thegriffon

BMW wants a 4th brand because they need to meet CAFE and CO2 targets. The can't realistically expand mini too much without ruining it. Some would say the Mini crossover has gone too far already. The can't green up BMW much more than they have without ruining it. So they think they need a new brand to target the green standards they need to meet without compromising the existing brands. Cadillac and Mercedes can build a car as green as they want—fuel-cell, plug-in, electric, it doesn't matter because the only real brand values are money, personal power and style. A price-no-object green vehicle of any size is not a problem. For that matter a purely electric Rolls-Royce is entirely within character—who wouldn't fail to be impressed by a virtually silent Silver Spirit wafting up to a luxury hotel on electric power alone. But of course while you can build green Cadillacs and Mercedes in volume, you can't do that with Rolls-Royce. So BMW needs a brand it can both sell in reasonable volume and green up to the hilt. Triumph doesn't work, that's more-or-less a cheaper English version of BMW.

This is the car Holden was always going to get. It will just be built in South Australia instead of Korea or Thailand. Alpha is a whole other issue and won't be ready or decided until a couple of years after this car. I.e. you won't hear production plans until 2010 and see production vehicles until 2012.

Buyers may not care about statistics, but I'd argue they notice 3" difference in shoulder room and 10" extra vehicle length. After all the Equinox is more than a foot longer than an HHR, and that is already longer than an Escape. For comparison, the GMC Graphyte and Saab 9-4X concepts are almost exactly the same length as the Equinox.

The Equinox is an inch wider this time around, but it needed to be 3 or four inches wider—real extra width on the inside. Another two inches width on the inside would boost passenger space from a measly 99.7 cu-ft to a respectable 103.2 cu-ft. A comparable increase in cargo room as well would give it 65.9 cu-ft behind the front row, better than the Murano and not far off the Edge and Touareg, and 32.5 behind the 2nd row with the seats forward, lagging only the longer Highlander. Three inches wider, what it really needs, would give you shoulder room comparable to the Edge and Murano, 105.1 cu-ft of passenger room, 67.1 cu-ft and 33.1 cu-ft cargo room. FYI, the 5-seat version of the Captiva, much closer to a being a genuine compact at a little over 4.6 m long, actually offers more passenger room than the Equinox, 103.6 cu-ft.

My point is you can't build a car as big as a midsize model and sell it to someone who wants a compact, no matter how nice it is, or how cheap it is. By calling it a compact all they do is tell people who are interested in a vehicle this size, like the Edge or Highlander, that they shouldn't consider the Equinox. The rake of the windshield does not affect measured interior room, because it isn't calculated that way. The EPA volume index, is just that, an index, not actual volume. It is calculated by multiplying headroom, legroom and shoulder room for each row of seats, and then adding the SAE cargo volume (which is based on actual room, albeit how much stuff you can fit in, not fluid volume).

They'll get this car around the same time you get the Cruze, a couple of years before any Alpha model is ready. It sounds like it will be slightly more than a Cruze rebadge, but judging from the sketch, not much more. Something along the lines of the current Buick Excelle v. Optra.

It has less cargo room because GM's marketing guys are complete morons who think this is a compact crossover. In reality it is sized between the Edge and Highlander, it will be priced similarly to the Edge and Highlander, and has fuel economy slightly better than the Edge and Highlander. What it doesn't have is the width of the Edge and Highlander, which adds up to much more space. That was the problem last time, and this time, although wider, it is still behind. Calling this a compact removes it from the consideration list for a whole pack of midsize crossover buyers, the reduced space engendered by the narrower width removes it from more, but compact buyers will take one look and say, "Whoaa!, that's a lot bigger than I was looking for." Instead of winning by offering more truck for the money, you lose in both market segments. GM does this time after time after time. If you're going to compete in a segment, compete in a segment, don't try and get clever by telling buyers a dog is a cat. You just look stupid. The new 2.4 offers great mileage, but the 3.0 is only a marginal improvement over the old 3.6, and offers less power. I can't help thinking a 3.6 DI with the 6-speed auto, even if detuned for better economy, would have been at least as economical and been a better match against the Edge and Highlander. But of course GM thinks they are competing against the Escape and C-RV, so what can you expect.

ahh, you do realize that's just a CGI image of the interior.

