enzl

I'm under the impression she's the one running the show at Automobile. (The title has been sold, so this may just be a revenue grab for the new owners) The internet has truly killed the enthusiast's traditional press. (The CVT imitation is precious.)

check out her Compass pitch by selecting vehicle. Awful doesn't describe the shame involved. Linky: http://jeep.automobilemag.com/ *ttac scoop, sorry. Thought you guys would enjoy the ad (in a sadly comic way.)

The ES, unfortunately, is the LaCrosse Buick wishes it could be. There's nothing wrong with targeting the ES if you're Buick--I've got a problem with the current execution. (Although I will confess a slight weakness for the Super as a great value as a used purchase) I hope the EpII can be that quantum leap that the Enclave was over the Terazza or Ranier. It has to be.

That's part of the problem. What part of Cadillac's history had a 2 seat sportscar as a true flagship? (please don't say "allante") That's why the Sixteen would have been an interesting project, IMO. Big, crazy looking sedans are Caddy signatures.

They should be limiting the range of thier brands alot quicker: If we can't kill brands because of the Olds debacle, then how about limiting everyone but Caddy and Chevy to 3 strong products?...right now, GM is developing a range of products for Saab, a fourth Hummer, & has just done the same for Saturn. I suggest: Pontiac: G8, Solstice & G6 Buick: Enclave, LaCrosse, Park Ave RWD GMC: Chevy truck rebadges & Denali trim line of each Saturn: Astra, Aura, people mover (Delta-based) Hummer: H2/3, H4 Saab: 9-1, 9-3/5,9-4x NO MAS. That's it. Make each product unique--make each product special---sell them at a fair price (which would be easier because more volume thru less product should make it more efficient.) Go where others aren't...a sub22k RWD entry, a super small pickup, a true full size convertible (bring back the bench seat in a Lucerne 'vert with 6 passenger possibilities?) I know there are lots of talented, creative people at GM and elsewhere in the industry. Find them and fire everyone else--yesterday!

Exactly. Why shouldn't excellence in all product be the ultimate goal? The 3.6 is a gem...shouldn't grannies get it too?

Obviously, it's easier to sell to people who have already come to your storefront. What you avoid mentioning is the severe shrinkage that each GM brand must consider--Buick's 3 models should probably be matched at the Pontiac store by a max of 3...then GMC becomes the volume line at the B-P-GMC dealers....what do you do with Saab, Caddy & Hummer--Hummer allegedly needs the H4--but the H2 must be replaced b/c its a $ maker, right? Saab is about to get more models, not less (9-1, 9-4). And Saturn is sh!tting the bed with an entirely NEW lineup...Now, GM ends up back where they started--no savings on product, marketing or dealers. It's a very tough situation--but it has to be addressed, very soon. The current situation cannot continue without severe consequences (You know, the ones all the hated Wall Street pundits like to squawk about.)

GM took the H1, created a division around it--with development $ stolen from Buicks, Chevys & Saturns, forced million dollar stand-alones on franchisees & hasn't really figured out the next step....and MB is the wrong one? GM needed another division like a hole in the head---yet they've made MB's G-Class look smart...hell, they make smart look smart.... You just can't take this argument very far as it applies to GM--their insular corporate culture has to be altered, immediately.

With all due respect, GM has neither the time or the resources to continue the path you propose. The problem with 'believers' on this site is that they don't recognize the reality on the ground. I don't honestly think that anyone here is rooting for GM to fail, rather, some of us see a different path to fixing what's broken. GM voluntarily shrinking for defensive and strategic purposes is a good idea. Globalization and product rationalization are simply good ideas. The breadth of the product has kept many parts of the line-up weak--not competitive in some markets and completely failing in others. The nosedive in the Truck market will only hasten the dire need to do something drastic. The reason that Wall Street & other professionals are clamoring for change may be because its needed...whether your professional opinion trumps theirs is dubious logic on your part. The free market is voting with its wallets--both in GM's showrooms and Wall Street boardrooms---coincidence? I just don't think so. 4 minor rehashes of one platform is fine...but simply unnecessary in a properly developed & marketed platform---GM has shown it can make good product. I just don't think they're capable of making 60 of them--no one can anymore. It's clearly time for a new plan and new leadership over there, IMO. '11 until GM NA is profitable? Fritz needed to be kicked out, not upstairs. RW better be on borrowed time, too.

GM has no choice. There are 2 fundamental issues that come back to the same problem: Too many dealers. (No $ to get rid of 'em.) Not enough development time, effort and money to go around. Both result in what you see. The 'bu is just the first in line. The Traverse will do the same in CUV's, and the pattern will repeat itself with the EpII and Delta. GM is still half stuck in the 'packaged goods' theory of car building---and with Lutz not getting any younger, I'm not sure who will have the balls and the authority to get it done in the future.

The off-fleet and rental myth is just that. While it is true that some suffer abuse from users, the fact is that the maintenance programs for most fleets and all rental co.'s is infinitely better than the short term lease owners and 'buyers' remorse' trades that make up the other half of the young, used vehicles in the marketplace. We sell pre-fleeted vehicles all the time. Less come back with problems and customers get good deals. I don't see what's wrong with that.

