Northstar

Agreed on the Sub-Thetas. I never personally saw the reason for anything smaller than the VUE, and the HHR covers the market fine (and the Vibe). I don't think pushing the Malibu back will push back RWD. RWD is/will already be global before Epsilon II, and thus I think it's possible that the RWDs will come out before the Malibu. Remember, we're supposed to be getting a surprise Pontiac production vehicle at one of this year's auto shows. We should know a lot more about where RWD depending on what the vehicle is.

Here's what I'm thinking now: 1) GM doesn't want to spend big bucks on more Epsilon I cars, so it's delaying the Malibu for 2 years (or re-doing it completely) and delaying the G6 1 year. Rather than having them have very short lifecycles, it will simply let them wither for an extra 1-2 years and in the end be financially better because of it. 2) GM figures the Aura can carry the bulk of sales for now and will just upgrade the Malibu and G6 to be as good as the Aura until they're replaced. I think GM doesn't feel like spending the money on a brand-new Malibu for 2008 when they already had planned for a Epsilon II Malibu in 2010. Same goes for the G6. Why would GM put the G6 on Epsilon I for 2009 if it could wait a year and save big development costs by putting it on Epsilon II a year later? When does the first Epsilon II debut in Europe? Anyone know? This could help us figure out when the timetable is for North American Epsilon II's.

The only reason that I have been able to come up with as to why GM would delay/cancel the NG Malibu and ION (both of which were supposed to be awesome -- and we know the ION was) is that now they're concentrating on the several new crossovers they have planned. I remember a discussion a while back in which our insiders told us that GM thinks crossovers are going to be the key to the future. While getting ahead of the game in an expanding market is good, does GM just expect it's current sedan buyers to make the move to X-Overs when they find out the sedans GM offers in 3 years are the same ones it offers now? I'm all for GM trying to control the X-Over segment, but I don't see the need for as many X-Overs as it has planned if it means sacrificing other VERY important products. If my memory serves me correctly (and I probably need a refresh from our insiders on Sub-Theta) both Saturn and Chevy were supposed to have a Sub-Theta to go along with the Equinox and VUE. Now, with the next VUE already having debuted in concept form, and we know it's pretty damn cool, wouldn't it make more sense to push ahead the ION and cancel the S-T (Sub-Theta) because the next VUE looks so good and I see the S-T doing nothing but cannibalizing sales. In addition, I see a Chevy S-T cannibalizing a lot of HHR sales, and it would make a lot more sense to get a kick-ass Malibu out than a S-T that's not going to sell in nearly the volume a class-leading family sedan would. With the news of the ION and Malibu this week, I've been trying to figure out what the hell GM is doing, and this is my only explanation. After examining what I think GM's reasoning may be, it makes almost no sense. Sure, the S-T's may make some money since SUVs/X-Overs are generally good money makers, but they aren't going to sell in the numbers the ION or a class-leading Malibu would. Plus, GM already has a decent foothold in the small X-Over segment with the Equinox and VUE. This is all speculation and it's quite possible the ION and Malibu were delayed/cancelled for other reasons, but I would much rather see GM cancel the S-Ts than cancel CRUCIAL future cars. The S-Ts are not crucial to GM's future success, but the ION and Malibu could be.

Well, if we look at the price issue and consider that the price-per-unit goes down with each engine made, wouldn't the price have to be pretty similar to the HV V6s if they produced millions of the HF V6s a year? If GM put the HF V6s in the following cars it would be producing millions of them just in North America: (Everything that it is already in) Malibu G6 Impala Monte Carlo Lucerne Lacrosse (standard) Grand Prix CSVs Equinox Torrent VUE (instead of the Honda V6) -- How can GM afford to buy a similar-to-HFV6 engine from Honda but can't afford to make some themselves? That doesn't even count any Holdens, Opels, Vauxhall's, etc., from other parts of the world.

Why would the I5 be optional if the 3.9L had 250hp? That'd be a downgrade.

So apparantly GM only wants to put HF V6s in premium vehicles?

The first thing I thought of when I saw it was Grand Cherokee. I'm not impressed at all, and the center stack and console don't come together well at all, there's a sizeable gap there. The Escalade's not only looks much better, but the console and stack flow well together.

