smk4565

Mustang V6 manual is 3300 pounds, or 3345 with auto. The 3.5 liter V6 is lighter than the old Explorer V6 the Mustang has now, even it if goes up, they should keep it to 3400 pounds. The manual Camaro SS probably would outrun it, but the SS automatic is 3913 pounds and has 400 hp, 50 hp is probably not enough to make up for 513 pounds of weight. A 335i (which is heavier than a Mustang) is faster than a G8 GT despite the G8 having 60 more hp and 90 more lb-ft. The Zeta platform is just too heavy. Which is a shame, because the Camaro is a good looking car.

The 2010 Mustang could be a solid performer. The Ecoboost V6 is supposed to make around 340-350 hp, and a V6 Mustang is under 3400 pounds. That kind of power to weight ratio is going to run with the Camaro SS (Mustang will probably be faster), and Ford's 3.5 liter V6 is more efficient than GM's 3.6 liter.

3900 pounds is a lot for a sports car. A Mustang GT s 3500 pounds.

It is nearly 400 pounds heavier than a Mustang. The GM weight problem continues. Looks better than a Mustang and has better engines, of course the extra power will go to moving the extra 400 pounds.

It is too hard to differentiate these brands that are using cars on the same platform in the same price segment. Buick, Chevy, Pontiac, Saturn all sell midsize sedans in the $20-30k range. Saturn or Pontiac could go away, the G8 is the only Pontiac that isn't a rebadge of a car already sold in the US. Buick needs to go to $28-45k rice range if they stick around, the base LaCrosse/Invicta has to be nicer and more expensive than a Malibu LTZ. If Buick can't sell cars for over $30,000 then they should kill the brand, they don't need Buick to sell $23,000 LaCrosses, Chevy sells sedans for that price. They are delusional if they think the upcoming 9-5 will compete with the 5-series or GS460. For one, the Lexus is a soft, comfort car, the BMW is built for performance, so which are they going for? Secondly, the 9-5 is Epsilon2, no front drive platform is going to compete with a 5-series.

There is no point to a DTS unless you are 73 or older and prefer front drive to the Town Car's rear drive.

The Cobalt is 86 cubic feet interior volume and 14 cu ft trunk. The Honda Fit is 90 cu ft passenger volume and 21 cu ft luggage volume. 111 cu ft total interior volume, much roomier than a Cobalt. If they want to keep a previous generation car around, then it should be badged as a Pontiac, and let Pontiac sell cheap cars and fleet sale cars. GM has enough dated models that drag down resale values of brands as it is, the Cobalt should die the day the first Cruze is made. Although I don't like changing names every model cycle (maybe if they didn't make half ass cars with a poor reputation/image they wouldn't have to do that), Civic and Corolla have been around 30-40 years, people know what they are. The average consumer that doesn't know a lot about cars won't know what a Cruze is, but they'll know what a Civic is, and their perception of it will be that is reliable, has high gas mileage, and class leading resale value.

It does. The Aurora had a DOHC V8 the Riviera had a Civil War era, pushrod V6. The Riviera had the 4T60 tranny (later the 4T65) while the Aurora used the 4T80 from that it shared with Cadillac. Plus the Aurora (1st or 2nd generation) had a better interior layout and better materials than the Riviera. And for some reason, the Riviera was 8 inches longer than my Aurora, yet the Riviera has 2 doors. What is the point of a 2 door that is as long as a DTS.

I bet the V8 Camaro is closer to 30k like the G8 GT. Maybe $28,995 or something.

I wouldn't buy a wagon so I guess I care less about what is in it. I would be interested in a Cadillac sedan without a plastic grille, 7.1 surround, 20 way seats, 0-60 in 5.2 seconds, and over 20 mpg that can out handle the M5 wagon though. Rechargeable flashlight in glove box would be nice too. I love BMW handling, but I don't like their styling or iDrive, although they have a new iDrive for 09 that is supposed to be better.