I don't think you guys are going to want to, based on analysts' projections.

I don,t even have to read the articles these posts are based on to know what the stock comments will be. The truth is that people who know this industry (rather than the fanboys on either side) have seen this day coming. Make no mistake, GM and the 1.8 are in a fight for their lives...RW's survival mystifies me, but that type of decision-making by the board has led to these desperate times. This team couldn't make real money while times were good. I can't understand how they'll suddenly be brilliant and make correct decisions when times are bad. Of course, you'll have people scream that such talk is 'anti-american', but its my love of the D3 that keeps me yelling for real change. Any other job, these guys would be out on their asses.

The Corolla's success mystifies me in a world where the Mazda 3 & Honda Civic are so far superior...but it goes to show you how powerful a consistent nameplate usage and quality message can do for you... I think the Matrix is at about 50k/yr., IIRC. Corolla is also the Toyota with the largest fleet sales---not surprising, but if the Big 3 have cut 300,000 sales in the last year, somebody has clearly picked up the slack... The Focus thing is an atrocity, but I believe that Ford is getting on the right path. I'm not as sold on the Rickster & Co.

Which is MY issue with this whole thing. You roll out a concept with no engineering done, then you make all sorts of claims about price, volume, intro date...then GM compounds the offense with continual conflicting info about the status of the project & using the Volt in Ad campaigns...and NOW we find out that there are all sorts of challenges to overcome? It sends a message that GM still can't shoot straight....which is the last thing they need right now. The Two-mode is supposed to be an excellent system---the parallel development seems silly when you're projecting NA losses until '11...

Sorry for the misinformation.....I was sourcing TCC (my bad)

"Blockbuster" is a loaded term--and the Corolla isn't one in a real sense...what I should have said was "New Car Intro with 300k Sales expectation -- Minimum" or "Timely Update of Small Vehicle that US consumers will buy blindly in droves." Unfortunately, other than pick-ups, that big-mover paradigm has shifted beyond the Big 3's grasp these days. Since the Corolla's come up, the fact is that Toyota will shift more 2009 intro'ed vehicles than ANYONE across its product line. That's depressing.

Reality served cold, my friend. I'm just providing counterpoint to the more deluded here, that's all. You choose to believe what you want--GM PR speak or real, on the ground experience & expectation. 20% is a joke. They were wearing 30% pins, then 28% pins---now I'm supposed to cheer 20%? Obviously, you don't depend upon a GM franchise for your livelihood.

This is one of the companies working with GM on the Volt battery system as well. Don't think it's present difficulties bodes well for that project. Therefore, relevant...especially if the battery co. Disappears....

And more good news. GM is now going to be buying its current batteries from Toyota! http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=840

Here's a scary thought: They don't need any (although I'd say the Corolla qualifies). Here's an even scarier thought: What does GM have forthcoming that will reverse its sales slide and market share loss? Bold Prediction: GM will be fortunate to hold market share, while losing more sales in a declining market. Toyota will end 08 about even in sales #'s and up in share. You seem to forget, Toyota doesn't need blockbusters, GM does.

This idea is all in the execution. I don't believe there's any need for a small, FWD Buick anything. It just doesn't say 'American Lexus', which is what they're allegedly shooting for. A unique RWD product, perhaps a small coupe that becomes a Riviera makes sense. Another Cobalt derivative makes me want to puke. As for the Zeta nightmare, I find it very hard to believe that the architecture couldn't be used on a variety of products that can help the CAFE situation. Wagons, pick-ups or people movers (CUV,VAN) can all be defined as 'trucks' and, therefore, allow the smaller scale production of all kinds of Camaro's, GTO's, RWD Impalas & a Velite/Riv. The Zeta story doesn't make sense to me...there are still a variety of products that will be Zeta possible, such as DTS/STS replacement or a PArk Ave...GM has spent a fortune on 2-mode hybrids...the last two are models that can pay for said tech at their price-points.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevy-volt-hyb...first-year.html As I've said before....more Volt shuck n jive to come....$25k, no, make that $35k... That's why you don't put experimental vehicles in current ads--it raises unrealistic expectations.

Forget it. As devistatingly accurate your post is, you still have tons of 'true believers' that simply can't believe that rational people making safe choices will ignore the Big 3...it's a tremendous burden and horrifically bad timing for GM to be turning things around. Only demonstrably superior (not equal) product will turn the tide. A Volt, delivered tomorrow, isn't just desireable, it's almost necessary.

IIRC, the longitudinal design was exclusively because, even then, Honda was tinkering with platform sharing. The longitudinal inline 5s would fit where the transverse 4 was removed. How do you think Honda got so good at 'architecture stretching.' The Vigor was a Japanese market alternative to the Accord, as was the TL. The Legend/RL part of the line I'm not as clear on...although a family we knew had the first Acuras on the block, 3/5 door Integras and a Legend w/o leather (all 1987s)....both Integras were that bright blue color.