How does he think the RAV4, new Camry, FJ, Yaris, and Tundra are going to add 400k? That's a ton of added sales. The RAV4 will do well, but I don't think it's going to add more than 50k units over the current one. The new Camry may add sales, but I find it hard to believe that it will grow very much considering it already sells close to 450k units a year. I think the FJ will sell pretty well, but I really don't see it setting the sales chart on fire. The Yaris is ugly, and I don't see it doing any better than 50k/units a year. The Tundra could add significant volume, but it's going to have some damn good competition from the current F-150 and GMT900 pickups. Plus it's in the one segment where Toyota doesn't have so many loyal buyers. How does he figure it's going to sell 150k more units per year when it doesn't even sell 150k units right now? That's a bit optimistic.

I've been thinking about GM becoming more global and whatnot, and how platforms will now be engineered for use around the world as well as other vehicle componets. But, what about engines? Are the HV V6s used anywhere other than North America? Wouldn't it be easier (and save costs) to produce millions of HF V6s globally and use them in everything that needs a V6? I'm not starting this thread to necessarily put down the HV V6s, but the HF V6s are clearly better and it seems the only reason for GM not putting them in more cars is cost. If they were produced in huge numbers, wouldn't it bring the cost down significantly and bring the price-per-unit down to near HV V6 levels? If GM is truly becoming global, why not globalize engines too?

I'm having a hard time thinking that it's delayed, because I found a document in early Nov that was dated Oct 26 2005 and it still had the 386 as an '08 MY.

The same press release mentioning the 3.5L said the 3.6L HF V6 would be optional: "Lajdziak confirmed that the Aura sedan will be powered by a standard 3.5L V6 engine with variable valve timing, with an optional, sophisticated DOHC 3.6L V6 VVT that produces an estimated 250 horsepower. The 3.6L will be mated to GM’s new, advanced 6-speed FWD automatic transmission. " I also emailed Lutz a few months ago when news of the Aura w/the 3.5 came out, and he said it would be available with the Ecotec, 3.5, and HF V6 (3.6). Apparantly the 3.5 is supposed to be priced at the same price as competitors' I4s, but isn't the I4 going to be cheaper than the 3.5? I don't understand why you would need both.

Please don't tell me it's delayed...

The fender sweeps are terrible, but the face sucks, sorry.

I doubt they'll debut at either of those, since they won't be out for 11 months. I'm betting on Chicago (where the refreshed ones debuted in 2003) or New York. If they debut in Detroit or LA it is also possible that they will steal some limelight from the SUVs and Lambdas.

Those are some pretty sad numbers from GM. 40% is rediculous, it's no wonder they're not turning a profit.

Fleet Car of the Year Award? What a slap in the face.

I doubt Saturn will be without an economy car for very long. IMO, it would be better if the ION looked like the Sky rather than a mini-Aura (although the sketch was good-looking) and if pushing it back a year to co-develop it with the next Astra means cheaper costs and a better vehicle, I'm all for it.

Congrats on the purchase! Get us some real-life pictures when you can.

Good. It's also good to see the crew cabs coming out first, as they've been hot sellers for the F-150 and Ram.

There's no way the press would have been gushing over that (as they were when they saw it), so there's no way that's close.

I don't think production has started yet, but wasn't it supposed to start arriving in 1Q '06? If so, then that's probably why you can order it.

I thought the Tahoe was supposed to get it before the Durango, so maybe that means it gets it for 2008 too?

Yes, that's why it was delayed. They decided that a Camaro wouldn't be enough of a Camaro if it was based on a large sedan chassis.

Well, I would assume the G6 coupe would look like the G6 sedan but with two doors (basically as it does now), and there's no way any sedan will look as sweet as the Camaro we saw yesterday.

This is an interesting proposition. A RWD G6 would work, but I'm worried the cost might not be able to be kept down enough if it had the same basic suspension as the GTO (which would be somewhat expensive I think). If the price could be kept down, then I'd be all for it, and then Pontiac could just import the Holden sedan for something above it with minimal changes so that it wouldn't cost them much money to develop. However, I think the GTO should have somewhat different sheetmetal than the G6 coupe. I don't see any reason for someone to buy a V8 G6 coupe (what the GTO could be) if they could have a kickass Camaro for the same price or possibly less.