trevormac98

Honestly, GM is going to have a tough time being hip. The HHR commercial was cool, and created by a college student. However, GM prices are too high for the Generation Y group, who are in college or just graduating from college. GM can be as hip as they want but with prices for some cars higher than comparable models of other companies (Honda, Kia, Hynduai and Toyota), why would you buy a GM? Thats the question GM needs to ask themselves when marketing to the younger generation. Why do they want to buy a GM product? Some on here will say that prices are comparable to other models, which I agree to, but I am making the argument for my whole generation. A lot of us recent grads are not even considering the once dominant Big 3. Why should we? GM is not giving us any good reason. Except for Saturn, try being a 24 year old and walk into a GM or Ford dealership. You are not even taken seriously and before they even talk to you, they want to run your credit. Now that same 24 year old, go to Toyota, Hyundai,... and the experience is so much different. I worked for GM for 5 years so I will always buy GM, but its tough to convince my Generation Y friends to consider our products. The first great step GM could take, is taking over the dealerships, no more middle man. This will never happen. Second, make the cars marketed for my generation more affordable. My best friend recently bought a Cobalt SS, which is a sweet ride and unbelievable performance for a 4 cylinder, but his payments are almost 500 a month. That is with an interest rate of 4.9%. If GM really wants to be hip they can also ask the people they are trying to win from from Toyota, Honda..., just like they did with the HHR commercial.

Not that appealing. The concepts on the drawing board looked a lot better. The drawings looked like the 900 trucks would not look like the 900 SUV's. Guess GM tried to save money. I dont think I would buy one.

Hmm, Evok, doesnt this article somewhat support what I was saying. And also, here is another article to support me. I am just glad I dont feel so crazy anymore. GM: Global Plan Means Big Savings Automotive News By Jason Stein Sept.12, 2005 DETROIT -- General Motors executives say the reorganization of the company's product development is saving money. GM is consolidating the development of global vehicle programs under six different executives. The automaker says cost savings are being realized in vehicle programs. And GM has established an appeals court - a sort-of Supreme Court of General Motors - to resolve regional gripes and keep everyone in line. As a result, GM executives say the automaker is: Saving more than 20 percent on components Achieving a 40 percent reduction in development and prototype costs Reducing its number of architectures by 50 percent Cutting as much as $200 million of costs on specific vehicle programs, such as the next-generation Saturn Vue. Saddled with the skyrocketing burden of health care and pension costs, GM says it is saving money by standardizing its vehicle designs and engineering workload globally. Development work is assigned to engineering centers in the United States, Asia and Europe. But there is a risk: GM has to avoid building cookie-cutter vehicles. The company has been here before. Less than a decade ago, GM attempted to produce a number of global variants on its Delta architecture, a small-car, fwd platform. But Delta never worked globally because it became too costly, Jim Queen, GM's vice president for global engineering, said in an interview with Automotive News last week. (See story at right.) So what's different? This time, GM says there are multiple checks and balances to ensure that its regions place their stamp on local products but do not create variants that are not within the range of specifications of a particular program. GM's four global regions are North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America/Africa/Middle East. Six global vehicle line executives have authority over programs and are responsible for staying within the specifications. The goal is plug-and-play components. Achieving that will save money and allow different vehicles to be assembled in different regions from the same components. Regional variations derailed global products in the past, Queen says. "Everybody did their own thing and walked away from the principles of each architecture," he said. "We would start walking away by silly millimeters. It was very frustrating." The current Saab 9-3 convertible is a key example. Though the Saab and the Pontiac G6 convertible are on the Epsilon mid-sized car architecture, Pontiac couldn't use Saab's convertible specifications because they varied from the U.S. version of Epsilon. Where vehicles do not compete in the same market, GM will create "look-share" opportunities, rebadging the same product in two different markets. For example, GM is sharing design themes between Opel and the next-generation Saturn mid-sized vehicle. GM's checks and balances will govern efforts at differentiation, Queen says. Engineers cannot release specifications to a supplier without the approval of a vehicle line executive or chief engineer in each region. If one region wants to change the parameters on a program, it must appeal to GM's Automotive Product Board, a Supreme Court inside the company created this year. "If someone really wants a different A-pillar, they can petition the company to change that," Queen said. Jon Lauckner, GM's vice president for global program management, said GM already is seeing a 25 percent savings in engineering and investment on GM's next-generation Epsilon, or mid-sized, cars. "Those are very encouraging early results," Lauckner said. "Engineering and manufacturing will have reduced costs as we eliminate duplication and engineering development cost. And we will have greater opportunities to do that in the future."

