enzl

I was referring to the Cimmaron----with all due respect, there isn't a Caddy of that era that holds a candle to the 240Z in significance...that's all I was trying to say. The RWD Germans of the time set the stage (along with the Audi quattros) for what was to come...almost all legitimate entry level lux contenders today are RWD with AWD as an option, so the Germans were on to something, albeit each had flaws that wouldn't see the light of day in today's market, just as Honda began its long journey to market dominance with its Civic & Accord models that remain the real winners amongst its current product--I have less regard for the variations on these platforms, but that's where the market has taken them, for better or worse. The way I see it, the Japanese and Germans cracked the market with their 80's product in a big way--and the Det3 only reinforce that notion since their product has moved towards the competition, rather than the other way around. We're in interesting times, my friends...

Ever hear the term 'Hindsight is 20/20?' For the record, Mr.Yates (a C&D staff member on and off in the 80's) wrote his book in '83...and made some fairly clear assertions that the J car sucked. As for C&D's editorial backbone, I can only assume that the BMW's status as the granddaddy of the RWD sport sedan set, the Audi's perennial status as an interior master and the Honda Accord's near spotless run on C&D's '10 Best' list are mere footnotes in this argument. If it makes you feel better, the J still clearly inspires some of GM's efforts, even today.

I'm a few years younger than you, however, my first car was a 72 Dart (xcellent car), my 2nd, a 78 Nova (ran forever, poorly) and a 78 Celica followed those....there's no doubt that Japan had alot to learn about rust-roofing at that time...but, as usual, the zeal to prove me wrong loses the entire point---the 240Z is a classic now-&-the K-car a sad punchline along with its progeny---only the birth of the minivan saves the K from complete, X-car-like excrement status. Detroit let the lead slip away--whether you point at an X -car, the tired design of a current W or the bleatings of the sheep rubber stamping Red Ink Rick--it all stems from a failed culture of greed, myopic decision-making and fear of risk. Again, quibble around the edges, try to poke holes in the minutia of my postings, but the fact is that the current US 3 are under siege---and the men they have in charge are simply not equipped, not trained, not experienced enough to right the ship. How in the world can a gang given a 50 yd. lead in a 100 yd. dash lose a race? How do they still have jobs? Times of great trial require great men to lead. Please don't tell me we're clinging to R.I.Rick as the savior of this ship.

Just one question, what was the order of finish in this comparison test?

The J & X were crap--the X's sold well and were an ownership night mare---as well as severe braking problems that were never fully cured during production of these "revolutionary" products...and the J were crappy from the start and got marginally better until they became as stale as week-old bread. If there's any revisionist history going on here, it's you guys. The only point I will concede is that the popular press played a critical role in cheerleading these products up to intro (couldn't have had anything to do with a historically expensive ad campaign, huh?). AS for Cimarron circa '81...That's absolute BS. I'd like somebody to pull this C&D article. IIRC, it wasn't well received by anyone...the 6 cyl. versions years later got much better reviews. (and PS--the book is from 1983, that's why these products are relevant to this thread....I'm slowly getting the feeling I'm not wanted, as the same posters love to bash me--usually without an actual clue or concern as to the accuracy or truthfullness of their statements---) Anyone who knows anything about the industry won't wade into a conversation defending either the J or X's...it's simply not possible to credit these cars with anything, other than help lose a generation of domestic buyers to the imports---shame on you!

Not sure how this became a 'bailout' thread...but let's not cast stones, GM fans---the Det3's turn at the gov't trough will be coming down the pipe real soon. (The complete meltdown of our financial system certainly required intervention...the wisdom of the solution can be debated all day). As far as Yates' book goes, it's simply sad to see the same errors made generation upon generation. And while I agree with 'Biz that the erosion of the Det3's marketshare was inevitable, I completely disagree that the current crisis couldn't be avoided. High quality, competitive product produced consistently would have enabled the Det3 to maintain profitability and pricing discipline for their car line-up---and as a subscriber to Car & Driver since '81, I can promise you that few Detroit products were considered "Best" anything. The J-car (and T and Vega and X car) were simply not good. The A, N, GM-10 and W's that followed were, at best, mediocre. The other co's were similarly spotty with their cars. The Culture that allowed this to happen hasn't changed---just open the doors of most Det3 products to find the truth is self evident--and the only way to right the ship is to make demonstrably superior product that will bring back customers that wouldn't have previously come into the showroom.

