hyperv6

Well this is a class you do not need to be number one to win. The fact is the top 5 brands win due to the profit margins made here. Once you are in the club even at lower volumes you make a lot of money, add more volume you make even more. It is a less risk high reward segment. It is not like Chevy and Toyota needing to price cars to the point that they have to sell 100K units to just start to show a profit. As for Hearses I can see them letting that go. It is a low volume and not a big profit deal. If needed the MFGS could still use the CT6 even without GM's help if needed. A hearse is not an image Cadillac is worried about. As for Livery Service I could see them still working here as Benz still works this segment in NYC and they move a lot of cars and put a lot of affluent people in their cars that later consider or move to buy one. No lose issue there. Also Buick has filled in for the Hearse deal many times in the past and could do it again even FWD. Lets face it they are not going to turn to a 4n Make as they have not in the past. Never saw a Lexus hearse have you?

Well it has the things I expected. Less weight As much or just a little more room inside with better packaging. I expect better MPG and performance even with the slight drop in power due to the complete package. The Power numbers are spot on what I expected in both engines. The next step will be a TTV6 in a V sport. I do not think they limited power because of the FWD. The new Transaxle should handle over 400 HP from what I have heard. I expect it was limited more for MPG and the fact they will have a sport option to slot over it. Besides how much power do you really need in a high centered vehicle to start with. Leave the more power to the RWD base AWD models to come. This one is to suck up all the FWD peoples money.

No my point is the turbo engine would be much better than the 2.5 that is in there now. Do you have an issue with 4 engine options over 3? The Turbo would make an interesting option here not cost MPG and could easily handle the vehicle tuned properly. GM can make this engine much more than what it is now. 340 ft lbs in the GM tune was emissions legal, Warranty covered and got better MPG. 340 FT LBS should handle 4000 pounds readily. I know you understand the HP but I think you really do not understand the torque and you really miss it on the lag and just how hard these little engines pull. Look to the Chevy II GM took to SEMA. It has the 2.0 turbo in it and the engine works well in the car. From what I read it made for a really fun car to drive.

It was and I was forced to defend the 2.0 vs the 3.6 of which I own both and live with daily.

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing. A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck. Not true I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message. So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF. Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag. The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative. Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG. Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today. It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer. Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch. I'm not just making sh*t up. I've driven the 259 hp/295 lb-ft 2014 Malibu 2.0T, the Malibu 2.5L, Fusion SEL 2.0EB, Fusion S 2.5L, and Optima 2.0T. You can't tell me my first hand experience isn't true or that the Malibu 2.0T (which is a different engine than the LNF) is faster or better driving than my 3.6L V6. But frankly, we're getting off topic because you laser focused on the wrong part of my post and took it out of context. The midsize cars were just an example that illustrated the advantage of N/A power in general. I'm not calling for the death of the turbo. They can be fast, fun, and efficient. I'm saying don't saddle a tiny engine with an overweight vehicle and expect turbos to flawlessly replace displacement. Every review of a 2.0T in a heavy vehicle reflects my experiences magnified several times over. The Ford Edge, Explorer, and Taurus 2.0L Ecoboost are slower and poorer driving than the 3.5L Duratec (which has less torque). Hyundai/Kia's large crossovers with the 2.0T are total dogs, just begging for their 3.3L DI V6, again with a lower torque rating. I'm pretty positive a 2.0T Colorado would be underwhelming despite its torque advantage on paper. Well you drove it but I own it. I own and drive a 3.6 2008 Malibu and drove it to work today. I can even see it from my office right now. At home I own a HHR SS with a LNF 2.0 Turbo that started out as a 250 HP [235 HP in first gear before the upgrade] now with the GM upgrade it has right at 300 HP and 315 FT LBS non. I have drive both over the last week and since 2008 and know both intimately. The Turbo will run circles around the 3.6. I also own a Terrain with the 3.0 V6 for more points of reference. Now the first mistake you are making is assuming all 2.0 Turbo engines are the same they are not. The truth is GM's Eco has one of the flattest torque curves on the market and has been one of the most powerful engines available till just the last year or two for this size engine. The Malibu 2.0 and my HHR 2.0 are very similar and if anything the new Malibu was tuned to lessen the low end torque just a little as it can be annoying at times as it is hard to take off fast. Even just goosing the gas at a yellow light will send the tires screaming through the intersection. A standard cab Colorado with the added torque the 2.0 Eco is capable of it would run just fine. As stated the Solstice was returning 340 FT LBS with the rear wheel drive set up. The LNF as it is can be run up to 400 HP with no internal mods as the engine is that durable. Just over 400 they do recommend rods and pistons but it can easily then go over 500 HP. The real stumbling block to the higher HP is the engine will require Premium Fuel only. I am seeing 23 PSI now and know others running up to 30 PSI with no ill effects. The premium Only rating would not be popular with many buyers in this price range. With the MPG it would get the added cost would be small but the public seldom finds it that way. The first key to all this is stop comparing a Ford or Hyundai or any other brand 2.0 Turbo to the GM 2.0 Turbo as they are not the same and are tuned totally different. If it were the Ford or Hyundai I would not even buy the engine as it is not close to what I experience in each car. The only reason I went here is because I feel it was a good idea as an Option in this truck and you were not accurate in your assessment. You may have driven but I not only drive but live with and own the engines in question and know just what they can do and what they are all about. I really wish the Bu I have had the Turbo in it. But then again we would be back to what I do hate about the 2.0 and that is it being in a FWD vehicle. Note the Diesel works well with similar torque and even much less HP.