I hit post on accident

I agree. I was told I did not know what I was even talking about, that I was wrong on every account. Then I was told not to question what a "supposed insider" said about my post. I didnt know he was an insider, so of course I am going to question. This site was really good in answering questions for our project for the presentation we made, but I see since Evok thought I was supposedly a intern, that I am to keep my posts to the GM Intern thread. I agree with IbuyGM, unless you are working on the project of the RWD program, that Holden spy shot, or anyting else, all information is just hearsay. The whole point of this website I though was to throw around different possibilities. Not for insiders to shoot down what everyone else is saying. We cannot spread disinformation when its our opinion. And Yes Evok, it is a possibility for Holden and GMNA to share bodies, we do it with the GTO, and also, Lutz himself said he would like to see the Torana TT36 as a vehicle in GMNA. Thats why GM went to Globalization. TO share paltforms and engineers and design studios.

91, I completely understand that. It is great to get some information from GM themselves, besides what I hear from work and other people. I just put out my conspiracy theory on the spy pic and other things within this forum, unless I know for sure and then I usually dont tell that info. Now I know whose posts to check daily, because I thirst for more knowledge.

You know, I am just putting out other ideas. Opinions cant be wrong or right. I am glad to read that people on this forum have access to more information than I do, because I get most of mine from what I read on various websites and talking to certain people. This is why I joined C&G, to learn more. Thank You

Evok, I am not exactly an intern either, just helped the interns out. I know they do not need to be federalized to be tested in the US, I didnt bring that point up. I also said, that it probably isnt for the GTO, but could possibly be what the GTO design progresses towards, since it is built on the Holden. I also know that this might be helpful for GM to use something already in place to bring to America faster. Hence, why GM went to Globalization which Lutz heads, GM Vice Ghairman, Global Product Development. It has also been quoted, and as soon as I find the source, I will post it, that Lutz loved the Torana TT36 concept. I know the Zeta was cancelled and I know there are other plans ... And Mr. Evok, since you find it so easy to bash on interns because of what you think is lack of knowledge, please tell me what you do in the auto industry? I am just saying it is a possibility, which in fact, it is a possibility. Tell me how Americanizing Holden's would be stupid for GM to do instead of starting from scratch. Why re-invent the wheel, when one is already available and works great. And, No, I am not familiar with some of the people on C&G board who are not interns, and I would love to get to know all of you, together, our idea and discussions on these threads will be great for all to read. I love to listen to all ideas. Evok, I hope you can appreciate my opinion and my respectfully disagreement with your opinion. I look forward to reading what you and the other board members have to say in the future

EVOK: NO to what? I admit it was a stretch to think that the pic was a concept of the GTO, but maybe similar design will be used for the GTO Or was it no to that the Holden was Americanized and brought over to GMNA as a way for GMNA to have a RWD program without starting from scratch. I do not think you can say no to that for these reasons: 1. GM has gone to global development and this would be a terrific way for GM to save money by using something that is already there (RWD Holden) instead of starting from scratch. 2. GM put its extra money and cancelled the RWD program as to speed up the GMT 900. After doing that, Chrysler scored a huge advantage with there RWD vehicles. GM realizing they needed to compete, but with limited resources, went to Holden, which is popular in Australia, so popular, the NBA top pick, Andrew Bogat was given one for free. GM figured they could Americanize and get to the market faster with something already in place than to start from scratch. See Evok, if you are going to say No, give me a valid reason why you said No. These are my reasons why they said Yes. I may not be right, but I make a lot more sense than just a "NO".

That is one sweet looking Aztek. I own one and it is a great car. The Holden Commodore was probably re-badged and Americanized so that it can be driven over here. I know they have been redesigning the GTO, do you think that might be it. The Torano TT36 concept is a great looking vehicle, you can see inside shots of it at the Holden website. If GMNA came out with something like that, the car market would be ours. It does look like the car is in the US by what the Labels of Gasoline are and the advertisement above it. Bringing the Commodore to America was probably the cheapest and best way for GMNA to get a RWD program started without having to start from scratch. I hope something great comes of this.

I believe the reason GM has not come out with diesel yet is because they are still harnessing the technology. The emissions standards in the US are a lot tougher than in other nations. GM is stil probably trying to reduce the amount of sulfur that comes out in the emissions. After they do that, we will probably see diesel engines being offered.

