Windy-57

It's always hard to tell the size of a vehicle from a picture, but my understanding was that this is a Lambda-fighter. I'd hate to be the guy in charge of trying to match what GM has done with the Acadia. GM did a pretty damn good job with Lambda and they'll have a couple of years of on-road consumer feedback to tweak with by the time this arrives. The only thing it has as an advantage is that Dodge is more mainstream than any of the brands that have a Lambda at this point, but then again, this will arrive right around the same time as the Chevy Lambda, right?

The auto extremist has a good little writeup on this...check it out if you have a chance. Basically, he believes that Cerberus will give Chrysler a chance if the UAW moves and if not they'll tear it to pieces.

I don't know, it's so hard to tell the size of a vehicle from a picture. The shape of this looked a lot like the Agila to me. But you're right, the Corsa would be the next step down from the Astra.

These do look pretty good. The Astra, Outlook, Aura and Sky are pretty solidified in their spots for Saturn and they've done a good job here of showing how some evolutionary tweaks could make them look even better. As for the Signal, good call (although it would likely carry the name Agila since GM is supposed to be moving to a global naming structure.) I like the idea of Saturn getting a sub-compact. Given that they are doing the import-figther/euro thing, the model would fit the brand much better than an Agila-based car would fit any other brand. In fact, I would argue that GM should use Saturn as a testing ground for this vehicle even before they decide to go with any of the 3 Chevy sub-compact concepts shown. As for the Switch, no thanks. The idea of a unibody-based pickup is interesting and I can see the argument for one, but I don't think Saturn is the right brand to do it. If I were committed to doing one and had to chose a brand, I would ideally like to be able to test the idea with GMC and possibly follow that up with a Chevy. Unfortunately, unlike the sub-compacts, the US market would likely be the only market for such a vehicle and you'd need both a GMC and Chevy right away to justify investment. If anyone has the ambition to do so, I would love to see a chop of a GMC Switch.

A couple of thoughts... I do believe that being privately held will be a huge advantage and will give Chrysler the time and freedom to do what is truly right. I think the most amazing part of GM's progression in their turnaround has been how they have deflected the scrutiny of Wall Street while doing what is truly right for the long-term. Yeah, the whole "we'll play nice" stuff is typical and a bunch of BS. If you believe that with Wolfgang essentially running the show that they will play nice then you might as well believe that the Pope will convert to Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I like Wolfgang and think his "bull in a china shop" mentality is much needed in the industry, but it's not going to be pretty or nice along the way. And yes, Cerberus has plenty of money in their pockets, but don't think for a moment that they would buy Chrysler in order to share any of it with the UAW. Mark my words, the upcoming negotiations between Chrysler and the UAW will be ugly. I believe that Cerberus would rather use their deep pockets to withstand a strike and bust the union as opposed to using it to meet union demands.

This is a good point. I love the idea of just going for it and putting your product out there to either succeed or fail vs. just passively heading for middle ground, but there may be some executional issues here.

This shouldn't be an issue of whether GM is obligated to provide some sort fix for these OnStar clients, they should take care of it anyway. The lawsuit is proof enough that you're pissing off a bunch of people who buy GM and highly regard the OnStar feature. This should have been viewed as a great way to appease those customers and solidify their return business. And for the people who don't feel GM is obligated, this is a great opportunity to really impress the notion that GM goes above and beyond thus not only ensuring their return business but also making them into GM advocates...something GM doesn't have too many of these days. Thinking long term, how much would it have really cost to retro fit vehicles with the equipment necessary to carry the new OnStar service? Not to mention that OnStar would gladly shoulder some of that cost as it is in their best interest to keep subscription figures up.

Yup, my mom drive a Grand Cherokee and loves it. She likes how it handles in the snow, likes the storage capacity, likes the visibility, likes that she doesn't have to keep it in pristine shape, etc., etc. Which is exactly why I think the Compass is crap. There are other ways to bring females into the showroom. Just advertise to them a bit and outfit a couple of your models with them in mind.

Oil companies don't want them to drop it. They like these plans because it puts all the burden on the automakers to build efficient vehicles and none of it on them to develop more efficient fuels, cleaner burning fuels, or run cleaner processing facilities.

Yeah, I don't get why the Patriot wasn't good enough for Jeep in this market, that vehicle is a better mix of Jeep heritage and on-road efficiency. I know the Compass was supposed to bring female buyers to the brand, but there are other ways. It's scary how Chrysler talks about the Compass too. How it has done well in sales and is conquesting. Yeah, no crap because nobody that would buy a real Jeep would want a Compass. Jeep, pay attention. You can get away with this once. This is your free pass. Do it again and you're going to start seeing a lot of former-Jeep owners driving Hummers. Got it? Good.

