andy82471

For $170K I would expect close to 600 HP. Otherwise the car would be a flop when there are plenty of 500+ Hp cars available for a lot less. While I think the car would be a decent buy if the price was around 70 to 80K, i dont think the car would sell well for 100k above that.

Personally, I would pick a late 90's Supra over this anyday. I don't think Toyota is ready to dance with the big boys yet.

Hmm, I always thought the Impala was an Avalon fighter. Wasn't that the original intention ? I thought the Malibu was the Camry fighter.

Actually, Hp is up by 4 compare to the 06 version. Toyota didn't use SAE ratings prior to 06 model hence pre 2006 Camrys were rated at 160 Hp. But I agree 158 Hp is a bit disappointing since the 2.4L engine in GM cars is rated at 170 to 177 Hp. Does anyone if GM is using SAE ratings for 06 models ? I would have thought Toyota would have tried to match the 2.4 Ecotech engine in output. Also, the 07 Camry is about 150 lbs heavier than the previous models so i dont know how good the accleration is going to be. I guess, Toyota is trying to force more people to move up to the V6 versions.

Yep, Healy calls it like he sees it. He is not a biased reviewer at all. He is equally tough on the imports as he is on the domestics. Personally, I tend to stay away from a first year car precisly because of the glitches associated with it.

Why would he lose his job ?? Sounds like he was fairly impressed with the car overall.

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/autos/conten...0215_597701.htm Wow how ironic. The Americans love Lexus more than the Japanese.

Well for GM's sake I hope they are working on a fix for ALL the dissatisfied owners. If not, the upcoming Toyota Tundra and Sequoia might look like a mighty attractive alternative. Loyalty is a two way street after all. The last thing GM needs right now is bad publicity.

Supra and the late 80s early 90s Celica and MR2

If they offer enough configaration plus a heavy duty version, I think they can easily sell between 200 to 300K a year. I am sort of surprised that GM plans to stick with the 4 speed auto for the 5.3L engine and only offering the 6 speed with the 6.0 and the 6.2L engine. But I guess that is understandable given GM's financial situation.

Well, in aviation efficiency is measured in two ways. One is how many more passengers per gallon you can carry and there the 777 has a significant advantage. Remember, even a 5 to 10% increase in efficiency coupled with the fact that the 777-200 can carry more passenger than the 340-200/300 translates into big savings for airlines. Another fact to remember is that having 4 engines also means higher maintenence cost over a 2 engine jet. Plus, the 777 can also fly further than the 340 i believe. The 777-200LR has a range of more than 13,000 miles, which means it can fly non stop between two furthest point on earth. No wonder the 777 is killing the A340 in sales. Yep 777 is definitely the one I would buy over the 340 . Those GE115 engines really kicks some ass. GE really knows how to build powerful yet fuel efficient engines. I believe Boeing is building a "stretched" version of 747-400 to compete with the A380. If the pricing is competitive, I think it should do quite well.

Boeing is doing well because of two key product; the Boeing 777 and the upcoming 787. Do you know why the 777 is the hottest selling commercial jet right now ? Because it is fuel efficient compare to its competition, the Airbus A340. It is also bigger on the inside and much more comfortable on a long journey aka less turbulence at cruising altitude. Compare to the 777, the 340 is a gas hog thanks to the 2 extra engine it has. What GM needs is an automobile equivalent of the 777; something that is fuel efficient and yet refined and comfortable.

How about an AIRBUS A380 replacing the 747 as the next Airforce One ? I guess this is what it would look like. http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairline...php?id=00000696

