The O.C.

But you have to be careful and not try to offer "all things" to "all people." Every single option or choice you ad to a particular model increases your build combinations. And anyone on here that has mfr experience in that area will tell you that "build combinations" can be a HUGE cost burden to an auto manufacturer. So you need to pick your choices you offer to a consumer very carefully. That's why Honda has, effectively, no options on their cars.......just models....DX, LX, EX, EX Nav, EX-L, EX Nav-L. They leave "options" up to dealer-installed accessories. So....if the trend seems to be moving away from "chrome-ish" wheels, and none of your competitiors are offering them, then ditch 'em. You don't need the additional cost in your product program.

Because it's tough to generalize when you are talking about such divergent products......a BOF, older, RWD, station-wagon with a V8.....compared to a CUV, front-drive based L4 Turbo. The better argument is.....how does the RDX compare to the X3, LR2, et al...... What people on here have been trying to say to you is.....the RDX is quicker than your RMW, almost as heavy, but gets worse mileage. However, it's also AWD, sits higher (aerodynamics) etc. Who knows how much that AWD and areodynamic drag has on fuel economy. With a curb weight at almost 4,000lbs, I'd say the performance from the RDX is spectacular....especially from an L4.....even if it's a turbo (and I'm not particularly an RDX fan either.) Also remember cars and trucks have gotten way heavier in general since the early 90's.....RDX isn't overly bulky compared to it's contemporary competititors. Hell, a fully-loaded CTS now weighs about as much as that Roadmaster Sedan that was in the '93 issue of C&D......!!!!!!!! (edit: BTW....not "hating" here on the RoadToaster......I loved the Roadmaster Sedan LT1 with trailer-towing package. It was one of my favorite company cars to have when I was at Buick. I'd even get the dealership service department to flip the whitewall Eagle GA tires....included in Y92 TT package....inside-out....so I'd have blackwalls to go with the alloy wheels.)

Well....let's look at that. The only BMW sharing of body architecture you have is the X3 which shares with the current 3-series, and the X5 which shares 5-series componentry. Other than that, 3 is unique to 5 is unique to 7 is unique to Z4. But that's not a fair comparo to GM because BMW sells in far fewer numbers. I like the Toyota comparo better. Just ask yourself one thing......we all harp on here that the ES is just "another" Camry.....but how many Camrys EVER do you think are actually cross-shopped with ES350s...? My answer...I'd guess damn near none. How many Malibus do you think are cross-shopped with G6s and AURAs.....? I bet a hell of alot more. (edit: If GM's "model" of "step-up" divisions were truly in place and working, you wouldn't have the overlap.)

It's a shame.....because.....brands like Mercedes-Benz and BMW are extremely successful as stand-alone stores (stand alone if you count the BMW stores also selling MINI.) With the right product mix, Cadillac could do the same. Think of a whole lineup of premium models that were as successful or as desirable as the new CTS and the Escalade.

There's a difference between what needs to be done for the company to survive.....and what's desirable from an enthusiasts' standpoint...... Lord knows I have Buick in my heart....and Enclave aside, I'm embarrassed by what they've done to squander what could have been a great brand ("Premium American Motorcars.")

You deserve a sickness present......get the Park......LOL

I always thought they were called breasticles..... I'd prolly do them at once....get it over with. Aren't getting your tonsils out supposed to be somewhat anti-climactic...?

F*ckin' Vulcans....only have sex every 7 years during Pon-Farr..... I think I'd explode......

It doesn't require the development of several (nearly-identical) variants.....if you've got less, but stronger, brands, you'll still get the production capacities and sales numbers to make it pencil with way fewer variants. I haven't seen ANY adds combining Buick, Pontiac, and GMC. Yes, they may say "available at your local B-P-G dealer" but that's inevitably attached to an add promoting a single brand.....Buick, Pontiac, OR GMC...therefore, one sales channel....three separate advertising and marketing directions. Hell, we still have three separate websites for Buick, Pontiac, and GMC.

Chevy, Saturn, Cadillac, Hummer, and SAAB. Probably unrealistic to accomplish.......but probably what needs to be done ultimately.

