GXT

Actually, no. Let's put this GM hybrid bus PR spin to bed once and for all. According to the article linked above, 13,000 buses = 500,000 priuses. Whereas Toyota will hit 500,000 priuses in short order, according to this site (http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-transit-buses.html) as of July 2005 there was expected to be less than 400 GM hybrid buses in use in 2006. By GM's numbers, 400 hybrid buses = 15,384 priuses. To put that in context, Toyota sold 24,000 priuses last month. But it is worse than that. GM's claimed 60% improvement of of their hybrid bus turned out to be wildly inaccurate. As I recall, the gains seen in the King's County trial evaporated once GM was forced to put in an engine that met the upcoming emmissions restrictions. I don't recall what the end improvement was, but the 10% improvement figure indicated in the article above is likely more accurate. In that case 13,000 hybrid buses = ~80,000 priuses. And the actual numbe of buses GM sold as of 2006, ~400, = ~2,500 priuses. In other words, just under 3 days worth of prius sales. Finally, of those 400 buses, just over 200 were for the King County trial which showed that the hybrids were only marginally more efficient than a conventional new bus. Therefore, unless they can improve the product, it may be all downhill for GM's hybrid bus sales. Edit: After the engine upgrade the fuel economy of GM's hybrid buses got much worse. In some cases it was worse than the old buses being replaced as well as new conventional diesel buses. From http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportati...tml?source=mypi: ""This is an unanticipated development," Pingeon wrote. "We had expected the mileage figures to be much better -- these figures are below our current Breda and conventional diesel New Flyer."" and "That's not what was expected of the bus. In an October 2002 e-mail, Boon said, "The vendor indicates that hybrid buses can achieve up to 60 percent in fuel savings, but I am only projecting 20 percent to 30 percent given our hills and traffic congestion." Wow. I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize it was that bad.

Any word on how much GM is contributing towards development? It would be very excellent if GM is providing a major cash infusion that could speed up the process of developing the batteries it will take to make long-range electric cars possible.

Now that I have seen it, I'm not going to defend the base CR-V stereo... that is ugly. Even the Civic and Fit have better looking stereos. Granted, it seems like the base unit is only available on the 20Kish models. But that standard Chevy/Pontiac stereo in the current Torrent and the G6/Cobalt/etc. is very ugly. That display is truly ugly (although the buttons look like a giant leap up from the current model). I believe it is the same one that I saw in the SRX. I couldn't believe that they would put that in a Cadillac. It would be a disappointment in an entry level car.

I stand corrected. That is ugly.

Perhaps I can help you to understand. Honda combined this "1980's alarm clock screen" (see the second row of pictures, far right): http://automobiles.honda.com/models/interi...odelName=CR%2DV with this "high tech looking screen": http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/20...v/photo_08.html Whereas the competition offers no "high tech looking screen" and this 1970's dot-matrix printer screen that seems to predate the invention of LCD: http://autos.yahoo.com/pontiac_torrent_fwd...n&i=inradio If you have trouble bringing up that image, please refer to pretty much any other Pontiac/Chevy interior shot from the past couple of years. But quite frankly, that is the most flattering shot of the screen I have seen. Much more dot-matrix in person. Perhaps the CR-V stereo isn't Honda's greatest work, but I'd say that compared to the competition they are doing OK. If Chevy/Pontiac offered that stereo it would be a crowning achievement.

How mant 6AT Camrys were affected by that issue? How many of them ones being sold right now are affected by that issue? How many Impalas are affected by the 4AT "issue"? I've found it interesting how many people on this board have started saying that GM has matched Toyota's reliability. Toyota seems to be slipping, but as of 2006 they are still #1. GMC is #14, Buick is #18, Pontiac #20, Chevy is #21, Saturn #30, Cadillac #31, and Hummer #34. (Out of 36). Buick makes some very reliable cars (Lucerne and LaCrosse), but that doesn't change the fact that the solstice, cobalt and uplander (for example) are the worst possible vehicles in their category. GM has made some good strides, especially in this segment, but they haven't caught Toyota in reliability. Even if they had, there are still a number of good reasons to buy a Camry. Car reviews don't often focus on reliability. They drive the vehicle for a short period and then give it back. They talk about the vehicle itself (e.g. If the transmission went on the Camry they were driving, I bet they would mention it. But they aren't going to mention a handful or early transmission failures that have since been addressed.). Even in the example you gave above, they were talking about the car in general, not the reliability of the car. It isn't just Toyota... I'd be surprised if there are a lot of reviews that end with "The Cobalt is an average car, but this very model is the most unreliable car in its class." I think you are fighting a battle over something that doesn't happen often while waiting for an end condition that will never happen. And if you got your way the GM cars would come out looking worse as not only are the old models usually unreliable, the new ones continue to trail in reliability in virtually all situations.

