pow

While I like Saab, Saturn, and Hummer, they simply don't sell enough cars to merit huge R&D investment, which will be required of a brand with its own unique products. GM has better-selling brands, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC, that target the same luxury, premium, and truck segments. Eliminating Saab, Saturn, and Hummer gives GM the potential to have just four primary product developers: Chevrolet (US and Korea) Cadillac (US) Opel (Europe) Holden (Australia) Buick, Pontiac, and GMC dealers can be distributors of existing cars around the world. For example, Opel sedans can be sold as Buicks in the US and China. Holdens and smaller Opels can be sold as Pontiacs. GMC can continue selling Chevrolet trucks, while carrying over existing vehicles, like the H3 and H3T. As long as these brands - Buick, Pontiac, and GMC - don't lose GM money, I don't see the risk of 'importing' these niche vehicles over. GM can't justify the development of vehicles like VE or Alpha in the US - frankly, most American consumers don't give a damn if their sedan is Epsilon II or "performance-oriented" Zeta - but these vehicles are the mainstay of local markets like Australia, so let them exist. Besides, shutting down BPG dealerships will be costly; Pontiac and GMC still sell in huge numbers. Saab and Saturn, on the other hand, have much smaller dealer bases, while Hummer is partnered with Cadillac. Of course, the main four 'product-developing' groups - Chevrolet, Cadillac, Opel, and Holden - can manufacture their product anywhere the world. An Opel Insignia can be assembled not just in Europe, but also in the US or China, as a Buick.

I'd love a Bold when my Treo 680 craps out. I'm hoping all phones in the future have built-in, turn-by-turn GPS. Google Maps or $10/mo for TeleMaps doesn't cut it.

Perhaps they could sell Saturn to the French... with an established dealer and customer base, it's a good outlet for them in the US. And their products are similarly small, utilitarian, economical, and funky... Saturn C4 Picasso anyone?

QUOTE (Croc @ Nov 28 2008, 07:09 AM) Two days ago I made a savory matzo brei. I put finely diced shrimp in it, so it wasn't exactly Jewish. Kikkoman tempura sauce concentrate, little sugar, garlic, diced shrimp, some white pepper all sauteed in a skillet. Matzo meal soaked in a bowl with water, some of the savory filling was added to the "batter," and then mixed. Add to skillet, flip like a pancake halfway through. Remaining filling served on top. Nice. I made sweet potato pancakes for Thanksgiving, and it was surprisingly easy and tasty. For sure it's better than the canned stuff with marshmallows on top. Stir fry shredded sweet potato and minced garlic with a nonstick pan, season with coarse salt and pepper, and when tender, flatten the sweet potatoes into a pancake, wait a few minutes, and then flip. No eggs or flour or squeezing needed; sweet potatoes are nowhere as wet as regular potatoes. I made mine in the afternoon and reheated them in the oven. Serve with creme fraiche and chopped chives.

There was a white Astra XR 3-door with leather, 18" wheels, and automatic - which was hot. There was also an XR 5-door with leather, 17" wheels, panoramic moonroof, and auto - which was also nice. The build quality isn't as nice as the Rabbit's, and the interior door handles are too small, but all in all, it was so much better than the Cobalt. Both were pricey and didn't have enough MPGs for 138 horsepower. The manual is a must... saves $1000 or so and adds 2 MPG.

That 550 Spyder was Jerry Seinfeld's - but yeah, they should have fixed it regardless.

No, there were two SS models - one in black, one in silver - both roped off.