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_...ette_comes_back A nice article with a happy ending. I guess miracles do come true sometimes. CARSON, Calif. - The last time former New York City resident Alan Poster saw his dream car, he was young and it was blue. Nearly four decades later, he's a little grayer and the car has turned silver — but it was love at first sight again as the Corvette somebody swiped in New York was returned to him. ADVERTISEMENT "It's a dream. Wow, this is a beautiful model," Poster said as customs officials unveiled the 1968 sports car. "This is definitely a miracle. Because in speaking to the police, the odds of them finding me were a million to one." Poster said last week that he won't drive the car much — he has a Mercedes — but he is glad to have it back in his collection. Poster was living in New York in January 1969, when the car he'd bought for $6,000 three months earlier was stolen from a parking garage. Poster had not insured it against theft because he could not afford to do so. He went on with his life, eventually moving to Northern California. In November, the Corvette was inside a shipping container at the Port of Long Beach, destined for a buyer in Sweden. A routine customs check showed that the car had been reported stolen on Jan. 22, 1969, but there was no address for the owner. Nobody knows where the car was or through how many hands it passed. While it appeared in perfect condition, some things had changed. It was silver with a red interior, had a different engine and lacked a gas tank, and its transmission had been stolen from another car. The car was seized, and New York police were notified. Two detectives spent days studying microfilmed files until they found the report. They tracked down Poster and notified him that his long-lost Corvette had been found. "The odds against finding it so many years afterward were phenomenal," said Mike Fleming, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. No arrests were made in connection with the theft of the car or the transmission. The car's seller, a Long Beach collector, and the Swedish buyer are not suspected of wrongdoing, authorities said. Poster, meanwhile, is overjoyed. "This car was probably the last car I ever really (loved)," said Poster, 63. "It was the hottest thing around."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Sorry link doesnt work. Airbus still No.1 in the large commerical air market but Boeing sold more larger aircraft than AB. PARIS - A December sales surge kept Airbus on top of the global passenger jet market in 2005, the company said Tuesday — bettering Boeing Co.'s orders and deliveries. ADVERTISEMENT But Airbus conceded it had lost ground to Boeing in the market for larger, more profitable planes and said it plans to review its A340 jet in the wake of disappointing sales. Airbus announced 1,055 net orders for 2005, beating its U.S. rival's 1,002, and delivered 378 airliners to Boeing's 290. Excluding cancellations, the Airbus tally came to 1,111 orders, the largest number ever booked either side of the Atlantic. The Airbus figures defied predictions that the European plane maker would lose the lead in orders it took from Boeing in 2001, two years before pulling ahead on deliveries. In the 11 months to Nov. 30, Airbus had reported 687 firm orders. "We had a very busy December," Airbus Chief Executive Gustav Humbert said at a briefing before Tuesday's announcement. The final figures include a late surge of order confirmations for single-aisle A320 models. China bought 150 of the jets during a visit to Paris last month by Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao — upstaging a Boeing deal the previous month to sell 70 737s to China. In longer-range, wide-bodied planes, however, it is Airbus that has struggled to keep up. Boeing sold 455 such jets last year, representing 44 percent of its total orders. Airbus took orders for 193 of the larger planes, or 17 percent of its total — with the rest made up of single-aisle planes that are typically less profitable. As a result, Boeing won the larger share of the overall market by order value in 2005, Humbert said. "As far as we see it, Boeing has 55 percent in value and we have 45 percent in value, although we are leading in the number of aircraft," he said. Humbert also indicated that the A340 is under review. The four-engine jet — which flies 380 passengers up to 7,500 nautical miles in the largest of its three versions — attracted only 15 firm orders in 2005. Boeing won 154 orders for its competing twin-engined 777 planes. "We can and will do better in the long-range field," Humbert said, without specifying what changes were under consideration. "If we think something has to be done then I will act very quickly, but nothing is on the table," he said. Orders for the long-range, fuel-efficient A350 — which enters service in 2010, two years after the competing Boeing 787 Dreamliner — fell 28 short of the 200 target for the end of 2005. And Airbus is not expecting any slew of new A380 sales until the superjumbo's entry into commercial service, scheduled for the end of 2006 with Singapore Airlines Ltd. Airbus said Tuesday its revenue increased 8.8 percent to 22.3 billion euros ($27 billion) in 2005, an all-time high. Operating margin — earnings before interest and taxes, or EBIT, as a share of revenue — rose to above 10 percent from about 9.5 percent in 2004, Humbert said. That implies a 15 percent increase in EBIT to over 2.2 billion euros ($2.7 billion). Full financial results are to be announced in March by European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus and consolidates its results. Britain's BAE Systems PLC owns the rest. EADS shares dipped after the announcement Tuesday but were 0.6 percent higher at 31.63 euros ($38.36) by late afternoon. BAE shares were down 0.1 percent at 417.75 pence ($7.39). Shares of Boeing fell 21 cents, or 0.3 percent, to $69.27 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Although the Airbus order record beat a consensus forecast of 950, Kepler Equities analyst Pierre Boucheny said the jump in December may partly have reflected a rush to finalize deals that would otherwise have gone through in January. "The more that they put into 2005, the less there will be in 2006, that's the risk," Boucheny said. But the Airbus operating margin guidance beat Boucheny's own 9.8 percent forecast, he said. "Everything is a bit better." The Airbus orders beat the previous all-time record of 1,095 gross orders booked by Boeing and McDonnell Douglas in 1989, eight years before the two companies merged. It also increases Airbus' order backlog to 2,177 aircraft, which amounts to 55 percent of the global order book by number. Having sold the planes, Airbus now has to build them — a feat that will require production to be increased rapidly to unprecedented levels. Airbus plans to raise its monthly output of single-aisle jets to 30 this year and 32 early in 2007 from the current 28.5, and is already rallying its 600 front-line suppliers to anticipate the surge. Airbus will place a "special focus on supply chain management" in 2006, Humbert said. "It is, for sure, a constant battle — it's not easy for the supply chain to ramp up like this." Airbus is predicting more than 400 deliveries in 2006. Humbert declined to give an order forecast but said it would be "difficult" to top 1,000 for a second straight year. He also said this year's accounts would benefit from the full 1.5 billion euros ($1.8 billion) in cost savings achieved in 2005. But Airbus conceded it had lost ground to Boeing in the market for larger, more profitable planes and said it plans to review its A340 jet in the wake of disappointing sales Humbert also indicated that the A340 is under review. The four-engine jet — which flies 380 passengers up to 7,500 nautical miles in the largest of its three versions — attracted only 15 firm orders in 2005. Boeing won 154 orders for its competing twin-engined 777 planes. In longer-range, wide-bodied planes, however, it is Airbus that has struggled to keep up. Boeing sold 455 such jets last year, representing 44 percent of its total orders. Airbus took orders for 193 of the larger planes, or 17 percent of its total — with the rest made up of single-aisle planes that are typically less profitable.As a result, Boeing won the larger share of the overall market by order value in 2005, Humbert said. "As far as we see it, Boeing has 55 percent in value and we have 45 percent in value, although we are leading in the number of aircraft," he said. Looks like even though AB sold more airplane, Boeing made more money thanks to the 777. Wow it just demolished the AB 340 in terms of sales. Maybe GM can learn something from Boeing.

