dwightlooi

Put simply, there are so many wrongs with GM that it is better off being completely re-booted as a company. Imagine getting rid of all the liabilities, legacy UAW shackles, shut down all but 3 or 4 factories (preferably exclusively in right to work states), keep the core engineering talents and start over as a company 1/10th its current size. Selling half a dozen of vehicles, but do them right and at market costs instead of extorted overheads left behind by five decades of Union racketeering. However, this is not going to happen because GM does not have the ability to make it happen as a company with no equity, no credit and no cash. And, the powers that can make it happen don't want to see it happen because they fall into three categories -- creditors who don't want their slate wiped clean, unions who want to keep the golden goose on life support and a very socialist US administration who cares less about GM as a business than it does about it as a jobs bank. So... it won't happen. A 3 brand GM, with half the head count and a union forced into accepting fair market labor rates under the threat of the Golden Goose putting on a do not resuscitate bracket, is probably the next best thing.

Well... the thinner the viscosity, the lower the amount of internal drag on the engine from moving the oil around -- which translates to better economy and also a few extra horsepower all else being equal. Ideally, you want the thinnest oil which offers adequate film strength for the bearings and cam lobes in the engine. Most modern engine designed with economy in mind are designed to use 5W-20 these days... most Honda engines and Ford engines are now 5W-20. The 0W-20 is basically the same 20 viscosity oil but with better start-up protection and winter flow rates. Modern Synthetics and tight engine tolerances also means that drain intervals are a few times what they used to be. The current Honda Civic for instance designed for 10,000 miles between oil changes on conventional 5W-20 oil or 15,000 miles on 0W-20 synthetics. This is from a company who has a reputation for building engines which easily run for over 200,000 miles spending no unscheduled time in the shop so I am pretty sure the thin oil and long drain intervals have been thoroughly proven.

Note really... $7 per quart x 4 quarts = $28 for the oil. About $20 more than cheap oil. The labor is the same. Plus, that EPA mpg rating helps sell cars -- advertising that you use crappy oil does not. Plus, the oil change interval is probably somewhere between 7,500 and 15,000 miles which you cannot achieve with cheap petroleum bases.

Given that it is designed for Economy and the oil is going to have to endure the pretty hot turbocharger circuit... my guess is either the 0W-20 or 0W-30 Mobil 1 Advanced Fuel Economy Formulas.

Not really... not if it is recommended but not required. The engine won't ping on 87 octane, it will however retard the spark timing a little and lose about two dozen horsepower and foot pounds. Still perfectly adequate I'll say, and for people who are cheap enough to want to save 20 cents on a gallon of juice a most reasonable trade off. These DI engines are very knock resistant -- primarily because there is no fuel in the cylinder during the intake stroke and through much of the compression stroke. Air alone is not capable of detonating.

Well, if not for the Solstice, Malibu, G6, Traverse and G8 GM probably won't need the recession to drive it into near bankruptcy. As far as kicking the brands when they were down, my only qualms are that Bob didn't have the power to kick them to Kingdom come and shut them down. One needs to ask... if not Maximum Bob, what will you rather have? More designed by committee products, more bean counting prop up a falling dam, more uninteresting, low quality products which nobody even looks at much less want? Under Bob, every single GM product release not only looked, drove and feels better than the last generation, they looked, drove and feels as good or better than the competition for the first time in three decades. No, Lutz is not a systematic administrator, paragon of humility or a devotee of the church of political correctness. But, I'll tell you this... a politically correct, humble and systematic administrator is just that -- an administrator. A principled and unobtrusive moron who may do well running a government records office; certainly not someone you want to help turn an ailing product line around.