The C-XF front end was too expensive to do, even at $50-65,000. GM has had 25 years to copy the 3-series and never did, 40 years to copy the S-class and never did. At least Toyota tried, Cadillac won't even try. I don't like Toyota and wouldn't buy their cars, but I recognize that they are the wealthiest and most efficiently managed car maker. Toyota could buy 100% of GM's stock with 6 months worth of profit. At least they can afford to spend $8 billion a year on R&D, GM never spent that much and has to cut back due to the financial trouble they are in. And GM has 11 global brands vs 4 for Toyota (counting Daihatsu) that they have to spread the money around to.

I don't like wagons and I really don't like this one. The D pillar is at least a foot thick, what is up with that? It looks 9-3 sport combi like from the back and tail lamps that go bumper to roof didn't look good on early 2000s Volvo wagons, didn't look good on mid 2000s Saab wagons and they don't look good on late 2000s Cadillac wagons. I wonder what this thing will weigh? 4250 pounds?

If 3700 pounds and 52/48 balance is for the V8, that is pretty good. The V6 should be near 50/50 and 3600 pounds perhaps. But if the V6 car is 3700, then the V8 is probably 3850 or more, and then we have another overweight GM car. They picked the right engines for this car though, I hope they never offer some bargain basement engine so they can sell them as rentals like Ford does with the Mustang. I love the rear end of this car, the front looks good, but it is kind of retro, and retro styling wears our quickly. The concept came 2-3 years ago, plus it is still a year from production, after a couple years on the market that front end will have been around for 5+ years, so it might look dated. Interior is okay. I don't like the G6/HHR/Aveo circular A/C vents on the side, for one they look cheap, and two, the center vents are rectangular. Why aren't they all squared off or all rounded? The center stack with all those gauges I am not a fan of either. The HVAC controls look odd, they should have done a more streamlined and integrated unit, perhaps not corporate radio/hvac but something better than that. Too retro looking on the interior. The materials and fit/finish seem fine in the pictures (that has to be judged in person though) and adequate for the class, but nothing amazing.

I believe the XF has won every comparison test it has been in. Edmunds.com picked it over the 550i, E550, A6 4.2, Motor Trend picked it over the 550i, E550 and GS460, a German magazine even picked it over the 550i and E550, and of course the British car rags think it is the best luxury sedan. It' s a great car, and for those that want styling closer to the concept version, the XJ is said to be more aggressive like the CX-F, plus it is aluminum and lighter than the XF.

I would guess that the Cruze has a naturally aspirated engine also. My mom has had 3 turbo cars in a row (Volvo, Saab, Audi) and all required premium and had a bit of extra maintenance. So the turbo could be a turn off for some buyers. Maybe the 2.2 ecotec gets DI and hangs around and the turbo is optional. The Jetta has the 5-cylinder standard, and the turbo 4 is optional, and gets better gas mileage plus 30 more hp, so chevy could do that, with the smaller displacement, higher gas mileage engine being the option. Cadillac won't fall apart because of high gas. They need a 3-series sized car, diesels, hybrids, etc. Front drive people haulers is not the way to go though. Cadillac needs to get people that used to spend $40k on SUVs into driving cars. GM has lots of people haulers, what about people that don't need a people hauler, but still want a nice car? They need a small premium like the Jetta or Mini Cooper, and a 3-series sized Cadillac, (coupe, sedan, convertible) and push the CTS to $50,000 base. If the Equinox is 4300 pounds like the Vue they are in trouble. They should start an initiative to cut the weight of every car by 5% or more, like Mercedes is doing.

It in no way shape or form looks like an Aurora. The Aurora is superior to any Buick ever made, and will probably be superior to anything they come up with in the future.

What is the Aveo then? (besides a poorly made South Korean car) The Aveo is supposed to be the $12,000 car, Cobalt is supposed to compete with the Civic. The Fit sells for over $12,000, this is how Honda makes profit on small cars, they build them good and people pay a premium for them. GM nickel and dimes cars, cuts corners, and lets cars hang on the market for 10 years like the Cavalier. Then they have to price the car low, plus put a $2500 rebate on it. If they invested money into the car in the first place, it would sell at a higher price and not need a rebate. My hope is the Cruze interior is Malibu LTZ level, they really need to match the Japanese in fit and finish. It is easy to beat the Japanese in styling.

