smk4565

I think the point was that Olds was killed without a second thought, yet GM has other money losing or under performing brands that they cling to for dear life and won't get rid of.

Well they are going to dumb the car down because the bean counters and accountants got a hold of it, or they think no one will pay $30,000 for a Saturn since they make those dent resistant door cars for college kids, or they don't want it to compete with Buick's Epsilon, or Saab's Epsilon, so they need to price it a little lower, but not too low to compete with Chevy or Pontiac's epsilon. Clearly there isn't a too many models. too many brands problem.

My mom had a 9-5 Aero, I didn't think it was cramped, but this brand should have been killed. They dumped Olds awfully fast, but consider Saab, Hummer and Saturn precious and valuable. The 9-5 got about 24 mpg average, and that was with more highway than city driving. I can say that the EPA's 15/23 mpg on the Aurora is pretty accurate. On a flat highway at 55-60 I can get 25 mpg, but I average about 19 overall.

We hope. We were supposed to get the Opel Insignia here for the Aura, but now we are getting a watered down cheap version. And hopefully it doesn't take until 2012 for the BTS to get here (or to Europe).

A 9-3 Aero gets 15/24 mpg, most V8s do better. 9-3 with the 4 cylinder gets 19/26 (21 combined), a lot of V6s can get that. A Lincoln MKZ gets 18/28 or 22 mpg combined. Saab is far from a green brand. All they have going for them in that regard is how the 9-3 catalytic converter cleans heavily polluted air. The 9-3 and Cobalt aren't too far apart in size now, so the new 9-3 will still be near 3-series size. The current 9-3 starts at $29k, 35k for the Aero, with options you can spend $40k. That is 328i and A4 territory unless they plan on lowering the price. Cadillac doesn't have a BTS, what they have is a rebadged 9-3 that is just as bad as the 9-3 and sells at an even slower rate. The BTS should be rear drive and perform better than a CTS Direct Injection. If they make a BTS built on DeltaII (I know it is supposed to be Alpha, but the accountants will get involved) they should call it Cimarron II and sell it with a white flag to wave every time a German car goes by.

Saabs don't do well because of low brand awareness, very poor reliability (they have been bottom 5 in JD Power dependability the last few years), and dated product. Volvo has been struggling lately too, but at least they have the safety reputation to fall back on, and a broader product lineup. Perhaps Lexus reliability and hybrids took some Volvo buyers, and Infiniti took some from Saab, but I suspect the bulk of cars cross shopped with Saab and Volvo come from Germany, and Saab/Volvo don't have anything as good as what the Germans have. A rebadged Cruze has zero chance against a 3-series or A4 or C-class, why continue to dump money in a brand that won't make it back.

The sedan wasn't out as early as April, because I know someone that bought a 2005 330i in April and the 06 model wasn't coming until May or June. The sedan and wagon were 2006 models, I know the coupe and convertible were 2007 models, but they were just coming out at the time of the Pittsburgh Auto show which was February in 2006, by April 2006 dealers should have had them, so it was more of a 10 month delay. Even if it was a year, the CTS sedan was out last August, so it has been 1 year, and the coupe and wagon are still 8-10 months away. And Cadillac is missing a 3-series size car, with sedan, coupe, convertible styles, and they are missing a $90,000 sedan to go against the S-class, and the XLR needs a real update, not a bad refresh to add some non-functional vents on the side of the engine. I don't have a problem with doing the sedan, and coupe and wagon follow 9-12 months later, to keep interest. But it has been a year; if I was a Cadillac dealer I would rather have all 3 at once, since the Euro luxury brands already have various body styles.

Cadillac said they were going to compete with BMW, time to step up to the plate and do it. They shouldn't make ads comparing the CTS or G8 to a 5-series if they aren't up to the task of taking on the Germans.

Toyota could do that now. GM was worth $7 billion a couple weeks ago, even when the stock is up they are only worth $15-20 billion. Toyota made $17 billion in profit last year, so they could afford it if they wanted to buy GM, or any other automaker.

It takes them too long to get the coupe, wagon and diesel out. When the new 3-series came out, sedan, coupe wagon came out in the same model year and convertible followed about 9 months later. Cadillac moves too slow. They should have had a 50 state legal diesel on sale this summer, on 09 models at the latest.

They ought to downsize them right out of existence.

Baby steps and incremental change have gotten GM into this mess also. They need radical change, not trying to keep the sinking ship afloat in hope of better days ahead. We've heard the "new products are coming" song and dance routine since 2004 when the Cobalt, G6, Malibu, SRX, XLR, STS, GTO came out. The GTO is gone, Malibu was a rental queen until they fixed it, and the rest of those cars are now dated and not very competitive. GM is in a cycle of brand re-imaging and re-badging and worthless mid-cycle enhancements like the 2008 STS got. Or they see the SUV market was tanking, so they went from 7-8 seater Tahoes, to 7-8 seater Acadias. The Saab 9-4x shows how clueless they are. Saab is not an SUV brand, yet GM thinks the solution to profit and sales is make an SUV the flagship of a brand. They tried it with the Enclave, Buick sales are down 20% since the Enclave came out. Ford who looked like they were left for dead a few years ago, looks like they have a future now. Mulally deserves a lot of credit.

That is a good time, for it to be 10 seconds quicker it would have to be as fast as a BMW M6. It beat the 2000 M3, not the new M3, the new M3 does it in 8 minutes, 5 seconds. The 335i, Cayman S, 350Z, Lotus Exige, Jag XKR, and the old Skyline GT-R are in the 8 minute 20-28 seconds range. It beat some fast cars and that is a good time for what the car will cost. The weight and handling probably holds it back a little bit, because many of the cars that were just a bit slower are in the 280-330 hp range, the Lotus Exige is only 240 hp. And cornering matters most on the Nurburgring.