I don't know about Toyota doing a RWD V8 sports car, that would be pretty dangerous to their image. Yes, they've done a better job with the Tundra, but there has been plenty of backlash on that. For as much crap as the domestics have taken over environmental issues, Toyota would get it 10 times worse if they betrayed their Green caucus. A 6-cylinder hybridized for extra torque would make more sense. Also, Toyota isn't worried about GM right now. Toyota is well aware of the challanges facing GM right now and knows that there isn't a lot that GM can do to them in the short term. The manufacturer that Toyota is afraid of is Hyundai.

I sincerely think that the Aura will have a much different lifecycle sales trend than other vehciles. Most have a huge first year and then mellow out over the duration in one form or another. But the Aura could actually gain sales past its first year and into the later years as a result of changing opinions and a growing dealer network.

This seems to be a rite of passage in the auto industry. Even Hyundai has been showing a number of concepts that likely won't make production with their HCDs. This thread begs the question, do automakers hurt themselves by presenting these concepts when in terms of price and practicality they can't deliver on them? Is it better to show concepts that are less impressive, but can be built? To me, the answer is no. I don't say this often, but I do believe this is one aspect of the auto industry outsiders just don't get. It would do more damage to exactly build each concept because then you're essentially showing your future models which kills your current ones. Also, you lose the ability to use auto shows as a litmus test for design. And, if a manufacturer showed only production-ready vehicles while other manufacturers were showing concepts, they would garner no attention at all.

I half agree with this. I don't think the WSJ should keep their noses out of auto. I think the auto industry has closed itself off from the rest of the business world for too long. It's time to open up and embrace some ideas that aren't of the old, stodgy manner. On the other hand, you are correct that evaluating businesses (all businesses, not just auto) on a quarter-to-quarter basis is stupid. In fact, that's a big reason the Big 3 are in such trouble because they manipulated sales (fleets and incentives) in order to meet short-term revenue targets when, many times, the better move would have been to deal with lagging sales, keep the brand equity in tact, not train buyers to expect big "deals", and focus on fixing the problem the right way - by building better vehicles and adjusting structural costs as necessary. I'll go even further as to say that I believe that the short-term pressures exerted on businesses by Wall Street is a fundamental flaw in the American business model.

This is exactly why I've been a big proponent of no more branded GM dealerships, but rather just GM dealerships. (I realize this is a blanket statement and some stores should be branded.) Two main reasons: 1. You'll take the moral dilemma away from a Chevy dealer who knows that the buyer wants a Buick (or something else). 2. You'll attract more buyers. Fact of the matter is, most people don't know what they want. If they knew that they could go to a GM dealer and see 8 different brands of cars, that would be a logical stopping point. Also, you'll increase brand traffic. Example: you'd have a Cadillac buyer who would never set foot in a Saturn dealer see the new Aura. Maybe he's not going to buy it, but he might mention to someone else that he was surprised that Saturn actually had a great looking car.

Wow, give them a break. This isn't a linear business and plans need to change sometimes. Extending the current Impala with an MCE in the middle will put it on about a normal cycle anyways. Yes, GM could really use the Zeta Impala, but it's better to wait a year and get it right than to make band aids to get it here earlier. I know there are a number of things that could have caused this, but here's my speculation. All of the RWD delay stuff came about when the details of Bush's fuel efficiency bill came out. As I've mentioned before, the RWD setup of Zeta will allow for an easier application of dual-stage hybrid (it's a RWD hybrid transmission). If GM had plans for a dual-stage Impala, they would likely debut it about a year after the initial introduction. However, with the new fuel rules, they may need the hybrid version at initial launch to help the Impala line meet standards. I also like the thought about diverting funds to the Volt. That would make sense too. Pure speculation, but I think it makes sense.

Love the pun (or is it a play-on-words?), but I don't think this will be dodging EPA regulations at all. This will be the most advanced hybrid system in the world and will address fuel economy issues in a couple of manners that no other hybrid will: 1. It will work on the highway. Current hybrid systems lack the ability to utilize electic power while cruising. While a Prius may be rated at 50-60 mpg, it seriously fails to achieve that in everyday driving. The dual-stage will likely fall short of its stated goal too, but there will be less of a gap. 2. MPG is not the ultimate goal. There should be some rating of people-miles per gallon or utility-miles per gallon. Is it better that some idiot is flying around at 50 mpg by himself in a Prius or if there are 5 passengers in a Tahoe hybrid getting 25 mpg?