Boeing 777 Airbus A340

I have flown in both the Airbus A340 and the Boeing 777 and I can say that the 777 is a much better plane than the A340. Since I flew in Coach, my impression is solely based on the Coach (economy class) class. The 777 felt much more spacious and comfortable compared to the 340 which felt cramped with very little legroom. The 777 also handles turbulance a lot better than the 340, at least that was my experience. But one disadvantage of the 777 is that it has only two engine compared to the 340's four. That limits the route the 777 can fly because it has to meet ETOPS ( extended twin engine operating services) rule. Having four engine also gives you a bigger safety margin in case of engine failure.

Exactly, I am sure sales is going to take a hit in the short term. I just hope GM doesn't panic and start resorting to the EPP and Red Tag sales scheme, which absolutely does nothing for profit and greatly reduces resale value.

If the US government is dumb enough to single out the Chinese for tariffs guess what will happen to GM cars sold in China ? Yep you guessed it.

lol:

Naturally, labor is cheap in India and there are plenty of people that can be hired as replacement.

It will be interesting though if GM will be able to match last year's number and how many cars Toyota/Lexus ends up selling. At this point this argument is moot. The momentum is definitely on TOYOTA's side. Every year they are closing the gap by almost half a million cars. So it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that TOYOTA would surpass GM. It might not happen this year but I can definitely seeing it happening next year. I hope GM is more concerned about profits than market share.

I actually think the 92 Camry looks really nice. IMO, 92-96 Camry were the best looking Camrys ever made. Styling went south with the 97 model. Toyota actually made some good looking car in the early and mid 90s.