Wow, I am good. According to Chevy, The V6 Camaro with auto or manual goes 0-60 in 6.1 seconds. Camaro SS is 0-60 in 4.9 seconds with the manual and 4.6 seconds with the automatic. Seems odd that the auto is faster, I wonder if that is a typo. Nurburgring in 8 minutes and 20 seconds for the SS, which is a good time. Gas mileage and interior aren't great, but this car could be a hit if priced right, $24-31,000 I think will be good.

I have an 01 Aurora 4.0, I surely won't be going to a Pontiac or Buick, they are inferior products. I agree that Olds had the better line-up, better engines, better styling, better interiors. I also believe that many Olds buyers went to Acura TSX or TL, Lexus ES or IS, maybe Volvo or a Lincoln MKZ type car. These cars offer a step up in luxury and performance from a Camry/Accord/Malibu. The Buick LaCrosse/Lucerne actually offer less performance than a Malibu or Accord V6, and a Pontiac offers less luxury than a Malibu LTZ or Camry XLE. Pontiac, Buick, Chevy and Saturn overlap in price too much so each may be good at one thing, but lags in another.

I think they should have kept Olds because they had better cars. You got a luxury and a performance upgrade over Chevy, where as Buick used the same engine as an Impala with a little more luxury, and Pontiac had the supercharged V6 but interior no better than a lot of Chevys. They had way too much overlap at the time, so something had to be done. I was always in favor of Buick going and Olds staying, but GM made more profit on Buick since they could use cheaper parts in them, and GM probably thought as baby boomers age they will want a soft riding car, but most of the boomers were already lost to the imports and not coming back. Also, Olds was always mostly cars, and GM in 2000 believed SUVs were the only premium product people wanted, and that premium cars (small to midsize have no place). Look at all the Lambdas and upcoming theta SUVs, and GMT360s and GMT900s. They make 20 SUVs in the $30k range and like 5 cars. But now car sales are up and people are looking for premium smaller cars, Mini has a 1 day supply despite running 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week.

Good point, Saturn and Saab have yet to show a positive return, we don't need them.

My favorite statistic. Oldsmobile sold 261,000 cars in 2000, at the end of that year they decided to kill it. In 2007, Buick, Saturn, Cadillac, Saab, Hummer each sold under 250,000 units. Hummer and Saab are each selling fewer than 2000 units a month, that is about 1/10th what Oldsmobile could do.

I am not necessarily trying to compare the Camaro to other $35,000 cars, but feel there is a price range where people buy pony cars, but at $35-40k I think most car buyers in that segment are looking for more luxury. They need to keep the Camaro SS near $30,000 for it to be successful. The GTO's blandness hurt it the most, but being a $33,000 Pontiac didn't help much either. I am sure some people thought why get a Pontiac when for similar money I can get a Cadillac CTS or an Infiniti G35, etc Those cars aren't as fast, but the brand image is a lot better.

"Lutz said the Cruze has been developed to match or exceed the Honda Civic for looks, fuel economy -- and more important, selling price." What about driving dynamics, build quality and fit and finish? They already beat the Civic on price by a few thousand dollars and the Civic blows away the Cobalt in sales. Lutz also said they were going to get away from niche products. If so, shut down Hummer and Saab. The Sky/Solstice don't sell in volume, even the Enclave sells about 40,000 units a year, that isn't a volume seller. Saturn Astra and Pontiac G8 are low volume. Personally I like cars that aren't overly common like an Accord or Camry, but if they do what Lutz says about 1/3 of their cars would have to go away. When they make 4 lambdas, soon to be 5 theta/epsilon SUVs, they had six GMT360 SUVs, soon to be 5 or 6 epsilon sedans (depending on Saab), etc you have lower volume niche vehicles because they are trying to hit all these different corners of a market segment.

If the Camaro V8 is $30 grand they are in good shape. The GTO was near $35,000 at the end of its run, and it didn't sell well because there is a lot of competition from the entry sport/luxury cars. There were other factors too, but the price hurt it.

The Camaro is 190 inches long, the Challenger is 198 inches long and 76 inches wide, so it is as long as a Lexus LS460 and 2 inches wider. The Challenger is 4140 pounds also. The LX platform is based on a 90s E-class platform, that wasn't exactly the gold standard of handling then, let alone 10 years later. The Challenger will sell for one year while people that used to have them buy them for nostalgia, but the retro styling will make it look dated fast, it gets horrible gas mileage, and there are much better sports cars out there that aren't huge. The Challenger will end up being a bust. like the GTO was.

The Challenger is huge. It is like 300C or Lexus LS460 size. Why make a 2 door car that is supposed to be sporty that big. It will only be good in a straight line and possibly self destruct midway through the first corner it encounters. Anything from Chrysler has a bad interior, and most of their cars get poor mileage. The Camaro will slaughter any Chrysler product (aside from the Viper) , but that isn't hard to do. Let's not forget there is more out there than Ford, Chevy, Dodge either. 350Z and RX-8 can compete with the V6 Camaro, and if the V8 Camaro is pricey, it could run into G37 territory.

A G37 is 150 pounds lighter with 26 more horsepower. The Camaro V6 won't run with it. This thing is near CTS weight, 0-60 is going to be closer to 6 seconds with the V6, probably 4.7-4.9 for the manual and automatic V8s. If it is priced in the mid to high 20s, it is still very good performance per dollar and it is a very good looking car, I am not loving the interior though.

The 2002 Camaro with a V8 was 3439 pounds, what happened with the new one? I do like that a V6 can make the same horsepower as the V8s in the 90s Camaros, but the gas mileage is nothing special on either engine.