Hey, Bitter-zar.... Give the book a read...it's incredibly prescient regarding what has brought GM to its knees today. Don't want to believe the truth? I'm sure there's a corner office at GM for you. There was a lesson to be learned that clearly went unnoticed, that's all I'm saying. I guess when collective heads are shoved up their nethers, the message can't get thru.

Well, it is specifically referencing the J-car intro & development, but the description of that project's target (Accord) vs. actual execution covers any 'import fighter' from GM between 1970 & 2005. Unbelievable that such myopic behavior could grip a corporation that large and (historically) successful.

I just picked a 1st Edition 1983 Hardback edition for $1.95 on Amazon... The first few pages could apply to almost any set of products from GM until about 2005. Scary.

GM at its worst. There are cars in GM's current portfolio that blow this car away.

The G8 is selling just fine...they're probably losing money on each sale anyway, so why rush importing more? Pontiac's current problem is the rest of its lineup--the G5 & G6 are jokes, the Solstice wilting and the Torrent playing out the string as it awaits the ax. If more product were like the G8 (exciting, interesting, unique, good value), Pontiac would be fine.

Note: The question was "Do they need 4 Deltas?" The answer is simply: No. The Chevy, Saturn & Pontiac are redundant. The Saab a waste of precious resources. None of this has stopped GM before, however. The 'good' news is that Lehman & AIG's misadventures have knocked GM off the front pages of the b-sections.

Allegedly, its a development of the 2.4 car engine, rather than a reuse of the big truck 4...if niche marketing is the future of auto retailing, you'll be seeing alot more of these "why do they need that in the line-up?" type vehicles in the future.

But ONE of a thousand examples of the broken culture of Detroit. You can trace many of today's failures back to sources like this man's story. Hubris and rampant stupidity run amok.

I've often noticed that all of the small utes suffer from the same MPG issue. I'm partial to a real car, and that's really where Asian brands shine, IMO. I've had the (dis) pleasure of driving almost every small 'ute out there---most every car---and there are certain areas of expertise that each country of origin does well--We do great trucks, Germany does high line sedans, et al...the small CUV is simply a platypus of the automotive kingdom that no-one does extraordinarily well--it's impossible to do so, given the conflicting design priorities.

Regardless of how you fell about the look...it just seems weird to me that GM would release obstructed photos that simply ruin the lines of the car. Another PR gaffe from GM, IMO. (Other than the 'let's pull another Camaro' 2 yr. pic tease. that has become their MO)

Looks fine. Not $40k fine. I guess the guys with imagination and true creativity already took a buyout before the Volt project got underway. I just hope it works.

CRV is 'right place, right time' sales success... I did plug the Forrester too! (Price being 1 reason.)

http://wardsauto.com/commentary/detroit_de...es_help_080904/ Detroit Three Deserve Help By Jerry Flint WardsAuto.com, Sep 4, 2008 8:42 AM Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article Commentary Finally, Detroit’s auto makers are asking for help. The good news is Washington is starting to listen – even the presidential candidates. They are talking about everything: loan guaranties, direct loans and grants to help Detroit retool plants and develop advanced technologies. They also are talking about tax credits for car buyers to help offset the high cost of new fuel-saving technologies. ADVERTISEMENT Is government – meaning taxpayer – help really needed? Yes. Detroit can’t convert from a truck-heavy mix to fuel-efficient cars without help, not the way the losses are piling up. General Motors lost $15 billion just in this year’s second quarter, and Ford lost more than $8 billion. Should the nation bother to save the industry? Yes. Opponents say Detroit brought the trouble on itself, ignoring decades of warnings about oil and letting foreign auto makers win battles over quality and technology. That’s all true. Detroit auto makers have made plenty of mistakes, but that doesn’t mean they should not be helped. The Detroit Three provide hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs, plus millions more at suppliers and related businesses. Our government is willing to risk hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to back shaky mortgages and rescue the banks and financial institutions that created the housing and credit crises. Plus, the government spends billions more to subsidize farmers. Why not save Detroit jobs? That does not mean dumping a big pile of taxpayer money on Detroit’s doorstep. It would have to be earmarked for specific purposes or technologies such as lightweight material applications or lithium-ion batteries. I would not want taxpayer dollars to turn into 6-digit payouts to laid-off workers. And if taxpayers do chip in, the sacrifice should be shared: When Chrysler received its loan guaranties decades ago, Congress demanded auto workers take a pay cut, and they did. What else can the government do? A 5-year freeze on emissions and safety regulations would help. It would allow more money and manpower to go directly into developing new, higher mileage cars and trucks. Of course, some of the most important things our government could do is improve U.S. energy supplies. Drilling for oil offshore and in a corner of Alaska, developing more renewable fuels, and removing tariffs on imported ethanol is a start. Add more conservation, more solar power and more nuclear energy to the list, too. I suppose I’m old fashioned, but I can’t help thinking that if Toyota, Honda, BMW and every other transplant builds vehicles in the U.S., then home-grown companies also should be able to. Some states now mostly host the plants of foreign manufacturers, such as South Carolina (BMW); Mississippi (Nissan, Toyota); and Alabama (Honda, Mercedes and Hyundai). Folks in these states might not be eager to see their taxes spent to help Detroit. But all auto makers, foreign and domestic, still share many of the same suppliers and technologies, from airbags and electronic stability control systems to countless software products. Even if Detroit auto assembly plants are not in these states, many of their supplier plants are. Detroit auto makers need help. They are asking for it. That means they won’t go down without a fight. Jerry Flint is a columnist for, and former senior editor of, Forbes magazine.

