enzl

And they continue to fiddle while Rome burns. At the top end of their new product cadence, no less. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=4282 "We anticipate [that the U.S.] will still be the most profitable market in the decade ahead. It's really key not to be excessively dependent on the U.S., but you still need to be successful in the U.S." It’s no surprise that GM Chief Sales Analyst Paul Ballew sent mixed messages to the financial community when revealing GM’s Q2 sales results. Not to put too fine a point on it, the automaker’s U.S. market share continues to evaporate while its overseas operations continue to expand. The General’s growing foreign sales aren’t enough to compensate for the company’s North American sinkhole, but it gave GM’s spinmeister something to spin. Such is the way of things at GM these days. That said, this just in: according to Mr. Ballew, GM should begin seeing a recovery in U.S. in 2008. As far as I can tell, no reporter or analyst asked GM’s mouthpiece what events or non-events are covered by the word “should,” what exactly the word “recovery” means, when in 2008 this recovery will arrive or how this sudden rise from GM’s fall from grace will be achieved. Oh, and didn’t GM say they were already in recovery? Yes, well, it’s no wonder GM’s backed away from that idea. Thanks to a spectacularly lousy June, this financial quarter, at the height of GM’s new product cadence, the automaker’s North America sales fell seven percent. Once again, GM blamed high gasoline prices, a weak housing market and a planned reduction in daily rental sales. So are we to assume that gas prices will decline, the housing market will jump to its feet and the company will abandon abandoning daily rental sales? The last point raises an important question. It’s all well and good to bolster residual values by limiting fleets sales, but what will take the place of these job lots and raise GM NA out of its current torpor? The new Saturn Astra, whose production and importation costs obviate the possibility of profit? The new Chevrolet Yukon hybrid, an enigma wrapped in a riddle (what kind of fuel conscious buyer buys a huge, poorly packaged SUV)? How about the new Chevrolet Malibu? Last year, the current fleet queen Malibu racked-up 153,846 sales. If GM is getting out of the fleet business, they’ll need to replace every Malibu removed from fleet duty with one purchased by a retail customer. In other words, Chevrolet will have to sell tens of thousands more Malibus to retail customers just to achieve existing volumes. The redesigned Cadillac CTS is also on the horizon. Last year, GM’s erstwhile luxury division unloaded 54,846 CTS sedans on its class-conscious customers. Even if Caddy doubles that total, it still wouldn’t generate anywhere near enough profit to rescue a company with eight brands selling 52 models. Clearly, obviously, GM’s turnaround depends on the company shifting a lot more of everything. While there are some bright spots and heavy hitters in GM’s roster– the law of averages guarantees it– the overall picture is bleak. Other than reducing price, which kills profits and destroys brand equity, what can they do? Rick Wagoner’s mob doesn’t have an answer. Thankfully (for them), no one’s asking. All eyes are now upon GM’s negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). Wall Street, stockholders and GM camp followers are all watching the proceedings like hawks, presuming that reducing labor costs to transplant parity is the key to GM’s survival. That logic only works if you assume that GM would use the money saved to make better cars. Is there anyone out there who really believes that? At the risk of sounding cynical (perish the thought), any money saved is likely to disappear down GM’s corporate rat hole. For one thing, if GM bosses pay themselves huge bonuses when the company’s losing billions, imagine what they’ll do after concluding a “historic union giveback.” Whether or not GM “reduces” its health care obligations by going into subterranean levels of debt (to set up a VEBA for the UAW as described by Frank Williams), whether or not the two sides emerge from negotiations with the status quo intact or destroyed, Chevy and Saturn will still be fighting a losing battle against Toyondissan, Cadillac will still be struggling for sales, Pontiac and Buick will still be deeply damaged brands, Hummer and Saab will still be expensive irrelevances and GMC will still be… there. Now that GM’s suffered a 24 percent sales drop in June against the transplants’ double digit sales increases, some analysts are beginning to understand the crux of GM’s problem: unloved, unwanted and uncompetitive product. If GM’s sales take another big hit in July while their competition moves upward, there will be even more pressure to do a deal with the UAW. And it will be even more irrelevant.