Cheese wedge shape like the Prius is a bad thing. Honda usually makes better looking cars than Toyota. This car is rumored to get 70 miles per gallon (combined cycle), even if that is Japanese figures and gets adjusted down by the EPA to 60 or so, that is still insane. The Malibu hybrid is only 27 mpg combined, and even the Prius is 46 mpg. If Honda pulls off 60, they are going to win a lot of buyers.

$6 billion in revenue I said, not profit. Even if the Tundra made $0 profit, Toyota still made $17.1 billion in profit overall, so if that is all off cars, then they are in good shape for the future. GM or Ford would be thrilled to make even $1 billion in profit from car sales, let alone $17B. Pictures don't do the XF justice, I wish the headlights were more like the concept, but oh well. The interior is better than anything form America or Japan and the back looks like an Aston Martin, which is a good thing. Jaguar wants to go up market with a performance image so they went V8 only. People paying $60,000 probably don't care if it gets 18-19 mpg rather than 20-21 from a V6. Although I think a turbo V6, or diesel would help as gas prices rise. Jaguar does have a hybrid system coming for their new V8, maybe that combo will get V6 mileage. CTS-V vs XF-R vs 2010/11 M5 vs 2010 E63 should be good though. The 2010 A6 will have a full aluminum chassis, so the RS6 may become a threat again, once it doesn't weigh 4500 pounds.

I agree that the Tundra is ugly inside and out and has had quality issues, and it isn't as good as the Ford or Chevy. Maybe it performs as well a Ram (Ram looks better though), I'd never buy a pickup so it doesn't matter to me. Toyota's net income last year (year ending March 08) was $17.15 billion, so even if the Tundra is a total bust, it doesn't seem to be hurting them. There is no Toyota/Lexus I'd want, but they are the most efficient and well managed automobile company.

The Buick looks boring, kind of tall like a Sable/Taurus but with that sloped rear back of the Jag XF or Mercedes, but the Buick doesn't look as good as them. The Saab and Cadillac look horrible. Equinox is ok, but looks kind of big an Saturn-like. Cruze looks good except I don't like the Camry/Accord style headlights that wrap back toward the front wheels, although that might not be a bad thing since people like Camrys and Accords. I read today that the average sale price of a Cobalt is $12,000, while it is $19,000 for a Civic. The Cruze better be good (Malibu level interior at minimum and 40 mpg highway), because they the strategy of cost cutting and making a cheap car just leads to selling it for $7000 less than the competition.

The goal was to sell 200,000 of them, and they sold 197,000 in calendar year 2007. It's not as good as the Silverado or F150, so less people bought it, but over time Toyota will get the quality issues fixed. If selling 197,000 units and making $6 billion in revenue is their worst mistake, Toyota is in a pretty good place.

2.3 liter DI engine for the Equinox sounds good (probably makes more than the 185 hp that ancient V6 makes). They should put that in the Malibu also, but GM really needs to keep the weight of cars down also. RWD Invicta must be a mistake, unless they are doing a G8 clone to replace the LaCrosse, and doing the new LaCrosse on EPII. Lutz said they would cut down on clones, so why 4 Lambdas, why the G3, G5, G6?

You could argue that no one shopping for a BMW 5 or 7 series or Mercedes E, CLS or S-class is cross shopping Cadillac. Those cars are $50-180,000, Cadillac doesn't operate in that price range (except Escalade or slow selling XLR and I am comparing sedans). The Genesis has to be cross shopped with something. I think Chrysler 300, Buick, Avalon, Lincoln, and Lexus ES are the targets. I personally am not going to buy a Genesis, but it would make for an interesting test drive.

For years the dividend was good and people bought the stock for it. Without a dividend now, the stock is going to drop even more. It may go up today, but I wouldn't be surprised to see around $7 in a couple months. This plan sounds like the same stuff they have been doing the last few years. It shows GM knows how to cut costs, doesn't show they know how to make profit selling small cars. Not increasing R&D spending is a bad idea. They already lag behind Toyota and Ford in that department, it is hard to make competitive products without investment.