Not only is it not a bad thing, it's a good thing. So looking forward, how can GM use the, "Toyota is #1" to their advantage? I don't really like it when the any of the Big 3 run a "Buy American" campaign (It's usually a fleeting attempt to make some short term sales), but if ever there was time for it... Think about it, not only can they make some sympathy sales, they have some seriously improved products out right now and might return some of those sympathy buyers to loyal GM buyers on strength of product.

Yeah, the Olds topic is way overplayed. And here's another thought; Toyota would have taken the crown from GM a long time ago if they would have used the same level of incentives and fleet sales. But they didn't because it's bad business...which is also why GM is backing off.

Yup, that certainly looks like the Impala in the background. My guess would be that this coupe is Zeta based (although it's always hard to tell size from clay models and pics), but what name it would carry? On another note, I know that the enthusiasts here will get excited about the possibility of a Chevy coupe, but I think GM is getting close to that limit of having developed too many sporty models. I understand that their brands can hold more sporty models, but it seems like they're designating a lot of their restricted budgets toward them.

You don't hear enough about On-Star anymore. This is still a huge unique selling point for GM (I've heard a number GM buyers say that they'll never buy a car that doesn't have On-Star) and it's only going to get bigger as navigation systems become more common and GM continues to improve On-Star's capabilities. I seriously think this is one of GM's most under-leverged assets. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/25/onstar-...car-navigation/

Better yet, why are they putting the SS badge on it at all? I thought Chevy was going to be more selective with using the SS name? To me, I don't see an HHR being a true SS.

I find this very impressive. I think (if it's possible) GM has made themselves an underdog and people aren't giving them credit for being the powerhouse that they are still. It's amazing (almost scary) what they can accomplish when they put their mind to it. Don't forget, GM didn't get behind on the hybrid game because they weren't able to develop one or because Toyota and Honda were able to develop them that much faster, it was a rational business choice, one that hasn't gone their way, to focus on other things such as trucks and SUVs. And, I think it's hard to make an argument that they don't have some damn fine trucks and SUVs. Further, think about how far GM has come in the fuel efficiency/emissions reduction game in a short couple of years since putting some real focus in that area. They are leading the way in ethanol development, are making a push for diesels, are on par or better (as far as I know) with everyone else in hydrogen development, have the most economically viable hybrid (the mild hybrid in the VUE), will have the world's best hybrid system on the road in a few months (dual-stage), and are neck and neck with the competition to deliver a plug-in hybrid. And, that's despite being behind by a couple of years when they got started; I know they don't get extra point for that since it's self-inflicted, still it's impressive when you consider the pace of development. If GM keeps up these efforts and brings a high-quality Volt to market sometime around 2010, they'll start to see significant improvement in the brand image away from being a producer of gas guzzlers to a leader in technological advancement. Good stuff GM, keep it up.

Agreed. Hopefully the brass at GM realizes this too and doens't dilute the brand with vehicles that don't fit the brand image. If they keep Hummer true to its core buyers, the brand will do just fine. If they try to appeal to the mainstream and environmentalists, they will fail miserably. For that matter, I hate what Jeep did with the Compass. The Patriot is OK, but the Compass dilutes their image and is going to piss off a lot of Jeep loyalists.

I know we've talked a lot about media bias on this site and it's always so much fun that I offer the latest example: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/16/parents...ehicles-for-07/ A couple of questions: 1. How in all decency did the CR-V and Santa Fe end up in the SUV category when the RAV4 is a crossover? 2. The Entourage gets on the list, but neither of Chrysler's vans are there? Seriously? 3. Since when is the Mazda3 a family car? I'm sure there is plenty more wrong with this list, but I'll let you guys have some fun picking it apart. For those of you not inclined to click the link, the list looks like this: Crossovers: Toyota RAV4 Dodge Caliber Ford Edge SUVs: Honda CR-V Chevrolet Tahoe Hyundai Santa Fe Minivans: Honda Odyssey Toyota Sienna Hyundai Entourage Sedans: Toyota Camry Honda Accord Mercury Milan Economy Cars: Honda Civic VW Rabbit Mazda 3 The above are the official 15, the three below are not included in their offical ratings because they are considered too small for families, but they threw them in anyways because they couldn't resist the opportunity to squeak in a little more import humping. New Subcompacts: Nissan Versa Toyota Yaris Honda Fit