Croc

Agreed. Balthazar: When you put a positively-charged magnet next to another positively-charged magnet, the repelling perfectly coincides with the placement. Clearly there's no correlation whatsoever

Here's the thing, though...increasing gas prices are not insular. You may be spending an extra $30 a week at the pump, but so is everyone. As a result, the overall cost of living increases. Moltar's $30 dinner for two in 2007 now costs $40.

Re-read my original post, quoted below (emphasis added): I can see a measurable difference in the air quality of Los Angeles between now and prior to the Clean Air Act. From when CFCs were targeted in the late 1980s until now, the hole in the ozone layer trended toward closing--optimistic predictions said around 2050. Is that just a strange coincidence? Polar ice caps have always formed and shrunk as part of the natural cycle; no one disputes that. What is disputed is whether or not the marked increase in accelerated depletion of the polar ice caps is attributable to humans. Those who think so cite the fact that this marked acceleration perfectly coincides with the onset of the industrial revolution. Another indisputable fact is that the sun's intensity is a lot greater today than it was 50 years ago. The reason the push for SPF is so great these days is because of the state of the ozone layer: less UV light is being filtered out before it reaches us on the ground. The ozone hole is over New Zealand and southern Chile--it isn't just a funny coincidence that those two areas have the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Now, do I agree with the Al Gore hysteria? No. But there is definitely some truth in it, and we have a responsibility to try and do something to reverse it. Previous generations were ignorant as to the effects of industry on the planet--but the greater crime is to know what we do actually know today, and choose to ignore it for selfish reasons.

Bingo.

I said "zero impact" now didn't I?

Yes, there is a lot of proof. I've been a skeptic for a long time on this, but we do need to lessen whatever impact it is we are making on the planet. I don't think there's anyone out there who seriously believes we are making zero impact on the global environment, so we should at least try to lessen it.

Autozone scans for codes for free, I hear.

Actually, I kinda like it. That said, I really don't know how an XLR could be successfully differentiated.

Did you try giving it a little gas as you were starting it up? Sometimes our '80 Sedan de Ville needs that to get going. Not that it really matters now...

DUDE SHE KNOWS As for the dilemma, just be honest. Seriously...don't over-think this. Apologize and tell your brother the truth. Where's the harm in that?

I believe you're referring to the Aurora V8, or L47 engine. The Shortstar was a V6 available in the Intrigue and 2nd-gen Aurora from 1999-2002. It got its name due to being like a Northstar with 2 cylinders chopped off (gross oversimplification). GM referred to it as the Short-North internally, but the enthusiast press came up with "Shortstar" and the name stuck. The Shortstar is the LX5 engine, and is 3.5L.

Yeah, you've never been to LA, Houston, Dallas, San Diego, or Phoenix. Nice try, though.

I REALLY like the beltline design. Very artful...makes it look like it's in motion. Very nice.

Jen's kinda hot.

Here we go:

I'm so sorry man. Losing a Grandma is always emotional--only time I've ever seen my father cry. From what you told us (and showed us via pictures) of her, I know she was one hell of a lady.

Acadia has been selling really well, though!

Nah...look at the cutlines. The fastback seems to have a slightly elongated rear.

As for Pontiac becoming the HSV of GMNA...well, that wouldn't be my first choice, but if that saves Pontiac from obliteration, then so be it.

I'm far too social not to live in an urban area...I need people and lots of culturally-varied things to do.

Really? Usually the only time I can haggle a little is if I'm getting, say, all new kitchen appliances...and I am buying the dishwasher, stove, trash compactor and microwave, but they'll let me get an add-on or size upgrade for the refrigerator for less-than-MSRP. At a dealership, this could translate to tire upgrades, dealer add-ons, etc. that are being bought "in bulk." Fact is, most people, even when they haggle, still end up feeling like they've been screwed when buying a new car. The haggling is just downright unpleasant--and I'm an extremely good haggler. Got my ride in excellent condition for $7500 when they were wanting $10k initially.

Me too! The "V" doesn't even need any modernization, especially if it is the same as used on the de Villes in the early 80s. This would also eliminate the cheap-looking "V-series" logo/badging. Just a chromed V under the crest.

