buyacargetacheck

Engine sharing between "premium" and mainstream makes is not the issue. Toyota does this well and there's no reason why this couldn't be done on a limited basis for Chevy and Cadillac. The point is that Pontiac and Buick have no or bad images. Yet, GM is embarking on a plan to remake them as premium brands. Problem is the competition is moving forward at the same time. There's not enough money in the world to justify the gamble. Instead of spending $$$ to sell 30,000 G8s in the first year, GM should spend the dollars on additional products to increase sales at Chevy. They'll get more bang for their buck. The Solstice, for example, would probably sell better as a Chevy than as a Pontiac and Saturn put together. As much as Buick buyers aren't interested in Chevies, the Lucerne I guarandamnteeyou would sell better as a Chevy Caprice than as a Lucerne (at the same price). Buick (in the US) and Pontiac are not going to be around in a few years. Why delay the inevitable while Chevy needs so much help? Will Toyota outselling Chevy finally wake Lutz and company up? Fine, let GMC do Chevy rebadges - dump the other two.

OK, since we're going to play geek squad here you're right - it's 346ci. The original point was that the LS1 is a Chevrolet engine (or at least recognized as such even though it was designed by GM Powertrain). CaddyXLR's GTO, therefore, does share some Chevy parts. Question: When's a Pontiac not a Pontiac? Answer: When it's a Holden with a Chevy engine. :AH-HA_wink:

The 2004 GTO had the Chevy Corvette LS1 5.7L (350ci). Maybe you have an LS2 6L (also Chevy-derived)? Yes, killing brands would have the effect of losing sales. But have you not noticed that sales are already falling!!!??? Have been for years. And, arguably, the sales decline would not be as bad as you might guess given that much of Pontiac and Buick sales are STILL rental fleet, and fleet buyers don't care about nameplates (they'd be just as fine with Classics instead of G6s). GM just doesn't have the talent or money or time to resuscitate Buick and Pontiac. Even if Lutz could snap his fingers and have a perfect showroom lineup now for both brands what would the encore look like? History has shown that GM would not be able to sustain excitement for one hot model much less an entire lineup. We'll see this in a couple of years with the Enclave. Sales look good now because Buick has been starved. Same thing happened with the Rendezvous. But once a couple of years slide by the excitement is over and the next replacement is years away. Meanwhile, Toyota and Lexus eat their lunch while bread-n-butter Chevy gets by with table scraps.

Not in the next 5 minutes. But after that I wouldn't be a betting man.

What, the 350 under the hood doesn't count as Chevy-derived? Your GTO may not be a Chevy but it is a Holden, Australia's Chevy! It's definitely not a Pontiac (whatever that is). The thing that bothers me about Pontiac and Buick and Saturn and GMC is that they are not genuine. They're fakes. They're just nameplates that represent a better past. Much like finding the Polaroid or Westinghouse name on Chinese-made electronics. Sometimes pretty good stuff, but they might as well wear the names of the the real companies that engineered and manufactured them because they have no connection to the people and processes that made those great American names great. The consumer is simply taken for fools and milked. In Pontiac's case, the real company is GM North America (for the most part), better known at the retail level as Chevrolet (of course, except Cadillac which has been let loose a bit because it plays in a higher margin segment). Meanwhile, Chevy takes hits from starboard and port while Captain Bob and Admiral Richard rearrange the broken deck chairs (the aforementioned nameplates). Sorry, I can't imagine the level of masochism (or booze) necessary to be a Chevy salesman these days.

You can just about see the future from here. The G8 will do its best sales in year one. Unfortunately, the press will pan the dull-uninspired-seen-it-before looks and the folks who can actually afford such a car will continue to buy the base 3-series (except for the monied Pontiac geeks - both of them). Sales will fall after that as GM focuses on its next patient/project and the lack of marketing dollars eventually leads it to obscurity a la GTO. The G6 will continue to service Avis as retail sales languish. The G5 will continue to be ignored. Solstice sales will fall as the thrill is gone. Why bother? GM, focus on Chevrolet before it's too late! Were you at the Tic Toc meeting too?