GM Promises to Stay in Front of Power and Fuel Economy auto123.com By Alex Law Aug. 31, 2005 In terms of offering consumers the most fuel-efficient models and the most high-performance models, it turns out that no company comes close to General Motors. It further turns out that this is not an accident, nor a temporary situation, nor a mantel (or a pair of mantels) that GM has any intention of giving up. So says Tom Stephens, who should know and be listened to on this point. Stephen is after all GM Powertrain's group vice-president (a capital "S" serious job inside the world's largest car company), and he is the man most responsible for developing GM's lead in these two critical areas, and the firebrand in charge of expanding the company's lead in both aspects. You would appreciate the firebrand designation much more vividly if you'd been sitting in the audience of reporters with me nearly 20 years ago in Greenbrier, West Virginia, when the red-headed and laser-eyed manager of the Livonia engine factory got up to give a speech that I can still paraphrase by heart. "I believe in V-8 power, brothers and sisters, and so should you." Hallelujah, Brother Tom, we cried in response, since Stephens had shown us the light. So here he is now, long removed from Livonia and sitting at the controls of the world's biggest and most far-reaching powertrain development program, and anxious as ever to rev the engine on GM's position in the market. Stephens wants you to know that GM is already the leading car company in the U.S. when it comes to making fuel efficient vehicles, and he backs this up with a chart that shows that GM currently sells 20 models that get more than 30 mpg highway fuel economy, versus VW with 14, DaimlerChrysler with 13, Toyota with 12, Ford with 10, BMW and Hyundai with seven, Honda with six, Subaru and Suzuki with five, and Nissan with two. The chart would have slightly different numbers in Canada, by the way, but GM will still be far in the lead. It's interesting to note that GM has as many high-mileage cars as Toyota, Honda and Nissan combined, which puts paid to another automotive myth. At the same time, notes Brother Tom, GM also produces lots of vehicles (that means trucks and SUVs as well as cars) with tremendous acceleration standards. When it comes to going from 0 to 96.5 kmh (or 60 mph), GM sells seven vehicles that can do it in under eight seconds, six vehicles in under seven seconds, four vehicles in under six seconds, five vehicles in under five seconds, and one that needs less than four seconds. Brother Tom knows how important it is for GM to appeal to members of The Church of Holy Crap This Thing Is Quick, but he's also concerned about the people who worship at the alter of Our Lady of Perpetual Mileage. So Stephens wants us all to know that GM is working on a bunch of "advanced powertrain technologies it is developing to both reduce emissions and improve the efficiency and performance of its internal combustion engines, automatic transmissions, and hybrid systems." In the near term (i.e. 2006), the company will have new variants in the Gen IV small-block V-8 engine family, six-speed automatic transmissions, and the hybrid system for the 2007 Saturn VUE Green Line. These developments are just a suggestion of what's to come, says Stephens, as GM plans to roll out 50 new, more efficient and more powerful engines and transmissions by the end of the decade. GM's overall goal, says Stephen, is "to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy as the company marches toward the long-term goal of producing hydrogen fuel-cell-powered vehicles to remove the vehicle from the environmental debate." But we're maybe a decade or more away from governments not having the auto industry to kick around any more, so Stephens and GM and cranking away on improving the bridge technology. One of the things that excites Stephens the most is something called Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI), which is an ultra-advanced combustion system and might be workable in a couple of years. HCCI is a combustion technology that uses compression ignition rather than spark ignition to initiate the combustion process, and that means higher efficiency and lower NOx emissions compared to a normal spark-ignition or diesel engine. "The technologies we are developing today -- gasoline direct injection, Displacement On Demand, variable valve actuation and variable valve timing -- all deliver incremental improvements to engine efficiency," says Stephens. "But more importantly, they are the building blocks to mass-producing engines that can operate with advanced combustion systems like HCCI." Short-term, says Stephens, "multiple variants of the new small-block engines feature Displacement On Demand, as well as variable valve timing (VVT). Displacement On Demand seamlessly alternates the engine between eight- and four-cylinder operation, improving engine efficiency by as much as 12 percent in some vehicles." Variable valve timing optimizes engine performance by continuously adjusting intake and exhaust valve timing in relation to the crankshaft. The introduction of variable valve timing in these engines is the industry's first application of VVT on a mass-produced V-8 overhead valve engine. Complete details of the new engine variants will be available in mid-September, by the way. In addition to improving engine efficiency, GM is launching a broad portfolio of advanced six-speed automatic transmissions to increase overall powertrain performance. "During the next five years, GM will launch 10 new automatic six-speed transmission variants," says Stephens. "In fact, by 2010, GM will be producing more than three million six-speed transmissions per year." GM six-speed automatic transmissions will use a wide gear ratio spread to improve both performance and fuel economy over traditional four-speed automatics, Stephens notes, in an effort to please the congregations of what traditionally are disparate places of worship. GM will launch seven of the six-speed automatic variants in North America and Europe. In addition to improving the efficiency of conventional engines and transmissions, GM is also in the midst of rolling out three hybrid powertrain systems. "The company plans to integrate the systems in up to 12 vehicle models," says Stephens, "providing consumers a broad portfolio of hybrid systems that will vary in fuel economy savings and cost." "Through the last 30 years in North America, we've improved our gasoline car fuel economy by as much as 130 percent and our gasoline truck fuel economy by as much as 75 percent," says Stephens. "We'll continue this trend of significant improvements by applying these and other engine and transmission technologies around the globe." Say Amen, somebody. My Take: Everyone pass this out. Mass emails, whatever. Help with our gas woes.

