enzl

Looks good to me. It looks like it might be worth $40k. A Subie SVX & tC vibe (with a hint of Lancia Delta), but in a good way. We'd be proud to sell them.

Eco friendly doesn't mean boring. There are plenty of cars--Miata, 1st Gen xB or GTi that are a blast and economical. All of the ingredients are there--you just need the right chef and some balls of steel.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I simply don't trust GM to execute another 'plan'. They're stuck with P/B/GMC as a distribution channel, so there's simply no point in making any of those three brands full-line...the 3/4 models each make up a full line-up for each showroom--that's OK. Saturn & Spring Hill should be sold off...it would have been easier if the Traverse wasn't there--but I believe that the Traverse would make more sense with the other Lambdas & killing the Outlook. Saab & Hummer should be sold off (or given away)--GM cannot afford to field the product these brands need, desperately. With less brands, you magically have more development money for the cars/trucks you need to build. The quality can be raised (along with pricing) & eventually, if things improve, you can acquire another marque, if necessary. I would sooner see more Caddy's & special Pontiac sportscars & Chevy selling competitive small cars than what's going on now. If product is everything in this business, going back to rebadges is a huge error, IMO. Variants of the Kappas, Zetas & Alphas have alot more chance to sell at high margins than pumping out a few more (competent but unexciting) Epsilons, Gammas or Deltas, IMO.

No more divisions! GM needs less distraction, more hard work. There's a group of products in Europe & Australia that are already developed. There are plenty of underused factories here. How about trying to figure out how to make a buck on a CAR here in the US before we go off on another branding misadventure? Newsflash: No one misses Opel from the last time the badge was here. With all due respect to the time and effort in the above post--GM simply has too much to do and too little time or money to do it. A few years ago, they could have done numerous things to improve, including the Opel idea. Now, its simply a race against time with limited resources--they have zero margin for error. Again, given the history of this management team, what's the likelihood of a flawless execution of creative, ingenious plan?

I checked the stats, and the Vue and SRX are within an inch in length (180"+/-) and the wheelbases are also within an inch or two. I don't understand developing 2 platforms that close, which means if GM was smart, they'd be closely related, no? Mmm, forget that. Now I know they share little.

I was just checking that you understood what you're saying...I guess you do. $500 doesn't cover more than a few months of interest payments on floorplanned inventory. That's without paying a salesman, manager & the receptionist. Electric, heat & rent aren't peanuts either, my friend. That's why lots o' dealers are "retiring"

Until they act in a matter appropriate to the situation, I'm going to continue to criticize a historically awful management team. Not just bad, but B-school textbook bad. I'm not sure you're aware how close to the abyss GM is currently teetering. I'd like to see the patient saved, personally.

I think this one will look even better out on the road. Almost makes me forgive their plans with Pontiac.

So, it offends you to dole out an extra $1 on the sale, but they can rip you off to their hearts content on the service end? That simply makes no sense. If a dealer can't make a decent buck, you simply won't have that dealer around, eventually. $500 won't cover the finance charge on the floorplan cost of the average GM vehicle (based on age of inventory and dealer cost), never mind paying the employees or keeping the lights on. I'll be sure to stop by your job and see if some fat can be trimmed over there by cutting your wages--how does 1/2 a paycheck sound?

It's more than mere perception...its the ghost of sh!tty cars past that perpetuates the negative perception. Along with a marketing and PR dept that couldn't sell fire extinguishers in a burning building. And an admission with entries such as the Aveo or Cobalt that GM doesn't take fuel efficiency seriously. (Or at least they don't respect the customers that value FE) The Civic and Fit are simply generations ahead of the Chevy product in that sector---it's simply not even close. Please stop with the GM is 'just as good as' stuff---they have a bad rep based on history, make mediocre car product (on average) and don't know how to sell it right. Why is the result surprising?

With large #'s of returning leasees EXPECTING competitive (ie Subvented) lease rates, this move kills that business. An outside company simply must make money on their lease financing, so you don't have the GMAC benefit anymore. GM will eventually throw a ton of money on the hood to bring back the lease customers, regardless--but they'll lose months of sales in the meantime. It's an industry-wise issue, but especially acute at GM. Not Good.

Great way to encourage fans to wait for the next gen product. Not sure why GM does this---are they afraid people will think they have nothing on the way? I appreciate that the product is supposed to be better, but I don't get how this helps sell Cobalts in 08 & 09. Is somebody with some insiders insight have any clue what GM's reason is for doing these early reveals? At least the Camaro had no predecessor to ruin sales while fans waited.

They simply have no choice....although inventories aren't bad, the current economic climate means most dealers have ordered significantly less 09's than GM had planned to produce. You've got to clear the lots of 08's to force dealer's hands---most dealers I know have hunkered down, cut inventories by 25% or more and emphasized their used operations & service departments in an attempt to keep things afloat. Layoffs have begun at the dealer level, big time. IIRC, a majority of Domestic showrooms and almost half of the Imports dealers lost money in 07. Can't imagine 08 being better. Dealers are still the gateway to product, so keeping them starving isn't a great long/short term plan for any manufacturer.