I identify the following problems with GM: 1) Fragmentation of similarly-focused brands into competing sales channels. 2) Lack of brand focus 3) Lack of any umbrella leadership whatsoever resulting in fifedom mentality and management capitulation to dealer whining. To remedy these points: 1) Restructure dealership sales channels into more product-focused, rather than price-focused, groupings. ---> a) Split Chevrolet into Chevrolet and Chevy Trucks. Chevrolet channels sell passenger cars and MPVs, Chevy Trucks sells trucks/SUVs. Chevrolet uses the global "Chevy" logo (chrome bowtie inscribed within a circle), while Chevy Trucks continues use of the chrome-outlined gold bowtie. ---> b) Sales channels will be clustered as follows: Chevrolet/Saturn Chevy Trucks/GMC[/HUMMER] Pontiac/SAAB Buick/Cadillac ---> c) By clustering similar product divisions, dealerships can capitalize on upselling to both their own and GM's benefit. For example, the Chevy Trucks/GMC/HUMMER dealership can upsell to higher-margin GMC/Denali vehicles without competing internally with Chevrolet. Uplevel Chevy Trucks and entry-level GMCs will be discontinued, so both brands can have some breathing room and cater toward the market perceptions of each brand. If HUMMER still exists, it should be positioned as offroad-ready, bare-bones SUVs made for offroading and getting mucked up. If a consumer wants a luxury SUV, they go to the GMC Denali model. Likewise, Chevrolet and Saturn compliment each other well, as both brands are focused/perceived as mainstream vehicles. Both already share, or are slated to share, similarly-platformed vehicles, thus allowing the dealership to market/sell the vehicles similarly, but utilize Chevrolets for the price-conscious and Satrns for the more premium-minded buyers. As above, uplevel Chevrolets and entry-level Saturns are eliminated to reduce price overlap. A loaded Malibu should be priced similarly to a base AURA, which should be much more contented than currently available. Pontiac and SAAB get paired up as both are perceived/have been focused as sporty. Both brands are sporty in very different ways, but Pontiac is still best remembered as "Driving Excitement" and SAAB is "Born from Jets." Pontiac should get RWD, while SAAB maintains FWD. Buick and Cadillac should be paired together as they both represent luxury divisions. Cadillac should continue to focus on BMW, Mercedes, and Infiniti, while Buick should focus on Lexus, Acura and Lincoln. 2) Since dealerships are now grouped by product focus, GM will be free to make a luxury product decision without pitting B/P/GMC against Cadillac/HUMMER. GM can make a mainstream sedan decision without pitting Chevrolet against B/P/GMC and Saturn. This allows the dealerships and the overall GM umbrella of brands to pursue the same goals at the same time; trucks are handled by one sales channel, mainstream vehicles are handled by another, sporty vehicles are handled by yet another, and luxury by another. ---> BUT WAIT!! Doesn't Chevrolet make performance vehicles under the SS moniker? Well, maybe when talking about the Camaro or the Corvette, but let's be honest--a Malibu SS is assinine. This channelization will still allow Chevrolet to drop a large engine in a low-volume production run of any of its entry-level models and call it an SS. This would be very similar to the original muscle cars, these would be limited edition models not always in stock/production, and could be cycled on and off of production as necessary to build excitement for model lines as needed. 3) As far as platforms go, Chevrolet/Saturn should be FWD almost exclusively, with Camaro, Corvette and a smaller, premium cute-convertible like the SKY available in RWD. Pontiac and Cadillac should be exclusively RWD. Lower-priced, higher-volume Pontiac would help defray engineering costs for Cadillac RWD platforms, and occasionally the odd RWD platform could be made available to other divisions (like Zeta). Buick would primarily be FWD, with the odd premium RWD vehicle thrown in for good measure. SAAB would be exclusively FWD. GMC/Chevy Trucks[/HUMMER] would be on truck platforms. Duh. 4) GM leadership needs to grow a backbone. Make a decision and stick to it. Do not compromise on quality of execution because dealerships are clamoring for new product NOW. They always will. The difference is whether GM releases a halfbaked next-gen that, while a marginal improvement over the current product offering, they will be stuck with marketing for the next 5-6 years, or if they wait to release their products when they are truly exceptional (even if this means delaying releases a year) so they can sell an exceptional product long enough that its replacement comes BEFORE sales are in the toilet and dealerships are screaming about accelerating releases. 5) Each sales channel as outlined above will function internally as a division. Instead of 8 division leaders infighting over scarce development dollars, 4 will. 1 car guy, 1 truck guy, 1 luxury guy, and one sport-minded guy. 6) All sales channels will use the Saturn model: no-haggle pricing. I can't haggle at Best Buy over the price of a 72" plasma TV, so why should prices at a dealership be negotiable? Do I get a worse deal because the salesman is a Tau Kappa Epsilon and I'm a Theta Chi? C'mon...everyone pays the same price. Sales can happen, just like they do at Crate & Barrel, but price-haggling sucks, and if all of GM would abandon it, then it would have a real marketable advantage. Those are my proposals. I'd love to hear some feedback, and maybe overnight I'll think of some additional ideas.

That's actually an interesting look...but 4 collars? That dude's gottabe really manorexic if he still looks that thin with 4 polo shirts on... I still "semi-pop" my collar from time to time...but the "semi" comes from the back being up but not the front. I don't need my face swimming in collar.

I really, really don't recommend trying to go up on the down escalators at the department store.