thegriffon

Delorenzo isn't traditional media, however, he makes a fundamental mistake he acknowledges himself, and then ignores: You can't cut your way to success. Cutting a division, or brand, won't solve GM's marketing problems, it will only exacerbate them, resulting in even less money to go around. But this is about ideology, not facts or logic, so there is no arguing with him. Despite the Solstice and the G8, I do believe he is right however in that GM still doesn't not have an understanding of or commitment to Pontiac. The brand is consistently undermined by discount pricing (hence the $3000 dealer market adjustments which then alienate customers—product should have simply been priced $3K higher to begin with with better dealer margins), inconsistent and underwhelming product (Vibe, G6 GXP, G5 etc.), and a lack of support for a channel that with the right product and marketing could unseat Ford as the best-selling cars in the retail market, and #3 overall behind Toyota and Chevrolet. Unfortunately if Pontiac is to survive then the current dealers may need to get together and buy the brand from GM ASAP, appoint a product guru who gets the brand and market, and subcontract design, development and production to whoever will give them the product they need (a lineup of rwd subcompact, compact and midsize sedans, coupes roadsters—CAFE makes a traditional large car, 210–230", too expensive).

I believe you're thinking of the proposed Chinese system, however unless you're looking at payload weights for large commercial vehicles it's not helpful. Should a Hummer H2 be given a much lower target than a Tahoe with greater passenger and cargo room? It's a bit like prize-fighters—the big guy goes on a diet to drop his weight class. It's too easy to add weight and reduce your targeted fuel economy, without giving the buyer any real benefit beside added gizmos and insulation. Just look at the weight difference between a base and loaded model vehicle. We want better economy, and that means taking out weight. You don't want to penalize manufacturers for doing better than someone else at building an economical vehicle of a certain size. Front and rear overhangs, overall height and therefore interior space, weight, engine size, engine power—all these can be altered easily without improving economy. Footprint is constrained for a long period of time—look at the GMT 900s, the new Sequoia, Expedition and LandCruiser etc.—all have the same wheelbase as the old models. Toyota goes 10 years between major changes in footprint. It's simply too expensive to change every few years, and is constrained by engineering and design practicalities when you do. It's also closely related to functional attributes such as pickup bed size, leg room, shoulder room etc.. Basing targets on footprints allows manufactures to benefit from real improvements in efficiency, whether it be by adding improvements to driveline, or reducing vehicle weight, or improving aerodynamics; without penalizing or rewarding them for the choices made by buyers or their particular specialization. It doesn't require a manufacturer of SUVs or large delivery vans to sell small cars as well, nor does it give a free pass to a specialized manufactuer of small cars such as smart should Mercedes decide to sell it. If it appears buyers do not choose enough smaller vehicles to meet the mandated target, then the NHTSA will raise standards across the board even more in future years.

The "backstop", minimum CAFE standard for passenger cars, above the minimum written into the footprint-based formula, applies only to NAFTA vehicles, a fillip to the UAW to ensure cars like the Cobalt and Focus are still built in North America. More estimates from the NHTSA: Estimated Technology Penetration Rates in MY2015 for Passanger Cars . Average Among 7 Largest Manufacturers Maximum Among 7 Largest Manufacturers Technology Product Plan Under Proposed Standard Product Plan Under Proposed Standard Automated Manuals 10% 39% 59% 86% Direct Injection (SIDI) 22% 30% 76% 82% Small Turbocharged Engines 5% 17% 11% 51% Diesel Engine 0% 2% 0% 5% Hybrids 5% 15% 14% 19% Estimated Technology Penetration Rates in MY2015 for Light Trucks . Average Among 7 Largest Manufacturers Maximum Among 7 Largest Manufacturers Technology Product Plan Under Proposed Standard Product Plan Under Proposed Standard Automated Manuals 10% 55% 41% 72% Direct Injection (SIDI) 23% 40% 46% 73% Small Turbocharged Engines 9% 31% 32% 44% Diesel Engine 3% 10% 7% 45% Hybrids 2% 25% 5% 32%

The above is for passenger cars, but for light trucks, Toyota's predicted requirement will still be lower than both Ford and Chrysler. Manufacturer MY 2011 MY 2012 MY 2013 MY 2014 MY 2015 BMW 28.2 29.9 31.2 31.4 31.7 Chrysler 25.2 26.6 28.0 28.5 29.1 Ford 24.7 26.1 28.0 28.3 28.8 Fuji (Subaru) 30.0 31.7 33.1 33.2 33.4 General Motors 23.9 25.4 26.5 27.0 27.4 Honda 26.1 27.7 28.9 29.2 29.6 Hyundai 27.5 29.1 30.4 30.6 31.0 Mercedes 28.4 30.1 31.4 31.6 31.9 Mitsubishi 29.4 30.8 32.2 32.3 32.6 Nissan 24.9 26.2 27.3 27.7 28.2 Porsche 25.9 27.4 28.7 29.0 29.4 Suzuki 30.3 32.1 33.5 33.5 33.7 Toyota 24.9 26.0 27.2 27.6 28.0 Volkswagen 26.2 27.8 29.0 29.3 29.7