-- FICTION -- The Microblock V8 The 2011 Microblock V8 engine is designed to succeed both the Small Block and Northstar families as GM’s sole V8 for the second decade of the millennium. The design objective is to create a highly compact engine equaling the LS-family’s performance, while being more compact, more economical and weighing no more than the 3.6 liter DOHC V6. The engine is a pushrod OHV design incorporating the latest technologies including direct gasoline injection and variable cam phasing. Variable rocket ratio was considered but relegated to a future upgrade due to the additional costs and complexities it will incur. The Microblock engine is based neither on the LS family nor the Northstar family. Its 103mm bore spacing matches that of the high feature 3.6 liter V6 rather than either of the V8s. The extensively webbed block is a lost foam aluminum casting and terminates at the crank line rather than being deep skirted. A die cast lower block with five cast in place bearings complete the bottom end and holds a forged steel cross plane crank. The connecting rods themselves are forged steel with fractured rod ends. Nestled within the valley of the block is a chain driven camshaft actuating hydraulic roller lifters with provisions for active fuel management on four of the eight lifters. On the topside, roller tipped rocker arms actuate two valves per cylinders. A vane type camphaser is incorporated into the sprocket assembly with the ability to advance and retard the camshaft by 15 degrees. Like the LS family, the intake plenum and runners are composite With both the bore and stroke being 94mm, this is a perfect square motor displacing 5,219cc (318ci). The 9mm spacing between the cylinder walls is rather conservative and lends itself well to forced induction or future displacement increases. The wedge shaped combustion chamber is very similar in geometry to that used in the LS3 small block engine with the exception of the addition of a direct injector and a little parabolic ramp on the piston face for directing the fuel jet. Compression ratio is a lofty 12.3:1 even though premium gasoline is recommended but not required. The engine utilizes a capacitive discharge ignition system which also doubles as the knock sensing unit by measuring the ionization levels between the spark gaps. AC Delco Iridium plugs are specified. Lubrication is provided by a baffled wet sump filled with low viscosity 0W-20 Mobil 1 Synthetic oil and is scheduled for 10,000 mile service intervals or as indicated by the oil life monitoring system. The oil filter is attached topside for easy servicing. On the electrical front, the Microblock does away with the starter motor, alternator and the belt driven accessories. In their place is a 5hp flywheel integrated generator-starter (FIGS) and an all electric accessory system. With the exception of the water and oil pumps which are gear driven off the camshaft, every thing else on a Microblock equipped vehicle – power steering, A/C compressor, radiator fans and the air injection pump – are electrically driven. When the transmission is placed in Economy “E” mode, FIGS also shuts down the engine at stop lights and restarts it automatically as the driver lifts off the brakes. Even though the FIGS system is capable of a small amount of regenerative braking and motor assist, this is not utilized in the interest of battery life on the 24V electrical system. While the Microblock lays no claim to being the highest specific output V8 on the market, it boasts of being smaller and lighter than the 414hp BMW 4.0 liter V8 used in the M3. At 168 kg, it is the lightest 400hp normally aspirated mass production engine period and weighs approximately the same as the direct injected DOHC 3.6 liter V6 although it is a tad longer and a little lower in height. With a quarter as many camshafts and half-as many valves as DOHC 4-valve V8 designs, the engine also tenders up superior brake specific fuel consumption numbers at low loads. Introduced on the 2011 Corvette, the compact and featherweight Microblock plays a large role in enabling the smaller and lighter 7th generation Corvette to meet its 2,900 lbs target weight. The combination of a 2,900 lbs curb weight, active fuel management and homogeneous direct injection also allows the C7 Corvette to boast best in class fuel economy figures of 17 mpg in the city and 28 mpg on the freeway whilst equipped with a Hydramatic 6-speed automatic transmission. As the Northstar and Smallblocks of various capacities are phased out, the Microblock will serve as the sole V8 engine on GM vehicles. A 600hp supercharged and aftercooled variant (LZA) will follow in the second production year and will be the standard powerplant on the Z06 and Cadillac V-series vehicles. Meanwhile, a cam-in-cam dual independent variable valve timing system and a two-step variable rocker ratio setup is being considered for a 2015 update. -- FICTION --

They won't spin off Opel. Opel is getting bail out cash from the German Government...