North America is becoming like the Western European marketplace. Fractured marketshare amongst dozens of players.Just as the Mid-level manufacturers have had their ups and downs in Europe (VW, Fiat, Rover, Ford, Opel, et al.) so will the players here, once the market settles out a little (i.e. Big 2.8 marketshare finds a bottom.) The problem for the 2.8 is that their exclusive stranglehold on Big trucks is over. That's what they made money with and were content to either concede markets (subcompacts) or offer loss-leading also-rans (compacts, midsize cars) because their trucks were bringing in great margins. Now with gas prices and competition, they are starting to get squeezed and must play catch-up in the above-mentioned segments, trying to product truly competitive products at reasonable prices...something they haven't had to do in a generation! If you couple the above issues with the low-end squeeze by Hyundai & Kia (which will sell a combined 1 million units in the US this year), you've got a massive problem. How the 2.8 address these concerns will dictate whether they survive into the next decade. It's that serious. The only thing that may avert complete disaster is the fact that they are leveraged to the hilt, thus the banking community/private equity has so much invested in them that they will not be allowed to fail. Donald Trump once said that if you owe a bank 1 million dollars, they own you, but if you owe them a billion dollars, you own them...I think that may be the case here.

Their success internationally is easily explained:1. They're entering into new markets, so growth will be more than arithmetic for awhile 2. Most of that growth is through proven products made in low cost countries 3. The only exception to 1&2 is Western Europe, but the competition is so fierce that even the average product is pretty good Their problems here are tougher to manage: 1. A workforce that gets paid no matter what, basically 2. A lack of focus on low margin products like small cars 3. The US fiefdom is not used to taking orders from other parts of the company...they protect their turf by rejecting or otherwise meddling with perfectly good product (Vectra, Astra) and needlessly duplicating work to create G5, Cobalt, Ion, G6, Malibu & Aura 4. Their bread & butter product (GMT-900/800 programs are basically responsible for all of their profits in the last 10-15 yrs.) are under direct assault from all competitors and gas prices

VW, Saab & Volvos of that era are clear mistakes... The truth is that a well maintained Japanese car from Honda or Toyota are good choices. Perhaps a Prizm as a compromise? Focuses that have been sorted out properly (recalls & maintenance taken care of) are great fun and cheap.

$31k isn't too bad for the LaCrosse Super, but my question is: who's anxiously waiting for these cars to come out? What's the market? GM-philes could get the same basic goodness for years in the Grand Prix or Impy. Traditional Buickdrivers aren't sportscar guys. And the old school GN (or GNX ) fans aren't buying into the FWD thing. Where does that leave these models, other than gathering dust on a showroom floor?

You're wasting your time. w/Carbiz...he's already been assimilated by the Borg.In another thread, he's trying to argue that the Chevy Optra (Suzuki Reno/Forenza in the USA) are comparable to the Honda Civic (and made even more nonsensical by the fact that he's defending American co's with a Korean made Chevy) http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...18535&st=20 The Maxx is a great idea with less than perfect execution...I happen to like the look and utility, but I also don't like the steering (on the Equinox as well) or the interior design. The new Malibu needs to be Aura+...we'll see how that works out.

Without getting too negative, bear in mind that the Fiat relationship and the Isuzu relationship were supposed to aid in producing world class diesels for GM as well...GM probably flushed 10X the money into those situations. They should be alot further along than they currently are in developing Bin 5+ diesels, as well as US emissions friendly engines.AS far as Honda goes, they merely produce one of the world's finest 4 cylinder diesels for Europe, have anounced plans for 2009 intro's of 6 cylinder diesels for US product AND they will be 50 state clean with no Bluetec additives or overly complex emissions control equpment. (Toyota's diesel's are 1 gen behind---thus they've struck a deal with Isuzu, ironically IIRC, to bring them up to speed.) Honda builds great engines, period. Even GM agrees. The general bought the 3.5 in the Vue from them for years!

It's effectively sold out for this model year. 2000 are coming....

I believe the hybrid batteries, extra A/C system and 4wd all pork the LS out.I think Toyota will sell every one of these, even if they are kind of stupid. I'm with Reg...an XJ anyday over this turkey...maybe with the 6 cylinder diesel that has gotten raves in the European press if I'm feeling green. Ford missed a huge opportunity with the aluminum XJ....I don't think they'll make that same mistake with the rumored Rangies with the same tech.