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing. A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck. Not true I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message. So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF. Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag. The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative. Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG. Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today. It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer. Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch.

You do understand that all of this is moving to smaller displacement not just for MPG but also credits on CO emissions of various forms the EPA will be handing out. The EPA is working to give credits for various systems in vehicles that save CO emissions such as lighting systems, heaters systems and even smaller displacement systems. GM is not focusing all this on the smaller engines just for MPG up front but for the credits they can earn moving forward as they will need them. There is a good article on it in the coming Car and Driver that breaks it down on how it works. The future is not just CAFE only but will be measured in emission to give companies other ways to meet the crazy numbers they have put up against them. Putting the 5.3 in a Colorado would get no worse mileage than it already gets in the heaver, less aerodynamic Silverado. Also, there is currently a 12 grand gulf between a Colorado and a Silverado. Dropping the 5.3 in there would not just evaporate that gap. Why make a sport truck offering out of your heavier, larger truck? Makes no sense. But I'm all for making a Silverado sport truck variant, too. After all, they already put the 6.2 in there. Upgraded brakes and suspension would complete the package. To be clear, I have no problem with the 2.0T serving as a base engine. You do understand that all of this is moving to smaller displacement not just for MPG but also credits on CO emissions of various forms the EPA will be handing out. The EPA is working to give credits for various systems in vehicles that save CO emissions such as lighting systems, heaters systems and even smaller displacement systems. GM is not focusing all this on the smaller engines just for MPG up front but for the credits they can earn moving forward as they will need them. There is a good article on it in the coming Car and Driver that breaks it down on how it works. The 502 did not disappear just for MPG only and GM is not pushing an small Diesel just for MPG only.

Yep you are right bring back the old Stereotyped names that conjures up the old image as well as the name used on an Olds when it failed. Real Smart. You style it, Market it and build it right the name matter little. I think I am going to start a web site and post photos of the past Cadillac owners The People of Cadillac much like the People of Walmart and just let you see the kind of people you want to bait. We may even see you there. If you want to move to the future you must let go of much of the recent past and dig deeper to when Cadillac really was the standard. This car also while it will be a great car is the last of the old admins cars. This is not Johann's car as it is the one the old admin wanted as a flagship and Mark Reuss had to fight for everything it got. The CT8 will be the new path and this one will still help Cadillac in the turn around but it is not the total new direction. Also while these prices are good keep in mind we still have a V8 version to come yet so we have not yet seen the full package.