I think it was Razor who said that mansions are going up everywhere and not one Union person lives and those. What about Gettlefinger and the other Top UAW executives. They get paid around the clock, as long as an hourly employee is working somewhere. I am sure they are much more well to do than there plant working brethern. Unions were excellent for the US back when labor laws where non-existent and corporations acted unfair. I mean, anyone read "The Jungle" But seriously, it seems today that unions are starting to live out there welcome. Labor laws are greatly in affect and people must be treated equally, no matter what. Most Union workers are great employees who do there job and earn a living. I was once raised in a union home, sheet metal workers, and My dad went to work and did his job, and received a paycheck. He never striked and always paid his union dues. The problem is, the minority of union works who abuse the system. This is why the national media and country alike, support the union less and less. Can the world survive without unions? YES. Can it survive with unions? YES. Take the cuts to keep a job. Its better to have a job and still some sort of benefits than no job at all and no benefits. White collared workers used to have unions many years ago, and the Federal Government told them no more. Now, today, white collared workers take all the same cuts and pay deductions forced upon them that there blue collared counterparts say NO to. For 2005, GM stated that all salaried employees would not receive raises. The difference between blue union workers and white collared is the white collared do not get a choice on what happens to their benefits. Either they like it or leave it. The blue collared employees still do(union) and it makes sense to have them agree to something more manageable than to say NO and wait for the different corporations to impose a more drastic policy. Like many have said, people are just waiting in line to take a union job, even if they do not get to be a part of a union. The pay is great and the benefits above par. This is my two cents and agree or not. That is what is great with America. Unions are beneficial but they aren't when non-existent.

You know its really funny how everyone expects the interns to say something every few posts. I like to monitor the discussions also. I agree with some that having a few RWD vehicles is a plus. The solstice and sky are a good start. We also need to come up with a few more RWD to compete with the other brands, but like a poster has said on he, "Invent Rather than mimic, become the styling leader." We cannot keep copying Chrysler and others to stay on top. Besides, the projected launch of these vehicles is 2009, and who knows what the market will want then. We need to do something outrageous now, so when 2009 comes, everyone is trying to play catch up with us. For all you people up north, I am orginally from MI and it is some much easier to have FWD then RWD in the snow. And I am not talking about a RWD SUV or Big truck, but those RWD cars, they handle outrageously bad in snow and sometimes in rain. Also to the man whose sister drives an S-10 in the snow, I passed her once, in a snow bank. Come on C&G, lets quit talking about RWD. Lets all agree we need a couple RWD to compete and for the southerners who dont experience snow, because how often do you drive in the mountains of Arizona? But really, what else would you want to see? Try putting your mindset in a person who does not have the vast knowledge of automobiles and physics that the community of C&G has. Like the new Hummer Commercials, not bad, right? Other forms of marketing, GMAC, turnaround, and that nature. But please no more about RWD, digress into AWD and features of a vehicle. Thank You all, Trevor PS. The Cadillac CTS is a cheap RWD, you can get it for 299 a month. What more do you want? DOWN WITH TOYOTA

I take off PontiacTech NJ, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The Geo Tracker did have that problem, but once they dropped that name and became the Chevrolet Tracker, it was a totally different car. And you also prove my point by that it was poorly marketed only certain people liked it. I am definitely not saying to resurrect the name of the Tracker, just use its main body and chassis. And I ask you Poniac Tech, did you own a Chevrolet Tracker? I did and my friend owned a Jeep. They were equally comparable in off roading and I actually used my tracker to pull him out when he got stuck in snow. So please, do not post unless you know what you are talking about and or did not read my post correctly.