Windy-57

Well, they certainly did not build a decent truck this time, but don't forget that Toyota is learning from all of these mistakes and I would guess that the next Tundra will be much improved. So let's hope that GM, Ford and DC don't get too comfortable here...Still enjoying the show though

Well put.

To me, this is a tough call. I do believe that the small truck market is somewhere in the middle on the scale of importance to GM. I'd rank the next Epsilon, Delta, Gamma, Zeta and Theta all above the GMT355s. That said, you make a great point that if trends continue and spread to the pickup side, GM could be in a lot of trouble if large numbers of people went to move out of Silverados and into Colorados (they're class leading with the Silverado, but definitely not on par with the Colorado). So with that, the GMT355s become a very important piece of security against loss of share for GM. But, then they really need to fully redesign (like Malibu-scale redesign) these trucks and not just throw in a V8 and call it good.

Yeah and we know how the Tundra turned out. I think it might be logical to expect some serious quality issues on the Sequoia much like the Tundra has had.On a side note, the whole Sequoia design is very, VERY derived. It looks like the designers went on vacation and said, "Ummm, just throw the Tundra front end on there and that should be good."

Yeah, GM has been answering the bell pretty well lately, answering competitive products with good offerings of their own. Wouldn't surprise me to see GM answer Honda's production hydrogen car with a close-to-production hydrogen car of their own named Vapor. Also, they've been working on hydrogen for a while now with the concepts and the skateboard, so I think it isn't a question of capability, but one of economics, which GM has been thinking outside the box on lately.

This is ugly. I hope the next gen is better.

I kinda like this car. Yes, the taillights are stolen from a Maserati, but I kinda like that too. However, as mentioned, this is nowhere near a luxury flagship model for a number of reasons, but particularly I would point to the lack of a V8. So you can all stop comparing this to Cadillacs now and start comparing it to what its true competiton will be...Buick.

And they've been hitting the web like crazy. I guess that's what you get for $150M. And I like the fact that they're using a lot of product shots, but show people the interior!

I hear what you're all saying, but at this point, GM really shouldn't invest their money into minivans. They'll get more out of focusing that money into other models with high growth potential like the Deltas and Thetas. At the end of the day, you don't need a product in every segment. Every good company goes through this where they'll cull the slow performing products to focus on what's good for them and then return to that market later with a different idea or better iteration. I could see GM keeping some vans in production if they could do it on the real cheap, but that begins to erode the same brand equity they're working so hard to build. So I say, exit the market for 3-5 years. By that time, we'll have found the true floor to the van segment or found what vehicle type is the true replacement and GM can attack the market with products that are relevant and have a solid business plan behind them.

Absolutely, the new one is truly better. But seeing these next to each other makes me realize something. GM didn't need to tear up the old and start all over, they just needed better decisions, less compromises and better attention to the details. I say that because seeing them next to each other, it's obvious that the new Malibu is a Chevy through and through and in many ways is an evolution of the old, not a revolution. They just plain out did a better job with this car and gave attention to the details (as displayed in the rear side blinker with the chevy logo in them)...and it shows. All of that and an interior that is worth a crap.

OK, I consider myself a bit of a Republican and yes 55 is a high number and yes there is a lot of one-upsmanship going on, but at least Hillary is the first candidate to offer some help. Hopefully what follows is a better combination from another candidate...

Couple good issues brought up here: 1. Selling 500K - not a chance. 100K should be considered success. I personally feel that this vehicle will wear in over time and have a sales lifecycle atypical to most. Remember, the hybrid game is still one of image and there are only so many buyers willing to fork over the initial investment to be on the eco-friendly side and most of those people love Toyota and may stay loyal to the Prius. Those facts will be reflected in initial sales volumes, but I think once people realize how much money they can save, they'll start looking at the Volt as a real economic alternative, then you'll see some serious sales. 2. Rather have a $25K pricetag...well sure, $10K would be even better, but as mentioned, $30K is isn't going to make the company a lot of money...if any. 3. Where to plug in...good question. Urban areas are going to be tricky, but should hold a lot of potential for the Volt. Hard to recharge when you park on the street, but I hope GM is starting to make deals with city parking lots or something of that nature. If Volt technology is going to last, the demand for plug-in stations will prompt the supply. 4. A premium Volt...hmmm interesting. Tough to say if they'd get anything out of that or if due to the nature of the vehicle they would only cannibalize sales. Still, I could see a Buick or Saturn do well.

