagoner said healthcare was the single biggest competitive disadvantage the company faced, amounting to a $1,500 handicap on every vehicle produced. A Gore administration also would have raised fuel economy standards for carmakers and instituted a significant tax on gasoline; either move would probably have blunted GM's continuing and foredoomed reliance on the full-size truck and SUV market. As it was, the board's pro-business patricians actively opposed the Gore candidacy. The irony is that the Big Government Democrat might have saved GM from the eventual ignominy of bankruptcy and government ownership. It's not that GM hasn't tried to reform. It has. The alarming fact is that GM has done so much right and still failed. In the last decade the company has slashed its white-collar and blue-collar work forces, closed plants, expanded in Asian markets and -- after an agonizing bit of backroom brinkmanship -- struck a deal with the UAW in 2007 that largely brought its labor costs in line with those of foreign manufacturers assembling cars in non-union shops. In the same agreement, GM and the UAW agreed to establish a union-run healthcare trust that would take much of the company's so-called legacy costs off its books. Meanwhile, GM's cars and trucks have got vastly better and some -- the Corvette, the Cadillac CTS, the Saturn Vue and Aura -- are world class. One of the miserable consequences of the government-mandated restructuring is the sale of German subsidiary Opel, which makes cars for Saturn, and the loss of the Saturn division itself, which builds exactly the kinds of cars GM needs going forward. At the same time the company has poured $1 billion into a range-extended electric vehicle program, the Volt, as ambitious as anything in the company's history. In the midst of turning the ship around, GM hit not one but three icebergs: the sudden collapse of the U.S. auto market, the sharp spike in gas prices and the crisis in credit. U.S. auto sales contracted from around 16 million vehicles a year in January 2008 to fewer than 10 million in March. GM's sales plummeted by roughly half, which meant it burned through its cash reserves much more quickly than anyone could have imagined and sent its total debt soaring to more than $60 billion. Bankruptcy was not inevitable, until it was. From a certain historical altitude, GM's problem is fairly simple to appreciate: Call it a prosperity hangover. The company acquired enormous momentum in the postwar boom when the United States was the world's only functioning economy. With no domestic peers and no overseas rivals, in a society frantic for mobility and flush with cash, GM became the colossal incumbent it was. In the decades since 1962 -- the peak of its market dominance -- GM's singular dilemma has been servicing its own over-scaled nature as it competed against a succession of younger, smaller and more agile companies, primarily from Japan. To cite but one example: For years, critics of the company called for the elimination of the Oldsmobile division and the GMC truck division, which sold clonal versions of Chevy trucks. But GM found itself handcuffed to its obstreperous network of dealers who were protected by state franchise laws. It cost GM more than $1 billion to buy out Oldsmobile dealers when, at last, the division was closed in 2004. GM also struggled with its vast and unresponsive, self-perpetuating bureaucracy. When Chairman Roger Smith -- the "Roger" in Michael Moore's skewering "Roger & Me" documentary -- attempted to streamline GM's back-of-the-house operations in the 1980s, the result was chaos. Divisional managers openly subverted the reorganization, hiring new people and reestablishing the old chains of command until they had created a weird rump parliament inside the company. GM's capital outlays soared, while sales and quality plunged. To justify its own size, GM's bureaucracy was neurotically preoccupied with scale, market share and volume, while seemingly agnostic regarding profit. In 2002, GM execs took to wearing lapel pins with "29," indicating their goal to maintain a 29% U.S. market share (GM sales now represent about 20%). Lotus. Hummer. Saturn. Saab. Daewoo. All of these companies were purchased or established in an attempt to increase global volume. Add to that a series of wobbly strategic alliances with Fiat, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru), Suzuki and others, designed to help broaden its reach overseas even as the North American market was deteriorating. In 1992, GM's revenue was $132 billion on sales of 7.7 million vehicles, with a net loss of $23.5 billion; in 2007, revenue was $181.1 billion on sales of 9.37 million vehicles with a net loss of $38.7 billion. In other words, the company was selling millions more cars and losing more money. Large and mature, capital-intensive corporations can achieve a lot, but none ever downsizes gracefully. GM didn't, and Toyota won't when its time comes. It will be painful, it will be ugly and there will be many losers, but GM will emerge out of bankruptcy, in all likelihood before the end of 2009. When it does, it will have shed many of its historical burdens and will still possess a talented workforce, significant physical assets and some of the best minds in the car business. A restructured GM will be a force to reckon with. If I worked for Ford or Toyota, I might be getting a little insomnia by now. This could still be a great company, the company of Harley Earl and Bill Mitchell, of Olds Rocket 88s and Pink Cadillacs and Little Red Corvettes, the company that put a car on the moon, that killed and then resurrected the electric car. The post-imperial GM will be smaller, leaner, smarter and hungrier. I hope. Bankruptcy's purifying fire will burn away debt and, as important, a legacy of comfortable arrogance. And it will be truer than ever: What's good for GM is good for America.

