thegriffon

The Venza is just a station wagon, not a real crossover.

Which 2.4 L? GM has two Family II 2.4 L 4-cylinders, the "new" north American 2.39 L engine, primarily used in midsize sedans, and the old 2.4 L, primarily used in light trucks. The former is now available with E85 capability and introduced dual-VVT to the Ecotec lineup. The latter is usually a cast iron SOHC truck engine, but a DOHC aluminum unit is also used in Latin American Vectra's (Astra sedans). Both versions of the old engine are available with E100 capability. Holden is shutting down production of the 2.4 L, as newer versions of the Family II produced in Europe and America replace the old cast-iron block. That means the Opel Antara, Chevrolet Captiva and Thai-built Chevrolet Colorados will all get a new base gasoline engine. The new 4-cylinder from the midsize crossovers is the obvious choice.

Neither of them have given you an actual plan, and both of them have given the same policies, much as they accuse the other of planning something different. As for comparisons to Kennedy, that's as apt for Obama, as it was in different ways for Clinton. Dirty money helped elect Kennedy, and dirty money helped get Obama where he is today. There's no evidence he himself is corrupt, but if he is not completely naive he had to know what was going on. Either way that doesn't bode well for "change". In the climate of the last few years Obama should have been able to win this election easily with almost no budget at all. If he really cares about people, why is he taking all that money, far more than anyone has ever seen in US politics before, in unnecessary self-promotion. It should never have been accepted, and should never have been spent. There are far more worthy causes, from the Red Cross to World Vision to the Nature Conservancy, all of whom could put that much money to far better use than a 30 min prime-time political ad.

That's just the problem, hardly anyone here does. Hardly anyone will touch the Astra with a ten-foot pole, despite reasonable reviews. No-one bought the Vectra either, the Zafira didn't last, the Corsa is long gone, and the Astra is all that's left. Pretty soon that will be gone too.

One word Balthazar: coppicing. That's growing trees and shrubs so you can cut the branches for various uses. You want something that is fast-growing and can be cut right back over winter, perhaps even to the stump. Willow is good, ash, elder, oak, hazel, wych-elm, lime (linden), hornbeam, maple, birch, sycamore (plane), alder and sweet chestnut can also be coppiced and I'm sure you can find others that may suit your area and yard. Most traditional fruit and nut trees can be coppiced as well. Unless you have a lot of patience and trees you don't let them grow very big, so even a regular yard can support a several trees just around the boundary. Typically you cut one or two back each year and let the others grow. How often you cut a particular tree will depend on how many trees you have; how large you want the timber; the type of tree; and whether you want fruit, nuts or mast as well as timber. Some municipalities will require permits for such severe pruning of existing trees, in the name of preserving green spaces.

http://lacetti-premiere.afreeca.com/ (requires active-x controls)

Or does it mean GM is dropping Opel from yet another market? How long before you can only get Opels in Germany?

A '69 had the correct two stripes.

At most it will be a dealer-installed aftermarket option. There is one problem with this car—it should be two blue stripes on a white car for US racing colors.

Quite possibly, it all depends on fuel efficiency and timing. GM may instead decide the Chevy should get a turbo 4 instead of the 3.0 L, and that an awd 3.6 DI is just too expensive for Chevrolet, even if it did make a good Malibu SS.