Same thing for engines. There is no reason to have a 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 liter Ecotec. Just have a GOOD 2.1. There is also no reason for a 4.8, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2 and 7.0 liter small block. I'll even go as far as to say let's drop the Northstar and have ONE 5.2 microblock -- 103mm bore center, 94mm x 94mm (Bore x Stroke), which has direct injection, synchronous VVT. A 103mm bore spacing also makes the engine about 1.5 inches shorter, lighter and makes it easier to build it along side the 3.6 liter V6 which also has a 103mm bore spacing and 94mm bores.

The dealers can sell Caddys! And the only models that matter are folded into the Caddy brand. Just tell them it's a label change... like Datsun being rechristened as Nissan.

The idea is that every brand needs its own advertising, marketing, logistics and managerial resource. Also, every model needs engineering, styling, tooling, inventory and testing resource -- even if its built on the same platform with the same basic drivetrains. Hence, going down to the minimum number of brands and models allow GM's very finite resources maximally focused. The idea is that no brands will build the same "class" of vehicles. For example, instead of spending development and production resources on the Aura, Malibu and G6, produce the three different models with three different bills of materials, then having to promote the three different cars with three different messages in three separate marketing campaigns... if there is only the Malibu we can have a better engineered Malibu, built with at a lower cost and get three times as many ads out for it. There is also no reason why Chevy needs to build SUVs and trucks, instead of having all GM trucks and SUVs be GMCs. Similarly, all luxury vehicles can be Caddys instead of splitting it between Buick and Caddy. For certain models that make sense like the Lacrosse -- a front drive, luxurious sedan which just recently got a revision -- we simply fold it into another brand; Cadillac in this instance. Similarly we can fold the HHR into the GMC brand, make Solstice and G8s Chevys, etc. As far as manual transmissions go, to keep things simple I'll say GM should simply stop selling cars with Manuals. You get a 6-speed auto right down to the Aveo. For sporty car fans, well, they'll get used to it... no AMG model has a manual and they sell well enough that one in every nine M-B sold is now an AMG model.

Let's put aside emotional attachments to historically illustrious brands for a second. Let's also put aside the complications of labor contracts, dealership commitments and various fiefdoms within the General's camp. Let's simply ask where we want to be in four years... I hope for a GM with no badge engineered products, half as many models and one third as many (US) brands tapping its engineering, design, financial, logistics and advertising resources makes pretty good sense. I also hope that this trimmer and focused GM will also be one which has regained technological and qualitative leadership over the rest of the world. But hope is not a strategy. So, this is what I propose... All Luxury Cars, SUVs and Crossovers are Cadillacs All Trucks, SUVs and Commercial Vehicles are GMCs All mainstream Cars and SUVs are Chevys Dump all overlapping models Move all remaining models to the appropriate brand Reduce the number of engine blocks to five Introduce Diesel engines for the Export markets Introduce HCCI on all NA OHC engines Introduce VVT on OHV engines Introduce DI on all engines GM stops manufacturering Manual Transmissions Reduce the number of transmission models to six All Transmissions feature 6-ratios