Check it out when it appears online. I think you may need a login. NYT might be off the payroll. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/automobi...amp;oref=slogin Conspicuous Consumption With Green Illusions Lexus's 2.5-ton flagship moves on hybrid power. By LAWRENCE ULRICH Published: July 15, 2007 IN “North Dallas Forty,” the shaggy 1979 gridiron film starring Nick Nolte, a lineman played by John Matuszak ranted memorably to a coach about the hypocrisy of pro football: “Every time I call it a game, you call it a business. And every time I call it a business, you call it a game.” Skip to next paragraph Multimedia The Hedge-Fund HybridGraphic The Hedge-Fund Hybrid Readers’ Opinions Comment Post a Comment: Is Lexus Guilty of Hybrid Hype? Toyota and Lexus would disagree, but their recent hybrid models, including the Toyota Highlander and Lexus RX 400h utility wagons, the Lexus GS 450h sedan and now the Lexus LS 600h L, similarly seem to be trying to have it both ways. In recent advertisements, including one in the “green issue” of Vanity Fair, Lexus uses one hand to present the 400-plus horsepower of the LS 600h L and the other to pat its own back for saving fuel and planet alike. The ads and the cars have convinced many, including some credulous journalists, of Lexus’s pitch: that a hybrid car or S.U.V. can drive like a Porsche and sip fuel like a Prius. But a closer examination proves once again that there’s no free lunch, even at the drive-through. For more than a year, Lexus has suggested that the LS 600h L — as tested, a $121,000 hybrid version of its LS 460 L flagship sedan — would set a new standard for four-door luxury automobiles. Its pitch was that the car would perform like a V-12 supersedan while whipping V-8 rivals on fuel economy. Instead, the hybrid may have set a new standard for automotive hyperbole. Behind its green Teflon shield, the Lexus proved to be just another overstuffed sedan that can barely top 20 miles a gallon — less, if you actually tap into all that power. If that’s saving the planet, Jor-El had better prepare the escape pod before it’s too late. Before the enviro-brigade readies the guillotine, I hasten to add that this isn’t about hating hybrids. Electric propulsion is looking more and more like a winning technology. Companies from Toyota to General Motors are working to develop affordable lithium-ion batteries, which could deliver clean, efficient, renewable power in plug-in hybrids or purely electric vehicles. I can’t believe that adding a cupful of electric juice to a fat barrel of V-8 muscle is what environmentalists have in mind. On the performance front, forget about the Lexus hanging with V-12 sedans like the Mercedes S600. Turns out that the Lexus can’t even outrun its own nonhybrid version, the LS 460 L. Nor is it appreciably quicker than V-8 competitors that cost $20,000 to $30,000 less, like the Mercedes S550, the Audi A8 and the BMW 7 Series, or the similarly priced Maserati Quattroporte. It must be noted that such decadent sedans are about more than straight-line speed. Park those high-wattage rivals beside the Lexus, and the modestly styled LS virtually disappears; challenge them on a twisty road and they all disappear from the Lexus by virtue of their sportier handling. Spurred from a stop to 60 miles an hour, the LS 600h L clocks a swift 5.5 seconds, according to Lexus’s own testing. Yet the gas-only LS 460 L, with a mere 380 horsepower from a smaller V-8, reaches 60 in 5.4 seconds, nosing out the more powerful hybrid. How is that possible? Check the scales, where the Lexus hybrid weighs in like Jared before his Subway diet. The hybrid does add all-wheel drive, not available on the LS 460 L. But together, the heavy batteries and all-wheel-drive system burden the hybrid with more than 700 additional pounds, for a total of 5,049. Forced to motivate the added weight, the hybrid’s larger 5-liter V-8 — another environmental oxymoron — and dual electric motors makes acceleration a wash. (One motor drives the four wheels. The other starts the gas engine and recharges the batteries.) Excess weight takes its toll on mileage as well. The hybrid got 21 m.p.g. — amazingly, 1 m.p.g. less than the nonhybrid version that I tested on the same urban roads and highways in and around New York City. That perfectly wonderful LS 460 L is blessed with one of the most fuel-efficient V-8s I’ve driven, a 4.6-liter smoothie. But the Lexus hybrid’s biggest jolt comes from sticker shock: the LS 600h L starts at $104,715, about $32,000 above the LS 460 L. Laden with options for $121,000, the hybrid costs about $30,000 more than the comparable gas-only version. Driven gently, the Lexus will indeed beat the mileage of its apples-to-apples V-8 rivals, but only by 1 m.p.g. to 3 m.p.g. A Mercedes S550 isn’t an egregious guzzler at an E.P.A.-rated 16/24 m.p.g., and I managed 19 m.p.g. during a recent test. And when I drove the Lexus in mildly spirited fashion, its mileage dropped to 19 m.p.g. It’s hard to see why such minuscule mileage gains would dazzle the type of person who’s ready to drop $100,000 on a car. The E.P.A. rates the hybrid’s mileage at 20 m.p.g. in town and 22 on the highway. The nonhybrid is rated 16/24 under the same revised formula, which takes effect for 2008 and is intended to present lower, more realistic mileage estimates for most cars. In its defense, the hybrid should save you a few bucks if you do a lot of city driving. But on the highway, the gas-only model was decidedly more efficient, and thus ended up doing 1 m.p.g. better over all. And in bumper-to-bumper traffic, where you expect a hybrid to excel, the LS 600h L mustered only 14 m.p.g., certainly nothing to marvel at. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia The Hedge-Fund HybridGraphic The Hedge-Fund Hybrid Readers’ Opinions Comment Post a Comment: Is Lexus Guilty of Hybrid Hype? The uneasy comparisons don’t end there. The gas-only version handled better and drove more smoothly. The nonhybrid benefits from the world’s first eight-speed automatic transmission, which lifts mileage and operates with hushed aplomb. The hybrid’s continuously variable transmission, in contrast, has to busily calculate and divvy power from the gas and electric sources. It’s among the most seamless of its kind, but not as smooth or transparent as the Lexus eight-speed. And its manual-shift function is nearly useless. In trying to mimic the feel of sporty downshifts, it ladles on ever-higher levels of regenerative hybrid braking. To the driver, the sludgy effect feels like throwing anchors of various sizes out the window. Lexus’s hybrid double-talk extends to emissions arguments. When the company says the Lexus hybrid is cleaner than average cars, people will assume that has something to do with global warming. But in this instance, that is not the case. To its credit, the car’s super-ultra-low emissions vehicle rating (SULEV, if you will) is indeed cleaner than other V-8 models, but only if you are measuring the pollutants that form smog. (Even on the smog index, many gasoline models also achieve SULEV ratings or better). But the critical earth issue today is conserving fuel and cutting carbon dioxide emissions. Those greenhouse gas levels are almost entirely a function of fuel economy: if you use more gas, you spew more carbon dioxide. So on that score, the 21 m.p.g. hybrid actually emits far more carbon dioxide than, say, a Mercedes-Benz diesel E-Class that can attain 30 m.p.g. The LS 600h L also emits more greenhouse gases than the average new car that currently achieves 27.5 m.p.g. So a common Toyota Camry, among dozens of models, leaves a smaller carbon footprint than this hybrid land yacht. One final ignominy: given the hybrid batteries and a separate air-conditioner for the back seat, the hybrid’s trunk measures a meager 11.7 cubic feet, smaller than that of a Kia Rio or other compact sedan. (Skip the rear air-conditioning in a Lexus LS 460 L, and you’ll enjoy a 50 percent larger trunk, at 18 cubic feet). Jim Farley, general manager of Lexus, defended the car’s performance and green credentials. “If Lexus had to have a flagship, this is how it should be,” he said. “It’s the progressive person’s alternative. Hybrids are a huge platform for us at Lexus, and they’re only going to get bigger.” Certainly, this hybrid Lexus is one of the quietest, most comfortable, best-built sedans around. It has every imaginable safety system and creature comfort. The navigation system is first-rate. The Mark Levinson audio system is amazing. And the optional ($12,675) Executive Package is the hands-down — or feet-up? — coolest feature. It includes rear seats that recline, heat and cool, along with a right-hand chair with a steeper recline, massage functions and a powered ottoman for the full mini-Maybach effect. Yet every compliment you can lavish on this impressive ride, minus the all-wheel drive, applies equally to the nonhybrid version. So why would anyone spend an extra $30,000 for this car? Certainly, the performance gains of 12-cylinder sedans aren’t always justified by their enormous premiums. Many people buy them for that V-12 badge on the fender, the exclusive message it sends. Ditto for the Lexus, but the roughly 2,000 people who’ll line up for the hybrid won’t be broadcasting their superior power, but their superior morals, however illusory. If that’s not you, stick with the Lexus LS 460 L. Enjoy a back-seat massage and relax. You’ll know that you’ve got the better car — one that’s equally fast and frugal, but also weighs less and handles better. You can actually park that terrific gas-only Lexus in the garage and have $30,000 to buy a Prius hybrid, with cash left over. Save the LS for special occasions and run errands in the Toyota at more than double the mileage. While Lexus plays the hybrid game, it’s the Prius that takes care of business.