Morones

Your suggestion that "...what if every foreign auto manufacturer - whether they have plants here or not - had to pay anywhere from $250 to $1500 per vehicle sold (on a sliding scale) to do business here?...And then what if that money went directly into a fund to help support American workers' pensions or an education fund for their families?" Is not a bad idea, and has been suggested before, but it needs refining a little. To pass WTO scrutiny it should be expanded to a sales tax on everything sold in the USA, imported or domestic, physical or abstract. Applying this tax to fund pensions, social security and healthcare (through subsidies, rebates or expanded Medicare coverage) would help all American industries, without being seen as protectionist or restricting trade. Such a tax would need to be substantial to fund exorbitant healthcare costs, the looming shortfall in social security and the PBGC, but would give consumers an effective substantial pay rise, especially at the lower end of the economic scale, and relieve all American industries currently providing benefits to workers from a substantial cost burden, far exceeding the increased tax cost added to their products and services. At the same time foreign producers and service providers would still face a substantial increase in cost to their consumers, making their products far less competitive. Importers will in effect be paying the same benefits as GM, Ford and other venerable American companies, whether they employ American workers or not. New manufacturers, domestic or foreign, will effectively be paying the same benefits as older companies, and paying a share of the legacy costs older manufacturers have incurred as well. At present any new entrant, even paying the same benefits as the established companies, faces much lower costs simply because they have no retirees to support. That burden needs to be placed on the economy as a whole, and on importers as well as domestic competitors. Unfortunately that is not enough. Manufacturing and employment follow the markets, and the growth markets are not in North America and Western Europe. The lenders and investment funds which support manufacturing do not understand the merits of local manufacturing. They see China and India as the biggest markets with the greatest potential growth, and it makes sense to them to base all manufacturing there to take advantage of this. Supporting established, low-growth economies, reducing logistics costs, minimizing inventories, reducing reaction times, all this is apparently too complex for finance managers to understand, even though Toyota has educated other businesses to it's necessity. Retailers left with too many imported winter coats after a prolonged warm autumn and winter don't seem to have got the message, but then even if they have, they are now left with no alternative, having cut the knees out from under the majority of local suppliers. It's unfortunate that government has not understood this any better. Until the lean production and supply mindset is truly understood by both governments and financial markets, and public and private investment adjusted accordingly, the US and Europe will continue to lose jobs and income, creating a vicious cycle of low or negative growth and consequent loss of investment. Yet another concern is a self-defeating fixation on keeping inflation in check, even as governments and central banks have lost control. Once upona time economies were largely local, and dampening local demand would keep prices from escalating too much. No more. Demand and prices are now global, and even large economies such as the US and the EU have minimal control over global demand and therefore inflation. Ever-increasing rises in interest rates have been shown now to have no effect on inflation, but still central banks do not seem to have realized this. Only as economies face recession have interest rates been reduced, and even then the central banks are concerned about igniting inflation. They need to understand that they no longer can no longer control inflation through interest rates, they can only control the costs incurred by local businesses and households. The price of food, fuel and other household staples is set by global demand. Raising rates can only impoverish consumers, inflate rents and increase foreclosures. This fixation on inflation has caused successive US administrations to focus on keeping the currency relatively high, favoring cheap imports to keep prices low. This is only exacerbated by the global use of the US currency as the intermediary of exchange, fostering increased demand for US dollars far in excess of any "natural" level to buy US goods or invest in US businesses. No other currency faces this burden, nor is there any need for any local currency to do so. A currency of exchange need only be notional, not actual, and unlike the US$ there is no need for there to be a finite supply. Its value is only as a medium of exchange and unlike a real currency it can be reset regularly against any agreed indice without consequence. Of course it can be argued that floating currencies of fluctuating relative values is an idea whose time has past. It has not achieved what it had set out to, in part due to speculation and other forms of currency investment unrelated to natural demand and local costs of manufacture. It has only created barriers to trade, recognized by the EU if no-one else, and discourages investment. Theoretically the recent fall in the US dollar should have resulted in a boom in investment in US industries, and increased employment which would slowly lead to an increase in value to bring things back into balance. Quite clearly to everyone on the street, this did not happen. It could not happen, because businesses feared precisely what did happen - the unnatural demand for the currency drove the value up again even though domestic circumstances should have driven it down even further. For US businesses to become competitive the US currency first needs to be freed from it's burden as the medium of exchange and commodity pricing, allowed to fall once more to historic lows, and then fixed against increasing number of other currencies. Trade in these currencies should then be eliminated in favor of transparent and seamless conversion. If US$1 = CA$1 then a US dollar becomes a Canadian dollar when transferred from one the US to Canada. In such transactions the currency becomes not a commodity but a unit of measure, and conversion becomes not a trade but simply a calculation, like converting from yards to meters, and banking systems must be adjusted appropriately. With fixed currencies businesses and consumers can conduct effective arbitrage transactions, leveling prices across markets. Businesses can more effectively plan their investments, knowing the current conversion rate will still be in effect when their plant has been built in 12 to 18 months time, or in 4 years time when product development is complete. Thus they can cut costs and set target prices more effectively. Of course expecting any government to implement any of these policies remains a remote possibility at best, despite the potential for widespread public support.

To work they need to make it a sales tax on everything sold, imported or not, and use it to fund pensions and health care. It won't solve the healthcare problem which is rooted in inefficiencies, lack of transparency and competition and official corruption, but it will put American business and manufacturers on a more even footing and encourage investment in manufacturing by both American and foreign businesses. If ah importer is already paying your pension and healthcare, why not get some work out of you as well?

