cmattson

I couldn't agree more! I don't think these analysts are being fair here. How long ago did they announce their B-P-G plan? I hardly think GM's gotten the ball rolling on that plan, let alone reaped any sort of dividend from it. I don't think the BPG grouping is a bad plan at all: it lets GM keep all of it's historied brands and let it reduce vehicle overlap & the badge-engineering everyone's complaining about (but apparently isn't an issue for the MDX/Pilot or the etc, etc, etc). Saab definately is a different animal of sorts. GM received a LOT of negative press when they removed Oldsmobile from it's lineup. But the sale of it's stake in Subaru? Hardly gathered attention. Matter of fact, more attention was paid to who bought it as opposed to GM selling it's interests. I think Saab would gather a similar response -- especially since it isn't a long-standing GM brand.

Happy Thanksgiving to All!

Not every car has racy lines or a sleek exterior. While I like sporty-looking vehicles, they just aren't for everyone. If you are looking to sell a family-sedan and wish to feature safety or interior volume, having sleek exterior lines probably isn't going to be on the design list. The Ford 500 is styled to address it's target audience (& I think it does that quite well). You'd think that an "automotive expert" such as the extremist would understand such a simple premise.

Thanks reg -- I take back everything I said about you - especially the good stuff. Just kidding! Couldn't resist - that's one of my favorite lines.

Try reading some of the Prius owner forums: Third post in on prius online forums: http://www.priusonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=5076 If you follow the thread, an '01 Prius owner had to replace their battery after 42 months--which is only a half a year outside of warranty. I'd hardly be pleased with that -- would you? How about this gem: http://priuschat.com/forums/archive/o_t/t_...ery-issues.html I know that every manufacturer has problems -- and every model will have it's share of problems, but take a look at PriusOnline's 20+ pages in their technical forum and nearly 1200+ posts on the Priuschat's "Care, Maintenance and Troubleshooting" forums. Start reading about some of the issues. If I was on-the-fence about buying the Prius; some of these posts would seriously concern me.

Like him or not, this is still America - and last time I looked, we still have freedom of speech. By talking about him, listening to him, we give him the power/money/authority to keep putting himself on the soapbox. Moore may have dropped out of school, etc - but so have lots of other people - what's the point (other than to bash)? Moore's genius is that some idiot let him have a film crew & he's used it (several times) to document controversial issues in an divisive ways. I do disagree with several things Moore has said and some of the method's he uses to convey them. I agree with Josh here: GM's management is largely to blame for not "getting it" sooner. But is that the sin of current management or previous ones? Back in GM's primetime days, competitors were Chrysler and Ford -- everybody else was fringe players & didn't have enough market share in this country to notice and/or pay attention to. Take a look now. Besides the ones I've just mentioned, you've also got Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, Audi/VW, Hyundai, Kia - and you've also got lower-priced Mercedes/BMW models that are competing against your luxury brands. The volume of competition alone dictates that you are going to lose market share. With that lower market share comes cuts, early retirements and plant closings -- and all of the expenses that come with them. The relative new-comers haven't had the unions organize in their plants yet. Because of their newness, they don't have the volume of retirees a GM has. Better yet, a portion of their workforce is still overseas; where there are no (or vastly limited) pension/healthcare issues. On top of that, some of them experience "bonus profit" due to currency gains in the neighborhood of 25% to 40%. This allows them to spend more expense on materials and on engineering. It lets them take risks -- even when the benefits seem marginal (a la hybrids with their mediocre gas mileage improvements). Is it GM's fault that there is the volume of competition that there is? Is it GM's fault that they have the volume of retiree's that they do? Is it GM's fault that pension costs are what they are? Is it GM's fault that healthcare costs are what they are? 2 decades ago, GM could've started building better cars; with better gas mileage, better quality, better styling - and it would've garnered them more profit from then all the way upto and including today -- but it wouldn't have stopped any of the 4 issues I listed above - and every one of them are significant issues. I'd even dare to say they are the most crippling issues GM now faces.

Okay, take the Prius -> it's demand has been high since it's inception 2 years ago. Unlimited ca$h Toyota can't ramp up production in 2 years? Didn't we have an article about Toyota raving about taking a vehicle to production in 18 months time just a couple of months ago? Don't we see endless articles on how flexible and how efficient the Asian automakers are? I'm not willing to let them have it both ways. In the automotive market place 2 years is a long time. Like it or not, expectations have it that manufacturers are to design and build new cars in 4 years and are expected to refresh models every 2 years.