Sorry but the goal for companies are to make trucks that get better MPG by 2025 and the TT V6 and or any V8 would counter what they are working towards. I would love it to but reality is in play here. The only way I see a V8 here is if they kill the Half ton and move to the smaller truck with less mass. Otherwise we have what we have. Besides you put that engine in this truck it will drive cost to the price of a full size anyways. They would be better off with a Full Size Sport package for the 2WD.

The extra torque would only be with premium fuel only. That is what I think would hold this back. GM really hates to do Premium Fuel Only on Chevys outside a Corvette or high end Camaro. People have an aversion in this price range to premium fuel for some reason. That is why all the engines are premium recommended not required. I had a long talk with a Marking Brand Manager at GM on this that got stuck with a Premium only 3.8 SC. He was not happy as it cost them sales. He said a Recommended engine would have made a large difference in sales. GM changed in in later models.

I love my LNF Turbo and the only real thing I hate is the FWD. Now this combo in the Solstice was great and the GM tune put it at 290 HP and 340 FT LBS of torque with the RWD. Now put that in a two wheel drive truck with a sport suspension and you may have an interesting ride that still get good MPG. Note my Sonoma was an extended cab. My error in the first post.

Well I got a deal from GM that if I test drove a new Chevy I would get a $50 Gift Cars to Best Buys, Amazon, etc. Well I visited the dealer and the salesman said he would take care of my card and I did not have to even test drive. I told him I really wanted to drive a Colorado. So without even asking who I was or taking any information I was provided with a set of keys to a $36,758 Crew Cab short bed Colorado. Well I drove off and took it on a good test drive. Here are some of my impressions. It is very quiet unless you kick the V6 down. The 3.6 has that growl and in a truck it should be more of an asset than liability. The ride was smooth and solid. Little flex in the chassis even on rough roads. My old Crew Sonoma you could feel her dance a little from front to back but this one was more stiff. The structure was solid as no rattles or other noises that many trucks can produce. Over time I expect it will retain this. The interior felt nice and it had full leather. The Screen was large and easy to use. The 4x4 knob was an easy reach and shifted on the fly with no fuss. I did take issue with the color of the interior. It was Jet Black. This color is almost a part of every color combination Chevy offers. GMC offers a Beige and Brown like color and would be enough to get me to a GMC dealer over the Chevy. The brighter tones appear much more upscale even in the same materials. The driving position and feel is much like my wife's Terrain. It is nearly the same width and height. The steering was lighter in the truck. The transmission shifts where I am not used to it. But I noted in 4 wheel drive it felt like it held the gears a little longer and shifted smoother to what I expect. I was pleases with the truck and it may be 2 years before I buy I would consider this. I want to see what other options they add as we have not seen a ZQ8 yet. I would love a sport truck but if not I may opt for a Z71 package. I really don't need the 4x4 but I like the trim better and the resale will be much better. I always get a good return on my used trucks. I normally keep them in good shape and with the added options I always get top dollars and sell to the first person who looks at it. GM did a good job here but they will need to keep moving the sticks as it would not be hard to be a little more innovative with models and hardware and top this with the future trucks. This is part of the reason I am waiting a little longer. I suspect GM may have much more to add here now that they see the market loves this truck. I will watch to see what the Denali offers. I want a power sun roof to. Note to this truck in 2 wheel drive and sport suspension would just scream for a Turbo 2.0.

I agree EVs are here to stay, who will be the main supplier is another thing and yes the US is a bit behind Europe in the roads that do charge the car as it drives. But the problem with that idea is you limit where you can go if you are low on power or use minimal battery just so the auto can get to the highway. I want a 600 mile range battery pack in a wrangler so I can go off road and not worry about it. This is the deal. EV models will be limited as long as they impact the social and life style areas of peoples lives. #1 As long as they are smaller and more expensive over a conventional car this will impact market share. #2 As long as they impact the way you live and your moves such as having to plan for charging times and such it will remain a limiting factor over a Gas power vehicle. They are working on both areas but until they cost no more than a gas powered car and until you can charge one as fast as it takes to fill a tank of gas there will always be a limiting factor here. I expect both will be over come but the only question is how soon.