I'll preface my remarks by stating that I don't 'get' the crossover....I was fine when they simply provided wagon versions of normal cars. That being said, if I'm grading the small x-overs, the Forrester and Escape are my recommendations in 09. The RAV & CRV are overpriced, the Subie & Escape still drive like cars---plus deals can be had on each that make them a strong value. (Although I think the previous Forrester is way more fun to drive) The CRV exemplifies why having a strong brand rep means everything. There's little justification for its runaway success other than reputation. IMO, the Civic is a far better example of what makes Honda great--it IS a class-leading product with obvious appeal.

Here's the sad truth: In 40 years, noone will be enthusiastically debating the differences between the G5 & Cobalt, or the various Epsilon products...This is what GM has lost--the indefinable qualities that make motorheads debate seemingly minute details. I'm awestruck by how things have devolved so quickly--the future plans for GM, IMHO, are simply a recipe for further market contraction, rental-grade product and an alarming deaf ear to the direction of the auto industry. I sincerely hope I'm worng.

Firstly, Fiat had as bad or worse a rep as GM, period. Second, Fiat has had a PRODUCT led renaissance--the sub-brands like Abarth already existed--and Fiat did sell something very valuable--a huge piece of Ferrari (Along with a series of other non-core assets.) GM doesn't have a gold plated nameplate like that to sell an interest in. Lancia had been culled to a small line-up and removed from markets such as the UK. Note: They restored Fiats mojo and then used their other brands--Alfa, Lancia, Maserati, et al...to market derivative niche vehicles and keep the factories pumping with product as the later introes supplanted lower volumes for the original Fiat product. The Delta, MiTo, Ferrari California, 500 et al are examples of creatively reusing resources in novel and saleable ways--what makes you think that GM cannot do the same? A EpII coupe could become a Riv, the Solstice could spawn a SLK competitor, the G8 ST should be in a GMC showroom---there's so many examples. Instead, we're going to get Aveo and Cruze rebadges for Pontiac, the Camaro with be a 1 generation flameout without companion product and Caddy is left to flounder with no true premium large product (How is that even possible?) Sorry--GM is courting lower sales, fleet queen entries and pricing nightmares with their latest plans, IMO.

I've had extensive seat time in both a nox and Vue. The Vue was a rattletrap--a sub-40k mi. unit that sounded like sh!t and had a fisher-price interior. The 'nox was marginally better--but still not close to good. The electric steering for the first few years was video game bad, IMO.

You're making one big assumption: that you can't sell more of something that is better. If you spend less to develop and market something, and it sells more, you're golden. Look at the recovery of any near dead co. like Fiat or Nissan and you'll see that a risky investment in Product that works resulted in a dramatic turnaround. Nissan dropped half its platforms and got more creative with the ones that were left...as has Fiat with the Panda and 500 & others... It's simply apparent that GM cannot do as you suggest and successfully stem the tide of defectors. Something has to give.

In the short term, I leave GMC as a Chevy rebadge with a niche model thrown in (2 Dr. Yukon 'vert, anyone, G8 ST, discarded Hummer H4?). I pare Pontiac down to a G4, G6, G8 lineup with the Solstice and every possible variation of the Kappa at Pontiac. Opels destined for Saturn would be rerouted to Buick, Pontiac or GMC. Saabs could be reconfigured as Buick/Caddy ES competitors. Just need to find someone to pawn Hummer, Saab & Saturn off on...They'll be no transformation, they need to consolidate & put their best foot forward with each product.