Hogans_Heroes

Arlington = C3XX full-size truck replacement beginning 2013. The Ham Bone = Global Delta MPV ('09), CHEVROLET VOLT 2010. Epsilon 2012. Fairfax = Buick 2009 (likely LaCrosse). Fort Wayne, Flint = C3XX. LGR = CTS Coupe & Wagon. Lordstown = Gamma and Alpha! Spring Hill = TE in 2011. ENJOY, ENJOY, ENJOY!

Mark of Excellence buckles. Nice.

2008 Malibu exterior photography (official): http://www.leftlanenews.com/wp-content/plu...558&idg=1&idi=1 http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...n=2&docid=31356

I was going to post here a while back and thought I'd missed the boat. However, interest in this topic seems to have kept strong. I guess it should be no surprise. In my opinion, GM is making (has made?) a terrible mistake in abandoning their LAMBDA van plans. As I saw it (and as Wagoner/Henderson/Others have repeatedly reinforced), the aim of the restructuring plan was to aggressively hack away at material costs, structural costs (esp. pension, OPEB), capacity, and employees, while SIMULTANEOUSLY expanding the top line as well - or at least trying to, to the greatest extent possible. This playbook has proven itself very successful over a short period of time. On the strength of the GMT920s, then 930s, automotive revenue (particularly GMNA) surged in the first nine months of this year. The stats, I think, were something like up 12.5% in the 2nd quarter, 9% ytd or something like that. The 2nd quarter numbers were laudable. Although the stock had already rallied, it wasn't until they were released that the most serious of the doom and gloom surrounding GM was dispelled. Increasing revenue 12.5% YoY and acheiving over $50 billion in revenue in three months for the first time in your history are not the signs of a dying company. So it is troubling to me that GM is again focusing on shrinking the company. I like their professed strategy so much more than Ford's - which is why I'm so troubled and perplexed by this decision. Ford has no idea what they are doing. It seems their only strategy is to shrink their costs faster than what they see as an inevitably sharply contracting sales & revenue stream. You've actually got Mark Fields out there conceding they're planning for 14% market share (was almost twice that 10 years ago!). GM, on the other hand, was to cut their costs while maintaining an aggressive stance in the market. I saw this as a hybrid of the strategy GM tried and failed at from September 2001 through November 2005 (to grow their way out of their problems via massive incentives and "moving the metal" while taking measured and inadequate steps to rein in incentives) and that called for by analysts all along to "shink the company." GM, it was constantly said, must "consciously choose to become a smaller company." How many times were we reminded GM must "shrink to survive"? Things like abandoning the GMT361s and the LAMBDA vans are not a step in the right direction. Here's what GM could do instead. They could jointly develop a mid-size SUV with Isuzu off of the GMT355 redesign and build it in Shreveport. The point is to lay off everyone in Moraine, eliminate thousands of IUE-CWA workers, cut structural costs, plant sites, etc. but STILL compete in the shrinking mid-size BOF SUV market. Costs are still cut. Capacity is still shuttered. Revenue and sales are not conceded. GM should not give one inch to the enemy! Why exit an important segment that could still be very profitable and would guarantee higher utilization at a remaining plant? The GMT355 could then have the Colorado/Canyon, a TrailBlazer replacement (could still cancel the Envoy to satiate the lynch mob), an H3, H3 SUT and an H4. With so many products in one plant that could be relatively inexpensively differentiated, profitability would improve. This is because even if the number-crunchers didn't see an initial return-on-investment in a BOF TrailBlazer replacement on GMT355, the 100,000 units it should be able to deliver would ease pressure to incentivize the others (like Colorado/Canyon). You could target much lower volume than the mid 100,000s the TrailBlazer is likely to trend towards over the near to mid-term. And you could focus on 100,000 high quality (low incentive, high retail rate) sales. 100,000 times, say, an average transaction price of $30,000 is $3 billion/yr. Then there are the LAMBDA vans. The LAMBDA platform is just amazing in its versatility. The existing LAMBDA CUVs are nothing short of spectacular. The Enclave is amazing. I can't help but envision what good, competent minivans could be built off of the architecture. I wasn't shown the vans but have friends who have seen official drawings (at GM design dome, etc.) and were very impressed. I'm not sure as to the official reason GM has seemingly pulled the plug on the vans for good, but it could go something like this. I've heard from numerous sources (have a friend who worked in Delta Twp.) that the LAMBDA program grew to be way over-budget. The cheapest CUV will sell for like $25,990. And almost none will sell for that price. A Chevrolet minivan would probably have to start at $19,990 at the very maximum (though rise quickly), the GMC "tall wagon" above that. Maybe GM could not make a marginal profit on the anticipated transaction price. A lot probably had to do with Spring Hill too. Even moving just one line to LAMBDA would translate to 150,000+ units of capacity. Given the supposedly already pressured profitability at Delta Twp., perhaps GM reasoned if they didn't add this additional capacity they could concentrate on higher quality sales out of DTP alone. With the Chevrolet CUV thrown into the mix, maybe then they would create a capacity shortage, and supply "one less than demand." I don't know. Perhaps Spring Hill would have proven too tempting as a LAMBDA overflow facility. But I think, in addition to a Saab 9-6X, you could build an Opel/Vauxhall and a Holden ("Frontera"?) and get another 25,000 units there. By now you probably think I'm a brand rebadge whore. I've railed against this kind of stuff in the past, but remember the geographical overlap would be minimized. Even if GM sold the same amount of NG "Uplanders" as they are selling of the current one (and this, I think, is very conservative), it would constitute a huge victory. Transaction prices would be way up, fleet sales way down, less reliance on GM Friends & Family. So you remain in the mid-size BOF and minivan segments and generate an additional $8.25 billion+/yr in GMNA with only maintaining 1/2 the employees Spring Hill has now. Probably GM will have to keep paying a goodly amount of them anyhow. So, basically, I'm very negative on this move by GM and hope they will not continue with this wasting strategy. Maybe it's naive, but I'll still hope they reverse course in both these areas. How many times did GM reverse course on "ZETA"? Finally, if GM IS going to abandon all GM van plans, then I can only come to the conclusion it should permanently close Spring Hill. No sense in "exploring the feasability of producing other products there." Any product they could put in there that I can think of would be existing product or future product already slated to go somewhere else. Maybe you could close the older and more labor problematic Lordstown and concentrate Delta assembly in Spring Hill, but recent investments in Lordstown seem to make this unlikely. So, GM, by all means cut costs. But cost cutting is not an end in and of itself. The end goal is making money. And sometimes you have to spend money to make money. The direction GM has taken over the past several years had me convinced they'd learned this lesson. Now I'm less sure.