More expensive is an understatement. A CTS V-sport is probably a good starting point with similar power (over 400hp) and starts at $60K. I expect the 6 to start around $65K on up to $80K. Very rich pricing. I expect sales to be a fraction of what the XTS is, less than half IMO, and thus not a big volume player. This is the deal though. While volume may lower how much more profit will be returned? I expect this car will sell in moderate volume but be much more profitable than the XTS. This has been part of the stated plan for Cadillac as not being a volume player. Bentley could sell their GT coupe for less and sell more cars but how much profit would there be and how exclusive would it be to see them in every Walmart Parking lot. The Volume is left to Buick from here on out. Those not happy with Cadillac pricing are not happy because it was a car they could afford and can no longer afford. Sad but the fact is they are not of an income level Cadillac wants to represent any longer. Yes snobby but that is what builds image. I would love a Ferrari but I can not afford it. But on the other hand if I could would anyone really want a Ferrari that bad in that price segment at that content level? Imager cars play on the edge of unobtainable. Having something not just anyone can have drives this segment. Some cheat it like Porsche did with the 944 and paid the price. If you owned a 944 it screamed I can't afford a 911. Not good for the image. FYI this was not an argument directed at you just big picture watching.

Yes it is just simple economics of scale. The real issue is they can not rely on China for volume as right now China is weakening in sales and they may just not be able to provide the volume needed there. Also how the 3 may be accepted here if made in China. Just look at all the folks who said hell no to a Buick even when it was hinted on groundless rumors pre UAW negotiations. The Chinese also have no knowledge and or respect of Musk at this point so the car will have to stand on its own merits not the hyped up lines he states in the media. Also I am not sure how well their infrastructure in many parts of the country will handle electric cars. They are just now getting Electricity to parts of the country that never had it let alone able to handle more loads in older areas. We will just have to sit back and watch to see what the 3 is and if it even shows up on time. Then he will also have to address the S as people will expect changes to the car over time. If he wants repeat buyers they will expect more than software changes or minor tech changes.

The CT6 will be more expensive than the CTS that is a given. As for how will they sell them both. Keep in mind the CTS will transform in the near future to a CT5. This will be a much different car than what we have today in the details. I expect weight loss and interiors on the level of the CT6. The one major difference is the Cadillac will be on an Omega RWD AWDS platform and the Conti will be on a FWD AWD platform. I know Ford will do a good job hiding it but under the skin Is a Taurus. That may not sit with the folks who pay attention in this price segment. It will not kill the car but it could hurt it vs. the Cadillac. Thanks for the unbiased peak here I appreciate it. Keep in mind this was Mark Ruess's car not Johann's I expect the CT8 to take it up several notches with the less interference of GM and the better funding. I really think many have really underestimated where this is all going.

FIAT What I find fascinating is the followers haters that are die hard get mad if you speak of anything they find negative. They never can counter with any real argument of substance but they can only spew insults. That is old man text for fixed it again Tony. I sense we may have a convert among us? It is what it is. Got to any site that has a Tesla post and the converts will jump down anyone's neck for saying anything negative no matter how true it is. You can back it up and link it but yet all they can do is mock your mother but not present a counter point of any coherence. I voted up a guy on Autoblog the other day I disagreed with on the Tesla. I told him he was one of few that actually try to present a legitimate case to base his comments on. Too often they never do that. I have no issue if they disagree but I really get tired of not presenting anything that is more than an insult to defend their car. I really have no wish for Tesla to fail but I know the reality at hand and many better men before Elon have failed. Even Henry Ford had a tough time in his first several attempts. The fact is it has always been hard to start and maintain no matter what propels it. The New science and electric in this case have multiplied the difficulty X10. Elon has some high hurdles to attempt yet and many more greater challengers in the segment to come. I still think in the end Tesla will partner or sell out to a larger company at some point. There are only a few who can go it alone today even in gas cars and a start up electric even funded out of his pocket can only go on so long. The lie of reinvestment is getting old. Yes they need to reinvest but they also at some point will have to show a profit. 2020 was the goal and like the X model it will get pushed back. How long will the investors be strung along smitten as they have been? Like Trump Elon has beaten the odds but at some point the path just can not longer be sustained. The 3 will really have to pull this off as I don't see him getting a second chance unless he can move back to the high end models and live off the lower volume and higher priced cars. At this point I really don't think anyone really knows how this will end. All we have is what normally happens to draw from. Elon may think he will pull it off but even he has to have some moments of reservations. He is not that dumb not to know. You can only live off the hyperbole headlines so long before people get wise.