Pontiac is toast. The only reasons I can see for it being kept is to keep the Chevy factories' utilization numbers up and also to avoid confrontation with the pitiful dealer body. Profitability (apparently) has nothing to do with it. Someone mentioned a lack of new Pontiac Oakland club members. Totally laughable. Does anyone really get excited enough about a split grill and red guages to endure terrible resale values and old Chevy platforms? Pontiac (as Baby-Boomers like the AutoExtremist remember it) has been dead for 30 years. Since then it's been a Chevy with a red badge. Coming up next is a line of rear-drive hogs at exactly the wrong time: recession, depression and peak-oil. Then, GM's creditors will be forced to bury the thing for good.

The point is that Toyota is serious about being a player in this market and is succeeding despite what seemed like an early failure (low sales and a major recall). Meanwhile, if the past 30 years is any indication, GM will fight fire by continuing to stay the course. Wasting valuable engineering and marketing dollars by keeping the GMC name going is not thinking big. Instead, it's the big sit-n-spin. And it's a recipe for Toyota to take bragging rights away from Chevrolet and Silverado eventually. If it hasn't already happened, it's about to happen with Toyota vs Chevy cars.

A cheap rear-drive small car might have some success with kids. But the volumes as a Pontiac will never be high, and neither will the profit. Plus, for GM to make money it'll have to share the platform with Saturn or Chevy further diluting the branding messages. The G8 will flop because, like the GTO, it looks dull. The G6 is an also ran. 2011 is a long way away. Rising fuel prices will kill demand for performance (imagine fuel prices spiking 50% or more overnight sometime in the next couple of years for geopolitical reasons a la 1973). Pontiac is dead. Convert BPG dealers to something like Chevrolet Limited. Concentrate on the Chevrolet brand before it's too late!

According to this article, the Tundra is estimated to be outselling the GMT900 Sierra 1500. If this holds it's further proof that GM needs to rationalize its BPG and Chevy lines before Toyota starts outselling Chevy. It's bad enough for Toyota to outsell GMC. Just think how painful it'll be when Chevy gets overtaken. Don't think it won't happen! http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/toyot...pastsierra.html

Your assumption that Hyundai is at Toyota's level is wrong. Depreciation rates (and the lingering cache of jokes about Hyundai) demonstrate this well. For Buick to be in the same league with Lexus, it would take a revamp of Buick's sales and service policies. The dealership facilities would also need revamping. This costs money that GM doesn't seem to have. Plus Toyota has more control over its dealer body. It doesn't have to deal with 100 years of legacy. So the chances are slim GM could make it happen even with money. Further, Buick would have to substantially renew its product line every 4-5 years (or less) just to keep up with Toyota. And its offerings would have to be better over at least 2 cycles. It's one thing to watch sales spike during the first year of a new product. It's another to keep it going year after year. GM doesn't know how to do this anymore except with large pickups and SUVs. See a problem here? US Buick Sales: 2001 405,678 2002 432,017 2003 336,788 2004 309,639 2005 282,288 2006 240,657 2007 180,366 (extrapolated) US Lexus Sales: 2004 287,927 2005 302,895 2006 322,434 2007 320,404 (extrapolated) Even Lutz now realizes that Buick doesn't compete with Lexus. It can't. It will continue as a soft, well-equipped, better-styled Chevy. And it will be sold at much lower volumes with little gain in prestige. With discounts, Buicks will still end up in Joe Six Pack's garage.

Only in the minds of some very wishful GM executives. To be clear, I'm assuming the Enclave is the RX's and MDX's equal product-wise. This isn't enough. It would take maybe a decade of solid 1000 batting to get Buick to Lexus-levels of prestige. Based on GM's record it ain't happening. Great product I'm sure, but it's mostly smoke and mirrors.

This is what will be the final nail in the coffin for Buick and Pontiac. GM's insistence that these are "premium" brands when in reality they are sold by dealers who, as a whole, don't compare well to Lexus or Acura in terms of dealer service or modern facilities. PBG dealers look and feel closer to Chevy dealers. Enclave will snag few Lexus RX and Acura MDX buyers for this reason alone. Meanwhile, GM cuts Buick's throat. Just wait until Chevy's version comes out. Look out below!!!

Here's a reality check folks. Has anyone here taken notice how poorly GM's excellent new pickups and SUVs have done with gas over $3/gal? You can bank on gas approaching $4.50 by 2010, about the time when Zeta blooms. It's hard to imagine buyers plunking down hard-earned money for a guzzler at those gas prices. Remember how the Fit, Yaris, Prius were the darlings last summer when prices went higher? People have already forgotten. But they'll remember soon again. Count on it. Once again GM will be caught flatfooted.