I see the exchange with Wagoner is actually on the GM Media site (here): http://gmtv.feedroom.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid...9245.4577081857

Well, the show got off to a pretty interesting start. Rick Wagoner's MPG keynote was remarkable for two reasons. First, he did a great job crystalizing GM's efforts on the alternative fuel and fuel consumption fronts. No one in attendance should now doubt that GM is - or will soon be - a leader in this area. It was ironic, then, that the other most interesting aspect of his speech was a demonstration by environmentalists while he was still up on the stage. The demonstrators at first seemed to disenginuously try to present themselves as representatives of the automaker. They stated Mr. Wagoner would be making an important announcement today - a pledge to make GM the most fuel-efficient automaker in the world by 2010 - and that this was a landmark event for the company. This helps to explain why the event coordinators were so slow to respond. While I heard a variety of opinions, I felt Wagoner handled the manner pretty well. Like everyone, he was pretty surprised. His response was, "I think my speech speaks for itself, and that you need to please go now" or something to that effect. He's a classy guy and it showed. The speech really did speak for itself. The product. Well, this year is big as far as LA shows go. But it still seemed a little flat. The VUE - well, we'd seen the Antara. GMC Yukon Hybrid? We've seen the Tahoe Hybrid. The Enclave, of course, was spectacular. I spent a long time crawling all over it. The fit-and-finish is world-class by any definition. I heard only praise from even the snootiest of reporters. Interior, exterior - this production model would have made a great CONCEPT at the 2006 NAIAS! I hadn't expected the VUE to get the plug-in treatment at GM. In fact, there will soon be a dizzying array of VUE hybrids (3 in all). I'd thought GM might utilize plug-in technology on a smaller vehicle at start. But Saturn's a great brand to trumpet GM's hybrid technology. What else... Phil LeBeau's on CNBC crowing about the Acura "Advanced Sedan Concept". I thought it was pretty silly, personally. Honda, too, did not have much to talk about. The wierd Step Bus and copy-cat Remix fell a little flat too. All I took away from this was that they feel they need to do something about the xB (Step Bus) and tC (Remix) but don't know what. Honda, did say, though, that they would have a hydrogen sedan (similar to the FCX) on sale in limited quantities by 2008. A little sketchy on the specifics, but the timing is impressive. BMW had something to say there, too. The hydrogen/gasoline 7-Series got a lot of attention but, if you've seen a 7-Series before it was not that exciting. The X5 is very very solid and will do well. It's amazing how well it still sells given the price point on that vehicle versus its competitors. There was a board member of the parent company there to remind everyone the company is making money hand over fist. The Sebring convertible was well-executed. And the fact they're offering it in both retractable hardtop & ragtop will ensure it remains the best-selling convertible on the market. Seeing all DCX product together, though, and a couple lone and lonely 300C's in the background (as opposed to the mobs at the 2004 NAIAS) kind of made me think about the Chrysler Group some more. The Challenger is coming, of course, but we'll probably be pretty surprised by how much the LX vehicles age over the next year or so. Plus, the LX to LY redesign should prove problematic given their current iconic design (e.g. PT Cruiser / New Beetle). Then, seeing the Imperial with no one paying any attention to it kind reinforces this idea. Reactions to the Imperial at its debut were, to say the least, mixed. Some loved it, of course. Others hated it. I just saw it as over-the-top. Something that could sell maybe in China. And at that price point, I just wonder if they could compete. It might have VW Phaeton written all over it were it to ever make it to market. Also, the Ram is going to have a very rough 2007 with the 900s, the Tundra, the P356. The Nitro I actually like and the KK Liberty should be good too. There was the Altima Coupe from Nissan. It was pretty good, way way better than a Solara. The rear is more attractive than the front which is more conventional. Lots of G35, 350Z, even a little Pontiac G6 Coupe (itself maybe inspired by the G35). The SE-R was not to my liking at all. The outgoing Sentra sold an improbable amount of its total sales in Mexico. The Sentra's name has been tainted by neglect in the market and the SE-R is just not going to revive it as a credible competitor to Civic-Corolla-et.al. That was basically it. Tomorrow should be less eventful still, as the agenda is mostly filled with the more nichey makes. I don't want to say it wasn't a good show. It was. And it was great to see people again... had some very interesting conversations, mostly about Ford, Lambda vans, the future of the Explorer, the Pacifica etc. I have a good shot of the Wagoner-Global Exchange protest pledge, but left the USB cord to my camera at home. I haven't seen any shots online, but they might be out there. You know what was crazy about the whole thing? There were at least five people in the audience that were shouting "Sign the pledge! Sign the pledge, Rick!" and then there was the kid holding the pledge and another guy on stage making the announcements. That's like 7 people. How did they get in there? I think they were pretty much all wearing press badges too. Someone goofed there.

