thegriffon

The concept looked like a coupe. This seems more obviously a 4/5-door.

The original US-market Fit was Dolly Partonized with oversized bumpers to meet US regulations. I'd agree that it spoilt the looks. That's what you get for making a last-minute adaptation because you are caught of-guard by Chevy selling boat-loads of Aveos. Incredibly, like the Yaris, the new model is still several inches longer than the JDM/Euro version. The Koreans can do it without plastic surgery, so what's up with Toyota and Honda?

C-MPVs are in 3 classes, from smaller to larger: 2-Row 5/6-seaters: Skoda Roomster (smaller than this are 5-seat B-MPVs) VW Golf Plus Toyota Corolla Rumion (new Scion xB) next Opel Meriva Renault Scenic II late Nissan Tino Mercedes B-Class Honda FR-V (6-seats in two rows) Chrysler PT Cruiser Dongfeng Joyear Seat Altea Ford Focus C-Max Daewoo Rezzo/Tacuma (Chevrolet Vivant) Chana Guanggao Citroen C4 Picasso 3-Row 6-7 seaters Honda Freed (outside Japan it would probably be a 2-row MPV) Lada Nadezhda (Lada Niva-based, now out of production) Toyota Corolla Verso Volkswagen Touran Landwind Fashion the 1983-1988 Mitsubishi Chariot (the seminal model, sold as a Dodge?) Mitsubishi Dion Opel Zafira Renault Grand Scenic Mazda Premacy (Mazda5) Nissan Lafesta Kia Carens/Rondo Honda Stream (previous model) Toyota Wish Citroen Grand C4 Picasso (bigger than this are 3-row D-MPVs in distinct low- medium and high-roof subclasses, of which the Japanese may have one of each; in the case of Toyota 2 or 3 or each). AUVs (truck-based compact MPVs for Asian markets), from 5-8 seats Mitsubishi Freeca/Adventure Chevrolet Tavera/Isuzu Panther/Hi-Lander Toyota (Kijang) Innova (the latest and greatest) Mitsubishi Zinger Both Toyota and GM considered selling their AUVs in certain "western" markets, but nothing came of it.

GM has proven time and again that they can't sell something that is better. It seems it's too late and has been for maybe the last 20 years. Nissan and Fiat were losing money but neither were as reviled as GM is in the public consciousness. Far from it. Nissan basks in the glow from Honda and Toyota, Fiat is Italian, which is enough for many people. For GM it is "I will never buy another GM vehicle", "I refuse to believe a Chevy is not a gas guzzler" etc. etc. Did Fiat cut brands? No. They kept them, despite low sales and skimpy lineups. They invested in their brands, each of which has boomed. Hell they even revived a brand with Abarth and almost certainly will add another once they buy Zastava. You think based on Fiat's success that GM should do the opposite? If you cut Pontiac etc. you lose that volume, the money is gone, so how then do you do what the brand-cutting proponents want and engineer a better product and give it the marketing it needs to regain that lost volume? That is GM's dilemma. They haven't got the money to support what they have, and will have even less if they cut one or more of their volume brands. They learned that the hard way with Oldsmobile. Every time they cut a model they lose sales and market share. Despite cutting model after model and producing better and better vehicles people do not believe they have improved. How is more of the same going to change that? There are key strategies GM needs to implement to boost profitability, some of which Fiat has already demonstrated. Cutting brands is not one of them. Toyota does not have one vehicle of the same platform competing with GM's. Even in the US they have three (Camry Avalon, ES), 6 if you count the crossover/wagons (Highlander, RX and Venza). In Europe they don't just have two brands, they have four in a single market (Perodua, Daihatsu, Toyota and Lexus), just as many as GM. Toyota does it for the same reason GM does—it saves them money and maximizes sales. Dear God they have something like thirty different MPVs, and many more models globally than GM for just slightly more sales. Clearly the problem is too much money spent on model proliferation. GM's woes boil down to two related problems, image, and pricing. One is hurting the other and vice versa. Four midsize sedans all the same price, two in the same brand? One per brand, at clearly differentiated pricing is the right strategy. It's the strategy that made GM great and which was forgotten as dealers chased volume. Cadillacs—all way too cheap. Buicks, all way too cheap, Pontiac, too cheap, Saturn, mostly too cheap. Clearly defined steps need to be restored, supported by the product to match, with Cadillac positioned at the pinnacle (unless they revive Fleetwood-Cadillac at a level closer to Rolls) and not as "bargain luxury".