That makes sense. Maybe you are somewhere on the "gay-scale"......more like a 3 or somethin' I forget the psychologist, but he developed a scale from 1-10 and said that if 1 was "straight" and 10 was "gay" that 100% of the people fit between 1 and 10....but no one was EVER a 1 or a 10. You might be a 2 or a 9, but never a 1 or 10. Interesting thought.....me...? If I can't be a 10, I'm DEFINITELY a 9.....

Oh, I could understand that. Look at your age. Most guys in and around your age don't have those beefy, hairy, deep voice traits. For me, my "ideal" man (and Joe is certainly that) is someone a bit younger than me, say mid-to-late 20's, with a boyish look, but with manly traits thrown in for good measure like a bit 'o chest hair here and there, and a straight-acting type of "swagger" (i.e....not "twink".) (Plus....I'm a sucker for nice legs.....and my man has some of the best I've ever seen.....not necessarily overly muscular, but nicely shaped, slightly hairy, etc.)

But they are being run as separate "companies" because each brand still has to have it's share of advertising, marketing, and product development dollars and resources dedicated to them. You may only have four "sales channels" but your brand support still has to exist for each brand....that's why GM can't keep up continuous support of AURA, for example, when they are launching Malibu, etc, etc. (Granted GM is hardly the worst offender here.....Ford/Mercury is even worse.) In many, many ways, GM is still doing business like in the past....whether it's feasible for them to move away from that or not......

Oh heavens....that is TOO good to be true!

It's a tough debacle..... If GM doesn't do "the impossible".......will they be around in 20 years? Are they just delaying the inevitable? (Hopefully not.)

Oooooo..... Oldsmoboi was just

Aside from the Enclave....Buick is "functioning well?" IF GMC were cancelled.....are you insinuating that those GMC consumers/intenders would desert GM for Ford Trucks, Chrysler Trucks, or the Import trucks as opposed to staying within GM? Would a Sierra pickup buyer move to F-150 or Ram instead of staying with Silverado?

I'll give you a little....it's the strategy that makes sense given the situation they are in..... Time will tell, however, if it's enough.

To the best of my knowledge, Car & Driver has used consistent testing procedures for a long time....therefore, it's somewhat apples-to-apples to compare two sets of numbers from the same source. There two different rear-ends with the Roadmaster....the base 2.56 ratio and a slightly shorter one on Roadmasters equipped with the trailer-towing package. However, the shorter ratio would most likely affect fuel economy for any increase in low-speed grunt. Even if your wagon had the lower ratio, it would need it to compensate for the higher curb weight relative to the sedan.

C&D....10-93.....Roadmaster Limited Sedan (lighter than your wagon) road test 0-60 in 7.8secs, curb weight 4,240lbs, C&D observed mileage 22mpg (pretty good.) C&D....7-07.....SUV Comparo with RDX 0-60 in 6.5secs, curb weight 3,982, C&D observed mileage 16mpg Your wagon weighs more than the sedan....so likely won't be quicker....and the Impala SS I think had quicker numbers than the Roadmaster in the day probably due to gearing and tires (the Roadmaster road test stated it was really tough to get traction on the launch with the Roadmaster's less-sticky tires.)

As far as I know, GM has no passenger-car diesels (from their European arm) that are 50-state compliant yet......BMW does and is getting ready to introduce the 335d, 535d, X5 3.5d (I believe) and the X6 3.5si (or whatever the nomenclature) here in a matter of months....

You speak in theory....which is fine. But the cars don't match up to your theory. How is a G6 any sportier than an LTZ V6 Malibu with 18-inch wheels and firmed up suspension (over the lesser Malibus?) How is AURA more "upscale?" Load any of the three with top option packages, leather, and top sound systems....and not only are each as "luxurious" they are even scarily close in price. Buff mag performance numbers for acceleration, ride, and handling don't seem to point to any major difference either....certainly doesn't make G6 look like the "sporty" version....

