ellives

They won't be changing those for '07. As you pointed out, there was a facelift for '06. Sheesh.

I have a work mate who drove one of these out in Las Vegas at some kind of GM track. Drove both the C6 and the STS-V and came away liking the V-car better for all around drivability. It's my next dream car. Go GM!

Won't be around? You say this based on what facts? Personally I have no problem with this model, other than the interior.

Give the guy credit for having the mini-balls to reply to your message. If he really had a pair, he'd be on here responding to the posts about him. At least Buickman does that much.

"Facts," properly analyzed, are the only way to make reasonable arguments. Anything else is pointless drivel (TV commercials.) Let's quit acting like children with the tit-for-tat bull$h!.

Another lemming.

I don't believe Dexcool is ONLY 160K miles. I'm sure there is a time limit as well. Dexcool has been controversial since it's introduction. I certainly would not push any lifespan limits with it. The easiest way to kill and engine is to neglect the coolant. (A *LOT* of "pro" mechanics are lax and/or ignorant about this point in my experience.)

I see a lot of use of the word "could." I'd much prefer any car company to simply get the word out and fix the problem. Every company will have some kind of recall. Heck my '97 Northstar still hasn't been in for the "recall" for the fuel lines and it's well on its way to the 200K mile club. Maybe GM wants to put it in one of their ads in response to those Toyota ads blathering about their mileage.

What's a thousand dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Answer: A good start I hope the scumbag lawyers investigate whether the owners of these so-called defective engines actually maintained the coolant in these engines.

This is the problem with general statements: there are always exceptions. My personal opinion is that anything can run forever with the right maintenance and attention to things. My point has really been that GM does not respond to these Toyota ads. Toyota is allowed to run slipshod over GM based on non-existant quality advantages. This is a war and GM should be attacking and going for the jugular.

Me too. I've always hated those Toyota commercials that tout how many miles their cars go and that "80% of all Toyotas from such-and-such a date are still on the road." The "convenient" problem is they never actually compare this number to anyone else and the st00pid consumer would never question the statement. They'd just assume this number is somehow good.

I absolutely agree with this statement. I have been outraged listening to this quote in the media unchallenged. It's exactly what you describe: Employers are too damn cheap to pay enough for someone who isn't starving or illegal to be willing to do the job. It's "supply and demand" people. If there isn't a supply of workers willing at one price, you have to pay more. Simple.

Ouch! I'm not sure I'd agree "disgusting greed" is quite appropriate. I've found over the years that while the union is SUPPOSED to operate as a single unified force, once the union has the upper hand, each union member operates focused only on what he or she can get away with while still remaining compliant with the "union rules." General statements are risky because there are always exceptions but I've found this behavior to be rampant. The problem is that union agreements have tended to be structured in ways that encourage this kind of behavior. In fact I see them as having fostered lack of individual responsibility and ambition. The "goal" always seemed to be to "get into the union" and you're "all set." This should not be the ultimate goal and clearly provides a haven for those who don't want to make the effort and in the end cause the overall negative image unions have. My 2 cents.

How about we focus our collective energies toward Mr. Bush and explain to him how "relevant" national healthcare would be?

Bring it Delphi! Bring it! Wait! Nevermind. Josh will blame THAT on management too.

Are you kidding? Tariffs? How about if we just compete? If we're better, we'll get the business. If not, we won't.

I can't believe you actually posted this statement. It epitomizes the reason why Toyota is eating GM's lunch.

Personally I don't care for Mr. Bush's approach. All this whining and hand wringing about Iran makes me weary. Iran says they're not building nukes to get a bomb. They say they want nukes to generate energy. This is in spite of the fact they are sitting on a PILE of oil. OK, so let's take them at their word, with the following proviso: The moment we detect the underground detonation testing of a nuclear device within the territory of Iran, we'll glaze the country. No discussion. No UN. No whining. Just BOOM! How's that for politically correct walking softly and carrying a big stick?

I'll give him credit for that. I won't give him credit for blind ignorance.

Keep in mind, looking beyond the opinions about stock price stated in the prior posts, that stock price is an indication of FUTURE value of the stock and FUTURE earnings. It has nothing to do with any past results. This said, recent past results are often read as indicators of the POTENTIAL for improvements in the future. Remember the old stock disclaimer: "past earnings are not a guarantee of future earnings" or some such other rubbish. Past results and published expectations (and some unpublished) are already built into the current stock price.

Umm - companies don't invest money to get the same money back in sales. They invest it to make a profit. Otherwise you might as well put the money in the bank and have them pay interest.

I haven't spent a penny at ExxonMobil since the prices started skyrocketing and they announced the record profits. Those profits told me their claims that "supply and demand" was driving prices up were pure unadulterated lies. Exxon and Mobil should never been allowed to merge. They collectively own way too much of the market. Of course the US population is ultimately to blame because we didn't bitch about it when we had the chance. Since we talked about "profit" and "profit margin" on this thread earlier, it seems a good time to point out the value of boycotting vendors you're not happy with. For instance when you're buying gas and you opt NOT to got to another station that's a penny or two cheaper, you're hurting yourself. The penny/gallon doesn't matter to either company selling the gas. What they *do* care about is getting the sale. By giving the more expensive (or unethical in ExxonMobil's case) the business, you shouldn't be concerned about the 25 cents you'd be saving by going to the better vendor, but you *should* be concerned about the 150 dollar swing of business you're NOT giving to the better vendor. YOU have the power to have your voice heard by where you spend your money.

Maybe Mr. Bush could help them out by passing a national health care program. Not like the farce that Medicare part D is, where it's just a handout to the drug companies but a REAL national health care plan. Oh but that's right, it wouldn't be relevent.

This is good news. A sign that GM and a union can work together and come up with a plan that can work for both sides. Personally I'd be content if neither side ever published the details of the contract. The media would just manipulate the real story anyway.

No single product or product line will save a company. Companies need to stay close to and understand the market they sell to and respond rapidly when the market changes. To the extent a company can respond rapidly, they mitigate the risk of missing market shifts. This is one of the reasons Toyota's announced plan targeting 12 month development cycles was so significant. It allows them to bring their new products and ideas to market faster than competitors and if one of heir competitors has an idea that's better, it will only take a year to correct the problem. This is the where GM will need to go in the future - shorter and shorter develop cycles and staying VERY close to the market.