Honda engines have traditionally (1990s) been slightly long stroke (for efficiency). More recent ones are VERY long stroke. The D17A in the 2001~2006 Civic for instance has an 75mm bore and 94.4 mm stroke. That is as long stroke as they ever come. In fact, that 94.4mm stroke is more typical of 2.4 liter class 4-potters than a 1.7 liter class engine. And, boy, not being equipped with a pair of balancers that thing shake! It vibrates and groans above 3500 rpm like a bad 2.3 or 2.4 w/o balance shafts. With the 2007+ Civics they went to an all new (part time Aktinson cycle) R18A design with an 81 mm bore and an 87.3mm stroke. Still no balancers, but this engine shakes no more than the VW 1.8Ts which is to say it's not creamy smooth, but pretty darn civilized for all intents and purposes. Long stroke engines are popular these days because they extract more energy per drop of fuel just like a longer barrel allows gunpowder more room to do their work in a gun's barrel. Lack of volumetric efficiency at high RPMs due to the smaller valvular area per unit swept volume and higher vibrations are usually deemed acceptable compromises in economy cars. Basically, anytime you go over about 90mm stroke in an I4 you should have balance shafts. But, for cost savings, many econobox engines don't. When you are UNDER 90mm and still have a pair of balancer shafts you are cooking up a super silky powerplant (eg. the GM LNF 2.0 SIDI Turbo; 86mm with balancers). If you are looking for a poster child of short stroke engines, look no further than Subaru. All their engines are short stroked (Eg. Impreza 2.5L is 99.5mm bore x 79mm stroke). Not so much for high RPM prowess or smoothness; their stuff aren't stratospheric revers and their horizontally opposed arrangement does not incur 1st or 2nd vibrations. They picked pretty short strokes because they have to stuff their H4s and H6s between the front wheel wells. Go any longer in stroke and the engines become too wide!

I don't think that matters as long as the engines themselves are excellent products. Everyone knows that Acura raids Honda parts bins for engines and that Lexus does the same with Toyota engines. Engine exclusivity itself does not do much to position the brand. Basically positioning can be done under the following framework:- (1) Chevy - FWD, mainstream cars. (2) Buick - FWD, luxury cars with unique sheet metal, more luxurious interiors and additional quiet tuning. (3) Pontiac - RWD, sporty cars. (4) Cadillac - RWD, sporty Luxury cars with unique sheet metal, more luxurious interiors and additional quiet tuning.

I'll just drop the 2.2 and 2.4 and use a DI 2.0 making about 170hp and a tad less torque than the 2.4. About 170hp/150lb-ft should be very doable on a 2.0. A slight fuel economy advantage and supply chain simplifications aside, the 86mm stroke 2.0 is also smoother than the 98mm stroke 2.4*. * Engine stroke is the biggest determinant of engine vibrations in an Inline-4 all else being constant. The 2nd order vibrations in an I4 is created by the fact that the piston at the top of the stroke moves at a different speed compared to those at the bottom of the stroke. This causes a shift in the center of gravity in the system which results in an up-down vibration with a frequency that is 2x the crank speed. The faster the piston speeds the worse the vibration and because a longer stroke engine posts higher piston speeds at any given given rpm they vibrate more vigorously. Dual contra-rotating balancers (aka Lanchester balancers) can mitigate this 2nd order vibration but cannot completely cancel it out because the force profile of the balancers is sinusodial whereas that of the vibrations is not exactly so. (See illustration)

GM was in a bind to begin with circa 2003. UAW shackles, a car lineup that wasn't competitive, an overflow of out of focus brands, etc. The whole Union thing is very much like the socialist thing -- let's set artificial prices and standards based on collectivist racketeering rather than market forces. It hurts the industry, the company and ultimately costs job opportunities by encouraging foreign production and importation. There is something very wrong with the economics of a unionized workforce striking for more wages and benefits and a company kowtowing to that when were the company to advertise those positions for 2/3rds the pay they'll have a long line of applicants. HOWEVER, the Union thing took 50 years to fester and couldn't be fixed by Wagoner or anyone in a couple of years if ever. It may even take the dissolution the entire company or industry to reboot this issue and defeat the spectre of runaway unionism. The car lineup was the way it was when the current team inherited the General. And, there is every indication that they did the right things to fix that. The trimming down of brands wasn't done, but again it may be easier said than done. As far as the focus on SUVs first, it WAS a sound strategy. The idea was to get the GMA900s out ASAP because back then it was still the biggest revenue generator. Regardless of whether they will be in the future and whether the model lineup is unbalanced, the idea was to get them out ASAP so you can have REVENUE ASAP to develop cars and crossovers.

