enzl

Few, if any, which is a great accomplishment...however, there's a part of me that would respond with a list of mediocrities that still inhabit the GM line-up---do we need to go through them?Bear in mind that GM has visited this horror upon itself....the Zombia Zarella years come to mind as an era with so few truly worldclass products, you'd think by some happy accident one or two gems might have appeared. It's taken Mr. Lutz 6 llong years to work his guidance into real projects that are now available for retail purchase---I'm not certain that GM has 6 more years to wander around hoping that the marketers, retailers & money men can improve GM in their areas of expertise, nor do I believe there's a Lutz-type in any of these areas to lead them out of the woods. VW used to be the 'bug' company. Hyundai meant cheap & unreliable. Honda was a motorcycle maker and Lexus (Lexis, asctually) was a legal archive/research co. Obviously, all of these companies have evolved in many ways, so GM can too...but each of the above still gets some grief for the 'old' perception of them. Case and point: VW was roundly criticized for their move upmarket, as they had an association with affordability. Hyundai is still given the mantle of 'newly' reliable product. Honda has still not made a universal success of Acura and Lexus takes many hits (especialy in Europe) for its lack of history. If these examples are anything to go by, clearly GM has a shot---it's just that their margin for error has shrunk dramatically and I've seen nothing in their top leadership that leads me to believe that they are the men for the job.

Ahem...Malibu, CTS...and I'm not doubting their existence, just that it's not a widespread, nor current slap at GM thru 'bu or CTS reviews...which you've proven for me....

Guess you missed the latest IIHS (tougher than NTSHA) results, huh?http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/15/iihs-aw...award-for-2008/

Bias is Bias...Spin is a form of Bias, no?If you take select bits and pieces of any article, couldn't you support almost any conclusion? The tide of press affections has been turning in GM's favor lately---they've been given a free pass on a few of the items I've been harping on in the past few weeks---its hard to prove a negative, but doesn't the absence of 'bad' news make an argument that the worm has turned? And, bear in mind, Toyota has done a masterful PR job with hybrids & Green imaging---so much so that GM's marketing machine has finally caught on---have you seen the 08 Chevy display in LA? Also, the utter dependence GM has on its GMT900 line (as in every dollar of profit from vehicle sales in the last 10 or so years, at least) makes GM uniquely positioned as the largest, most relevant and most visible of the Big 2.8, whose entire fortunes are basically tied to these dinosaurs--that's just an inescapable fact. Toyota could survive (and prosper) without its large truck lines, while the same isn't true at the domestic co.'s. So, while you make valid points, I believe that the concern you express is more of a POV issue than a real one. Most people could care less about the industry in general---most people have bought what the Toyota PR machine has sold them---but then you can't ignore the common sense conclusion that GM truly is a truck company that happens to make cars---both as perception and reality, when you take a cold hard look at where their business truly derives profits. BTW-I haven't seen one Malibu review that references the Citation, nor a CTS review that mentions the V8-6-4 debacle, but keep in mind that Chevy was ubiquitous historically speaking, while Toyota was a coastal player that bearly reached the radar screens of the American public until they really started competing with US products---and eating their lunch. I didn't know anyone with a Corolla in 1980--now I don't know anyone that hasn't at least shopped a Toyota product, regardless of segment.

Forget it. You're bangig your head against the wall.Good GM reviews are evidence of GM's complette turnaround. Bad reviews means that the mean old media horde is out to get GM. Regularly ignored issues such as fleeting dependancy to reach current sales numbers, GM's highly paid/highly educated numbers guys missing the potential housing market meltdown or noticing the price of oil and the marketing nightmare that is their broken apparatus don't matter---it's the Media Bias that's killing GM! Ostriches, every last one of them.

BooHoo...the media's killing GM.... Which media is it? The one naming Malibu as an All Star? The almost unanimous positive reviews nationally? Perhaps the Sequoia is better than the GMT 900's? I really don't know or care if its true, but wouldn't it stand to reason that Toyota has had years to to tear apart, analyze and then respond to the competition, thus enabling them to come up with a good rival? You guys repeatedly act as if the world should stand still to allow GM to get back on its feet. It just doesn't make sense, nor is it connected to the real world of business...where competitors in all fields consistently attempt to top one another, be it TV sets, widgets or cars. The sensitivity to GM's 'feelings' is ironic, given the general lack of concern for other insults demonstrated on this board, daily.

I believe this is exactly GM's plan for this vehicle.The RX has proven that the platform need not be performance or RWD biased to succeed---I certainly hope that the TE or whatever platform it's called will be lighter than the Vue, which is a porker, albeit a good product. If aluminum intensive tech can be used on this product (and Saab/Caddy pricing should allow it), perhaps it can come in at a lower weight than the Vue. It's my understanding that this vehicle will be built in Mexico, alongside the Vue, so it stands to reason that the platform will be similar (GM has shown little ability to flexibly manufacture divergent platforms at the same facility, yet)---and the production space freed by killing the SRX will allow GM to pump more volume out of the facility that will be needed to satisfy a range of CTS', as well as the new DTS/STS replacement

If you look at the income vs. profitability, then it absolutely is true.As we know, record income only reflects volume, not profitability. I believe they made less than 1% on automotive operations globally!... Even excluding one-time items, GM had a 2007 third-quarter adjusted net loss of 1.6 billion dollars, or 2.80 dollars per share, with the automaker's results hurt by troubles at GMAC, its former finance arm in which it still holds a stake. That loss came amid record automotive revenue of 43.1 billion dollars and an operating profit of 122 million dollars in global automotive operations. Henderson said that further "adjustments" could be made if economic conditions or GM's results worsen. "We need to base the business on the reality of today," he said. "We like our (market) penetration, we like what we're doing with our brands, but we've got to get the job done on both the revenue and the cost side." Henderson added that while some near-term cost improvements could be expected out of its landmark new labor contract, many of the benefits will not be reaped until 2010 and that GM must spend money now to pay for those eventual savings. Meanwhile, GM's North America unit posted a loss from continuing operations of 247 million dollars in the July-September period. "We continue to implement the key elements of our North America turnaround strategy, and these initiatives are driving steady improvement in our financial results, despite challenging North America market conditions," said Rick Wagoner, the company's chairman and chief executive. Wagoner continued: "In addition, we are very encouraged by our performance in emerging markets. Our record third quarter global sales are strong evidence that our commitment to great cars and trucks is being embraced by consumers around the globe." The loss comes in a period of turmoil for the US auto industry, which is struggling against foreign rivals with a lower cost structure. Both GM and Ford have been undergoing painful restructuring, and Chrysler was spun off to private equity investors after losses incurred at its German parent. GM has also suffered from the real-estate slump, which has dented results at the GMAC unit. The latest results also include a gain of 3.5 billion dollars from Allison..... GOOGLE NEWS

All true.But don't forget, you're still talking about future earnings being discounted...more to the point is that the overall automotive operations are not really making money, that 's the problem. You can't pay for development, VEBA, buyouts and ongoing operations if you aren't making $ making cars. Most of the new UAW savings don't take place until '10! That's what management can be blamed for.

All true.But don't forget, you're still talking about future earnings being discounted...more to the point is that the overall automotive operations are not really making money, that 's the problem. You can't pay for development, VEBA, buyouts and ongoing operations if you aren't making $ making cars. Most of the new UAW savings don't take place until '10! That's what management can be blamed for.

As I've stated (and been crucified for) in other threads, GM's 'recovery' has been a sham, financially. The fleeting issue is a complete 180 to what was promised---a commitment to owners to reduce the practice--and I believe one that has propped up a regime that has been bad for GM for a long time.The irony is that the product will be better than ever, but they will NOT be able to figure out how to make money without the 'gimme' of millions of truck sales at insane margins. I have every reason to root for GM's success, but I feel very strongly that this particular line-up of executives on the financial/corporate governance side has been an abject failure. Fritz is clearly not up to the task, and Wagonner has presided (over his career) over record market share losses, miserable quality (for a majority of his years at GM) and the World's Largest Company being brought to its knees. What more do you have to be responsible for (or witness to) to get fired over at the Tubes? The heavy lifting required to figure out how to make profits in the New World means new blood is needed.

Our first one hit the lot last night...base LS, dark grey, MSRP of 20,XXX. Looks great for a 'base' unit---actually, it makes the old 'bu and the current Impala look a little dowdy. I think this thing will sell, but I still have real concerns about its overall cannabalization of the Impala sales. Great job, GM, regardless.

My heartfelt take is that there's no good reason to display symbols that signify hate, slavery or oppression to a group of people. I respect the fact that some Southerners view the 'Stars & Bars' as a symbol of their heritage---but I can't see why they in turn can't see that others only see said symbol as negative or derogatory---so why bother using it? Are there really such romantic ideals and inate attachment that it's worth offending a whole subset of this country? Is is PC thinking gone awry? Maybe--but there are so many more outrageous examples of PCism that don't touch on topics like slavery, bigotry or oppression, so is worth offending some people to provide an incremental pleasure to those that feel the need to display such symbolism? furthermore, I feel like those that display such a loaded symbol inadvertantly lend support to those that use the Confederate flag as a hateful message--which I'd assume is the last thing they'd want their heritage associated with....

In other words, more bad/mediocre news is expected in the future, so please don't hold these tax credits as assets, since to truly be assets, we need to make X+ profits to apply them. They're not expecting reasonably foreseeable profit in the future to keep them on the books. It's not good. GM can't make enough profit with the model mix---the historical dependency on obscene truck profits and little to no profits elsewhere is coming home to roost, unfortunately.

I was operating under the assumption that the fleeting would continue to decline (as GM has promised) while the G8 was here...therefore, net-net, you'd be losing sales volume (in other words, if they fleeted 10k less GP's, there goes the volume gained via the 30k G8 sales)....rereading my own post, I wasn't clear on that. Sorry.

In all seriousness, it's not a symbol you can wash clean...it's not that you can't use it, it's that you should be smart enough not to use it at all.Co-opting a symbol that offends some might seem uber-intellectual or post-modern or whatever type of legitimate face you want to put on it, but it doesn't make it less offensive to those that may view it and not taken the time to read what I'm sure is a long-winded and small minded series of excuses in the Lounge. Farbeit from me to curtail your freedom of speech, but that still doesn't change the fact that many people look at the 'stars and bars' as a reminder of some awful history in our great country---perhaps out of respect for those that are offended, you should consider a different avatar. Or you could continue to look like an ignorant f*ck. Your call.

I never said the GTO was a bad car, I said it wasn't a true GTO, either in appearance (retro or not, it was bland) or as a marketing tool (it provided no Halo), so it was a failure...and I happen to like the car, personally.It's not that I don't believe you or anyone else...I read (voraciously) all of the major car rags, journals, industry stuff and I just happen to have an office across from a P-B-GMC dealer, where I speak to salesmen and managers regularly---you cannot find, other than here, anyone who claims the GTO was a success, so whn I express doubts as to the claims being made, I do not just rely on my own opinion---there were stilll GTO's on the lot (new) as of 4 months ago...I saw them with my own eyes.Take a look at the current/past NADA values for these vehicles (less than $27k retail for an 06 in Nov. 06!)---are they desireable? Yes, but only to a small subsection of the enthusiast community--everyone else has walked away from these cars with a shrug. Taking your numbers for the GP at face value, the math doesn't work...it assumes that GM makes no money from the fleet sales of the GP (which everyone here constantly uses as a defense of fleeting by GM). You and I both know that's probably not true. Additiionally, with fleeting, Pontiac is in the dumps...removing those sales entirely means that Pontiac will lose another 20% or so of its sales volume, if your retail numbers are correct. BTW-I wasn't defending SMK, just his right to having a differeing opinion...why not get him to reveal a source of his numbers, rather than threatening to ban him?

I'm going to let it go, but I still feel it's inappropriate to to what NS did---I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point.A little history lesson about the GTO/Monaro program...the idea to bring the Monaro over here, mid-cycle, was advertised as Lutz'...so the car was NOT really designed with international markets in mind...although it did appear in the UK or Europe as a Vauxhall, IIRC. The guts of the GTO was old---think Catera old---at the time it was introduced here. Proof: Take a look in the trunk of a GTO...the gastank had to be repositioned to get it to conform to US standards---there were a myriad of other detail changes made as well---so any suggestion that our GTO was a 'bonus' is just not true--it took development time, energy and $, plus shipping costs from around the planet and a sinking dollar to pay for it over the course of its life here in the States---moreover, while the car itself is nice, the cold, hard truth is that it failed at its mission, which was to raise the profile of Pontiac and create a buzz for the brand---whether GM failed the GTO or vice-versa, it doesn't change the end result, which is that the GTO failed to do what it needed to do. Pontiac is still sinking like a stone. If 'failure' isn't a word your comfortable with, its only semantics that are separating our opinions in the matter, as the GTO (as a vehicle) isn't bad, it just isn't a "GTO", nor is it a success.

Noone is saying that, although I will absolutely stand corrected if my opinions about GM or anything else are proven wrong in the future. So far, we've got 'success' being defined as finally stabilizing marketshare in a down market, but I'll leave that alone for now.PS-Just as an aside, Lewis Black wouldn't have a Confederate Flag as an avatar...I can't believe one member of this site hasn't called you on it. It's just awful, man. I guess you must also stand on the 'right' side of opinion here. F*ck all the stuff that piece of toilet paper stands for, it doesn't matter as long as you're towing the company line....

First, the GTO program, whether or not the vehicle had merit, was NOT successful, Via Uncle Bob Lutz, not me.Second, here's the threat-by Northstar, directed at SMK, in Black & White, for your review, from Nov. 5: Oh, and how many times must you be told that MT said the Commodore SS-V handles like the old M5? Get some facts and quit spewing bull$h!, or you will be gone soon. We are tired of your baseless posts. Third, I was assessing NS's role, via a reply to Olds' post---I can read the "admin" info to the left. Fourth/Fifth, IMO, the site is being ruined---and you blaming GM's illusory 'success' as the reason is YOUR rationalization of the issue at large--trust me, a number of people have contacted my personal e-mail to express their dissatisfaction with how unevenhanded a number of situations have been handled. Sixth, no complaint about the content of anyone's opinion, but to unequivocally state that the GTO was a success is horsesh!t and it belies almost every public pronouncement made by GM---just to be fair, that doesn't make the CAR itself a bad one, just not the success you are claiming, nor a success per GM's opinion, not just mine. Seventh- you can correct facts, but when it's an active debate--such as the 3/5 series vs. CTS debate--size vs. price vs. whatever--those are not facts in that scenario, it's an active back and forth that was abruptly and incorrectly ended with a threat that was not deserved--NS stepped over the line....Please just admit it so we can get on with things....

Hang on....are you saying that the OPINION expressed---opposite an admin--is trolling?There was nothing personal, nothing offensive and nothing too controversial in what the poster (SMK) was saying. And until anybody breaks out the Accounting for the GTO program, I refuse to believe it was a success---if it was, wouldn't there be another Zeta paired with the Camaro? In case you don't believe me (or SMK gets banned in the next few minutes), here's Bob Lutz on the GTO: Bob Lutz Explains Why The Pontiac GTO Failed Written By: Reilly Filed Under: Videos, Coupes, Chicago Auto Show, Pontiac, Automotive News February 21st, 2007 8:49 AM In a new video on Automotive News, Bob Lutz discusses why the Pontiac GTO (2003-2006) failed in North America. The video was taped weeks ago at the Chicago Auto Show. Regarding the GTO’s failure, Lutz says: - “it was arguably past its best-buy date in terms of styling. When we brought it in, that basic styling configuration in the market…for close to seven or eight years. If you bring in a car, it should be in the beginning of its design cycle.” - “We overpriced it.” - “We maldistributed it. We based distribution on historic Pontiac sales…it turned out that was completely wrong.” Click through for more on what Lutz said about Pontiac’s new G8, plus a link to the video Lutz reports that the G8 will be in showrooms in the beginning of 2008 as a 2009 model. He also says the G8 and Grand Prix will be sold together for some time. Pricing will be “where the Dodge Magnum is” both for the V-6 and V-8 models. http://news.windingroad.com/videos/bob-lut...iac-gto-failed/ Unbelievable---is Bob Lutz wrong about what he was wrong about as well? If the father of the idea says it was a "Failure", isn't that enough? Nah, just shoot me down--better yet, why not threaten to ban me as well? You are ruining this site...just thought you should know. Every critical voice has dried up and gone away---coincidence, I think not. But don't worry, I'm not as easily shaken as the rest. Other Admins should be offended as well. It's an abuse of power, inappropriate and everything against what this site purports to be. "GM's Biggest fans & Toughest Critics" my ass.

Only here will you find somebody saying that the GTO was a success. Even Bob Lutz admits it was well intentioned but a failure---definitely from an economic perspective. While it isn't a bad car, the rebirth of the GTO was a 'just miss' product that had the misfortune of being introed while Chrysler was bringing back interesting RWD machines. Chrylser took heritage names and ideas and controversy and made it work (to a large extent)...GM just missed. GTO provided no halo for Pontiac & was a tough sell---not good.The G8 has a better shot, but selling 30k of them when the Bonnie & GP are either one foot in the grave or gone is nothing to write home about. Now, as for your threats to ban this poor guy/girl: Do you realize how out of touch your fantasy about the GTO makes you sound? And threatening to ban a guy over his opinion is LOW. Why not just get it over with and ban all dissent? That's how many of you guys have managed to chase off anyone with a defensible position that didn't jibe with your party line--and it ruins the site, man. I got news for you, dude- GM is BETTER today because somebody finally spoke up and said that the sh!t they were pushing wasn't going to do it...Mr. Lutz was the voice of dissent and doubt in the GM airspace---so when you take someone's legitimate criticism and threaten them with it, you look like a bully and a loser--both of which probably aren't too far off.

If you peruse your local paper, you'll see crazy 'come on' ads for ALL manufacturers, usually with specific stock numbers and limiting language...this is used by EVERY dealer to bring you in the door.You ever try to buy a car off one of those ads? Nearly impossible, in my experience. Using that as evidence of Toyota's so called desperation is like using pre-holiday sales at Wal-Mart to evidence their 'impending bankruptcy'--in other words, there is none. Fact-Toyota is still well below the domestic 3 in rebate spending--although the gap has narrowed (mostly due to GM's price cuts from 2 model years ago). Toyota has had some problems, that's true--but the measure of their greatness will be in their response to said issues, not some yahoo pointing at independent dealer ads and pronouncing definitive findings. You clearly don't know the biz, at all.

Can you say fleet? GM clearly tweaked sales of the DTS, and Cobalt, based on the numbers I've seen.The overall DTS trend is down...more than 10% this year--and more than that if you factor historical sales---the DTS is a black car/livery vehicle now, basically--much like the Town Car a few years back, the DTS will probably share that fate.

I never said that Malibu sales won't boost total volume, I stated that the overall outlook for GM's lineup increasing volume sales is unlikely.Just some reasons: For every Malibu sale, some Impala sales will be lost. Buick's 2 volume sedan entries are down over 20% this year...wanna take a guess as to next years shrinkage? Pontiac is getting 30k G8's...but the Grand Prix is a rental queen already, the G6 is trending downward (again) and Pontiac will also sell 0 minivans, fewer Torrents and the G5 is just an abomination. Caddy will double CTS sales, but the STS will continue to stink up the joint, the DTS will continue its descent and the Caddy trucks are a bad commodities day away from irrelevance. Factor in a shrinking, super-competitve large truck market, new entries from Dodge & Ford and a sh!tty housing market and you're again one Israeli missle strike away from complete disaster. I will only concede that the non-US operations are a bright spot--but GM has never depended upon said operations to keep the ship afloat. That's a tough point to hand your hopes on--and that's where it's at, IMO>