I agree with the comment that this is about 2008 posturing. But in a few short years the price of gasoline and crude will climb faster than it has over the last 7 years (remember when gas was closer to $2 than $3 back in 2000?). So instead of gas and oil prices at twice the level of official inflation (3%) like they are now (7%/yr) we'll be looking at 10% or 20% per year increases in gas prices. All because of oil field decline in the world's largest oil fields (Cantarell, Ghawar, etc). Congress and the Prez should give the automakers a full design cycle (5 years?) to develop midsize standard family cars that get overall mileage better than 30 mpg. In the meantime federal gas taxes should be raised slowly and buyers today who buy anything that gets better than 30 mpg should get a tax break (not just Prius drivers). The real solution (and few people want to hear it) is less driving. This will be forced upon us within 30 years. No amount of alternative high tech fuels will replace the easy cheap black stuff Mother Nature has been providing for over 100 years now. We'll delude ourselves a little longer before the public finally understands.

Aluminum wheels should be standard on all Buicks. Doesn't look like this has changed for the LaX CX. Looks like the front benches remain. Every LaX I've seen here in LA has buckets.

I like it! Brown interior is different (would be great if that was also offered in velour). Big chrome toothy grills and ventiports. What's not to like??? It's scary how long GM has gone about its business without having the foggiest idea of what great styling is. Thanks Bob Lutz and Ed Welburn.

Finally getting back to chrome toothy Buick grills. I like it.

Does anyone know the reason for the lack of a folddown rear-seat armrest in the Epsilon sedans??? Was it an engineering issue or a shortsighted cost savings issue?

OK, maybe what this article intimates (but I misunderstood) was that GM's proposal was for the Buick "Statesman" to be an additional model sold side-by-side with the Lucerne. That, I agree, is a poor idea. Replacing the Lucerne with the Statesman in '10 or '11 (hopefully sooner) makes more sense.

This sounds suspicious. First, since when have dealers had the power to nix new product (and which Buick dealers)? Second, how and who leaked this story? And for what purpose? As a replacement for Lucerne (if priced similarly), why wouldn't Buick dealers want it? http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/wha-bui...-a-rwd-vehicle/

No one disputes the time of fall. In fact, none other than the 9/11 Commission says 10 seconds http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm : At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.

Krinkle, the fact is no one knows why the buildings fell at free fall speed, i.e., the speed of gravity(!). How is it possible for the roof of these buildings to hit the ground in 10 seconds? It would mean that there was no resistance at all despite the buildings only being hit near the middle floors and only damaging a few of the core columns! AND NO EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSAL FREE FALL OF BUILDING 7 WHICH WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE!!! Professor Steven Jones himself does not say conclusively that thermite was used. In fact, he suggests that SUPERTHERMATE, a higher-powered compound used exclusively by the military was more likely. In any event, the honest researchers are not making definitive statements about what happened. THEY ARE, HOWEVER, CALLING FOR A NEW OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION.

Sometimes the truth hurts Krinkle. Go read a book.

It is easily refutable. Apparently not. It would take tons of thermite and days/weeks/months to rig it. How would you know? In buildings that were always full. Actually, there was a powerdown for an entire weekend beofre 9/11. IT would stink How would you know? and there would be evidence al over the place. There is not. That's right, there is no evidence available to study because it was all immediately shipped off to China for recycling. Tampering with evidence at a crime scene, by the way, is a federal crime. We spent more money investigating Bill Clinton's lying about his blow job than we have as to why WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell. as for NYPD and NYFD most of their quotes were taken out of context. I don't need to read "out of context" quotes Krinkle. I've listened to the 9/11 tapes and seen the firemens' testimony on video. and 2 the empire state or chrysler probably would have survived in tact because of the excess concrete and no steel exoskelton construction like WTC N and WTC S. Krinkle, I guess you didn't know that most of the supporting strength for WTC 1 and 2 came from the CORE 47 steel columns INSIDE the buildings! The strength of the buildings didn't come from the exoskeleton. Instead of visiting 911debunked.com (whose owner will not apparently reveal either his identity nor his credentials, try reading a book on the subject for a change. Sorry to those of you not interested in 9/11. This is really not the forum for this, but I simply no longer trust the opinion of Popular Mechanics on anything as they apparently have no use for scientific methods and analysis.