I'll try to answer your question regarding GM and NA.Some have nothing to do with GM.... 1. GM had nowhere to go but down in this country with a historical high of 50% of the market--simple math--you're 100% right 2. This is the most competitive market on the planet...and also the most profitable for most manufacturers 3. We have a relatively open market, with small tariffs 4. Our national government is oblivious to trade issues or willfully ignorant Some have everything to do with GM: 1. Product has been lackluster, especially in the P&G exile years 2. Dealer body is bloated, poorer & less motivated than the import competition 3. GM has consistently ignored its global attributes to please its local fiefdoms 4. GM made awful investments in partnerships that drained $ needed for other things (Over 5 Billion wasted on Fiat, Isuzu, Subaru alone) Keep in mind that the worldwide numbers for GM are encouraging, but in most of these 'growing' markets, GM is either recapturing lost marketshare (Europe), or hasn't had a real presence until recently(eastern Block, China), so of course you're going to have these % increases and 'best month ever' stories (the same that drive you crazy in Toyota Press releases, but I digress...) Ven is just wrong about GM in Europe. Check the link...those products are either the same as 3 years ago when they were badged daewoo's, half-hearted refreshes or global product (Captiva) that were developed for 4 brands or more! Factor in the average transaction price that a euro-GM is selling for and the fact that Opel/Vauxhall have been in decline for years and I just don't see a huge positive in those numbers. Any accountant will tell you that numbers are easy to manipulate for a purpose...in this case, GM selling about the same amount of cars in Europe as 5 years ago at a lower price/unit, across an additional dealer channel (Chevy), a costly revamp of Saab still ahead and Cadillac floundering doesn't spell success in any sustainable measure I can think of.