Been watching Cold Case, eh?

Ahh, so much like The Incredibles, yes?

For the moment the 2.8 remains the turbo version of choice, but as the 3.0 and 3.2 L share the same bore a larger turbo is possible, and in fact a turbo version of the 3.2 L was originally planned. Very probably tweaking the turbo and adding dual-VVT and DI to the 2.8 would produce more power just as effectively as increasing the stroke. Note the 3.0 L DI produces effectively the same power and almost as much torque as the older 3.2 L D-VVT DI version produced for Alfa Romeo.

The 9-3 switches to Delta (Global Compact), and will be downsized to become a true compact in exterior dimensions like the 3-Series and IS. The Regal remains midsize, while the LaCrosse is mid-large. PCS implies the Buick Alpha will be a coupe/cabrio like the Reatta, perhaps something like the G35 or CLK to replace the G6. For those alive long enough, you may remember GM actually built a rwd Reatta, which was crumpled by a (French??) journalist at a test day.

If anyone needed it, the accompanying photos confirm that the 3.0 DI and 6-speed awd combination will also be used in both the 2010 SRX and the 2010 LaCrosse.

The Delta is near term, although the Cruze arrives first in China (the new plant has just opened), and the Alpha is long term, and thus more subject to delay and changes of strategy. It is probably necessary to amortize development costs of the architecture.

Ummm, I meant the contractors you hire to replace your roof.

Ya thunk? Report: Toyota likely to report rare operating loss December 18, 2008 - 3:30 pm ET NEW YORK (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp. is likely to report its first operating loss in half a century in the current year ending March 31 as a result of plunging sales and the strength of the yen, the Nikkei financial daily reported. Toyota has said it will announce revised 2009 sales forecasts at its year-end news conference on Dec. 22. Toyota cut its operating profit forecast by more than half last month and said it would do everything it could to meet the new forecast of 600 billion yen ($6.6 billion) for the year -- down 1 trillion yen from initial forecasts. Options include halving the number of temporary workers in Japan, delaying new factory launches and cutting research and development costs, the company said. But including loss reserves for its auto-financing business, the nearly 600 billion yen in profits that Toyota earned in the April-September half-year are now unlikely to be enough to keep it in the black for the year, the Nikkei said. Even if the company met its forecast, profit would be down 74 percent from a year earlier. …

I read, or heard somewhere that the French bureaucracy decides whether they will accept your choice of names when registering a birth there. There was a case where parent went to court because their choice was rejected, and it was nothing like this, just an odd spelling or name. The really odd thing about all the Aryan supremacists, is that like the Nazis they usually hate anyone who is really an Aryan (the true Aryans are various ethnic groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, and their wandering offshoots, the Rom [Gypsies] and Dom [Muslim Gypsies]). I do know of a guy whose name is Meriadoc Peregrin Took. That's commitment.

The aim is to make up the difference by reducing the cost of the added cop features, most of which will be built-in as standard, or can be more easily and cheaply added than in an Impala or Crown Vic. The rest comes in additional features that you can't get in a modified car at an affordable price, such as a well-draining, hose-out rear seat area. It appears to have a BMW 6-cylinder turbodiesel. The comparable taxi being produced by another company uses a GM powertrain.

That y'all are driving so many old cars is why GM is asking for the scrapping incentive. Also, the price of new cars is set to rise substantially and the only way to meet CAFE is to provide an incentive for people to buy newer, smaller cars, something the US government has never done. 30+ years of CAFE regulations and continually improving fuel economy, and CAFE has not budged. Without incentives people just buy bigger, less efficient cars and trucks, or keep the older, even less efficient and higher-polluting vehicles they already have. Automakers cannot improve CAFE buy improving fuel economy. Only governments have the power to improve CAFE, not by demanding it, but by creating policies that drive and/or entice people into smaller, newer vehicles.

You do realize that's why you're in a recession? If you've got it, spend it. If you don't Obama and congress will do it for you, and they're only gonna take it out of your pocket to do so.

OH, and Buick China is already mentioning 5-stars under the NHTSA crash test for the new Regal, as well as the less stringent C-NCAP (the slightly lower speed equates to 20% less energy to be absorbed), so go figure.