I went today as well. Among the Big 3, Ford was by far the most impressive. They had product specialists everywhere, interesting technology demonstrations, and nice graphics and well-lit displays. GM and Chrysler were dark and empty in comparison. The Fusion really is more of a refresh than a new model. From most angles, the car looks mostly the same. The changes are nowhere as drastic as seen in the Focus or Escape. The dashboard is different, but apart from the bigger nav screen, frankly it's no better than the old model's - that is, decent squishy materials, dated ambiance - especially compared to the new 6 - and lacking in width. The Mazda3 is fantastic. I didn't like the old one - too sterile, cheap, and bland - but this new one is much, much nicer and far more interesting. It definitely has a premium feel, and I'd say it has the nicest interior in its class. It manages to look somewhat techy without being as weird as the Civic, and the details are elegant and sophisticated. Mazda must have raised the H-point for the seats, because it's nowhere as confining as the old car. I like the new Mustang. Sheetmetal is nicely sculpted, and the interior is great, apart from the brittle door panels. Looks more expensive and detailed than the current one, more Aston Martiny. The MKZ has improved taillights. They make the car look wider when lit. The Verve sedan (Fiesta) is hot. There were crowds gathered around it. Ford TransitConnect - what a cool and functional van. It seems very heavy-duty, like a commercial vehicle. Definitely not something delicate and car-based like the Rondo, 5, HHR, or Element. I'm not crazy about the Volt's styling - but it's about the battery technology underneath, not the looks. GM production cars I like: CTS, G8, and ASTRA. Cobalt interior is truly horrifying now. I really don't care for the Malibu. The GMT900s were the only full-size pickups that didn't make me feel ridiculous inside. The F-150, Ram, and Tundra all have ginormous, out-of-reach swaths of dashboard and center console. I'm 5'11" but I feel like a midget trying to climb aboard. The new 7 series is ugly and unimpressive inside. I greatly prefer the old model's, which resembled modern furniture. Frankly, all BMWs were underwhelming. They're great to drive, but when stationary, they don't feel special at all. Same with Mercedes. I really liked the Audis - they're all immaculately made and have fantastic interiors. The new A4 S-line with black Alcantara interior was pure sex. Awesome seats and steering wheel. Audi had a nice, well-lit display, too. All the cars were white. The VW section was also very well done. The Rabbit, even though it's a lame duck, has the best build quality of any small car. I could spend all day opening and closing the doors and hatch. Honda - my favorite Honda is the Odyssey. Best. Minivan. Ever. Who cares about the cheap and chintsy Fit when gas is $1.99/gal. Toyota - nobody cares. Subaru - reg is right, the Forester is uber nasty inside. Volvo - I like. None of their cars had the typical immediately noticeable flaws that one notices at an autoshow. Truly "premium" cars, I suppose. C30 and V70 are both very nice. I love the Range Rover. They have an image problem, but the interios, as always, are frickin' amazing, especially in white with piano black wood. LR3, LR2, and Range Rover Sport - not so much. Jaguar - I like the XJ. Old man's car, sure, and depreciates like crazy, yes, but I like the interior ambiance of polished wood, chrome switches, and buttery soft leather. Mitsubishi and Suzuki - please go away. Kia brings nothing to the table. Hyundai - Genesis is unbelievably bland. I'd rather get a slightly used GS350, if I were into that sort of thing.

VUE 2-Mode has been delayed. At this rate, we'll probably see the Fusion Hybrid in showrooms sooner... even though the VUE debuted a year earlier.

Sounds like the Thrifty parking lot at Dulles.

Definitely an improvement. I like how from the A-pillar to the edge of the decklid, it's one flat plane. And kudos to Nissan for reducing weight by 225 lbs. These days it's not something you see very often.

The current 3 is really plain... I like this a lot better. Looks dynamic and in motion.

Irrelevant... why bother?

The thing is, automakers lobbied for these tax credits.