I don't think too many Nazis will be voting for Palin, after all she's a woman. That's almost as bad as being black.Seems to me as an outside observer that a lot of people like Palin because she's more an average Jane than anyone else they've seen in politics, and represents real change far more than Obama. She seems to have lost support from a lot of people though because she seems an average Jane and they think she's out of her depth. But you'd be surprised. I read that a lot of the so-called gun-toting rednecks, real working-class people, are saying it's time you had a woman in charge, a mother who want her son back safe etc. I find it ironic that it was the Bush administration that put more minority officials in charge than any previous administration—African Americans and Latinos in particular. I find it ironic that is was Republicans who were demanding salary cuts for bank executives in exchange for bailouts. I find it ironic that the Republican candidate was asked to join the Democrats not so long ago, and seriously thought about it (actually, we have a similar situation here), but is being criticized for being the same old Republican you've had before. As for the socialist democrat thing, what you have is a republican administration inaugurating the first stages of Chinese-style national socialism, which the democrats will take to a whole new level. Temporary partial or complete nationalization of major industries is on the way in a style this generation hasn't seen. If, like Conrail and the Swedish banks it is a temporary measure to ensure the government gets its money back, it won't do any harm, but if governments try and actually tell companies what money they can invest and where, like the British did with British Leyland, or the Italians did with Alfa, or the US does with Amtrak, then it will be a dismal failure which could drag the depression on for decades. Don't be too surprised if the new administration says to Detroit "Well, we'll give you money, but we want at least one seat on the board and you'll build what we tell you where we tell you." You may think you've seen pork, but you ain't seen nothing yet.

Every body gets it before you do Toni.

Not quite. They can only sustain negative cashflow while there is cash on hand to pay out. Profits and losses are an accounting concepts. They can continue to lose money, which reduces the book value, even after they achieve positive cashflow and rebuild cash reserves. Most of GM's losses represent an increase in anticipated future obligations, or a reduction in the estimated value of assets. Neither is a good thing, but they can occur even when the company is making money and building cash reserves. Achieving positive cashflow is step one. Achieving profitability is step two. Right now even profitability isn't enough if cash flow can't restore reserves and meet current obligations. If the realized value of assets is higher than currently accounted for or future obligations turn out to be less than anticipated they may still book substantial profits on paper while cash drains out. On the other hand if future obligations are eve higher than anticipated or they have to make further write-offs they may take further paper losses even if cashflow is positive. Eventually of course cash flow and profitability must collide. Assets can only be written down so far, anticipated obligations become actual obligations etc. and cash flow and profitability will be aligned, good or bad. Ehh, the market cap can't be greater then the enterprise value. By definition it isn't possible so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Financially it is usually expected that debt should be roughly equal to equity, but companies may have good reasons for having higher debt levels or little or now borrowings. Unfortunately we can't say that about GM. For all the efforts to raise more money in federal loans what they really need is a vast injection of capital in the form of equity. Not good for current stock holders, but better than owing so much money. The ability to pay back their current and future obligations is only indirectly related to the market cap. Naturally the market cap will be higher if the level of debt is lower, cash flow is strongly positive and profitability is strong and consistent. There is another financial ratio which is used to indicate whether the cost of capital (both debt and equity) can be adequately recovered, but I'm a little rusty on that one. If you could pay GM's enterprise value then their expenses would be much lower (outstanding debt being paid), so they may actually have positive cash flow, but I know what you mean.

AWD will probably only be available with the 3.6.

Stick to what you know. That's all BS. GM's value is market cap plus the outstanding debt. It's called enterprise value. Of course it's purely subjective, and in the current climate the market cap is highly volatile. Your definition of bankruptcy is also false. The negative net cashflow is a sign of how bad things are, but it merely points to the potential of bankruptcy—a point where GM is unable to pay its bills. Money is flowing out faster than it is coming in and GM is drawing upon reserves. If and when those reserves run out the company will be bankrupt. Paper losses are irrelevant. GM currently has two aims, structural and operational reform to get cashflow back into the black and restore reserves and profits; and asset sales and temporary spending cuts to stretch out current reserves long enough to reach that point. Companies can become bankrupt even when assets far exceed debts, and never go bankrupt even if debts far exceed saleable assets. Companies can go bankrupt when cashflow is positive and operations are profitable. In the current climate that is happening all the time to companies large and small who can't refinance their lines of credit. It's yet another reason stocks are so volatile right now. How much GM can get for its assets is not only highly subjective but irrelevant for determining bankruptcy. The value you see on the balance sheets is called the book value. It's just an estimate and is meant to be conservative, but includes not just physical assets, but businesses and intellectual property which may be hard to set a stable value on. The market cap represents investors' estimate of the true value of GM's assets, plus the current value of future earnings (or losses), less the outstanding debt. The company is certainly worth far more as a going concern than in liquidation. It's in no-one's interest to see GM fail, least of all its lenders, and while the latter may have some dumb ideas which may make things worse, they will do anything to avoid an actual bankruptcy.

FYI, the Cruze is going on sale in Korea as we speak. I think we could say it's further along than the Volt and Camaro. Cutting back on new model development is not new and not unique to GM. Nissan, Mazda, Honda and Mitsubishi have all done it, and even Toyota has only recently slashed new product roll-outs in the domestic market. Old models are being dropped left and right with no replacements in sight. Even new models for overseas markets that would normally be offered in Japan as a matter of course are nowhere to be seen. And the same goes for new engines and transmissions. As for cost-cutting, well the new Suzuki Alto/Nissan Pixo mini car has rear doors with fixed glass. Now the Alto is built and sold in India, but we are talking about the European models. Not even the benchmark for cheap cars, the Dacia Logan, goes so far.

