ShadowDog

If I may, I believe it's all implied in the Task Force's findings. If you didn't see it, the Task Force wasn't pleased with GM's overly optimistic plan that relies too heavily on their truck and SUV sales, which has brought GM the most money only up until this credit crisis. Banking on continued sales of these vehicles for their success is looking too far forward. GM doesn't have that kind of time. The second one appears to revolve around the fact that GMs green technology is behind that of its competitors and absolutely must be more established in order to capture that market. The third one appears to be a relation of the first two. Though I'm not especially convinced that GM hasn't applied a direct approach to the green market. Their flex-fuel, hybrid and now electric offerings have made great strides in the industry; however, they haven't been marketed for wide acceptance. I tend to think the Task Force is merely looking at GMs involvement in the green market as being "behind" the more socially accepted competitors, namely Toyota. I do not believe the Task Force is making any sort of prediction, but simply providing their input on the viability of GMs predictions, calling them far too optimistic as being based entirely on the notion that the market will improve. While the market may do just that, it isn't going to happen overnight. GM needs short term damage control to endure, which is why it has been widely reported that Wagoner and Co. were just moving too slowly.

I don't view this as being such a bad thing, but that things are so bad they would require a measure such as this.

Our local PBG dealer has been around longer than I have and is quite successful. So much so that the owners gained enough capital to start a Mazda dealership next door. Eventually, it was closed and reopened as a Toyota dealership that grew so fast the entire lot was given exclusively for trucks and used cars and they just finished a new facility beside it for the new cars and main building. All the while, PBG kept plugging along, unchanged. I spoke with a sales rep the other day. The Chev/Cad/Hummer dealer in the next town 20 minutes from them is a dead stick. The sales rep at PBG does more in one month himself than they do altogether. They will likely be merged or moved to join or replace the PBG dealership... depending upon the overall outcome within GM. PBG could not be better promoted out here, enjoying the majority of sales within the GM divisions. The local consumers the sales rep speaks with say they don't really prefer one over the other when it comes to the cars; however, they do prefer GMC over Chevy trucks.

In the words of the common folk: Giv'er.

LOL - I'm laughing only because that sounds funny. Truth be told, I suppose if that were the case, many consumers would be forced to re-evaluate their position on just what makes an automobile a good automobile. I would suspect many would simply begin to see that there really isn't all that much different between domestic and foreign and do just as you said; however, the passionate few would never submit. That's the key word here, "submit", simply because this kind of thinking is exactly what hardcore American purists have been waving their flags and shouting for their freedom from government against. That's quite the irony.

Very nice piece. My own mantra follows this with regard to how much I value mistakes and failure in order to progress. Learning from other people's mistakes doesn't always net the best overall results. If one doesn't try for themselves, one never truly knows how successful they've become. I have always respected the effort Honda makes, despite choices that I don't consider appealing. Heck, our 15 year old, plastic bodied, self-propelled Honda lawn mower has outlasted every other we've owned.

Because without them and the government to assist, loans for things like buying a home and starting a business would be nearly impossible to get. You can't exactly start from scratch by cutting off the limb, but you can stop the bleeding, bandaid and heal.

This would be an arbitrary decision supported by a minority since consumers have shown where they want to buy their cars from.

I'm quite surprised anyone realistically thought GM was going to make its way out of this intact. The changes up to now have been anything but drastic in order to literally save the company from expiring. It's almost as though everything up to now has been given the 'wait and see' approach. At times when conditions were less than favourable for a company of our family to remain afloat during times in the 80's, a hard look at what services pulled too many resources and employees, took too long to generate cash flow and received too few profits were immediately axed to eliminate the debts their operations created. We lost those related clients, but we didn't need them to survive. GM won't retain or emerge with more marketshare any time soon, regardless of the changes they make. If they cannot sustain themselves with all brands and just fewer model lines, I truly believe they can make a go with less brands and advance the major brands with better focus. To continue the way it is will be a slow death. Apparently few here can accept change; however, GM simply cannot make a single change without someone here declaring it a big mistake.

Not exactly promising news coming from all sources. In the end, should it just go the way of the dinosaur, it's not as though it will be missed.

To answer the question of the thread: "No."

BBC reported the stepping down of Rick Wagoner, but also said this:

It's also a good move for marketing if consumers take this as a decision to turn the company around. When the head guy gets the sack, confidence in applying alternate or previously ignored plans is bolstered.