Here's an interesting story, which suggests that won't be the case: 'Vulture' shoppers circle Chrysler dealers -- http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-chry...0,2482457.story

That pretty much describes me... c'est genetique, not much I can do.. not even antacid.

I glow like no other...

Yeah, otherwise there are still 30 Chevy dealers to choose from in the LA metro area.

ML450 Hybrid with Michigan manufacturer plates

Booked one from Sixt for Spain in July. Hopefully it'll be a well spec'd one.

Safety has come a long way...

That's true if you paid attention to what Bob Lutz boasted - but I think the rest of GM has been more conservative and accurate. Snippets from interviews are, unfortunately, quite removed from official press releases at GM. Lutz enjoys making big statements, often much to the chagrin of other GM leaders.

A mass-market hybrid (as well as vastly improved small car offerings) would sell more and help out with GM's current situation, but I think the Volt is an important investment for whatever future GM has. Once they've sold the initial batch of Volts, things will get easier.

All the major manufacturers are using lithium ion batteries on their upcoming plug-ins: Chrysler ENVI, Ford plug-in hybrid, Ford BEV (Smith EV for Transit Connect; Magna for Focus), and Toyota HSD plug-in. Mercedes is using li-ion for their existing no-plug hybrid.

Actually, next November, with "real showroom availability" early 2011, according to Lutz. Still, that's impressive considering they started with nothing in 2007, when they first released the concept Volt. I would argue the concept was vaporware - it had detailed, imaginary specifications when the vehicle itself was powered by a bucket of detergent - but facing enormous public pressure, they had no choice but to begin engineering a production model, and that effort has been earnest and effective, IMO. Kudos to the engineers at GM!

People are holding out for the new model. 50 mpg combined in a no-compromise, reasonably-priced family car.

Noises like these? Meet the Volkswagens - Jetta TDI Meets Prius

I saw one yesterday... in shiny grey, believe it or not. I don't know if that's a factory color, but it's certainly prettier than most new, bloated, red Ferraris.

I think healthy debate is fine - though I agree with 'ya the unsubstantiated omgtehworldisgonnaend name-calling, fear-mongering stuff isn't particularly insightful or helpful. I do think we should take time to read these articles thoughtfully before jumping to outrage.

Agreed. BAS II makes a lot of sense - if it's cheap. There's no reason to burn fuel when you're not moving, and the initial assist will compensate for any turbo lag. The only problem with the current BAS system is that it's priced like a full-hybrid. I can see stop-start technology becoming the next airbag or catalytic converter. BMW plans on having their version - which uses a jumped-up alternator and one battery - on every car they sell.