Now. released late November, pricing way too low, well below the Mondeo and Accord for both 2.0 and 2.4 L versions. Aside from the new grille and badging, it does get portholes, of a sort. FYI, the Accord is priced well above the Camry now. The V6 is into Maxima/MKZ/Avalon territory (it is technically a large car), and only the availability of a comparatively expensive 4-cylinder makes it seem cheaper. GM does need better pricing to separate the divisions (pushing Cadillac much higher at the top end), but they could easily position the Malibu against the Camry, and bracket the Accord with the 4-cylinder Regal and larger V6 LaCrosse. What we really want though is for mid-large V6 models to go something like: Chevrolet Malibu $25K Pontiac G8 $30K Buick LaCrosse $35K Saab 95 $40K Cadillac CT5 $45K The 2.0 L in the Chinese Regal is a naturally aspirated version with 145 hp, not the 217 hp DI Turbo from the Insignia. The 2.4 L gets 168 hp and is shared with the current LaCrosse. That makes the 2.0 L unique as a naturally aspirated version of the new-generation Ecotec Family II block. Saab previously offered a low-boost version of the turbo with the same power, but I believe this unit is D-VVT instead. Both units get the new 6-speed auto.

Aside from the Corsa, I think you'll see most Opels being badged as Buicks in the US rather than Pontiacs, including the Astra.

I gather Nardelli is Keen, but Wagoner and GM still need to be persuaded. It is unlikely to pass regulatory approval, less so under Obama than it was under Bush (and even they said not a chance). Any administration is only going to approve a sale of Chrysler to a company without a significant US market presence—Mitsubishi, Renault, PSA, a Chinese or Russian automaker, a supplier such as Magna, or another non-automotive company.

Probably deserves a new topi8c, but relates to this thread: Polls and the U.S. Auto Industry Washington /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The intense debate undey about the future of the American auto industry has generated a lot of discussion about the public's attitudes. “Right now, the American people are justifiably very concerned about the state of our economy and an overriding fear for their futures,” said pollster Peter D. Hart. “Polls I conducted in mid-November showed deep concerns about the harmful impacts of the collapse of the U.S. auto industry,” said Hart. * 90% fear the harm it would do to America's manufacturing sector * 84% of Americans say it would harm the U.S. economy * 70% fear the harm it would do to America's standing in the world * 68% worry about the lack of consumer choice for America's car buyers. Some pundits have been citing polls by CNN that indicate that a majority of Americans do not favor “a program that would provide them with several billion dollars in assistance.” CNN does responsible and good polling. However, the question which is being touted on the financial loan assistance for the auto industry is not a good evaluation of public opinion or public sentiments. Their question reads as follows: “QUESTION: The major U.S. auto companies have asked the government for a program that would provide them with several billion dollars in assistance. The auto companies say they may go into bankruptcy without that assistance. Based on what you have read or heard, do you favor or oppose this program?” The basic flaw with the question is that the respondent must know the program. They don't, so it is difficult to assume these respondents voicing an opinion are really talking about the legislation or program the congress is voting on. There is a much more significant finding in this same CNN survey which has not been highly noted nor much discussed. Fully, 15% of the American public — or roughly 18 million households — tell the CNN pollsters that the auto industry going out of business “would immediately affect their families. Additionally, 77% of Americans say that auto bankruptcy would affect them and their families, if not now, sometime in the future it would affect them immediately.” “This means that one out of six households would have a ‘goodbye and good luck’ sign put on their house. That is 18 million households directly affected. This would be the same as having a dozen Katrinas hit from coast to coast,” said Hart. Peter Hart stated: “The bottom line is pretty simple — the American public does not want the housing industry to fail, the banks to fail, and they certainly do not want the auto industry to fail. This survey has merit, but the figure that counts most is the one that tells us that 3 in 4 Americans say they will be affected and 18 million American households will be affected immediately.” Peter D. Hart is the founder of Peter D. Hart Research. He has co-directed the NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll for the last 20 years. His firm has conducted research for hundreds of corporations, government agencies, non-profits, including the automotive industry. Source: Peter D. Hart Research