Yes the 3 will determine if Tesla remains a niche company or if they become mass market. If they remain a niche they could fail soon after as others enter the low volume segment they are in with newer more competitive models and stronger dealer networks. What I find fascinating is the followers that are die hard get mad if you speak of anything they find negative. They never can counter with any real argument of substance but they can only spew insults. To some they will almost claim if you own a S model it will cure cancer and hunger world wide. Ask for proof and they will insult your mother. Not sure I would want to be lumped into that group. They can be worse than some of the anal Corvette owners that are out there.

I really do not see the Superchargers as a courtesy as much as a range extender and a start to establish the first real infrastructure in hopes others would use the same system. This is a segment of first as the leader will set the trend. It is not far different than the Beta vs. VHS fight we saw in the 70's. The one who sets the standards has much more to gain than the one swimming up stream. As for Solar it is like Wind. It is a small boost, a big tax credit and good PR. I know these systems will get better with time but for now it is much like buying an electric car you do it more for the small gains and the environment than the large returns. I saw one guy had almost all his roof covered and he was saving some but not a lot. I asked what are you going to do when you have to shingle the roof? I know companies have more roof and it is mostly unused space. It will not hurt but I would not cut the power lines yet. I think it would be better to compare it to the long term use of a Diesel to save money. You can do it but it is long term.

There is no truth to no one wants an electrified vehicle. It is a slow grow and truly still experimental market. The Tesla in their defense has that feel of a low volume producer that you get in cars like a Iso Girfo, Morgan or even Delornean. Some like that charm but most are not as accepting as they once were when companies like Bentley, Lambo and Ferrari are now producing models that are as consistent as anything out there.

Oh, and SuperChargers were never intended to replace regular charging at home. They are a courtesy add-on. What was tacky was people parking there all day or using it for all of their fill-ups. As for the super chargers they were put there for two reasons. 1 To make it so people could at least travel some distance if they chose in their cars and still get home in the same day. His idea is to have them around the country but even at this point most areas are lacking. He just was building his own infrastructure when no ne else would. It was not as much a courtesy as it was a necessity. #2 He like all other EV companies are trying to set the standard others will follow in the EV segment. They all have different systems and different ideas. There is going to be a need for many of these systems to come together and use similar technology for the sake of the customer. A real need will be to offer charging stations all with the same connectors. How would you like it if every gas station had a different nozzle and fuel? They really need to get together and set SAE standards for charging. But in the end this story was true that much of Elons plans are ego driven hype. Such as his sharing of technology as it is such a hollow thing as most others have far surpassed anything he has offered. I do not expect Elon or Tesla to crash and burn but they will not be the leaders in the EV segment as the others are all coming and have much deeper pockets and development. Their infrastructures are also much wider and stronger. Tesla is like putting a smart kid in a classroom by himself. He will stand out in that room. Now put in a lot of other smart kids in that room and he will become just another kind in the room. Then factor in that the other kids have more resource's and family backing that first kid alone will still be smart but much less able to compete. In short it will only get tougher for Tesla and they will not be the darling of the segment as more enter the fight. Even one smaller company like Porsche could take them on and take many of their sales with what they have to offer and their long heritage and name in play. No one ever though Porsche would ever compete in the SUV market but they are and making a lot of money doing so. Even the 918 has proven their technology is not in building flat sixes.