I am not quite as pessimistic about oil. IMHO, what doesn't make sense is $4/gal gasoline prices not $2 per gallon ones. There is no shortage of oil and no reason for $140/barrel crude prices other than speculative pressures and the somewhat nonsensical shift towards oil as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation. I believe that $70~85/barrel is the long term sustainable crude price. And, gas prices at $2.20~2.40 a gallon should be a sustainable average over the next decade (maybe even a tad under $2 if the dollar strengthens). However, I used $3 has a measuring stick to be conservative. But, your point is well taken. Years may not be a good measurement because years to break end will vary depending of miles per year driven! Well, according to the same assumptions, a parallel hybrid (ala Prius) will break even at 130,000~140,000 miles.

If you subscribe to the "Global Warming" Hypothesis and will like to purchase a low CO2 emitting vehicle because you believe that the current but of global climate change is abnormal and androgynous, and want to do your part to change, that skip this post. This is about the economics of Hybrids, not their affinity to the aforementioned environmental activism rally cry. Mild Hybrids -- 11.2 years to break even on investment The Mild Hybrid uses a overpowered alternator motor or a similar arrangement to create an ~2mpg (based on Chevy Mailbu numbers) advantage over a conventional engine by shutting down the engine while idling, and for a small amount of power assist and regenerative braking (~3hp worth). The system incurs a $1000 premium over conventional power trains of similar performance. Assumption: 12,500 miles per year driven (blue book zero adjustment annual mileage) Assumption: $3.00 / gallon gasoline cost Assumption: 28mpg on conventional mid-size car Assumption: 30mpg on hybrid mid-size car Annual fuel cost on conventional car = 12500/28 x 3 = ~$1339 Annual Fuel cost on Hybrid car = 12500/30 x 3 = ~$1250 Annual fuel savings through hybrid adoption = 1339-1250 = $89 Years needed to break even on investment (assuming zero additional maintenance costs for hybrid drivetrain) = 1000/89 = 11.2 years Parallel Hybrids -- 10.6 years break even on investment The typical hybrid (ala Prius) incurs a $4500 premium over a similar vehicle with a conventional power train. A Prius for example is about $22.5K (base) whereas an optioned out Corolla is about $18K; a Camry or Altima Hybrid is also roughly $4.5K more than their similarly equipped 4-cylinder counterparts. The cost savings from the hybrid powertrain amounts to about 16 mpg in typical combined driving (based on 26/35 mpg on a Corolla vs 45/48mpg on a Prius). This is a significant improvement. But when does it make economic sense? Let's do the math. Assumption: 12,500 miles per year driven (blue book zero adjustment annual mileage) Assumption: $3.00 / gallon gasoline cost Assumption: 30.5mpg on conventional economy car Assumption: 46.5mpg on hybrid economy car Annual fuel cost on conventional car = 12500/30.5 x 3 = ~$1230 Annual Fuel cost on Hybrid car = 12500/46.5 x 3 = ~$806 Annual fuel savings through hybrid adoption = 1230-806 = $424 Years needed to break even on investment (assuming zero additional maintenance costs for hybrid drivetrain) = 4500/424 = 10.6 years Series Hybrids -- 22.4 years to break even on investment A series hybrid like the upcoming Volt should allow 30~40 miles of driving on battery power alone. It should also have enough gasoline powered range to extend the maximum unrefueled/unrecharged range to about 300 miles. Unfortunately, the price premium is closer to $15,000 over conventional. Assumption: 12,500 miles per year driven (blue book zero adjustment annual mileage) Assumption: 260 commute days (52 weeks x 5 days) Assumption: $3.00 / gallon gasoline cost Assumption: $0.33/hour for recharging (220V x 15amps @ 11 cents/kilowatt hour; national average electrical rates) Assumption: 3 hour recharge cycle on 220v outlet Assumption: 46.5mpg in hybrid mode Assumption: 30 miles electric range Annual fuel cost on conventional car = 12500/30.5 x 3 = ~$1230 Annual electric cost on Series Hybrid car = 260 x 0.99 + (12500-260x30) x 3 = ~$257 Annual fuel cost on Series Hybrid car = (12500 - 260x30)/46.5 x 3 = ~$303 Annual fuel savings through hybrid adoption = 1230-(257+303) = $670 Years needed to break even on investment (assuming zero additional maintenance costs for hybrid drivetrain) = 15000/670 = ~22.4 years Conclusions:- (1) With today's price of hybrid technologies, and assuming an average 5 year (original) ownership period for a new car, a mild/parallel hybrid will break even for the new car buyer when gas prices are $6 a gallon. They will start to make a return on investment equivalent to the invested amount at $13 a gallon. (2) For Hybrid drive trains to break even economically for the average buyer at $3/gallon, Hybrid drive train costsdeltas over a conventional drive train has to be reduced by 50% for mild and parallel hybrids and 75% for series hybrids. If a equivalent return on investment is desired, mild and parallel hybrids have to be reduced in price by 75% and Series hybrids by 87.5%.