First Drive: 2010 Buick Regal Could the Insignia Still Make it to America Badged as a Buick? By Angus MacKenzie How's this for culture shock? I'm driving a German-designed Buick alongside a Korean-designed Chevy through the streets of a Chinese city. Welcome to the future of General Motors. GM plans to double its sales in China over the next five years, to two million units. "China remains the centerpiece of our global growth strategy," GM Asia-Pacific boss Nick Reilly said at the Shanghai show, where the GM stand featured 37 models, including the German-designed Buick and Korean-designed Chevy. The Buick is the 2010 Regal. It's an old American nameplate for a brand-new car -- a rebadged version of the Opel Insignia, a stylish Fusion-size sedan that's selling to critical acclaim in Europe, having recently been voted 2009 Car of the Year there by a jury of 59 European auto writers. The Opel-based 2010 Regal replaces the old W-body model that has been sold in China since 2003. Like its predecessor, it's built in China by Shanghai-GM, the joint venture company operated by General Motors and Chinese automaker SAIC. GM is currently selling 5000 new Regals a month in China. (Here's a startling contrast: Buick hasn't sold 5000 a month of anything in the U.S. for some time.) GM originally planned to make and sell this car here in the U.S. as the next-generation Saturn Aura. Saturn was to share Opel's design language as part of GM's global product realignment, but as Todd Lassa reported last year, the company subsequently decided Opel design was to be shared with Buick instead, and the Aura plan was axed. But could the Insignia still make it to America badged as a Buick? That depends. First, GM must get through what will almost certainly be a long and complex bankruptcy to emerge as a much smaller, leaner company with just four brands: Chevy, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. Second, it needs to figure where this Regal would fit in the American Buick lineup. Like the 2010 LaCrosse, the 2010 Regal is built using GM's Epsilon II architecture. However, the Regal sedan rolls on a 4.0-in.-shorter wheelbase and is shorter overall, with a much less roomy rear seat. While the LaCrosse will be powered by 3.0L and 3.6L V-6 engines, the Regal comes only with four-cylinder engines. Base engine is a naturally aspirated 144-hp, 2.0L, while upscale Regals get a 167-hp 2.4L Ecotec. One of GM's Shanghai show debuts was the Regal 2.0T, which is powered by a 217-hp, 2.0L direct-injection turbo four. The Insignia versions of the car in Europe are available with 1.8L gas and 2.0L turbodiesel fours, a 2.8L V-6 turbo, and all-wheel drive. The Regal could therefore be positioned just below the LaCrosse as a slightly smaller, sportier model. Reports in the Canadian media have suggested the Regal could be built at GM's Oshawa, Ontario, plant. However, there's no reason why a post-bankruptcy GM, freed from pesky UAW constraints on what it can and cannot bring into America from its overseas factories, couldn't simply import the Regal from China to keep the price low. And before you start about harping about Chinese quality, a quick walk around our Regal revealed consistent panel gaps and glossy paint on the outside, with quality plastics and tight component fits on the inside. It's a terrific-looking car: modern, characterful, sporty, with great stance and artfully sculpted sheetmetal. Though designed in Russelsheim, Germany, under the direction of Brit Mark Adams as an Opel, it works beautifully as a Buick - if anything, the toothy Buick waterfall grille, mounted in a new front fascia that includes reshaped lower intakes, gives it a stronger, more upscale presence than the Opel and Vauxhall warpaint it wears in Europe. Designer Adams admits he pushed hard to get GM management to sign off on the car's rakish roofline and tucked-in C-pillars. In profile, the Regal is almost a fastback, and rear seat headroom has suffered a little as a result. Rear-seat legroom is not class-leading, either, but if you want your new Buick a little more baggy fit, you'll buy the LaCrosse. There's a ton of room up front, as the Regal is fitted with long runners that allow the front seats to slide waaaaay back. Shaquille O'Neal could drive this thing. The interior design is dynamic, attractive, and upscale. Our 2.4L tester was fitted with sat-nav, a harmon kardon sound system, cruise control, power seats with memory, auto headlights, and a sunroof. Were it not for