Ok, and I'll give credit where it's due. Honda's been barking up the hydrogen tree for a while (I thought only in concept form, but I guess not) and rightfully so, that's likely where the alternative fuel market is going. But still, there are major issues that put any sort of mass hydrogen sales a long way off and remember that Honda isn't really doing a lot in the interim - no E85, no plug-in, only parallel hybrids.

Good question. I would imagine that not a lot of people actually fill up on E85, but that's either becuase the infrastructure doesn't exist or, to my point, the majority of people say they're more interested in reducing our depedence on petroleum than are actually willing to do something about it. Touche, I stand corrected. Ironic that today is actually the first day the fleets have been released. Still, does Toyota, Honda, Ford, Chrysler, Hyundai, or Nissan have any on the road in the US? As was mentioned, the series is the Volt. Whereas current hybrids supplement and replace gas power with electric, a series hybrid is fully driven by electric power and only uses the fuel tank to generate power and refill the battery. That's how the Volt will run for 40 miles on pure electric power.

Hybrid sales totals will be misleading. This guy is likely giving GM credit for more than just hybrids and is considering the fact that arguably, GM already has the most comprehensive petrol-reducing lineup. They have mild hybrids that are cheap enough for everyday people that can't afford a $3k - $10k premium, they have the 2-mode which is more advanced than any other hybrid system, they have E-85 vehicles, and released a fleet of fuel cell vehicles about a year ago (Equinox). They're continuing to push the issue with the series system which, by all accounts, will be the first of its kind on the road. I think that's more than anyone else is doing... Further, it would be great if the Volt can garner as many sales as the Prius, but that issue is going to entail a lot more than simple capabilities. There is a great hypocrisy among the automotive environmental group. They care more about the image of green than the actual fact. This is evidenced a number of ways. The Prius sells more units than the Camry (and the Camry is one of the top-selling vehicles in NA), why is that? Why is there no praise for a technology that improves the fuel economy of the so-called "gas guzzlers" to a level that is similar to a number of midsize sedans? Why have sports cars been given a pass while SUVs take the brunt of complaints when at least SUVs serve some functional purpose as opposed to sports cars that are built for indulgence? Shouldn't we give up our indulgences before the vehicles we need? These people are uninformed at best and have just found something they like yelling about. And now Honda and Toyota are taking shots at the Volt because it's not the "final answer." Which is pure marketing and positioning BS, but the sad thing is that the environmental peeps are listening to them.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but while Scion does have an average buyer age in the 40s, it does still have the lowest average of any brand. Also, most of those studies are citing transaction data and don't account for the fact that most young new-car owners have their cars bought for them by their parents. Still, Scion's surprisingly old demographic is a good case study in the fact that auto companies shouldn't segment the market using demographics, but should look at it based on other factors...but that's a whole rant in and of itself.

What are you talking about? Have you been paying attention, because to me, GM is doing pretty well under their watch. With BPG being aligned, Buick has a number of other issues to address before building the Riviera. The need to make sure the next LaX is flawless, they need to improve the Lucerne, they need a sub-Enclave crossover, then they need to address their lack of coupes and sporty models.

True, for the people who know what they're talking about, a clean diesel would be a better option. But, GM is having troubles getting one that meets regulations. Also, Hybrid is equated with Green more than Diesel (even if that's not really the case in this situation). So, while they aren't going to sell a ton of these, they should be talking about it as much as possible. Also, every 2-mode pickup sold will help justify the development costs and they're going to use this system on a ton of other architectures too.