The business theory is that.....yes it may be less-expensive to produce four almost identical models.....but it's still more expensive than doing one or two that would most likely reach similar sales levels. Also, distributing them throughout four different brands effectively quadruples your marketing and advertising dollars. BUT, GM doesn't quadruple the marketing and advertising support to match....they give the vast majority to Chevy and lesser amounts to the other brands. That's the flaw in that theory. The value behind the concept of step-up divisions at GM has lost most of it's luster because......with today's products, there isn't nearly enough differentiation between Chevy to Pontiac to Saturn to yes even Buick. That combined with much stronger competition, makes the old GM model more-and-more obsolete. For example, what's truly more luxurious about an Enclave versus an Outlook or Acadia? Fully loaded, you'd be hard to tell other than outright style....and a few interior trim difference (softer dash in the Enclave, etc.) Or, what's more "truckish" or "beefy" about an Acadia versus an Outlook? What gives the Acadia it's "GMC" heritage? OR....what's more "import-like" with an AURA versus a Malibu? Not much in my eyes. Finally, what makes a G6 "We Build Excitement" over an AURA or Malibu? Not powertrain.....they all share the same engines. Styling? Well that's subjective at best. Driving/ride-and-handling? No difference that I've been able to really discern in all my times in the G6.

But....you can't focus on each of your brands to the extent you need to in order to sustain them when, in effect, you are giving Buick, Pontiac, and GMC limited product portfolios....because you are combining them all into one dealership channel (or trying to.) You guys all save your rants on how expensive it would be to get rid of the dealers, how it's not realistic, yadda, yadda. I'm not here to debate that part of this argument. But let's say we did live in a utopia....and BPG stores and brands could "go away." GM could survive, theoretically I believe, with Chevy at the bottom (including trucks), Cadillac at the top, and perhaps Saturn in the middle. Why would GM survive? Now you have three brands instead of six (let's put Hummer and SAAB on the backburner because of their unique target markets).....each with full product portfolios that target their specific markets.....and because you are only supporting the growth of three brands, you can focus more of your marketing dollars, advertising, and product development funds to those brands. You like the GMC name so much? Then transfer it to Hummer....the GMC Hummer H3 for example. I don't know how GM does it. But clearly what they are doing now still isn't working. Unless they get a huge infusion of capital....or huge reduction in costs. But until that happens, Buick and Pontiac (especially) and somewhat Saturn are going to continue to flounder in the grand scheme of things. They simply don't have the dollars to support all the brands effectively (eg....AURA versus Malibu scenario that's being played out.)

Great thoughts. And I agree. Anyone that says looks "don't count" is lying. I would agree physical attraction occurs first, and then you get emotionally attracted (or not.) My bf Joe and I met online (seems to be an increasing trend these days) so I knew, at least from pictures, that he was a totally cutie. He came to visit the first time about a week after we started chatting. It was only a week, but we had gotten along so well, at least over the phone, we needed to see if there really was something there. When I saw him walking down from the plane the very first time, my heart skipped beats and my stomach churned. He was every bit as adorable, if not more, in person. I'd have to say that, if one had a "type", physically, Joe is like my dream-come-true.....in every way. That being said, as soon as we got in the car at the airport, there was no question that we'd be together. Something just told me. We were too comfortable together. We NEVER had any of those awkward feelings of "meeting-for-the-first-time-and-getting-comfortable-with-one-another." Joe felt the same easiness that I did. Needless to say, that first long-weekend visit of his was about as perfect as it could get. That's what I mean about the emotional taking control. Now, of course, I still find him overwhelmingly attractive.....but being emotionally committed to him too only heightens the powerfulness of the relationship. I still get butterflies and goosebumps when I see him walking down from the plane....but not it's not just because he's so "cute"....it's now because I love him....and I know he loves me. Even having sex is different with him.....I truly feel like I've been "making love" for the first time with someone....not just f*cking. Of course we have a long road ahead of us....and we'll have our challenges...and our mistakes....but also our rewards. I guess all of my rambling on here about him and what we feel for each other speaks to Usonia's post above....and the powerful impact of the emotions. (ps.....I'd also love to see how blind people react. If I had to harbor a guess, they are probably gay or straight just like the rest of us. Blind people do have other senses.....touch, for example....but I bet it's just as ingrained in them on who they are going to fall in love with. I think there's just too much difference separating men and women from physical looks/attraction alone. I know I couldn't be with a woman....emotionally or physically NO MATTER what she looked like....it just doesn't work for me.)