Umm...I don't recall all of my above points being rehashes...but I will defend my 'gloom and doom'...I would love to paint a pretty pic of what's going on with GM or US manufacturers in general, but its a complete waste of time talking about GM without putting their situation into the real context. you're entitled to disagree. Here's Chevwoo's European Lineup....http://www.gmeurope.com/brands/chevrolet.html Looks an awful lot like it did a few years back at the name change...only the Captiva (Vue) is remotely competitive...I'm reality, Man. You just haven't faced it, yet.

You can make fun of me....but I don't see the usual suspects jumping in, so I guess although my message doesn't suit your tunnel vision of GM and its true prospects, I may be right?I've had plenty of positive things to say about GM....perhaps you should reread a few of my posts. The difference between my view and yours is that I believe drastic action needs to be taken....the ship is taking on water. If you want to accentuate REAL good news, why not discuss the Delphi resolution or the game changing agreement with Dana to eliminate future healthcare cost issues with a Union-run trust (after Gettlefinger lied on Autoline Detroit about 'not knowing enough' about such agreements 3 weeks ago!) The european Chevy sales figures are completely misleading. They've taken a lackluster line-up of Daewoo's and marketed them as Chevy's....so, their 'record' sales figures are compared to a fading Daewoo...additionally, if you look at Opel carefully, you'll see that they are selling smaller cars @ less profits, as the Vectra is awaiting renewal and their upmarket ideas like the Signum were flops. If Saab is your 'upmarket' brand and Caddy sits above it, both have been spinning their wheels for years. Caddy was supposed to sell 10k+ BLS's/yr. They'll be lucky to sell 10% of that figure! No diesels mean no sales at the larger end of the spectrum and the Hummer has been victimized by virulent anti-war sentiment in Europe. That's what really is going on...and when you combine that morass with a 20% drop in retail sales here in the states (especially GMT-900's, painfully)...that's much more significant and newsworthy than Chevwoo's and Opel's smaller models doing 'well'. And just to be clear, its the 'media bias' issue I was trying to undermine, not GM's 'good' news...Accusing hometown papers of that is absurd to the point of indefensible, so I guess that's why you had to attack me personally, rather than try reason or facts, which are both heavily stacked against you.