Pictures can make the truck look better than it actually is. Seriously -- go find one and sit in one. I can virtually guarantee you won't think $35k when you see the interior (perhaps $3.5k, but I'd doubt even that). The interior of the GMT800's were designed to be rugged: they were designed with hard surfaces so that they can be scrubbed. They were designed so that you could operate the controls with work gloves on. That being said, there is NO excuse for the panel gaps. There is no excuse why a Suburban/Tahoe must have the same interior a Sierra/Silverado has either. At least GM can say that their design is 6/7 years old (& will be history in the next couple of months). What's Honda's excuse for the interior of this thing? There's no way that this interior is befitting a $35k+ vehicle.

First off: "un-hybrid like design?" When a vehicle can switch between battery-power or gasoline, it's a hybrid. GM's pickups do that (when stationary)--so yes, they ARE a true hybrid--they aren't propelled by an electric motor (that's called a "full hybrid"). GM's commercial full hybrids won't be out for another year or so. My point wasn't to say that Toyota/Honda didn't have hybrids -> my point was to illustrate that Toyota/Honda put more effort into larger engines and larger vehicles than they do the hybrids. How telling is this: Honda sells 50k hybrids a year, and the un-fuel efficient Ridgeline will sell 50k this year. Which has gotten more press? The Ridgeline or the hybrid? How many Honda hybrid commercials have you seen this week? Month? Year? Compare that to the Ridgeline commercials. Honda isn't pushing green -> they are pushing their Ridgeline. And yes, 150k units/year IS a limited quantity; especially when you realize US auto sales reached 16+ million units last year. My comments were meant to illustrate that industry-wide forecasting didn't predict the high gas prices we just experienced -- and not to marginalize Toyota/Honda hybrid efforts (IMO, they are doing just fine on that by themselves).

That's the key issue right there. What is the reason why somebody should buy a GM product over a Toyota/Nissan/Honda/Ford/Mazda? What does a GM vehicle give you that nobody else has? GM has to do something to distinguish itself from their competitors -- something to drive people into the showroom. Discount-of-the-month-deals don't cut it -> they kill resale values and people are so used to them that they don't mean as much as they used to. As you could've said 15 years ago: GM needs to define it's brands & engineer/style them accordingly -- and they need to do that for a sufficient amount of time that it "sets" into the public perception. To date, they have not done that effectively.

It's easy to criticize, but this comment doesn't quite ring true to me: GM shouldn't walk away from their biggest profit-makers. They should do everything they can to protect that market -- and I think the 2007's are a step towards that. Matter of fact, if they had fold-flat rear seats, I think they'd be far-and-away head of the class. Even without that, they certainly are better than anybody's else's trucks and suv's. Last time I looked, GM didn't give up on cars at all: witness the Impala, Monte, Cobalt, Aveo and Malibu.. that's 5 cars right there -- and that's only Chevrolet!! Where was this author's "forward-thinking" 18 months ago when gas prices were cheap?! The truth is, there wasn't any; which is why Nissan rolled out their Titan/Armada, why Toyota is putting out a 268hp Rav4, why Honda produced a craptacular-gas-mileage Ridgeline, and why Toyota is building an even-larger Tundra (with a larger engine). That goes to show their was forecasting was an industry-wide issue. Granted Toyota and Honda has their hybrids -- but only in limited capacities. As it is, there will always be a market for full-size vehicles; whether it be trucks, suv's or vans. GM's in a better position that anybody (fuel-economy-wise) to capture those sales. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into this author's pre-concieved "GM=bad" mindset.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the interior on that truck features some of the lowest-quality, hard plastic surfaces I've ever seen. Makes the Colorado interior look luxurious. I can't believe that Honda can justify the pricetag they are seeking for that thing.

Ouch! All this is making my head hurt! All I know for certain after reading all this is that I'd love to get The Griffon and Ah-Ha out drinking one night.

I think it's just a coincedence. I don't think GM has enough luxury right now to make decisions based on political philosophies. Not to be overly stereotypical, but f you take a look at a red state/blue state map, you'll see that a bunch of the Republican-leaning states were states that had a lower average income; places like Mississippi, Oklahoma, etc. Because of their lower average income, these are the prime locations for manufacturers to base plants in the first place. DISCLAIMER: Now, before you get too carried away, I'm just making an observation between average-income and which states voted where. It may be a coincidence -- it may not. You draw your own conclusions on the validity and where's and why's, etc. - I'm just stating an observation that leads me to believe why GM's plant closings are not politically-motivated. I'm not looking to start some sort of flame war.

Profit is defined as the revenues less expenses. Investing money into a new plant or into engineering endeavours is an expense like any other -- and has already been accounted for in that profdit equation. So Toyota's mammoth profit is pure money -- and there is no defending where that money sits.

I'm shocked that the new Impala isn't doing better. Granted that the external styling is nothing knock-your-socks off, but the interior is lights-out fantastic. Nice textures, nice feel on the radio controls, etc. I just drove my co-worker's less-than-a-week-old SS and it rocked. Steering had a nice feel to it, the traction control worked nicely when I put it into action. It seems like a nice, tight package. Perhaps the price is a little on the high side? I echo the Edmunds review when they called it the best Chevy sedan in quite some time.