On the very top of this weekend's WSJ, there's a Chrysler Pacific dashboard with a red slash through the steering wheel. It reads... BAIL OUT DETROIT? WRONG WAY, DO NOT ENTER Just Say No to Detroit Given the abysmal performance by Detroit's Big Three, it would be better to send each employee a check than to waste it on a bailout, says David Yermack. Before Michael Moore became famous for documentaries like "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko," his first big success came in 1989 with "Roger and Me." In that film, Mr. Moore followed General Motors chairman and chief executive Roger Smith with a camera crew, asking him why the company was closing plants and producing low-quality vehicles. Mr. Smith looked flustered and inartfully avoided Mr. Moore's camera crew while it lingered outside his country club or GM's executive offices. "Roger and Me" was entertaining, but it missed the real story about Roger Smith, who turned out to be a forward-thinking genius. Mr. Smith made big investments in information technology and satellite communications, acquiring Electronic Data Systems in 1984 for $2.5 billion and Hughes Aircraft in 1985 for $5.2 billion. Mr. Smith's successors divested those businesses at huge profits -- EDS was taken public in 1996 for more than $27 billion, and Hughes, renamed DirecTV, went public in 2003 for more than $23 billion. (The man who sold EDS to Roger Smith at a bargain price was H. Ross Perot, who then convinced many people that the experience qualified him to be president.) Mr. Smith understood all too well that GM shouldn't continue investing in its failing automobile business. That was 25 years ago. Today, our government is being asked to put tens of billions of dollars in GM, Ford and Chrysler, but we would be much better off if Washington allowed these companies to go bankrupt and disappear. In 1993, the legendary economist Michael Jensen gave his presidential address to the American Finance Association. Mr. Jensen's presentation included a ranking of which U.S. companies had made the most money-losing investments during the decade of the 1980s. The top two companies on his list were General Motors and Ford, which between them had destroyed $110 billion in capital between 1980 and 1990, according to Mr. Jensen's calculations. I was a student in Mr. Jensen's business-school class around that time, and one day he put those rankings on the board and shouted "J'accuse!" He wanted his students to understand that when a company makes money-losing investments, the cost falls upon all of society. Investment capital represents our limited stock of national savings, and when companies spend it badly, our future well-being is compromised. Mr. Jensen made his presentation more than 15 years ago, and even then it seemed obvious that the right strategy for GM would be to exit the car business, because many other companies made better vehicles at lower cost. Roger Smith, who retired as chairman in 1990, seemed to understand that all too well, and so did Chrysler's management, which happily sold their company to Daimler Benz for $30.5 billion in 1998. That deal, one of the savviest corporate divestitures ever, ended very badly for Daimler, which essentially paid Cerberus a few billion dollars (by agreeing to retain pension liabilities) to take Chrysler off its hands in 2007. Over the past decade, the capital destruction by GM has been breathtaking, on a greater scale than documented by Mr. Jensen for the 1980s. GM has invested $310 billion in its business between 1998 and 2007. The total depreciation of GM's physical plant during this period was $128 billion, meaning that a net $182 billion of society's capital has been pumped into GM over the past decade -- a waste of about $1.5 billion per month of national savings. The story at Ford has not been as adverse but is still disheartening, as Ford has invested $155 billion and consumed $8 billion net of depreciation since 1998. As a society, we have very little to show for this $465 billion. At the end of 1998, GM's market capitalization was $46 billion and Ford's was $71 billion. Today both firms have negligible value, with share prices in the low single digits. Both are facing imminent bankruptcy and delisting from the major stock exchanges. Along with management, the companies' unions and even their regulators in Washington may have their own culpability, a topic that merits its own separate discussion. Yet one can only imagine how the $465 billion could have been used better -- for instance, GM and Ford could have closed their own facilities and acquired all of the shares of Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Volkswagen. The implications of this story for Washington policy makers are obvious. Investing in the major auto companies today would be throwing good money after bad. Many are suggesting that $25 billion of public money be immediately injected into the auto business in order to buy time for an even larger bailout to be organized. We would do better to set this money on fire rather than using it to keep these dying firms on life support, setting them up for even more money-losing investments in the future. Two main arguments are being raised to justify a government rescue of the auto industry. First, large numbers of jobs may be at stake, perhaps as many as three million if one counts all the other firms that supply the Big Three. This greatly overstates the situation. Americans are not going to stop driving cars, and if GM, Ford and Chrysler disappear, other companies will expand to soak up their market share, adding jobs in the process. Many suppliers will also stay in business to satisfy the residual demand for spare parts even if the Detroit manufacturers go under. If the government wants to spend $25 billion to protect auto workers, it would do better to transfer the money to them directly (perhaps by cutting each worker a check for $10,000) rather than by keeping their unproductive employer in business. Second, it is suggested that the failures of the U.S. financial industry, which have cost us something like $700 billion, justify bailouts of other sectors of the economy. This makes no sense. If the government diverts our national savings into businesses that have long track records of destroying investment capital, eventually we'll end up with an economy like France's -- or Zimbabwe's. Other arguments are on the table as well. Some see the troubles at GM and Ford as opportunities to retool the auto industry to produce environmentally friendly cars. Given their long track records of lobbying against fuel economy standards and producing oversized gas guzzlers, this suggestion seems ridiculous, sort of like asking cigarette companies to help with cancer research. Not many of my students today remember "Roger and Me" (many confuse the film with another picture from the same era about the cartoon character Roger Rabbit). However, Roger Smith's example casts a long shadow over the auto industry today. It's time to cut our losses and let society's scarce investment capital flow to an industry with more long-term potential to create jobs and economic value. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669746125629365.html