Methinks it was the Detroit News with the gloom and doom, but no matter....A 5% rise in Europe on the backs of Daewoo castoffs vs. a 20% retail drop here in the states....which is more newsworthy?C'mon man. When you start accusing DN or the DFP of media bias, you're simply in denial. (And the DN piece, IIRC, was a columnist's opinion, not a 'news' article in the strictest sense of the word.) Note that the article YOU highlight also mentions Saab's decline & the fact that the HUMMER/vette/Caddy sales were basically too miniscule to matter!

There are literally dozens of non-compact, non-sport sedans, wagons & CUV s which would get my dollar. My preference, clearly, but also, judging from objective #s like sales figures, I'd say this vehicle, which replaced both Park Ave and LeSabre, is not resonating with the masses as it should have.IMO, the V6 doesn't help matters. And $38k for that vehicle ---especially when it shares a showroom floor with the modern, stylish & more useful Enclave at the same price---is a joke. For $28-30k, I might look the other way. For $38k, I can't give the General a free pass---its an example of how they have left Buick to the wolves and it's myopic, old GM BS, IMO. Even old persons who don't like to drive (or the people who feel similarly but are further from the cold hand of death) know value when they see it. *And please refrain from 'de-stressing' while sharing the roads with me and my family---go to the gym or get a massage for that ...

Maxima's are around $28-34K...there's alot of competition at that price-point. There are some Chrysler-like plastics in there that are decidedly low-rent.I'm not too sure about the handling either...the one I've got is a torque steer pig.

I'd be happy if they got it out of this $38k (!) sedan. I just can't see this vehicle being worth more than a TL, G or even a 300C, if you want to go apples to apples.Buick needs to consolidate these option packages and get the pricing within shouting distance of transaction prices. I can honestly think of 50 vehicles I'd sooner drop $38k (or less) on. (anyone notice that's a N* vehicle in the pic?)

Mustang. CPO Jag XK8?

Scary that each and every effort on this page blows GM's current ads into the weeds. Perhaps they should throw a few mil this way...it couldn't be less productive than their current agency drivel.

As I'm currently driving a low mileage, current gen. Maxima, I can only tell you that it's got to get better. The current one is flawed in numerous ways. I'd be very bummed out if I spent my hard earned dollars on one of these.The interior is low rent, the handling mediocre and the interior packaging isn't really anything special. It feels like a bloated Altima...and the look is not handsome, either.

Again, no argument, however, if his vehicle has decent resale, shouldn't Mr. 6-pack conserve about 10% of his cash in the above example if its a Camry rather than the Impy? That's the approximate spread, if you go by the book.

Your example is accurate, but I'm speaking from a consumer perspective...Lets take your example and apply it to the guy whose wife is having twins, thus necessitating a trade from Impy to SUV/minivan: If your lot has the Impy for $19k, you guys probably brought it in at $17k (or less).... So, the new Impy was $26, Mr. 6-pack paid that 1 year ago and is 12 months into a 60 month note.... If my man is lucky, he owes $17k on that Impy. Now he's got to reach into his pocket for a min. of tax, tags & fees for that new Tahoe. He just lost $9000...in one year and needs to fish aroung for another $3k (min) just to be upside-down within minutes of his NEW vehicle purchase... That's where fleeting kills. My dealership is happy....Mr. 6 pack, not so much

The sales portion of your argument is solid: a sale is a sale, and, hopefully, there's money in it for the dealer and manufacturer.Here's the problem--the resale for the 'retail' purchase. Why should Joe 6-pack have to take it in the shorts because GM (Or Kia, to be fair) set production too high or marketing $ to low? As many here have observed while renting, seeing a sea of Optimas (or Corollas, et al) isn't confidence inspiring when standing at the Hertz counter. We buy rental units at auction occasionally and they require a disclosure at sale that damages resale pricing as well. Biz, in my experience, its a Catch-22 for the manufacturers...but seeing figures as high as 80% is scary. If I just bought an Avenger, I'd be sick to my stomach.

Well, if you're a Big 3 fan and have a strong stomach, a full breakdown of the numbers. http://www.autoblog.com/photos/fleet-sales-first-half-2007/

GM already sells more Buicks in China than here. GM already imports almost all Equinox/Torrent engines from China already. Watch the business pages as all automakers eventually follow this path. No company wanted to be the first to import an entire car, but it had to happen sometime. China is set to become a strategic imperative for GM's survival--just because they aren't importing an entire vehicle, be assured that all the Delphi blackmailed, Job banked or early retirement jobs are already on a boat to China, Russia, India or Mexico.