GXT

The Venture and derivatives were sold from 97 until 2005. So I guess they are 2 years or 10 years behind depending on how you look at it. Honda is now probably one generation ahead of GM.

It is my (limited) understanding is that the though lift, duration and timing are linked, they are linked in a generally advantageous manner. The system is less complicated than the current iVtec, apparently offers 13% better fuel economy than the current 2.4L (that would mean the new accord should get ~29/38 MPG), and will provider an even wider and higher torque. It looks pretty nice as well: http://hondanews.com/CatID2073?view=p&...w=AccordConcept

Well I guess that explains a few thousand of the $12 Billion loss!

Anyone seen any hard numbers on the fleet/retail mix?

The ALG resid for the 2006 500 is in the 32% range after 4 years. Did you get some kind of great initial deal? Otherwise I would say you are already paying for it every month as it has been factored into your payments. Perhaps you have already been slaughtered and you don't know it yet? :AH-HA_wink:

Looks pretty "re-done" to me... http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2003?view=p&...w=AccordConcept

I pointed out that I liked the concept of the Volt but currently it is essentially only a theory. I got bashed for pointing out that a vague "she said he said" email is of questionable validity. To me, both points are so obvious I shouldn't have had to have made them (let alone justify them to you afterwards). And maybe I shouldn't have, but some of the non-noobs seemed to be organizing parties to celebrate this email and welcoming the Volt as the second coming.

I think we all appreciate the information. You presented the nature of it clearly. I think you understand that we all have a right to give differing levels of credibility to it. To those who called me a noob for uestioningly a "he said she said" email... perhaps after some experience I will "learn" to give the benefit of the doubt to questionable information with a certain slant, and to automatically bash organizations, technologies, news, etc. that leans the other way. Something to aspire to.

The Solara is the "Camry Solara". By that standard it makes sense that they be included in the Camry counts. But it brings up an interesting question as to how alike two vehicles "have to be" in order to bear the same name. Does GM count the Malibu Maxx sales with the Malibu sales? I can't speak to the other numbers because I haven't seen them, but who compiled the ABA list?

Looks like Honda settled quickly. http://www.odosettlementinfo.com/Vaughn%20Final%20FAQs.pdf 1) Warranties extended by 5%. 2) Reimbursement for work that should have been covered by warranty. 3) Increase by 5% in the mileage allowance. 4) Refund of excess mileage payment.

Thanks for the information, but it is still ambiguous as to what is real and what is theory. Are there any non-computer generated images of the drivetrain? Any examples of the car in action?

No matter how good BuddyP says a friend of his says someone at his office says one of the GM exec says Jeremy Anwyl says Michelle Krebs's paraphrases some namelss Honda exec says GM's "surfaces" are, I just can't see Honda being "worried as hell" about the Acadia, Outlook, etc. Let alone say it in public. I would like to know exactly what GM is doing to their "surfaces" that the Japanese are so in awe of but absolutely refuse even to try. BuddyP, can you get the header information from the email? Perhaps there is some information in there that could trace it back.

Nor should the president of a organization who reviews vehicles be sending "She said he said" emails to the execs of companies who manufacture the products they review. Certainly that would raise concerns of bias. Plus they wouldn't out the reporter who heard the comments as that would hurt the reporter's chance of getting future information. This has all the signs of a made up story that name drops in order to try to gain credibility. If it is true, very poor of edmunds. If it is false, this speaks to the desperation or stupidity of GM.

No, I am going by CR numbers. The G6 and Cobalt are horribly unreliable by their stats. Like "jump off the page" bad. It kind of suprised me at first, but now I am wondering if a lot of GM's quality improvement was due to producing so many models that had been around for so long. It might just take 3 or 4 years to get the problems worked out. I'm not sure if that is true, but time will tell. I know a lot of people don't like CR because GM doesn't do well, but until automakers are forced to disclose all repair work (I'm not holding my breath) it is the best that we have as consumers.

Why is the president of Edmunds sending emails to GM execs? What does she mean by "surfaces"?