IF GM is the majority owner of DAEWOO then DAEWOO sales figures would be counted as GM sales. The rule is that the parent company has to own a 50% stake of another company in order to be eligible for the two companies sales tallies to be counted as one. I believe GM only owns like 30% of ISUZU and SUZUKI and therefore their sales figure are not counted as GM sales figure.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/21/news/fortune500/gm. Link might not work so I cut and post the story. sorry Another sobering article about GM's financial problem. It seems like some analysts are speculating about removing GM from the respected DOW JONES stock index. How bad would that be for GM ? NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Does General Motors still belong in the exclusive Dow club? The troubled automaker, whose stock has lost more than 50 percent in value this year, has cost the Dow about 160 points. Without GM, the index would be up more than 2 percent; instead, it's up less than 1 percent. GM's percentage decline is more than twice that of the second biggest loser, Verizon Communications (Research). And GM's market capitalization has fallen to about $11 billion, less than half that of the next smallest Dow stock, Alcoa (Research). GM, with plans to sell its credit unit, GMAC, is set to be even smaller. GM (Research) has been plagued by declining sales and market share and a downgrade in its bonds to junk status. Though GM officials have downplayed the risk of bankruptcy, Standard & Poor's is on record saying the prospect is not far-fetched. Wednesday the stock fell to another 18-year low of $19.30 before rebounding slightly. The Dow components are selected by the editors of the Wall Street Journal, which won't comment on speculation about future changes in the index. But Rich Moroney, editor of Dow Theory Forecasts, said that while the paper doesn't make moves frequently or lightly, removing GM is a possibility. "They've kicked companies out just because it's at financial risk," said Moroney. "In the early years it was a case of a company that was going to zero (stock value) and they don't want that. It does seem premature to do it now." Other big losers on the Dow The Dow was created in 1896 to give a snapshot of the nation's key industries and companies outside of transportation -- it is meant to be a bellwether for the economy not a roster of the nation's best-performing stocks. GM has been a member of the benchmark blue chip stock index continually since 1925, through dozens of component changes and hits to its stock price that came with oil shocks, labor woes and recessions. Even a 50 percent drop in stock value doesn't warrant expulsion. In 2002, two of the then newest components of the index, Intel and Home Depot each lost more than half their value. "I'm not one of the editors of the Wall Street Journal, but I want to use the Dow as a market leading indicator, and for that you want a group of highly influential stocks, even when the news is bad," said Jeffrey Hirsch, editor of The Stock Trader's Almanac. "GM still represents a good part of the auto industry." In addition, the threat of bankruptcy alone doesn't necessarily lead to action. The Dow Transportation Index didn't announce a decision to drop Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines until Sept. 14, the day both airlines filed for bankruptcy, even though both filings were telegraphed to markets well in advance. The Dow industrial average has had at least one component in bankruptcy -- Texaco in 1987, when an $11 billion court verdict against it prompted it to file for protection as a defensive strategy. Texaco stock continued to trade throughout its reorganization, though, and its stock did far better that year than GM has done this year. There is also a question of what would replace GM if it was dropped from the index. The only other major U.S. automaker, Ford Motor Co. (Research), is struggling with many of the same problems as GM. But Moroney said maybe its time that the Dow no longer has an auto stock, even if auto sales represent about 20 percent of total U.S. retail sales. "If you look at the market caps of GM and Ford, it's not a very significant sector," he said. "In terms of the stock market, it's nowhere near as important as it once was. I personally think it's worth watching, but I don't think it's a stretch to have an index that would not include autos." Moroney said he doesn't believe that one of the major overseas automakers, such as DaimlerChrysler (Research) or Toyota Motor (Research), should be added to the index, which has never had a foreign stock. "I think it would muddy the waters too much for what the Dow is trying to represent," he said. But German-based DaimlerChrysler has most of its operations and revenue in its North American operations. And Hirsch said he'd be much more comfortable with an overseas automaker in the Dow than an auto-free Dow. "It is coming,' he said of the idea of a foreign Dow component. "This whole globalization situation is making that more and more likely." He said he doubts that GM would be replaced as long as it is still the world's leading automaker, but Toyota could claim that title from GM as soon as 2006. "That would be the time to replace it, not before," said Hirsch. For a look at whether GM stock has been battered enough to make it a good investment, click here.