The output of the 5.3 and the 3.6 DI is similar. Torque is ~50 lb-ft lower on the 3.6 DI, but if a buyer really cares about things like that he'll spring for the 6.2 anyway. The BSFC of the 5.3 and 6.2 shouldn't be all that different, neither should the overall fuel economy.

Personally I don't think the 2.0 DI is just fine. No need to make it bigger. 260hp is plenty and a very civilized 300 hp attainable with a turbo and IC swap. If they really want to improve on it, I'll keep the 86mm bore as is. No need for a bigger diameter piston it'll only make the engine less knock resistant and may actually reduce boosted performance. If they really want they can stroke it out to about 91mm from the current 86mm. That'll make a 2.1 liter mill which is basically the same size externally. The square 86x86mm bore/stroke configuration is actually suboptimal for extracting the maximum energy from each unit of fuel/air mixture burned. In turbocharged engines, a bore/stroke ratio of about 0.9~0.95 is best. Same boost, same compression, same turbo will make you about 275hp/275 lb-ft from such a stroked 2.1 liter mill with maximum torque arriving at the same 2000 rpm or so. Not bad really for what is really a crank and rod change.

Trucks will use the 3.6 DI V6 or 6.2 LS2. A 2.0 liter NA making 170hp is not "like an S2000". The S2000's F20C makes 250hp from 2.0 liters (240 with US emissions). A 2.0 liter NA making 170 hp is a pretty moderate tune. About 150 lb-ft is pretty normal from DI and about 11.3:1 compression. 87 octane friendly too. Keep 90% of that to relatively placid 6600 rpm and you have 170 horses. As a matter of fact the specific output is basically the same as the 304hp 3.6 DI V6 (84.4hp/liter; 11.3:1 compression, DI, 87 octane).

I just counted over 50 different engines in GM's current North American lineup. I feel that this is absolutely unnecessary, and like brand proliferation does more to burden R&D, supply chain and marketing that anything else. I'll like to propose a much simpler lineup with just four (4) engines available in FWD and RWD configurations as needed. 1.4 liter I4 NA or Turbo -- 100~140hp; 95~148 lb-ft 2.0 liter I4 DI NA or Turbo -- 170~260hp; 150~260 lb-ft 3.6 liter V6 DI NA -- 288~304 hp; 270~273 lb-ft 6.2 liter V8 OHV NA or Supercharged -- 400~638hp; 395~604 lb-ft I'll also like to propose trimming down to just four (5) automatic transmissions and one (1) manual box 6T40 -- 6A, FWD; up to 177 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max 6T70 -- 6A, FWD; up to 280 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max 6L50 -- 6A, RWD; up to 332 lb-ft, 7000 rpm max 6L80 -- 6A, RWD; up to 439 lb-ft, 6500 rpm max 6L90 -- 6A, RWD; up to 550 lb-ft, 6200 rpm max TR6060 -- 6M, RWD; up to 620 lb-ft, 6600 rpm max That's it... everything else can go.