Since it was me who was tarred & feathered for initially suggesting some time back that the GMX386 program as it then stood had come into jeopardy (downscaled, delayed, cancelled, altered in a fundamental way?) and that it was part of a larger rethink of the Epsilon2 architecture, I'll chime in. To preface, I don't know the absolute truth and don't want to convey in any way that I do. Here's my current thinking, however, based upon the latest data available to me: A new Chevrolet Malibu will indeed launch in the fourth quarter of 2007, consistent with the schedule it has been on for some time now (was previously planned for a second quarter launch in 2008. The vehicle will be a 2008MY. The program was rescaled and it will not be a true "EPSILON2" vehicle. Instead, it will ride on a slightly altered EPSILON platform. Wheelbase will stretch ever-so-slightly, overall dimensions grow incrementally, that kind of thing. I'm expecting the 2.4L (with available BAS hybrid), 3.5L (standard AFM), and 3.9L (standard AFM). 6-speed automatic transmission. Because this isn't EPSILON2, AWD is not possible. It had previously been planned for the program. The move away from EPSILON2 is in part cost-related. Malibu likely won't ride on the EPSILON2 platform until 2012.

http://www.coroflot.com/public/individual_...y_portfolio=yes http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037429288...glance&n=283155

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...1/1003&refsect= I said it here long ago, to much derision I recall. I used the words "dead as a doornail". And it is indeed very much dead. (AutoNews reporting) NEW YORK -- General Motors has canceled the vehicle that was supposed to replace the Saturn Ion and is urgently seeking an alternative. As a result, Saturn dealers are likely to be left without an entry-level vehicle for several months next year, company officials acknowledge. ....General Motors might consider rebadging a vehicle from its overseas product portfolio, such as the Opel Astra....

(chime in) Wow, guys - this is really nice stuff. It stacks up well next to the bland-looking Pilot, which could be its primary competition. And interior refinement looks spot-on. I'm pleased, too, with the differentiation between it and the Enclave. Go GM!

They're privvy. They've been doing their due diligence for six months. The people at Cerberus are, to borrow a phrase, "the smartest guys in the room". And kudos to them for staying with the excellent management team at GMAC!

not imminent - "difinitive": http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...=36&docid=24800

As it sits Sunday night, prospects for a morning sale announcement of 51% of GMAC to the Cerberus-led group are looking nothing short of terrific. Here's hoping it's all we're talking about tomorrow morning! I'd planned on a "Spring ahead" hangover, but - alas - feel compelled to set the alarm in time for "Squawk Box"...

Okay, did a little primary research. Spoke to a couple of people who work at GM or have worked at GM. It seems their computer IDs, created by EDS, do not follow the code of "Initial of First Name, Last Name, numbers". Instead, it's a strange amolgamation of letters like "dkshn4", so the document's "Author" and "Company" information is increasingly looking like it may have been tampered with (and not Victor Rosas!). The "Font" information, though, you would have had to have been a little more crafty to think of tampering.

Font is described as being both "Arial" and "GM Sans Regular".