Not like GM... they can sell any sh1tty thing, right?

Fusion down 4.4%. Interesting.

In the future I would suggest squandering your reputation on things that at least "matter". RDX and RL are misses. MDX is priced very well and is an excellent product. In the May Car and Driver it won the 8 suv sub-$50K shootout. It beat the likes of the X5, Land Rover, Lexus 470, Volvo XC90, and SRX. It was the least expensive and offered the second best 0-60 and best skid pad (0.86... next closest was 0.81). The TSX will likely be replaced this year and the TL the next. I am not sure what will happen with the TSX (hoping for a turbo 4 with SH-AWD), but the TL should have the same 300+ HP that the competition are offering at a similar price. Acura should also be getting a new coupe as well as the new NSX. Acura should do fine with this new product. There is no one who would reasonably think that Honda is "over-relying" on cars like the Ridgeline and the Element. No doubt they are goofy, but they each account for ~3% of Honda's sales.

Have you seen the sales numbers for the Accord/Camry over the past couple of years? Who do you think was buying those cars? I'm sure there were a lot more OwnedACrappyGM than CRHumpers. The reality is that Hondas/Toyotas are more reliable. So if you do believe that the reliability of a car will affect future purchases (and I agree), then GM will continue to lose sales. An Accord buyer will have a car ~50% better than the class average in terms of reliability. A Malibu owner will have average reliability. An S2000 buyer +40% vs a Solstic -185%. Corolla ~+50% vs a Cobalt at ~-35%. Sienna ~+30% vs a Uplander at -152%. Highlander ~+50-75% vs an SRX at -152%. etc. No doubt GM's cars look a lot better than before and the powertrains are starting to get competitive on the higher-end models. But the reliability really hasn't improved. There are a lot mor OwnedACrappyGM people coming.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps Accord buyers don't think that the Accord looks so bad... perhaps they even like it. Perhaps beauty to them is having lower payments on their next car because they have so much equity in their trade... or perhaps beauty is sleeping in a bit longer because you aren't running your car to the shop. At least I understand them. What amazes me is how many people buy the current Malibu... it is uglier than the Accord/Camry without the additional benefits (reliability, quality, resale, etc.) that come with buying an Accord/Camry. It would appear that a GMHumper humps harder than any Honda/Toyotahumper. :AH-HA_wink:

Seems like a bad idea. All GM is going to do is introduce the Camry to a bunch of domestic humpers (thanks Carbiz) who otherwise would never have ventured into a Toyota dealership. The import humpers aren't going to go to the GM dealership in the first place. Or, if they do, they're already well aware of what the Camry offers. About the only up side to this is there is the potential that GM will be able to sway potential Camry buyers on styling alone. i.e. "Ignore the reliability, fuel economy, power, resale, etc... look at the difference in the grills!" But by definition the vast majority of those people would have been domestic buyers already.

"CR-V sales have climbed 42 percent to 64,591 this year following a redesign in late 2006. " "If the current pace holds, CR-V sales may exceed 180,000 this year, he said. That would be 13 percent more than Honda had planned and a record for an SUV made by an import brand. " "CR-Vs stay on a dealer's lot an average of just 12 days, compared with 28 days for a RAV4 and 68 days for Ford's Escape, according to J.D. Power and Associates. " "In 2002, about 3 million traditional, truck-based SUVs were sold in the U.S., he said. ``It will easily be less than 2 million this year,'' Pipas said. " "The CR-V is 15 inches shorter than the Explorer, 2 inches narrower and about 1,000 pounds lighter. The Honda averages 26.3 miles per gallon in combined city and highway driving; the Explorer gets 17.5. " http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...=transportation

I thought the exact same thing about the wheel gaps. Some thoughts: - It seems to have taken a lot of elements from the TL (especially in the side shots) - The rear end seems to be a let down compared to the rest of the car (a new accord tradition?). - Does not seem as nice as the coupe. - Fix the gaps/stance and remove the tape and it should be a winner. Now we just need some shots of the interior.

Are you joking? The exterior looks better, but the interior is huge leap forward. I swear Nissan must have fired the Kenwood designers who had been doing their crappy interiors and brough in some Infinity designers. Reliability, safety, resale, design, fit and finish, materials, refinement, fuel economy... I must say that GM isn't the embarassment that they once were. Design is much better (although the parts bin is still used a little too frequently). The engines and trannies are much better (at least on the more expensive models... you still tend to get screwed with the lower priced ones). Reliability apparently still isn't there. Resale isn't there... but it should be getting better. Lowering fleet sales will help, but GM still needs to get down from the nearly 40% fleet of cars to get resale in line (Honda is at <2%!). Fuel economy isn't quite competitive (though the Malibu seems to do well). Overall, I'd say they were worth a test drive again. Not purchasing... but perhaps 2 generations from now they will be. But all those things aside, even if GM were making equivalent product to Honda and Toyota, they have nearly two decades of screwups to make up for. I don't think they have that much of a lead over the Koreans.