All this chatter for a mid-size snoozemobile. The Concept had great promise---and it looks like only the highest trim levels with 19-20" wheels will even come close to its looks. When Buick is selling 3k/mo. or less of the LaCrosse, any successor will look like a winner, IMO. Buick desperately needs to be relevant again--and even its fans here have to acknowledge that the 'Invicta' may not be enough. Buick should have been shooting at CLS for ES money--instead they got a really nice Buick. They'll have big cash on the hood within 6 months as they overproduce high-line versions that they can't sell at $35k. Another opportunity wasted by GM. They need profits from non-trucks and this was a golden opportunity. I still haven't seen one upcoming model that leads me to believe they have such a product in the pipeline that isn't a CTS. X-overs are entering a crowded market and the rest is simply done better already by someone else.

If they aren't (& I believe that's just a technical distinction anyway)---they look awful similar in general proportion. I'd like to see the measurements--but I just don't get the big deal if they are all related...it certainly looks suspicious.

It could be GM photos, but all of the new small CUV's from GM appear to be within inches of each other. The proportions do look the same between the Vue, SRX, 9-4, Terrain & Equinox--if you factor in the Captiva, you've got a rainbow of product coming from a compromised platform, IMO. I'd like to see these in person before judging, but I'm willing to bet that all of these products are within a few inches of each other in every major dimension. Won't matter if they are efficient, good looking and well priced---but its either weird that they all are so similar yet different underneath or its stupid to bother with this type of product. If you must make 5/6 hats for this architecture, just make 'em good.

BMW is having similar issues...although on a smaller scale. You'll see their lease deals diminish and financing options grow as they shy away from leasing. We're buying 05/06 BMW's at auction for $1,000s below residuals set by BMW...and they're writing off millions in losses. Eventually, GM will follow Chrysler's lead and offer big incentives on 3rd party leases to buy back the biz. I think GM is currently fiddling with the CTS deals in an effort to keep revenue up as trucks tank.

This is merely the scheduled Cobalt replacement....nothing more or less. Delta was always part of GM's future..with more brands sharing the architecture. I wouldn't even begin to argue that GM was prepared for anything...if they were, they wouldn't be closing so many Truck plants--the conversion of those facilities would have already been underway. Just to prove their utter blindness: Intro 3 micro car concepts at NY Auto Show. Encourage millions to vote on their favorite (NY is in the US, right?) Then ignore the enthusiasm by making the Beat incompatible with US safety standards. They are morons--the only thing Lordtown proves is the maxim that a broken clock is right 2X a day.

Except the capital to do everything they NEED to do. You do realize that GM may simply run out of money if things don't get better, right? You notice what CAFE regs will require in a few short years, no? You're aware that GMAC is pulling out of the lease biz, for the most part? Or that ResCap and the 49% GM still owns sinking faster than you can say 'foreclosure'? Or the Delphi mess requiring $Billions? Nah, GM couldn't use the help.

Guys---lets not get carried away. This car will be lucky to be in the hands of a few, hand-picked individuals by late-2010. If they're still working clay model and hand fabricating proto-parts, this thing is NOT just around the corner. There is simply no comparison, nor precedent for what they are attempting to produce: This is simply an entirely new vehicle with a new electrical architecture/battery application/propulsion system requiring the re-engineering of tons of parts because of the need to conserve electrical energy. GM couldn't put a Camaro on the road in 4+ years..there's no way this goes from idea to driveway in less time than that. Trust me, you wouldn't want to be the guinea pig in this experiment. It's not even GM's incompetence I worry about, it's the complexity of the task ahead of them that makes putting this thing out shortly a pipe dream. The problem with Hail Mary passes is that few are actually successful plays. I certainly wouldn't bank a company's future on one.

It's OK...and I bet it'll sell much better than the current model, but my concern is that this type of product is what we can expect from GM when they're depending upon said intros to save the company. It looks like a Vue with a Caddy suit--it simply isn't special in the way that you'd like a Caddy to be (CTS*cough*). I'm sorry, but even the most sheltered Caddy fan has to be concerned about this effort.

I can't believe that the Renault-Nissan idea doesn't seem like a much better idea, given hindsight. GM needs to lower costs---the economy of scale would have been dramatically improved, especially in the small cars that GM has NEVER made money on here in the US. Perhaps small Renaults could have been sold here--or small commercial vehicles, too. GM could have let them use factory space to build trucks, cars---whatever---let 'em host bar-mitzvahs in the old buildings---something to pay the bills. It was a decent idea, doomed by the threat to all of the corporate feifdoms at GM and thus, unthinkable to the j-asses running the show---Ghosn would have b-slapped that place into some sort of working order, rather that the 'death of a thousand cuts' that will inevitably (and ironically) place the same disinterested mgmt onto the unemployment lines in short order.

ttp://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/companies/taylor_nissan_gm.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008081313

Most people, most of the time will get a better value, a bigger & more useful car and, IMHO, a car that looks better than any 3 4-door. Most BMW people lease, so payments, factoring in pricing & GMAC's generosity, will be the same or less in the Caddy. Most 3 series buyers could care less about what a 3 is capable of, nor will they ever use that capability. I don't think its a stretch to say that the Caddy, barring people biases, is an intelligent alternative.

The CTS is everything that's right with GM nowadays. They can't make enough variations, IMHO. Bring on the 'vert, a shooting brake, whatever. For most people, most of the time, the CTS is the equal or better to the 3.