While the viewpoint is interesting, it's hardly unbiased. What's Ford expected to say? "We're losing our shirts on everyone we sell"? Take at the transaction price the escape sells for. Now add in a $3000 battery and an electrical motor, the extra circuitry/display screen and that hybrid converter/drive system itself. Now factor in royalties on the licensing agreement you made with Toyota - and engineering costs to develop, and machining/tooling costs to assemble. Even if you sell it at a marginally inflated price, I'm skeptical you can break even on 70k units a year. That's just my opinion.

Isn't that splitting hairs? Innovative, by definition means something new and/or original. Having something that others have had as recent as 3 years ago and have been in existence got 40 years hardly qualifies for innovation. Besides, I wasn't talking about what Honda said, I was talking about how the press covered it.

I think I can guess why most people knock the Ridgeline's performance: Here's some stats: (all stats compiled from autos.msn.com) Ridgeline: 247hp/245 ft-lbs 16/21mpg 5000 max towing 5 speed transmission 1500 Silverado 5.3l 295hp/335 ft-lbs 15/19 mpg 7000 max towing 4 speed transmission The Silverado can offer 19% more hp The Silverado can offer 37% more torque The Silverado has 40% more towing capacity All while giving up only 6%/11% city/hwy gas mileage. The Ridgeline offers marginal benefits in gas mileage (1-2 mpg?!) for WAY diminished capacities -- all for an inflated price. So, GM's iron-block, now 6-year-old pushrod can compete quite well with Honda's finest; even though Honda has the advantage of that 5-speed transmisison. Can you see now why some people may find the Ridgeline's gas mileage lacking? I'm sure the Ridgeline is great for people that really don't need the towing/hauling capability of a full-size truck; hence the previous comment about Honda (re-) developing a niche. My problem is how Honda advertises the truck: "a true half-ton", etc. When they do that, they may just get people looking for a half-ton truck with the expectations set for them by the Silverado's, the Ram's and the F-150's. I think that if you truly need a truck, and you do make the effort to comparison shop, then the Ridgeline will come up short.

I think that Honda has invented a new niche - a car-like Truck. Some truck capabilities with car-like handling/ride. I *do* think that Honda marketing is full of crap. The message their advertising department delivers and what the truck can capably do are two entirely different things. Their advertising proclaims it "a true half-ton truck" and shows the truck ruggedly off-roading on some southwestern mesa. While the truck is can truly a carry a half-ton, it's offroad capabilities are lackluster - and the Ridgeline pales considerably when compared to the Silverado "half-ton", the F-150 "half-ton" and the Ram "half-ton". Granted, by measurement, the Ridgeline can support the claim of half-ton -- but people's expectation's of what a half-ton pickup can do have become defined by the Silverado's, the Ram's, and the F-150's. But when your marketing calls you a "true half-ton", then you are open to people's interpretation and expectations of half-ton capabilities -- and that means so much more than what the Ridgeline currently delivers. The thing I don't see *any* reporter covering is Honda's consistant late-to-the-party performances. Last to develop a V6 sedan. A V8? Minivans? Trucks? Honda has been the last entrant to all of them. Honda has been notoriously slow when entering a market. Some may claim that it's because Honda approaches everything cautiously and only enters a market when they have a superior design; but that wouldn't explain the first-gen Odyssey minivan, would it?

Personally, I don't think that killing a brand is the answer. Does it kill overlap? Does it decrease marketing costs? Does it decrease design costs? Absolutely - but so does combining B-P-G and killing model overlap. Combining/refining B-P-G would accomplish all of that without the sigma of killing yet another historied brand. I don't think it's fair to judge GM on their B-P-G strategy as it's execution is in it's infancy.

Well, perhaps GM should just pack up everything-in-Detroit and move to Tokyo. The dollar-yen exchange rate guarantee's gains upto 40% more profit. Combine that with GM's legacy costs and with GM's pension/healthcare costs & you'll quickly see the uneven playing field GM is competing on.

Take a look at the Ridgeline's dual-hinge tailgate. That design is ancient; having its origins back in the station wagon days. GM debuted it on their XUV and I swear you could hear crickets from the auto-press. Honda has it and it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Wow, did this thread ever heat up! I think we can all realize that just like anywhere else, there are all types of people. Some have different ideas on what is acceptable work ethics than others do. Usually a business will sort that type of stuff out (if given enough time). Occasionally people who steal even find great prosperity (I can them "CEO's"), but we are getting a bit off track here.

.. if it's successful then of course they will. Toyota/Honda will advertise their "breakthrough" about 5 years from now. See adaptive headlights, rain-sensing wipers, wind ("belly") pans, etc for details on that one..