First off, some of the vehicles Chrysler will "cut" will be replaced. Durango - Gone, but replaced with a Grand Cherokee-based model Aspen - Just plain Gone Commander - Gone, but replaced with a 3-row Grand Cherokee Compass - Hopefully gone, but I have a feeling the bean counters like that model and it will stick around PT Cruiser - Gone, but replaced with a Caliber cousin Pacifica - Maybe gone with the birth of the upcoming Journey cousin, but I still see a market for the Pacifica to compete with the Lambdas. In the end, cost issues may spell its doom as the new version was supposed share the R-Class structure and the question looms over what it will share a platform with now...back to the minivans? Other than that, the Pacifica is a good, albeit outdated, model in one of the hottest segments in the market. Sebring - If it's gone, it will be replaced. There is no way, absolutely no way, that Chrysler will not have a midsize sedan entrant. Yes, the current model sucks, but it's better than nothing. I'd expect the next model to target the LaX. Crossfire - Most likely gone and don't expect a firepower to replace it anytime soon. Chrysler will use their money to get their core products back in line, then address the exciting ones. Nitro - Tough call. Sure, it's in a shrinking market, but you get costs savings from sharing the Liberty structure and you're sure not going to get rid of that. The numbers may look better on this vehicle than market perceptions may indicate. Magnum - Had a good run, but has faded. Still, the Charger and 300 aren't going anywhere and every Magnum you sell chips into the fixed costs, so maybe it sticks around?? Toss up on this one. I'd have to say that those are your top candidates for the axe. We'll see.

That would be understandable and a good move for the long term. Hope that's the thinking. True, from a business standpoint the automatics are the ones that matter. But, like you, I'm one of the 20%. And I have to say that even though there are a number of upcoming cars that I "want" to buy, the manual G8 will be a car that I may actually put the money up for.

Yeah, they should be making a much bigger deal about the 2-Mode over all, I really haven't seen that much. There are a number of things they can say: 1. Works where other hybrids don't 2. Is the most technologically advanced hybrid on the market 3. Is a hybrid system to clean up the vehicles that need it the most 4. Etc, etc.

Yeah, I don't see this car bombing at all. The vast majority of potential Camaro buyers won't notice the B pillar and wouldn't be able to tell the difference in weight anyhow. The car will still look badass inside and out, will still go fast and feel like a muscle car, and will have the growl of a muscle car too. In short, the image will be in tact. And, in the auto industry, image is what matters. Why else do so many more people buy Priuses rather than Camry hybrids??

That's what I like most about GM's outlook, they have been addressing all of the things you've mentioned. While their short term (last 18 months) performance has been good, they have been setting themselves up well for the long term. UAW buyouts, givebacks, VEBA, reduction of fleet sales, improvement of retail sales, reduced costs by increased sharing and plant flexibility, and the list goes on... That said, I agree that $80 or $90 is a long way off.

Transformers 2 summer 2009?

Yes, I too was one of the dreamers back in the $18 days, but I didn't have the money then...still don't. But you don't just need money, you need a pair of huevos too. I think the stock still has some legs and will hit $50 in the next 6-12 months. Don't forget that the best of GM's new product isn't even on the market yet and they're already bucking industry sales trends. The CTS just started to sell, the Malibu hasn't arrived yet, Chevy Lambda, Camaro, Astra etc. They still have a lot of profit growth potential in Saturn that is starting to catch on as well as Buick and Pontiac that have yet to get their brand overhauls and don't forget about the upcoming new models for Hummer that will likely provide a large number of conquest sales. And further, they still have yet to reap the cost benefits of a fully instituted global Epsilon, Delta, Zeta, Gamma, etc. Mark my words $50 within the next 12 months, possibly $55 by this time next year and if they can get the Volt to market on schedule and without major flaws, they'll be well over $60 in 2 years. In addition, these things happen in swings. Much like GM was undervalued at $18, they will become overvalued at some point which means that even if they don't add all the value I've mentioned, they'll still be able to ride the current momentum for a while. P.S. Doesn't Kirk Kerkorian look silly now?