The HHR does not qualify as an truck under CAFE because it's an SUV. In most cases only an awd SUV would qualify as a truck, and only if it offers suitable ground clearance. The 2wd versions would not unless there was some other reason to class them as commercial vehicles (i.e. a primary cargo-hauling capability, which is what qualifies most vans and the PT Cruiser, not as SUVs, but as trucks). How the EPA classes it for the separate fuel economy estimate is unrelated. Since that is only for comparative purposes, they're not so nitpicky. A fwd high-roof LCV design would more easily be classed as a truck for CAFE since a primary cargo-carrying mode is built-in.

The Estima has always been called the Estima, it is not nee anything (there was once an Estima Emina, you can understand why that never made it out of Japan). It was in export markets called the Previa/Tarago, and replaced the LiteAce/TownAce passenger van variants (Tarago in Australia), which continue as the Noah/Voxy (the commercial Lite-Ace/Town-Ace has gone back to its roots as a subcompact van/pickup, now built by Daihatsu). In some export markets as well Toyota has offered both the Estima/Previa and the Town-Ace/Lite-Ace/Noah at oen time or another.

Anyway to me the new Chevy … looks more like a pint-sized Dodge Grand Caravan (the new squarish one). The HHR rides too high to qualify as a wagon, and doesn't have the form of even a 5-seat compact MPV, which the PT Cruiser most approximates (a-la Scenic, Corolla Rumion/xB and new Meriva, among others).

And an Outlander is on the same platform as the Lancer and Caliber, the Journey on the same platform as the Avenger, a Tiguan on the Golf … There is nary a crossover SUV that isn't based on the same platform as a sedan, so what is your point exactly? It is in form, a truck, a downsized, retro Suburban. The Stream was a low-roofed monospace, but has evolved into the 7-seat wagon posted above (Peugeot's 307 SW and new 308 SW are similar, albeit taller wagons). The Berlingo is a typical European LCV, a type of vehicle which has evolved from 2-door high-roof panel-vans based on compact and subcompact hatchbacks (a much smaller version of the aftermarket Express box vans you may have seen in the US). PSA's Berlingo/Partner twins, and the Renault Kangoo redesigned them as unique commercial vans, with more doors, much more space and utility, and like larger vans offered passenger versions as well. Opel, VW, Ford and Fiat quickly followed when their LCVs came up for renewal. The Berlingo posted above and the new Kangoo are the second generation of these new LCVs, and both PSA and Renault have now added new compact models beneath them. The HHR Panel, though no where near as flexible or spacious, has filled this role in the US, and of course the Transit Connect will take this to the next level. Given that Chevy's new compact crossover will be much more like the Tiguan and Kuga, it sould make sense to evolve the HHR into a retro-modern LCV more like the Berlingo. A modern high-roof design for Opel to replace the Combo, and a retro-Suburban high-roof LCV to replace the HHR and HHR Panel would be ideal, and no more difficult than doing both the Enclave and Acadia. I'm sure many of you could easily photoshop a European LCV into a NG HHR to show what I mean.

Can't dump it, still too much revenue. If they lose money on activity-based accounting, on a marginal basis it actually makes money for GM to keep it around. You don't lose much selling Hummer, or Saab, or Saturn, but Pontiac? Close it or sell it and the money to develop and market the hot new Chevy's people think they'll gain just evaporates. You can't cut your way to recovery like that. Basic industry truism. You spend maybe $1.6 billion to develop 5 vehicles of the one architecture. That's $400 million each, at which level you are losing money on each one, because your cost recovery after the variable marketing, production and distribution expenses is only $1.2 billion. However. If you cut 4 of them, you are still spending $1billion to develop the one remaining vehicle. The $600 million in savings does not get spent on extra development or marketing because, oh, you've lost 60% of your revenue. Assuming your variable expenses fall by the same level (but probably less), that leaves you with not $1.2 billion, but just $480 million, and probably not even that. That is instead of being up $200 million, you in the hole $520 million, even more than you were beforehand. @#$%!!! Oh dear. Not only does that wipe out all that extra marketing money, but there is nothing left to develop a modern competitive architecture. And that doesn't even take into account the expense of shutting down the dealerships, which could easily cost you another vehicle program (not one vehicle but all its variants as well). It's a stupid idea.

Oh, and ocn, expensive gas and the Kia Rondo have done wonders for Mazda5 sales, and GM is better at this segment (three-row, 7-seat compact minivans) than anyone. They didn't invent it, and they no longer have the most stylish or advanced entries (I would credit the Grand Scenic and Grand C4 Picasso there), but they lead its revival after the Japanese abandoned it, they still sell more than anyone else, and everyone else is still copying them, except for the latter two mentioned, almost slavishly. Touran, Corolla Verso, Mazda5 etc. could not be more like the Zafira without risk of legal action. At least the French alternatives show some originality. For that matter this Chevrolet shows more originality than the standard non-GM entries.