Something to replace the small Mitsubishi engines they are using now is most likely. BMW is also likely to share its larger 4s with PSA, supplementing the new-generation 1.4 and 1.6 L engines, the first generation of which was developed with Chrysler.

There is no Euro version blu. Europeans get three different, smaller crossovers—the Qashqai, a little smaller than the Tucson, the Qashqai+2, the lwb model with 7 seats, and the X-trail, a boxy model with extra-long overhangs. The Rogue has about as much in common with these as the Altima.

What they are doing is not launching the car in LA with an expensive press junket. Instead they will wait for Detroit where more journalists will travel on their own expense and launch it as part of the broader GM unveilings.

My favorite Jensen, the 1962–1966 C-V8 (basically a Jensen 541 S with various big Chrysler V8s and an updated body): http://www.british-steel.org/brochure/cv8/cv8.htm The C-V8 was replaced by the Interceptor, essentially just a new Italian-designed hatchback body and updated mechanicals, including ABS (in 1966). The following year a lwb version was produced with 4wd, the Jensen FF (Formula Ferguson, as in Massey-Ferguson), all with the big Chrysler V8 and Torqueflite transmission. A failed attempt to revive the marque in 1998 failed early this century. Just 12 examples of the new 2-seat S-V8 cabrio were built using (sacrilige!) the Mustang V8 powertrain, after the company went bust. Although they had orders and deposits for 300 cars, essentially they couldn't raise the money to actually build the cars they had spent millions of dollars developing and building a factory for. A number of other European luxury marques used the Chrysler powertrain—Facel Vega in France, and Bristol in the UK among them. Bristol survives, building very expensive, very rare, anachronistic models using the Chrysler V8 or a modified Viper V10, and sold through a single factory dealer.

Mitsubishi and/or PSA might be interested in the Phoenix, if nothing else. Really, if I were Cerberus I'd be shopping Chrysler to both of these groups together, not GM or Renault/Nissan. Chrysler has minimal value to the latter, but immense to the former. Mitsubishi is virtually invisible in NA, Dodge/Chrysler is not. Chrysler's reputation would improve dramatically if it was owned by a Japanese company. Mitsubishi provides all Chrysler's fwd car/truck platforms, but can't sell its own in NA. So, amalgamate the product lines and sell them as Dodges: Dodge Colt Dodge Hornet Dodge (Lancer) Dodge Eclipse Dodge Avenger Dodge Charger Dodge Challenger Dodge Journey Dodge Nitro Dodge Grandis Dodge Delica Dodge Grand Caravan Mitsubishi already shares engines with Chrysler, and could expand that, replacing the VW diesel with the new Mitsubishi 2.0 L turbo, and replacing the old 3800 with the Phoenix program, which could be shared with PSA, replacing the updated Renault/Peugeot V6. Mitsubishi already has a DCT, which can replace the canceled Getrag program. The Chrysler brand goes to PSA, and current cars are gradually replaced by rebadged Citroen models: Chrysler C3, Chrysler C3 Voyager, Chrysler C4, Chrysler C4 Voyager, C4 Grand Voyager, Chrysler C5, Chrysler C6, Chrysler C8 Voyager, Chrysler C8 Town and Country. Federal money pays for PSA's diesel-hybrid program and US homologation and production of PSA's high-mileage vehicles. Citroen's Airdream continues on from the Chrysler Airflow. Sell the Viper, but use the platform for a halo Peugeot sports car to showcase the LeMans V12 turbodiesel. PSA and Mitsubishi can use Chrysler's dealer network, subject to the natural attrition happening over the next several months, GM and Renault Nissan do not want it. Dodge gets parent Mitsubishi's B-segment models and small engines developed for the Colt and smart forfour. Chrysler gets the new-generation 1.4 and 1.6 L engines developed by BMW and built by PSA, replacing the underutilized Chrysler-BMW engines formerly built in Brazil (same dimensions, but new aluminum block and BMW's advanced injection and induction systems). The Dodge LCVs (Ram and commercial dealer network) still go to Nissan, which is all they really want anyway. Jeep goes to the highest bidder, Lagadere (R&T, C&D) buys GEM for Matra Manufacturing, the old tooling goes to Russia and/or China, Nissan and GM share the minivans if Mitsubishi/PSA do not want them. But then I if had been running Cerberus I would have done most of that from the start, and built a new CL-rivalling Jensen Interceptor on the LX platform. After all I can sell a 300C for maybe $35K. but a mechanically identical Jensen for over $100K. And people expect a Jensen to use a Chrysler V8.