Yeah, I had an idea that would be the response. I just thought I'd point out that I tend to get varying descriptors, depending upon who I'm talking to and where on the world they live. I almost feel like I need a reference table to remember who is likely to use which term to describe which body style.

I'm on it, but only to stay in touch with my friends from all over the country. Some of my family work in the U.S. and I keep in touch with many of my former co-workers, so it's easier to contact each other through Facebook. They get to see how my son is growing and how my wife's pregnancy is going. Other than that, I hate applications and rarely update my status. It's not a social-networking thing as much as just a better form of e-mail for me. I started on Myspace, but I couldn't stand all the personal splash screens and glitter $h! that bogged everything down, so I switched to Facebook.

As was said above, it depends upon which kind. I'm into anime that has good writing, fantasy stories like El-Hazard or imaginative like The Wings of Honneamise. Armittage the 3rd (or III) with Keifer Sutherland and Elizabeth Berkley was interesting. The TV stuff isn't really my thing as I find it a little too kiddie-simple. Feature film or series productions are more my taste. Robotech was my first exposure and I still like it, each generation story that's led to the newer Shadow Chronicles. It seems less simple to me than Gundam and other mecha-driven series shows. The original stuff was the really bad 80's style when it was just starting to become popular in North America. Today's developments, depending upon what you're watching, is quite beautifully done. You'd have to tape my eyes open and force me to watch all those stupid game-based anime shows like Pokimon and Digimon... and the rest of the fricken A-to-Z-mon. They're irritating to me, probably making me feel the exact same way some of you say you feel about anime in general.

I tore into the interior walls of what will be my 18-month old's new bedroom with a Wonderbar and a hammer. That room was the only light on in the house. We do a great deal of every day energy savings and environmental conservation that seems so common-place to us, we hardly even know that we're significantly less dependent upon things like electricity, fuel and the money needed for them. I'm in the middle of tracking expenses from the previous year that are directly related to the savings we are seeing after: - changing all lighting to compact fluorescent - replacing the old oil furnace and wood stove with an energy efficient electric heating furnace and disconnected the power to one of the three elements (worked great all winter as was cheaper than stove oil) - replaced the old fridge, stove and dish washer with more efficient units; as well as changed to a new front-load washer and dryer (the water use dropped so much that I had to remove the plumbing to an alternate drain that was previously installed to divert flow to a holding tank meant to reuse the water for lawn/gardening use instead of going into the septic field - there wasn't enough water going into the tank to keep the pressure up!) Since we had to replace 3/4 of these appliances due to age, with how we have them set up, they will pay for themselves over a short period of time in significant energy savings. The goal was to set everything up for efficiency and emergency electrical backup to power everything we could possibly need for those random power outages in rural British Columbia. I'm no angel when it comes to consumption though; considering the substitute for my love of driving is currently movies on the big screen loud through the amp. If I'm really ambitious, and crazy, I could set up a generator and capacitor to fuel that hobby from my recumbent bicycle. Like hell. I feel good about taking care of what's been taking care of me all my life.

Also, something I thought I'd offer after trying to understand how different people use the term 'Coupe' and 'Sedan': The definition of "Coupe" and "Sedan" Society tends to change various definitions over time merely by conforming to their use by the majority.