No matter what it was not presented as a developmental product. They just spent all their time telling people how fast it was. Now was that Tesla's fault or just the Media with a misleading take away that I am not sure? As for Solar. The same can be said for the EV market as it is growing from pretty much nothing to this. Companies are making token moves to install these systems with the idea they will eventually present cost savings but for the most part it is a move on their part to appear green. GM has done this recently at several plants. The home markets most average people are decades from affording these systems. It too like the EV market will be growing but it will be slow. He also will find the work segment of Reno a mess. Reno I have learned from our own experience with out own company is a very transient town. It is a place people go to make a buck and move on. It is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. It is at least dry. The cost of living is high. Many of the people we have sent there to manage things almost always come back to the snow belt in Ohio of all places. We pay a good wage abut to often people just stop showing up after anywhere from 5 weeks to 5 years and too often we found they just packed up and moved. It is a very different labor market. A plant like his will take a lot of people and he will have to pay a very competitive wage there.

Even I did not think you are so foolish to think Lutz led them to Chapter 11. By the time Bob showed up they were already knocking on the door. He was brought in to fix what he could in a limited time with nearly no money. To do what he did is a credit to his skills. The budget on the GTO was nothing and he was still able to pull it off. It was so tight the hood scoops and split exhaust had to wait a year. The Solstic's help put a renewed focus on Pontiac as well as the G8 but it was too little and too late as they really had nothing else to offer. Bob did help with the Camaro return and he also started the Culture change that is still ongoing at GM as he said when he got there the culture was severely damaged. He also help funnel a ton of what money they had left in to new projects that would carry them out of Chapter 11 like the Cruze, Nox and other models. He brought us the HHR that many said was too late yet it sold almost every year well into the six figures in volume much higher than any Cobalt wagon would have. The bottom line is Bob got more right than wrong and was the start of many of the things going right today at GM. As for Tesla who gives a Sh*T bout a SUV with more power if you can't charge it in the same time it takes to fill the tank on a Gas Powered car. Most people will not wait 30 mins at a charging station that they had to drive 45 min out of their way if they are lucky to wait in line for the 30 min charge. Until someone even Tesla can make a EV that is not a life style changer it will remain a novelty to most average buyers. Here in Ohio a EV like a Tesla is more of a second car or a pain in the ass if you drive much. 200 miles may be good as a commuter in LA but out here it does little if you travel any were far. Turn the heater on in the winter and you had better keep close to home.

Drew I don't buy the power savings but it was a bit tacky to tell people to use them and then tell them not to use them in a letter. He needed to do a plan that would regulate these people and not chastise people. As for the AWD model it could very well be a prototype but it was not presented that way to the public. No it was not common knowledge. I think you missed on the quote. The Gig factory may or may not pay off. Not everyone is going to rush out to buy solar panels as they are still too expensive and in many areas like the mid west they are limited half the year on doing a lot. As for the batteries he needs to find a lot of customer other than just Panasonic. He at one point acted like other automakers would come to him. I hope he is not holding his breath on that one. The factory could be successful but it has just as good of odds being the ice berg Tesla hits. The X is way over played but he had to do it for price. The structure was compromised. The rear doors may be cool in LA but in Buffalo in the winter I can see JR in the car seat eating a lot of snow. I assume in a roll over the doors have a release to come off? As much issue as people are having with rear power hatches I see this as a major defect just waiting to happen. Elons Minions would have bought it with normal doors two years ago. The windshield is going to be an issue. Just imagine the price to replace it and it really adds little to the car. I expect the 3 will be delayed and appear while he needs to put more money into a new S. How long can you keep selling the same car here at this price. And even then due to the aero how much can you change it. They will refresh it but I suspect it will not be a major change. As for the X I think he needs the price a she knows volumes will be low and he needs the cash. The door may have been needed to justify the price. In the end I agree there are some things off here in the story but he got more right than wrong.

Here read this as it shows more media people are now realizing the emperor Elon has no clothes. http://mashable.com/2015/10/28/tesla-hype/#eX4T8PwSxgqR Many will have to come up with new excuses to counter the truth.