Hey you know, here ius something for all the people who think Toyota is greener than the domestics—based on future product plans given to the NHTSA, the agency estimates that the 2015 CAFE requirement for Toyota will be lower than GM's and Ford's. The agency's estimates under the new size-weighted proposal: Manufacturer MY 2011 MY 2012 MY 2013 MY 2014 MY 2015 BMW 33.3 35.0 36.0 36.8 37.7 Chrysler 28.7 29.3 32.2 32.6 33.6 Ferrari 30.4 32.0 33.1 33.9 34.9 Ford 31.0 32.7 33.7 34.5 35.5 Fuji (Subaru) 36.9 38.7 39.6 40.1 40.8 General Motors 30.0 31.7 32.8 33.7 34.7 Honda 32.1 33.8 34.8 35.5 36.4 Hyundai 33.4 35.1 36.0 36.7 37.5 Lotus 38.1 40.0 40.8 41.2 41.7 Maserati 28.9 30.6 31.8 32.8 34.0 Mercedes 31.7 33.3 34.4 35.3 36.2 Mitsubishi 33.0 35.1 35.9 37.0 37.9 Nissan 31.2 33.2 34.2 35.0 35.9 Porsche 37.6 39.4 40.3 40.7 41.3 Suzuki 37.3 39.2 40.1 40.6 41.2 Toyota 30.1 31.5 32.7 33.6 34.6 Volkswagen 35.4 37.2 38.2 38.8 39.5

. Why are they blaming us? Nobody listens to us, that's the whole point about being Gen.X. Out parents they listen to, and they were frying their brains on weed and acid en masse, but hey, I guess they're in charge now. Our kids (well, not mine personally) they listen to, because unlike our parents we could give a rat's a— about global overpopulation, and what do you mean they're isn't going to be enough people to keep funding social security? You stupid hippies!

A: By stretching the wheelbase to over 2.7 m (actually slightly longer than the Vectra sedans). There are bigger vans riding on much shorter wheelbases (OK they are obsolete Mazda and Mitsubishi models with the engine under the front seats, but they are still being built—Dodge sells one in Mexico). The 7-seat Chevy Captiva crossover has a similar wheelbase, as do other 7-seat D-segment wagons. B: It doesn't fit 7 adults. It's a family car, you can fit maybe 5 adults plus 2 kids, more than enough for a young family on a budget. Also it is cab-forward, so the cabin is even longer than a wagon with the same wheelbase (like the Astra Caravan), and the Zafira is fairly long for a compact, if not as long as the Captiva. It works well enough that there have been numerous copies (VW Touran, Corolla Verso, Renault Grand Scenic, Mazda5, Citroen C4 Grand Picasso, Kia Rondo etc.). C: Delta is cheaper than Epsilon, no IRS for starters.

No, the C4 Picasso is just another of the numerous Zafira clones (not all of which offer three-row seating) that have emerged since Opel blew the doors off the C-MPV segment with their revival of the 7-seat C-MPV (the Japanese [mitsubishi and Nissan, I think the former was sold as a Dodge] were first in the early '80s). The wheels don't appear quite the same as the Roewe 750, and I do recall similar wheels on GM products. The FlexDoors are uniquely GM, and the rear styling, though hardly unique, is similar to the Traverse. Is PCS implying that it is a Chinese model or not? I'm sure he can't say if it really is a Chevy.

The wheels mean nothing and the identification is not certain—AutoBild thinks it's a joint GM-SAIC project, in which case it's still the Chevy MPV. If it was coming out of GM's Chinese proving grounds (a joint facility with SAIC), it would be another matter. Also, SAIC is far more likely to develop and sell an MPV under Ssangyong than either MG or Roewe—20 new Ssangyong models are planned by 2014 at a cost of several billion dollars (a figure no other Chinese company can come close to).

Or you could check the several videos from GM at: GM - Corporate (MRM)-Brightcove http://www.youtube.com/GMnext/ http://gmtv.feedroom.com/ I think you are talking about the Studio Stories video of the Invicta at Brightcove—behind Leslie Green, at about 2:57 in to the video (47s from the end) you can see two coupes, one of which looks like a redesigned Volt, and a little later, to the left of that, another silver coupe (or is it a pickup?).

The Mazda5 is selling well now that gas prices have risen, and the Mazda5 is a clone of GM's Zafira, the most popular 7-seat compact MPV around. And no it is not an HHR replacement. The HHR will probably be replaced by one of the 5-seat Gamma SUVs, not this 7-seat Delta MPV.

Replaces both the Chevrolet Vivant (Daewoo Tacuma/Rezzo) and Chevy-badged Zafiras around the world.

Erlkonig Chevy MPV at AutoBild

It's not just Opel and Saturn that benefit from the investment in new models, but everything else using those platforms—Chevrolet, Daewoo, Buick, Saab, and probably Pontiac if they keep fwd models.

They have the 9-3 for TSX buyers.

Biggest engine will probably be an 85 hp 1.2 L

It'll be 2011, 2012 before you see any significant improvement in NA earnings.

No, they just think you're too cheap.

An indicated 34 mpg on the hwy, better than the EPA estimate, but then they were also going much faster, which increases drag exponentially, and increases fuel use until you can't burn enough fuel to overcome it. Despite all the propaganda that speed kills (it's inattention that causes accidents, and even the posted interurban limit will kill you if you crash), this is why they introduced speed limits in most Australian states in the first place. People seem to have forgotten that.

No. This will be the car that runs until 2013. 2013 onward is beyond the scope of the info released to Delphi and the UAW, and requires an assessment of the CAFE proposals which have only now been made known.

The Torrent GXP isn't really any different to the Equinox Sport though, so nyagh. An X5 would be almost as high volume as the Torrent and is much closer. A Cadillac SRX, though lower volume than the X5 and Torrent, sells much better than the Cayenne and has consistently beaten the Cayenne in comparison tests by the enthusiast mags (so where is te SRX-V?).

WTF, is that a station wagon or a panel van?

Plenty of videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/GMnext

A few more photos (not renderings) are available now, including the interior. I have them on AutoReport if you don't want to hunt for them at GM. Buick Invicta Concept Car

There is not and never will be a 2.2 Turbo. The 2.0 Turbo GM's preferred turbo family II engine, and even that has already been replaced on the low end by the new 1.6 Turbo.