It was a pretty good month in general in Canda: "The biggest winner in Canada, by far, is Mitsubishi, with a jump of 91.1%. Other car makers that have experienced larger than average increases include Nissan (29.9%), Mazda (27%), Volkswagen (22.4%), General Motors (15.5%) and BMW (14%)." http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,v...=81670&pg=1 I've heard it was a 4 year high.

Honda's Release: " TORRANCE, Calif., May 1 /PRNewswire/ -- American Honda Motor Co., Inc., posted sales of 126,419 Honda and Acura vehicles in April, down 1.6 percent on a daily-selling-rate basis*, the company announced today" GM's Release: "DETROIT - GM dealers in the United States delivered 311,687 vehicles in April, a reduction of 2.2 percent on a sales-day-adjusted basis. GM's April retail sales of 228,465 were up 3.6 percent, on a sales-day-adjusted basis. There were two fewer selling days in April this year. " In case you are new to these releases (which I know you aren't), DSR is the standard way or reporting monthly auto sales. But thanks for including that so, in case there was ANY doubt, I knew I could safely skip the rest of your post.

Or perhaps they are just doing what financial reporters do... trying to emphasize the parts that would be of interest to an investor? When you have a decline of $52.3Billion to $43.9Billion, and ~8Billion of that is GMAC, shouldn't it be a bit of a focus? It seems significant to me. If they didn't mention it, people would assume it was the auto division related. If they really had it in for GM there was a lot more they could have written on the auto side. Like how GM's auot sales may be expanding in Asia/Pacific but how they are doing so at the cost of profitability... from a 681 million profit in Q1 2006 to a 94 million profit in Q1 2007. (GMNA in the making?). Or how, in spite of all the new products from GM, GMNA sales are down 7.6% and the cost savings in health care are going to quickly be rendered miniscule by the continued increases that GM themselves have been forecasting. Or they could have mentioned how the GMNA market share went from 23.8% to 22.8%. All in all it seems good as the bleeding has gone from a drop to a steady decline. The really good news is that Fleet is down from 30.0% to 25.5% in the US. The bad side of that is they are still at 36.8% for cars. That is down from 41.6% Q1, 2006... but it is still extremely high. SEC filing: http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFramese...2F2007&pdf=

The CR-V interior is in a completely different league than the Torrent interior. I can't say that I've sat in a Torrent, but I've tried out pretty much ever interior part of it in one or more GM vehicles so I have a pretty good idea how it all would feel. :AH-HA_wink:

Comparing the washed out flash photo of the CR-V to the computer generated images of the GM cars is not exactly apples to apples.

Honda experienced a marked improvement in interior quality in NA with the current gen Accord. Everything after it has had similar improvements. The Odyssey, Civic, CR-V, and Fit all have controls and materials that put the previous generations to shame. I don't think it is stretching to say that they are all class leaders in their segments. The Fit and Civic put a lot of mid-sized sedans to shame.

Yeah, that steering wheel lookes unconfortably like something a Ford designer would pull out of the parts bin. Do buttons have to be next to the things they control, no matter how akward they are to reach? If so, let me suggest that the steering wheel be beside the left front tire and the stereo controls should be mounted by the tweater in the driver's a-pillar. The TL has the controls up by the moonroof, and I'm no fan of having to reach above my head. Only auto-open/close makes it tolerable. The only advantage I can see is that totally unfamiliar with the car would know where to look right away. Perhaps if Honda was more into making rental queens they would make this a requirement.

I've noticed that Fords seem to have way too many problems that involve them catching on fire (IIRC, they even had a windshield wiper recall that was due to a fire hazard!), but it takes a special kind of stupid (even more so tha Ford) to make this a possibility. Special lawsuit bonus to the familiy of the first consumer who manages this feat. Likely Darwin Award nominee as well.

It would be a very hard job to be expected to be "on the edge" all the time but to never go "over the edge". I don't think Bryant Gumbel's remarks are really comparable to those of Imus. If accurate, pointing out the ratio of various races within various groups is not necessarily racist. I suspect that Gumbel was right... there are probably realtively few african american in the GOP or on the US winter olympic team. I didn't hear the whole Imus transcript, but what I did hear was the use of innacurate and derrogatory terms (both gender and racial). If Gumbel had referred to the US winter olympic team as a bunch of cracker hos, he would have been Imused as well.

Yes, but since the Euro has more buying power their costs to produce will be much less as well. There are other reasons for that. You get that quality German-Need-Servicing-Monthly-Engineering.