Yeah, seems so many journalists have their heads stuck in 1997. I'm waiting for them to announce they have spy photos of the new Chevrolet Leganza. GM already renamed the Rezzo/Tacuma the Chevrolet Vivant for new markets, and this minivan will get another new name. This is not the HHR replacement. This is an MPV, the HHR is a smaller crossover SUV. I don't know if you'll get an actual HHR replacement, or just a new compact Chevrolet crossover (and the latter is definitely in development), but either way, this is not it.

Last I heard anything Alpha was not being developed in Europe. There will be a Cadillac, there will be a Buick for China. There will later be a Camaro (which is now too big anyway—the concept was a good deal smaller). Anything else is still up for grabs, but as long as he architecture is developed in the appropriate configurations additional models can be added much closer to introduction (12 months for a new model, 6 for a simple cosmetic adaptation of a Chinese Buick) and at much lower cost. Alpha is due 2011-2012. GM doesn't have to decide on a additional models on that time frame until 2010-2011, that's two years before a decision needs to be made on a Pontiac, and probably later depending on the desired introduction. The next G6 was scheduled to run until 2012 …

Has to be done—pedestrian safety regulations (we don't them to smack their heads on the engine or radiator when we run them over). Unlike a rwd car you can't move the engine back, so you have to move the nose forward.

Anything happening with Buick is happening first in Asia. That means very little info will be released to the regular sources in the US until very late in the development cycle, by which time GM will probably have already announced if and when there will be an American version (6–12 months before intro). New Asian models: The LaCrosse The Delta2 Buick sedan. The Insignia-based Regal. The Alpha sedan (may replace Delta or smaller Epsilon model). The PA is not selling well, buyers preferring smaller sedans or the Buick Firstland minivan; and the Alpha sedan will prove far more popular. For the US the situation is unclear because any of the future Buick sedans below the LaCrosse could be sold as Pontiacs instead.

I think the Cruze could compare to a Jetta, after all it's nothing more than a Mexican Golf sedan with twist-beam and a high price tag. The S40 is IRS though and more expensive, the TSX and A4 midsize not compact, comparable more to the Epsilon 9-3.

Sorry Ponchoman, but there is a reason you can only get burgundy crushed velour in a Rolls-Royce.

Thank God. The day we see a blue or burgundy interior again will be a day too soon. Blue and Burgundy should be restricted to accents in an athletic/sporting style interior. The '70s are gone and if we're lucky we'll never see them again.

Thank God

Didn't everyone else publish it on Thursday? I know I did.

I meant ten times more than $150 million. The rest is spent on tooling and preparing the plant. More money will be spent on plant and tooling elsewhere. A new unibody vehicle, including new architecture, that will meet standard American and European safety standards will cost $1billion, or more (Commodore cost a billion, and so did the Mystique/Contour/Mondeo all those years ago). A second vehicle on the same platform is a lot less, and takes a lot less time to do (c 12 months instead of 5 years). Say $200 million, less for purely cosmetic changes, more for more substantial changes. Depending on price class, technology etc. it can still vary widely. You can, on the cheap get Porsche or Magna or another development company to do a new one on the cheap (say three new vehicles for $300 million), but you get what you pay for, i.e. zero stars in NCAP testing, and all the refinement of a kit car with an interior sourced from Home Depot. Tooling of course is on top of that and varies depending on the number of plants, the number of stamping sources, and how compatible it is with existing facilities. $350 million is about average for a new vehicle line, but can be a lot less for CKD facility. It is a J-car, as long as you understand the body-designation has no connection with the architecture. It is in fact J300, succeeding the J200 Optra/Lacetti, and the J100 Nubira. Before that was Daewoo's version of the J-body Cavalier. The VIN-code however will probably switch to the Astra/Cobalt's A-body designation.