The argument that manufacturers should produce both 2-door and 4-door versions of the same car, regardless of the lack of demand for 2-door versions is to say that everyone should get what they want from an automobile manufacturer, regardless if few others share their need. In the case of doors, I imagine the bean counters have determined there is less financial justification to spend the development costs of designing a 2-door version for fewer consumers. If otherwise, then it would simply take longer for the development costs to have been recovered before profit can be made. So if manufacturers don't want to spend that extra dough, then society must be to blame. The only answer to this that I have would be to offer less models in order to satisfy having less development costs, then design 2-door and 4-door versions of the remaining models. This sort of defeats the idea to develop a company to be everything for everybody if there are less models just to satisfy a small market in the pursuit of one thing, style. To blame the whole situation on that fact that society deems a car more practical to have 4-doors than 2-doors, driving demand for the latter to the point that fewer 2-door models are offered would be correct; however, to whine that you can't have what you want because all of society is too lazy to be satisfied with a 2-door to: - unbuckle and get out so someone can crouch down and squeeze into the back seat, or; - constantly require to do the same when making numerous stops to pick up or drop off kids; - maneuver an infant around obstacles in order to lean into their car seat to buckle them in; - find more creative ways to insert large or long objects in the back of a vehicle; ...would be a pathetic waste of time. It's too bad that people find 4-door cars easier to live with. It's too bad manufacturers don't think it's worth the extra money to satisfy a small demand. It's too bad one person's style just can't beat a greater number of people's practicality in this manner. Maybe I'm all wrong. It's not like there's a conspiracy a-foot here. Maybe complaining, speculating and coming up with answers that will be delivered to nobody by nobody will work? Or maybe all the voices of concern could collectively ask of the manufacturer for the good reasons for 'why not more 2-door versions of the same model'? Maybe you'll be satisfied with the reply, likely you won't. They'll likely say, "These are the 2-door versions we currently offer." You'll say you are more interested in 'this or that' model that's only available in a 4-door model. They'll reply with another answer you likely won't be satisfied with. It will likely be related to additional costs they aren't prepared to make. You will leave feeling left out, declaring on a forum that it's a crime and that society is to blame because they're complacent and could help you achieve a higher rank of status with style if they would only realize it's just as easy to do what they do in a 2-door as it is in a 4-door, even though it really isn't. I agree, my post is pointless... just as pointless as this entire thread. BTW, adding side doors on pickup trucks must also be pointless because access is just as easy without them. Ask anyone.

IMO, the truth is that the only reason the common person would have any idea that Cadillac did something so crude 'back in the day' is because stupid enthusiasts keep bringing it up!!! If it were simply left behind like yesterday's news, nobody would have any reason to hold any contempt for TODAY'S Cadillac. It's not as if anybody within the division after making an unpopular, though necessary decision is cowering in some corner fearing what some blowhard with the knowledge of automotive history is going to dredge up from the past. Learning from past mistakes is one thing, but constantly having it surface when even the most insignificant detail emerges is like saying, "They'll never be good enough." If that's the case, then all cars are crap and there's nothing good of the companies who make them because of something they once did long before most of us even knew those shiny things daddy dangled in front of us were keys. This has led me to believe a long time ago that enthusiasts are often just as ignorant as someone whom criticizes an automobile without knowing anything about it.

Grandma, cousins, uncles & aunts, or the day-nanny can babysit and I'll get me another 2-seater (well, the '83 944 was a 2+2, but technicalities aside). "Oh shoot kids, only enough room for mom. Well, SEE YA!" But yeah, the voice of reality speaks volumes, doesn't it?

I absolutely love the profile and the rear; however, I consider the front 'acceptable'. I'm sure I would be buggy-eyed and drop-mouthed at the price, so no need to see that.

Your review is pretty much the same as I've read elsewhere. It's not meant to be a supercar, so performance is exactly where to expect it should be with its competitors. In the end, its drawbacks will be coming from those only interested in big-displacement V8s and hulky proportions; as well as the fact that it's an "import". Aside from that, it's a real driver's car. Thanks for the review. Today was officially my last car payment date, so we have the family hauling '05 Grand Caravan and the runabout '04 Optra5 clear. It'll come a long way to help decide what's out there if I find myself in a position to acquire a personal weekender ride. ... with an 18-month old and a newborn on the way in June? Heh, weekends are booked for the next three years.

My bro treated his '94 SLE Sonoma Ext. Cab like a baby, sometimes regretting he didn't opt up for the ZR2 chassis instead, but happy still that he had an excuse to play it safe on the trails. He still put in a mild 2" lift with few modifications. Then, after 250k kms, he had an option to do some major overhaul work. Around then was when things just started to go down hill with the truck in general, but he didn't care. He took it up the pass one day and floored it in 3rd until a piston shot through the oil pan. Then it was fun times, installed: 2" suspension & 3" body lift; custom black metallic paint; complete transaxle and rear-end upgrade; and the cherry on the top, the small-block custom 350 offering approx. 300+ hp at the crank. His rationale was that he could have walked away from the truck altogether; however, he just didn't feel right about plunking money down on a new truck that he would have to baby. He also didn't want a separate beater 4wheeler for the fun stuff on the side since that's all the money he would have left to offer his hobby. A complete makeover allowed him to have his pretty truck while still being able to 4wheel with air conditioning. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Did you get that font yet? I run a '07 iMac and there are two Helvetica fonts available.