You could do that... or you could actually wait and see if it is true or if you would just be perpetuating a myth. Google News Cobalt Recall Search Google News Tundra Recall Search Still early for the Cobalt recall, but the count is 307 for the Tundra and 110 for the Cobalt. Some headlines: "Huge Recall a Setback for Toyota in the US" "Toyota Recall Threatens Quality Reputation" "Another Huge US Recall for Toyota Trucks" I don't know how it will end up, but I suspect that the recalls will be covered appropriately. In Toyota's case it will also spawn a number of "Toyota Quality Failing" articles which incorrectly try to draw broad assumptions of overall quality based on recall counts (it is happening already). So perhaps the exact opposite of what you posted will be true?

What is wrong with counting Scion with Toyota sales? Would you feel better about it if Toyota Corp renamed themselves GM, their Toyota brand Chevy, and their Scion brand Pontiac and then reported GM sales? Last time I checked, GM gives GM totals as well: http://www.gm.com/company/investor_informa...veries_0612.xls Toyota, Honda, et al were reporting based on the rules at that time. It sounds like Toyota got a little loose by reporting the Sienna numbers with premium gas even though premium fuel wasn't required. But even that was allowed under the rules, and it was something an owner could do. Still, it seems a little questionable. But other than that, I cannot find fault with what they were doing. There is no question that Toyota and Honda made a mistake by retesting their existing vehicles. They should have done what Ford, GM, etc. had done and just tweaked the cars for the following year. The TSX and the Accord both had higher HP the model year following the new standards (even though the engines remained the same on the spec sheet). If Honda hadn't restated their existing models they too would have been understating their HP like the virtuous Ford, GM, etc. I will give Ford, GM, etc. credit for harping on a 4% drop in the TL's and SC430's HP to distract from the fact that they are selling V6s that are getting bested by Honda's "over rated" 4cyls (Escape 200HP V6 vs CRV 166HP 4Cyl) or cars with 4AT/pushrods that don't offer comparable performance to even lower HP "over rated" Toyota/Honda models. Brilliant.

I wish all the non-lemmings luck with their batteryless Volts. Of course it is obvious, just as building an electric car that uses an engine to generate electricity is obvious. I don't see why you are criticizing me for saying that GM doesn't have a good environmental reputation. Nor do I see how what you wrote has anything to do with disproving that. But what did you expect me to write in response to, "I wouldn't be so sure about all that if I were you."? I repeated my points and asked what he disagreed with.

At least they showed the Flux Capacitor in Back to the Future. Can you provide me a link to the pictures of the components of the drivetrain in this concept? I believe GM will build a similar car one day. I believe a lot of auto makers will. All I am saying is that both cars were visions of the future that can't be produced today. GM has said as much. So I'm not sure exactly what I have written that I could be "proven wrong" about.

There is a tendency in like-minded groups to reinforce each others' beliefs until their separation from reality becomes clear. In politics they call it the "Dome Syndrome". At Cheers and Gears we could call it the "Cobalt Syndrome". It does a service to no one. So forgive me if I don't give credit to GM for creating a concept that is nothing more than a car with a drivetrain that they cannot produce and that more than likely everyone else has already thought of. I see that is impressive to you. For me, I’ll wait until they actually deliver on it. Hopefully they won't be half a decade behind Toyota and Honda. Until then it is just a good idea. PS. The Jetta TDi will not get better fuel economy than the Prius in real-world city driving. Plus it has higher emissions.

If being more attractive than the Prius is your design goal then you have already lost! And they were the ones that abandoned EV1 and whatever might have come after it. Imagine where they would be now if they had continued. But at least all those things you mention are real products. That to me is more significant than a theory that other manufacturers wouldn't bother to mention.

About what? GM admitted they can't make it until batteries improve. GM is lagging in hybrids. GM doesn't have a good environmental reputation. And yes, the time machine in Back to the Future is about as real as this concept.

It might have been intentional sensationalism to promote their agenda (like say, the link to this thread on the main page "Consumer Reports caught lying again"), or it might have been an honest mistake which they have taken action to correct. I don't believe CR has ever claimed to conduct their own crash tests. And if a lab that does NHTSA testing says they did a crash at a certain speed it might take an NHTSA expert to be able to show that the speed was different. It does sound like there was some due diligence that was missed. And why is this evidence of bias? Did the asian car seats do better than the US ones or something? :AH-HA_wink:

Well I guess it is time for some group to start testing a number of different cars from each make to see how bad the situation is accross the board. Perhaps C&D could add a "% Odometer Deviation" metric right under the 0-60 time.

Gotcha. That doesn't seem fair... all the manufacturers screw up enough on their own :AH-HA_wink: