enzl

I tend to agree with the conspiracy theorists that this 'action' was pre-ordained, allowing the UAW to appear strong and GM to look like they're finally not agreeing to business as usual, vis-a-vis the UAW. If the strike cuts a few weeks of inventory, relieves GM of the burden of pay for the days off & results in a historic deal that the Union can sell to membership, its all good. Of course, if the UAW isn't careful, they may be killing their golden goose.

Love it io hate it, the 86 Taurus was a landmark car that saved Ford and makes the SUV/Truck era of the 90's even more infuriating. The 96 ? redesign was the beginning of the end. I've seen mouths like that on bass and nicer asses at weight watchers meetings. I can never understand how that made it out of the design room. Ford ceded the car title to Honda/Toyota and will never get it back...

Don't worry, they'll be plenty of G6's to rent at your local Budget once they euthanize the GP. G + G can check out how nice they really are the next time they visit.It doesn't matter that I like or hate this thing...I just wonder if the time/effort/$ could have gone to something more important. Here's a few suggestions that might be better bets, just for Pontiac: 1. Fix the top/trunk issues with the Solstice (as a bonus, it'll help Saturn's Sky + Opel/Vauxhall + Daewoo) 2. Get the G8 here sooner...it's the only thing worth a damn in the Pontiac lineup---other than Solstice 3. Interior supplier other than Rubbermaid for the G6. 4. Something other than badge differentiation for the G5 or Torrent. (You promised Mr. Lutz!) 5. Payoffs to a couple of journalists so they'll consider Pontiac relevant again?

I've heard of some nightmares regarding pre-05 engines & issues with standing water....I can't remember the exact issue, but basically involves water intrusion from someplace low in the engine compartment that you wouldn't expect. Additionally, as BMW grows in popularity and the older models become available to more of us plebes, it seems that maintenance schedules tend to go out the window, which is a huge mistake with these cars.

One man's pessimism is another man's reality.If your favorite company's future is hanging by the proverbial thread, I would think that genuine concern would be the minimal response. Ah, to be blissfully (or willfully) ignorant!

I genuinely hope you are right.

Mr. Lutz is the only real change in leadership, which was part of my point.Mr. Wagonner has been there for 30 years, IIRC. He's a bean counter who has ONLY worked at GM during his adult life. He has ONLY worked for GM as they suffered the largest single loss of market share in their History. He has only experienced the slow, painful bleeding of almost all of the life out of what is left of the World's Largest Automaker-The World's Largest Company-The World's Most Valuable Comany--note that all of those titles are now historical footnotes. How this gentleman has escaped blame for this disaster is beyond me. Roger Smith may have set the course, but I find it hard to detect how Mr. W doesn't share some of the discredit for the current state of affairs. Given the recent history, I cannot understand how the Board or Shareholders have granted this guy more rope with which to hang himself. As for those other products I mentioned, all were created on Rick's watch. Mr. Lutz has done what he could to correct the product missteps, but he doesn't make the other decisions that have also contributed to GM's current state of affairs. They would have been better off throwing darts than actually making decisions like their recent misadventures with partnerships.

Uh-oh...be careful CB, you might be branded an Enzl sympathizer!I blame Wagoner, not Lutz, because of his length of service and the fact that he's been knee-deep in decisionmaking, even before his appointment to CEO. While there's great merit to 'stay the course', I'd take your Titanic analogy one step further....The Rickster is like one of the guys who built the Titanic, claimed it was unsinkable, and then given a promotion the week after its maiden (& last) voyage. GM has been troubled for years. Rick was there. He was in a position of authority and he blew a ton of calls as both CEO and before...I guarantee you that Wolfgand Berhard (as an example) could step in, provide real leadership, galvanize the troops, assure investors (in the Long Term) that everything will be fine. Then get on with the process of remaking an inefficient product development process, reform the risk-averse nature of actual approved product and, furthermore, make it look like someone at GM gives a rats ass about something more than next quarters #'s... In the above example, you get a real car guy, someone who knows how others in the industry do it (for good/bad) and, since the long term nature of the car business means nothing is overnight, perhaps it gets enthusiasts and investors talking positively about GM, instead of seeing the same old moldy business practices that have been steering this ship in the wrong direction for so long. Rick's tinkering while reinvention is needed. Those who fear change are only those with a vested interest in the status quo. If the margin for error is so small, why not bring someone in who can change the game, rather than hoping for the other shoe NOT to fall?

Um, as to product, they're running at 50% I agree about the GMT-900's (although the timing is bad), and the Lambdas, but the Aura is not there, the CTS is a maybe & the Kappas are beautiful, but not really as good as they should be---nor are they truly profitable, nor can they be made in real volume. The Malibu is not out, but I'll give you that one. Now, I notice you've ignored the G-bodies (Lucerne/DTS), the W's, the Aveo, the Cobalt/G5, HHR, STS, XLR, All Saabs, GTO, at al....I'm assuming you know the reason as well as I do. As for the non-product reasons cited: I can 100% agree with quality (although the industry itself has also had the avg. quality raised & GM had room to improve) and the Global use of resources... The rest are not as certain: -Retail sales are NOT up. August sales were up IIRC for the 1st time this year, which included a 20%+ increase in fleet sales -Fleet sales are down, but see above for last months... -GMNA did not report a profit for last year, although they may have had a quarter that was profitable--the overseas regions were profitable -Fat has not been completely trimmed, as the UAW contract will determine the fate of such drains as the Jobs Bank, nor have the UAW capitualated on the largest issues, yet. See today's Detroit News for details of the UAW's rejection of the biggest element, the VEBA. I'm not sure which promises you're referring to as fulfilled, but I can tell you that the Rickster is a GM Lifer....meaning he's overseen or participated in most of the executive decisions that have brought GM to its knees. I can't give him a free pass for that reason alone. You don't become GM CEO overnight---so for at least a decade before his ascension, he MUST have been involved with the absurd decisionmaking over at the Tubes.

I thnk you misunderstand me. I believe that everyone involved with GM should stand-in and fight to the death...but I, unlike you, do not believe that Wagonner is the CEO for that job. The GM-DAT deal is the one decision that looks right, in hindsight, however, I believe that the Fiat & Subaru deals were made under Rick's watch, not Roger Smith's. Here's the problem: Fiat was needed for small cars and small diesels---both things that GM needs right now---Billions were thrown down that sinkhole with little tangible results. Who got canned for that debacle? Noone! GM still needs small diesels for 50%+ of the passenger car market in Europe. So nothing was accomplished. And the cost of 1-2 new car programs were burned doing it. Subaru was allied with to do more than produce a Saabaru...yet, again, nothing was accomplished, millions in investment were lost and resources were squandered. If you look at what happened after GM was involved, the story becomes even more damning, as Fiat has seen a renaissance of profitability and product. Ford slipped in with a cheaper, more sensible alliance and got cheap tech, factory and labor in Poland for the new Ka. Toyota of all companies is now using extra Subaru factory space to produce more Camries---they bought the offloaded Subaru stock for a song---and it sounds like they may re-enter the small sportscar market with help from Subaru---while GM is still planning Alpha and still developing the Camaro. Additionally, GM has since had to offload 50%+ of GMAC, it's most profitable division, by far. Allison transmission was also jettisoned, even though transmission tech is one of the keys to future performance, economy and hybridization...but I digress. Let's be honest---if the performance of the GM management, Bd. of Directors or product planners was YOUR workplace, would they have a job? The honest answer is NO. That's my bottm line. Lutz can stay...Rick should go, as well as the rest of the people at the helm. If a Ford scion can step aside for an established outsider, why can't the Rick-ster? All I hear from GM is excuses for missing targets and slipping sales---at some point, someone has to step up, say the buck stops here, and get on with a new plan--I don't see the current powers doing that.

FOG- As usual, in your zeal to shout down a non-believer, you completely missed my point.You have not answered the essential question posed: How can one believe in GM's promises when so many have been dashed? I'm not saying the Volt cannot be done, nor that all hope is completely lost, rather, I'm critiquing a company for its legitimate failings. I'm not going to run down the inaccuracies of your statements, but I will tell you this: Until or Unless some real, elemental change happens, GM is just circling the bowl for an eventual flush---it will either become a foreign manufacturer of historical nameplates or will be sliced and diced into usable parts. I'd like to avoid that. Apparently, some people here do not, either because they don't believe it can/will happen or they're willfully ignorant of the stakes. For instance---if the UAW strikes right now, GM is done. The situation, no matter how infantesimal the odds, should NEVER be allowed to happen. If the US is struck by terrorism again and the economy tanks, GM is done. How can one even put odds on that? Meanwhile, BS Sales numbers and make-believe tech that was represented as feasible are what people here are hanging their hats on. Unbelieveable that as fans there's not more awareness or apparent concern that the end could be near!

I don't know where to begin, but I'll start with the topic and state this alone: If the Volt's combined features were so easy to do, you would have heard that someone was developing such a vehicular system---it's not just stick a small generator motor to a batttery pack and hook both to an electric motor---it's obvious that the plug-in hardware, batteries, software and other components do not exist in a form that lends itself to throwing 'em together. And, if the architecture of the vehicle must support the changes in how these pieces fit, now you've got to be sure that it's compatible with future crash/safety standards.... Apparently, this is a multiple years away...we saw the concept in 07 and won't see the real thing until 11---and if changing the entire way cars are designed/built, quadrupling efficiency and mass producing said effort isn't a moonshot. we'll just have to agree to disagree (Man had rockets for 30+ years before we landed men on the moon, BTW, so technically, the means were there) Now, Fly, since you've asked, here's what I'd do if I was the ruler at the Tubes: 1. Make sure each and every new product was as close to excellent as possible. If it can't run with the best in class, don't produce it until it does. The new 'bu, for example, will come to market on an aging chassis that GM knows it needs to update...as evidenced by the 09/10 Aura, which follows quickly to market.... 2. Identify the best people in every facet of the industry. Then go out and hire them. If Jim Press could take a job with Chrysler, then anybody is a potential free agent signing. 3. Marketing & advertising must be completely revamped to meet 21st century customers. I find that from stock photos to TV spots, there's no less imaginative auto stuff out there than the Generals--apply #2 to the marketing & advertising industries, if necessary. 4. Use 'secret shoppers' rather than BS surveys, to determine the quality of dealers...go after the worst ones with a vengence and support the best with real assistance, not by throwing a few bucks at them so that they can put 3rd rate come-on ads in the papers & the GM can add an extension to his house. 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY: I'd restore accountability to the Management ranks at GM---who has overseen the cratering of sales, the largest loss in history, the continual drain of the corporate coffers to fund ill-advised acquisitions and partnerships---its time to fire some people. If you or I performed on the job like these guys, we'd be fired. Point #2 applies here, perhaps even more strongly...there's talent out there. Mr. Bernhart as one example. Rick & his cronies don't know about best practices for modern companies because they're Lifers---its time for new blood. That's off the top of my head...I'm no Buickman with some magical plan, I just can't believe that steps as obvious as the ones above haven't been taken. As for blaming the economy or gas prices, this crisis started years ago, on Rick's watch. Anyone with half a brain knew that one small Middle Eastern skirmish would catapult the price of oil---and since your lone profit center is big trucks, wouldn't it have been wise to at least have a plan B? There are lots of small cars in Europe---The price of gas has been obscene there for some time---Are you telling me noone imagined that developing small cars that could be quickly adapted to all markets could be a good idea? Or that GM-Daewoo's line-up didn't have small diesel development on the menu? Or that sickly Fiat might not be the best partnership to take a Put Option on? While my words are harsh, my conscience is clear, as I'm neither avoiding the obvious nor allowing bias to creep into my judgement. I was in a new Camry yesterday---its not so great....How come GM still can't develop an effective, demonstrably superior product? They've only had 20 years to figure it out. GM has always been great at promises. "Just wait until our next X is out. That'll drive the foreigners into the sea." They haven't even come close to that, yet. Why should I put my faith some new promise. Like an abused spouse, you guys are always coming back for more. I want real change. You don't like my pessimism? Unfortunately, it's well-founded. Is that an answer, Fly? TBC....

I get no joy from being right. '10 was the PR 'timeframe' (implying ready for sale) for the car. That's what GM was saying, more specifically, that's what Lutz was saying. I'm NOT saying it was delayed, I'm saying they lied.... Now we're at the end of '10---for the public to sit/drive in one. That means it's an '11, at minimum. As for the personal attack: I'm not ragging on anything. My pessimism is easily defended by the gross incompetence of those running GM. You want wine and roses? Fine. You want truth---just ask me. People are running for the exits when it comes to GM. You think they're on the right track? You are deluding yourself---what worse, you're misinforming those that come here as casual fans of GM and cars in general. The Volt is nothing more than a pretty show car and a theoretical bunch of ideas that NOONE on the planet has put into one vehicle for production---not the greenies in Cali, not Tesla, not China---Nobody. I should accept, on faith, that GM will take a not-yet-ready for prime time tech, develop it, then mass produce it in 3 years time? Name one thing they've been ahead of the curve on in the last 20 years..... Please. I take no joy---I suffer MORE than you for GM's utter failure on so many levels. My future, my livelihood and my mortgage payment depends on GM getting up off the mat...what will you lose--the ability to anonymously lord over a few zit-faced tweens as a moderator on a GM fansite? When you have as much as me at stake, I'll worry that you feel I'm over the top. I don't believe that GM will have retired the 4 speed auto by 2011, nevermind building the automotive version of the moonshot. Your misplaced and completely blind faith that GM's 'gonna make it happen' is twice as absurd as my parsing words or stating the obvious: Drastic Action needs to be taken--that sense of urgency is nowhere to be found in GM's planning. Comparing my hyperbole with a kid getting hit by a bus just shows that you cannot be trusted to objectively look at this situation...nooone's kid is dying here--just the livelihoods of 100,000 people and a number of towns all over the US.

A late '10 INTRODUCTION is for '11 cars...you know this business....available to drive doesn't mean the car is for general consumption.You can parse words all you want, GM more than implied this thing would be ready in '10---apparently, that's no ,onger the cae, mere months from the fanfare of its conceptual intro--leading me to believe even more delays will occur in the next few years---and I suspect, as someone mentioned above, that little was done before the Volt was displayed. You said he NEVER said '10, I said (and backed up) that he did. Period. Either you did not accurately descirbe his reply or you're wrong. Take your pick. This isn't a debating team, man, I'm just going by your representations.

Umm...here ya go.... Bob Lutz has been quoted saying late 2010 intro: That is the production targeted by General Motors for the introductory year of the Chevrolet Volt, according to Bloomberg News. Bloomberg said the information came from a GM insider. GM’s Robert Lutz has predicted the Volt’s introduction by late 2010. At that production level, GM would be building four times as many Volts in the introductory year as Toyota did of the Prius in its first year on the market. Putting that into perspective, Chevrolet plans to produce as many Volts (...) Bloomberg News a credible source? Please, you may not like it, but GM is again (just like the Camaro) putting way too much emphasis on a product that doesn't exist, yet! Here's the link to the same info, this time told to JD Power: http://www.jdpower.com/articles/article.aspx?ID=430 CarBiz--a cardinal rule of business is to underpromise and overdeliver---GM has a habit of doing the opposite--and again are revealing that their management team does not know how to handle the present circumstances and, furthermore, do not have a solid vision for the future of GM. I love cars. I love GM. I hate the way they do business, as it shortchanges all of their dedicated employees and fans, repeatedly. Mark my words--the 2007 Volt promise will result in not 1, but 2 generations of Toyota Hybrid tech developed AND, more importantly, SOLD to actual, real live customers. Good Luck getting the lead you're spotting them back.

I've heard the Torrent will be replaced in GMC-P-B dealerships with a GMC variant of the Equinox--of concern to you guys may be that the dissintegration of the Suzuki-GM relationship may lead to the XL-7 not being replaced with a CAMI varieant.Other than that, I'm not sure that anything definitive has been decided...

Meaning the earliest Volts will be '11 models--and likely '12 models, already backing away from the initial promise of '10 availability...only, what, 15 years or so after the first Prius was on the road in Japan?

The Hybrid is a technical achievement, whether truly as good as hyped isn't the issue.I'd argue that clean diesel, the Dual-Clutch tranny, Direct injection, the modern CVT, Stop-start alternators, Stability Control, ABS are all true innovations...the only innovation GM created that really works is the Magnetic Fluid suspension tech--which has not seen widespread use-yet. If I've defined the category too narrowly, than I'm all ears to here what fantastic, class leading stuff you feel GM has presented in the last 30 years---the answer, if not zero, is close to it. GM has barely managed to get their current, safe, boring product to industry quality levels or above---I just don't believe that the Volt will be ready by 2010 and furthermore, I don't think they'll be able to alter the risk-averse attitude to make such a leap without huge issues... Just like the Cossie engines, just like V8-6-4, just like the Saturn plastics, just like the EV-1, just like the current marketing schemes, I find the corporate ADD to much ingrained in the system to believe that an automotive equivalent of the Lunar Landing is just around the corner. I hope I'm wrong.

Onstar--nope--a good GPS/Navi with realtime XM traffic feeds is superior to oral instructionMRC-Maybe---unfortunately, only highline manufacturers have adopted it and it hasn't trickled down to other GM products XM-wasn't GM's idea XM traffic--if it was GM's idea, then they shot OnStar in the foot with it Hydroforming--um, what? Plastic Body panels---did u get the memo, Saturn just abandoned these! EV1-DEAD I'll repeat: GM HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO TAKE A NEW TECHNOLOGY AND SUCCESSFULLY APPLY IT TO A MASS PRODUCED MODEL IN DECADES. WHAT HONESTLY MAKES YOU FEEL THEY CAN DO SO WITH THE VOLT, ALL OF THE SUDDEN? While you may have faith they can, that doesn't mean that there's a certainty of it. Past performance generally indicates future results...

I can honestly say that none of that list are nearly as significant as the mass production of hybrid, practical vehicles. Some are even of dubious technical merit or real truth (as almost all tech mentioned was someone else's original idea). When you can cite a real product or innovation that changes everything--Model T, Minivans, Mustang as product example---ABS, Dual Clutch Auto/Manuals, Clean Diesel----then I say, well the Volt is as good as here. All I know is that not only is NO other major manufacturer announcing the Li-Ion tech for their next-gen autos---nor any tech companies coming forwad stating they've solved the problems. This isn't just matching the Camry--this is a paradigm-shifting technology that MUST work---where in recent history has GM successfully integrated any NEW, original tech, first?

Just remember, everything that's not here is the Next Best Thing. You confuse my skepticism for ignorance. I truly believe that conceptually, the Volt and its tech are the future-and a generation beyond Toyota's current hybrid product. My (genuine) concern is that it will not be ready for the projected on sale date. And the Battery Tech is everything in this program...saying everything's a go except the battery tech (which is what GM said at Volt's intro), is like saying I'd be a Major League pitcher except for my arm...

I don't live anywere near CA, BTW.I never claimed to know the Canadian market, at all, so I defer to your knowledge. I just hate selling on price. In our foreign or domestic showrooms, it is our fondest wish that the customer buys for any other reason...satisfaction scores based on lowest pricing are always the most unpredictable...a guy whose NEEDS are met by the product is almost always happier and MUCH more likely to return for another vehicle one day, or refer a friend. To be fair, I don't like that GM has become the WalMart of Cars--its painful and shortsighted. I truly hope the future changes that. I'm just not cetain the will to do that is there at the tubes.

It's not that simple.When I can go down to the local GM store and buy one, it exists...until then, it's a future product with even bolder claims than the average new GM vehicle that is 'better' than the competition. Period. It's not that Toyota is better, it's that they're already selling thousands of similar products, today. as usual, when the argument is unwinable, C&G's leading ostriches change the focus. There is no Volt yet...and the engineering involved is far from certain--there are NO Li-batteries currently commercially available in vehicles. Period. It's not that GM can't or won't do it, it's that they haven't, yet. I've been hearing about game changing product for years--All I can go on is track record, which, isn't good.

Will you ever be able to get past $?Who cares, except these people's retirement planners? And if you really think someone doesn't attach a higher value to an Accord than an Alero, thus justifying the (claimed) additional cost or inconvenience, than you are flat out nuts... Have you driven these vehicles? An Accord is a great vehicle, the Alero belongs in a grave next to Olds... And, if the 5k basically comes back to you in resale (as the Alero's value fell in the toilet when GM euthanized Olds), then its a NO brainer, except, apparently, to you. You also forget that the GM dealership experience is, odds on, less impressive...the Alero would also cost more for gas...and just the psychic satisfaction of not driving an Alero---as millions have apparently been 'hypnotized' by the Accord magic dust and willfully ignored that paragon of autodom, the ALERO. Please. Until or unless the perception of all domestic product improves, few of the great masses will 'take a chance' that the vehicle they use for work and transport family is 'just as good as' the foreign nameplates. People are risk averse, as a whole...Why should lunchbox Larry bother with a 'gamble' when the Toyondatsun will do just fine...and if it doesn't, you CAN sell it in a couple of years without having to take a huge $ hit? WHY?--It's the question you can't answer adequately, which is why everything is price and monthly payments---there's no other REAL selling point.

Another case of Kool Aid drinking.... Let's be realistic: GM has Zero true hybrids (ie Can run without an ICE) on the roads. Toyota has, what, a million or so? Noone has driven, outside of GM proving grounds, this new tech. It's due in 2010, so there's plenty of time for competitors (or somebody outside of the automotive realm) to come up with battery tech that solves the Lithium Ion cooling issue--or comes up with something else. Right now, Tesla has delayed its Li-Ion battery powered roadster at least twice and demoted their CEO to get him back in the lab. Toyota, the current world leader in hybrid tech, claims the Li-Ion's aren't going to be ready for the next gen Prius. As it sits, those two sources of info are more indicative of the future than GM's claims about cars that aren't on the road yet... You guys will suspend disbelief on GM propaganda faster than anything I've seen. It's fascinating that for every microscopic inspection of Toyota's PR foibles, you guys completely ignore the obvious PR BS in A PRODUCT THAT DOESN'T EXIST !!!!! (Oh, C&D called---the Camaro just won its first comparison test