You need to reverse the trend to market specialization in the minds of investors and retailers. Re-establishing the US as a diversified export hub would contribute to globalization, not reverse it. The major problem cause by globalization itself is a breakdown in the ability of central banks to control inflation by damping local demand. Inflation is now caused by rises in global commodity prices, driven by global demand, which can't be controlled by raising interest rates in a local economy. Australia is a good example. an unrelenting series of interest rate increases over many years has had zero, zip, nada effect on inflation, but has succeeded in crushing the local economy. Yet every time, they tried it again, and again, and again. Even now that they are risking recession, they aren't prepared to lower rates because of inflation. Hello, if you do something and it doesn't work—stop doing it!!!! Goddam, they even made the situation worse by driving up the cost of housing in higher rents and mortgage payments (oh, yeah, house prices are collapsing, finally, because no-one can borrow the ridiculous sums they used to, and inf act can't afford to borrow anything). Governments instead should be focusing on diversifying supply, expanding the local production base, expanding competition importing from a wider range of sources (not just two or three retailers and wholesalers all importing from China). Effective globalization should allow traders to source goods from the lowest cost market, keeping inflation under control. Instead they have locked themselves into a mindset that "China is cheapest", when in fact it may not be. A wise trader ensures he has a diversified supplier base—maintaining local production centers so he can react to changes in exchange rates, new labor agreements, environmental concerns, market changes etc. (automakers are one of the few groups to understand this). Instead they have burned their bridges and thrown out their safety net. Now they're screwed. They should be rebuilding local capacity, but they have by and large eliminated their local suppliers. I can buy simple, low-cost manufactured goods—kitchen utensils, clothing etc., manufactured in the USA, ship it across the Pacific in inefficient small, single quantities for a lower cost than comparable (well actually inferior) Chinese-made goods imported in bulk into the Australian market. Theoretically we should be flooded with cheap, high-quality US-made goods. There are practically none, except for a core of consumer expendables manufactured by so-called "evil" global multinationals—toothpaste, shampoo, pasta sauce, rice (rice, for goodness sakes!), coffee, chocolate, razors, canned fruit (say thankyou to Coca-Cola, Sara-Lee, P&G, Mars etc.); even disposable packaging for consumer goods is imported from the US, filled with local produce and sold at a lower cost than empty containers made in China or India etc.. It should not be economical to ship low-cost consumer goods all they way across the Pacific if there is a market large enough to support local production. I remember 20 years ago that it was cheaper to manufacturer shoes in the US rather than ship them from sweatshops in SE Asia all the way across the Pacific only to arrive after they have gone out of style. If anything that has only been magnified by higher fuel costs.

In Japan the sedan is actually called the Fit Aria, not the City. The Life, Dunk, That's, Vamos etc. are actually keijidosha developed and manufactured by a recently consolidated subsidiary (it was formerly a semi-independent affiliate). They are Japanese-market specific and are not registered as normal cars. Only Suzuki and Daihatsu build export versions, but these use larger engines than those allowed in Japan and are consequently redesigned to accommodate them (typically longer and wider). The Beat is maybe 4–6 inches longer and wider.

It's not being built in the US next year and shipped to Europe. That is the 7-seat Delta MPV. Initial production of the sedan will be in Korea (October 2008 or so), followed by Russia (later in 2009) and finally the US (2010). Plants in Central Asia, Latin America, Southeast Asia, India, Ukraine, China and possibly Poland (EU) will serve markets in their regions. You are seeing photos now because, well, Korean sales begin in several weeks and European sales in the Spring. The red car after all is a European model, hence the chunky European plates. The photos will be out there, it's pointless pretending they doesn't exist because US production and sale is further off. The launch engines are the same as those offered in the Astra, but will be built in Korea. The 1.6 is a higher-tune version of that in the 2009 Aveo, the 1.8 the same as that offered in the Astra. The diesel is a VM Motori design upgraded and built by GM Daewoo and currently used in the Epica, Captiva, Antara and in lower-tune form in the Optra. Mercedes' 2.0 L diesel (not used by Chrysler) appears to be a DOHC version (the standard VM design is 16V SOHC), and Hyundai also licensed the design. $350 million will be spent on the plant in Lordstown (tooling etc.) and $150 million on US homologation (a mere tenth of what a brand-new Cobalt would have cost).

Ok, so a new company founded in late 2007 as General Motors UK Ltd. has become the new Vauxhall Motors Ltd. It seems rather than transfer the intellectual and physical property of Vauxhall to GM UK, they just renamed the companies. GMM Luton does not exist, nor does it seem to have existed in the past under that name or any reasonable variation I can think of. The manufacturing subsidiary producing the Renaul/Nissan/GM vans was IBC Vehicles Ltd. (Isuzu Bedford Commercial), which still exists, although I believe the plant was transferred back to Vauxhall (now General Motors UK Ltd.)

The 4-cylinder currently does not have quite as much power, but almost as much torque and runs at a lower speed more appropriate for work trucks, towing and off-road use.