the Chinese script on the trunk - it says "Shanghai-GM," by the way - there'd no reason to suspect this car wasn't made in Germany. Until you drive it. Chinese roads are rough. Older streets are full of holes and broken tarmac, and even the new freeways and arterial roads that are being built at such a frantic pace the sat nav systems can't keep up frequently have gut-wrenching heaves and humps. As a result, many automakers increase the ride height of their Chinese-spec cars to reduce the likelihood of having oil pans or transmissions torn out. Chinese drivers also tend to like their cars softly sprung. It's not a happy combination. The Regal floats along the freeway like a scaled down Roadmaster. The wheels pit-patter over the bumps, and rapid changes in direction result in hesitant transitions and plenty of body roll. Once it takes a set, however, the Regal's demeanor remains relatively consistent, revealing some basic goodness in the chassis. My colleagues at Britain's Autocar magazine, who have racked up hundreds of miles in Euro-spec Insignias, report that, with firmer springs, shocks, and bars, the car shows impressive stability at freeway speeds and is second only to Ford's Mondeo - beating Honda's Euro Accord and Mazda's Euro 6 - in terms of driving dynamics. Memo, GM: If you bring the Regal to America, the European suspension tune is a must. The powertrain strategy will also need a major rethink for America. The 2.4L Ecotec four is lazy and unresponsive. The poorly calibrated six speed auto is part of the problem, with widely space ratios and a torque converter that locks up very early - presumably in the interest of saving gas. Shanghai-GM claims it takes a leisurely 9.8 sec for the Regal to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph. This thing would get its ass handed to it by a briskly driven Nissan Cube. American drivers, who like a solid shove between the shoulder blades away from the lights, would hate it. The 256-hp turbocharged 2.8L V-6 available in Europe, which slashes the 0-to-60 time to 6.7 sec, might seem the obvious powertrain choice for the American market Regal. But I think the new Regal 2.0T might be a smarter play. With 217 hp at 5300 rpm, and a useful 259-lb-ft of torque from 2000 rpm to 4000 rpm, it would deliver the performance feel American buyers want - Euro-spec 2.0Ts with six speed manuals will hit 60 mph in 7.2 sec, says GM, while the Chinese-spec version with the six speed automatic is good for 0-to-60 mph in 7.7sec - with the added benefits of better fuel economy and lower cost. What's more, offering the Regal with a four-cylinder engine would clearly differentiate it from the from the V-6-powered LaCrosse range. With the right engineering tweaks - the turbo powertrain and European suspension tuning - the Regal would definitely work in America. It's physically smaller than the new Lacrosse and could be priced and positioned below it, giving GM a car to compete in a segment where the Asian automakers do solid business with smart, well-equipped cars like the Acura TSX, four-cylinder Mazda6, and Nissan Altima. Crucially, the Regal 2.0T could be brought to America with minimal investment. With the aging Lucerne due to go away in 2010 and cash-strapped GM contemplating tough new fuel-consumption targets, plans to develop a large rear-drive Buick sedan positioned above the LaCrosse (it would be based on a stretched Zeta-derived platform that would also underpin a Cadillac STS/DTS replacement) are on hold. The Regal would give Buick - supposedly one of GM's four core brands, remember - a modern, stylish sedan that would perfectly complement the new LaCrosse and the solid-selling Enclave. 2010 BUICK REGAL (CHINESE SPEC) Base price $26,400 - $36,000 (China) Vehicle layout Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan Engines 2.0L/144-hp/140-lb-ft DOHC 16 valve I-4; 2.4L/167-hp/165-lb-ft DOHC 16 valve I-4; 2.0L/220-hp/259-lb-ft DOHC 16 valve I-4 Turbo Transmission 6-speed automatic Curb weight 3313lb (mfr est) Wheelbase 107.7 in Length x width x height 180.9 x 73.1 x 57.5 in 0-62mph 9.8 sec (mfr) EPA City/Hwy Not yet rated On sale in U.S. TBD

It all depends on how the Volt mpg is calculated. The 304-hp Camaro already gets 30 MPG in CAFE-speak, by the way, and the G8/Lumina/Commodore is getting that engine.

There's no way I'd get a Fiesta or Focus with a conventional slushbox, but I would consider one with PowerShift (dual-clutch; similar to VW's DSG). It's amazing technology.