In one sentence... keep it simple, trim the excess divisions and tightly focus the rest. The benefits of selling three or four different cars in the same segment is far outweighed by the burdens of the additional R&D, supply chain hassles, marketing funds, etc. GM itself will be a full spectrum manufacturer, but each "brand" need not be a full spectrum vendor, they should only service a specific segment. Chevrolet -- FWD mainstream Sedans and Coupes only. No more SUVs, trucks, crossovers, Muscle cars, etc. Pontiac -- RWD performance Sedans, Coupes and roadsters only. No more SUVs, crossovers, FWD models, economy cars, etc. GMC -- Trucks, SUVs, Crossovers, Vans, Commercial Vehicles only. Hummer -- sell it or merge it with GMC. Saturn -- terminated Buick -- FWD Luxury Comfort division Cadillac -- RWD Luxury Performance division Saab -- terminated; dealerships can sell Pontiacs if they want. Opel -- terminated; dealerships converted to Chevy dealerships. Corvette -- New Division dedicated to the Corvette; no longer Chevy Corvette -- just Corvette.

The way I see it, having as many brands as GM does incurs higher than desired operating costs and a dilution of very finite marketing resources. This may have been justifiable if each brand is highly focused on a specific market segment with little or no overlap between them, but this clearly isn't the case with GM. Think about it for a second. GM builds a Cobalt, a G5 and an Astra; Toyota builds ONE Corolla. GM builds a Malibu, a G6 and an Aura; Honda builds ONE Accord. GM builds a Tahoe, a Yukon and an Enclave; Nissan builds ONE Armada. In every case, even though the vehicles may share a platform, you have three sets of sheet metal, three sets of interior trims, three bouts of stlying efforts and three rounds of testing. This expends more R&D resources, encumbers the supply chain and does nothing to improve final vehicular technology or quality. Finally, when the models are out you have to either spend three times as much to promote each model or you have to dilute the same budget over the three. We frequently talk about legacy UAW benefit costs shackling GM compared to say Toyota's operations in a right-to-work state. This is true. But a lot of GM's higher operating overheads also comes from brand proliferation, engineering prismatification and marketing diversification. This, as I have said, would have been justifiable if each brand targets a very specific market segment, but they don't. The same shopper who is looking for a Yukon, is also the same dude who is looking at the Envoy or Enclave. The same can be said of the Cobalt, G5 and Astra. I think GM can really benefit from REALLY focusing the brands and perhaps getting rid of some of them. Each brand does NOT have to be a full spectrum vehicular marque, as long as GM as a whole is a full spectrum purveyor. If it's me this is how I'll do it:- (1) Chevy -- FWD, main stream, sedans and coupes: Aveo, Cobalt (Cruze), Malibu, Impala and Volt. (2) Pontiac -- RWD, performance, sedans and coupes: Solstice, G6 (RWD-Alpha based), G8 and GTO (The 2009 Camaro can be a GTO instead) (3) GMC -- Trucks, SUVs, Crossovers: Envoy, Yukon, Traverse, HHR, Sierra, other trucks, SUVs, VANs and commercial vehicles. (4) Cadillac -- Every thing luxury: current Cadillac lineup plus perhaps a few FWD Buick plush mobiles. (5) Chevy Corvette -- separate division dedicated to high performance coupes and supercars. Saturn, Saab: CANNED Opel: Sells Chevys and Pontiacs in Europe Buick: Sells Chevys and Pontiacs in China Holden: Sells Chevys and Pontiacs in Aussieland And, while we can Saturn, we should turn EVERY dealership under the GM umbrella into a Saturn style dealership -- No pressure, one price, maximum transparency, minimum selling.