Climate change is, clearly, male.

Most hybrids tend to be more powerful than their non-hybrid counterpart. For most consumers looking at a Camry LE I-4, upgrading to a Camry Hybrid makes more "sense" than upgrading to a Camry V-6. Camry Hybrid -- 3.017647201 years to start saving money Assumption: 260 commute days (52 weeks x 5 days) Assumption: 10 acceleration runs (0-100 mph) per day Assumption: 19.6 seconds, 0-100 mph hybrid acceleration (C&D) Assumption: $100 / hour owner's income Annual time savings through hybrid "adoption" = $505.56 Annual fuel savings through hybrid "adoption" = $322.90 Net savings = $828.46 / year Camry LE V6 -- 6.450946999 years to start saving money Assumption: 260 commute days (52 weeks x 5 days) Assumption: 10 acceleration runs (0-100 mph) per day Assumption: 14.5 seconds, 0-100 mph hybrid acceleration (C&D) Assumption: $100 / hour owner's income Annual time savings through V6 "adoption" = $873.88 Annual fuel savings through V6 "adoption" = ($476.34) Net savings = $387.54 / year

GM closed under $3 today... Ford under $2.

Agreed... I like it better as a baby Buick, one slot below the new LaCrosse in size - but not quality. Saturn should stick with cheaper, smaller, more youthful cars.

The HIDs look so much better - but interestingly, only the halogens have "flash-to-pass" high beams. Most cars with Bi-Xenons have an additional halogen high beam.

+1

Not to be a "troll" or anything - but you're wrong on both. The Equinox FCEV is fully-developed and "productionized", already available for the public to drive. Sure, they cost about $1 million each, but they've met all FMVSS and NHTSA requirements. The Volt is far from completion. The "production" body revealed two months ago has yet to see its electric powertrain. Those are still in previous-gen Malibu mules. All major auto manufacturers have fuel cell vehicles now - in the US, GM and Honda (FCX Clarity) are lending out a few to consumers. Edmunds Equinox FCEV Full Test: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=131810

But the Camaro is better looking, and that's what matters...

There's the Highlander, too. I personally don't like the thing - ugly inside and out, Toyota driving dynamics, etc - but it's the right size, it's packaged well (seats seven), and it appeals to a wide audience. The '09 Highlander gets a 2.7 liter I4 (187 hp, 186 lb-ft) and a six-speed automatic, giving it an EPA rating of 20/27 mpg. That's better than 19/26 mpg the 5-passenger VUE 2.4 gets. Both vehicles weigh about the same, and the Highlander has a higher "structure/safety cage" rating in the IIHS side crash test. http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/04/toyota-...ander/#comments

Well there's a surprise there...