Croc

Grab handles, rear cupholders, console space for a cell phone, glove box that fits more than a manual, little thoughtful details throughout interior that indicate the manufacturer was intent on designing a quality interior space.

But at least it's offered. And since GM uses corporate units it would be as simple as letting dealers install it and adding a tick on the option sheet.

Refresh for 2008, NG in 2011

I read the GMI article, and a lot of speculation is being passed off as fact. Again, no Pontiac is planned as of now.

Do you have the program codes? I ask because so far there is no EPII G6 planned and the Malibu has been bumped to 2011 with a heavy MCE in 2008. This is per the latest info (as of March 2006) that I have seen.

Doesn't seem as differentiated from the Silverado as I would have liked or had heard it to be...that said...this camo doesn't show a lot. It looks good, though Nice find!

This is testament that GM can build a good car when they decide to. Good, not great. The Cobalt, like almost every GM, still lacks the attention to detail it needs. Those grab handles would be a good standard addition that would cost very little to install. I really like the Cobalt. Wih just a few minor changes (and more inspiring styling) I might even love it. NAV should be an option (full-blown NAV, not just turn-by-turn). The Mazda3 offers it; and look at the recent GM corporate units...they can easily be swapped out. Would many people order it? No, but its availability would be a big positive. GM could even make it a dealer-installed option to keep the complexity down at Lordstown.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Paris as MT...funny $h!... The irony just kills me...the tall young leggy blonde rich bitch playing the short hunched-over old gray-haired impoverished do-gooder...

Wait for the 2010 AURA on EPII. That's when AURA is the same as the Opel Vectra.

I would actually argue that the consumers were switching to SUVs not for RWD but for AWD. The SUVs were a burgeoning trend before GM cancelled the B-bodies.

That makes sense. I guess I was just thrown off by the phrase "take the heat off" the trucks as PT...which to me implies the trucks are being relied upon as PT...which I do not see. Thanks for clarifying.

Well could you please explain then? I don't really see how large RWD cars would replace trucks as personal transportation (I don't see too many people buying trucks for personal transport like SUV buyers do). People buy trucks for different reasons than cars. The two have very different characteristics. Cars don't have the high driving position, and they won't have the towing ability. Both are very important to GM, but I don't see them being cross-shopped at all.Remember, the B-bodies were cancelled due to rising SUV sales, not B-bodies being cancelled resulting in rising SUV sales. I just don't see the Zeta vehicles stealing sales from trucks/SUVs in any meaningful way. I DO see Lambda crossovers stealing BOF SUV sales...and I see Zeta vehicles getting a lot of conquest sales.

That's what I've been hearing...that due to the funding issues the 2008 will be a major refresh and the 2011 will be the rear EPII Malibu.AURA EPII is 2010 LaCrosse is 2009 9-3 will prolly be 2009 or 2010

Disagree. Malibu should be the Camcord fighter. AURA could be up another level by going after VW. Honestly...SAAB and Saturn are going to be VERY similar in the future...which worries me. SAAB could get by basically by being a more sport-tuned Saturn...but still the marketplace differentiation between them will be very narrow. Oh well. LaCrosse should really be ES350-ish.

No. Paulie...you're reading that wrong...LaCrosse is coming in 2009...It isn't pegged as "the 2nd EPII," rather it is the second EPII as a result of an EPII possibly being scheduled for release in 2008. If there is an unforseen delay in the first...the two would be released together.

Is that the 2006 Vectra?Either way, the AURA will only be around for 2.5-3 years before its second generation bows...so it really don't need to matter...yet.

That sounds about right, though I do not know if it will be 2010...might be 11.

All that interior needs is that wood to go away...and for that aluminum trim kit to be applied.

MY2008 is the latest I heard. GM shouldn't put rushes on these...since that leads to cost cutting and $h!ty final product. Let's be patient and let it be released when it's ready...

Well at this point, yes. But had it been designed from the get-go to accomodate more flexibility, that would have required slightly more time. This isn't that difficult to comprehend. At this point nothing can be done. No one is saying at this point that it can be made more useful.I wasn't meaning to convey that adding 6-12 months at the END of the development cycle would have done anything, but that the engineering work to CREATE a flexible platform would have caused it to come to market about 6-12 months later. ALL I HAVE BEEN SAYING IS THAT A MORE FLEXIBLE PLATFORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED FROM THE BEGINNING. HAVE I EVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY? NO! I'm finished with this thread. If you read my posts throughout this thread and were still dense enough to completely misinterpret what I have been saying this much to conclude that I have been suggesting Kappa be "fermented"...seriously think about that for a minute. If "fermenting" were all that was needed, that could be undertaken now. NO! I have used language throughout this thread that "fundamentally" Kappa is inflexible. IT IS. I have also REPEATEDLY stated that Kappa should have been designed FROM THE BEGINNING with greater flexibility. I've used words such as "forsight" that further make it very clear that things should have been conceived BEFORE a limited platform were developed. If I seem frustrated right now, it is because I cannot see where I have been remotely vague or unclear about my stance on Kappa so that you would seemingly misinterpret it to the extent that you apparently have. You've been debating me in this thread, when in the end you essentially agree with me: Kappa is Kappa, Kappa is limited, and that if GM wants a flexible compact RWD platform (which it does) that it would need to develop a whole new one because Kappa was not developed to be flexible. Sir, you need to read posts more carefully. Croc, signing off

Ummm...what do you mean "how"? The same way they continue to develop programs. I'm not a platform engineer; if you want to know exactly how they go about continuing to develop a platform, ask one.My estimates have been 6-12 months. That is an educated guess based on how much time it usually takes to develop a platform and how much time was shaved off of Kappa. If it could be done in 6 weeks, great! Why not add that flexibility now? Please. Because the platform is finished. It wasn't engineered from the start to be flexible...that flexibility just can't be "added in" because it would require a fundamental reengineering that would make it essentially an all-new platform due to the sheer amount of structural changes necessary.

you have nothing to show. You need to be better at bluffing...I hope you don't play poker much. I NEVER said 6 months would make Kappa the amazingly flexible Kappa platform. All I've ever said is that additional time would yield additional flexibility. Are you going to dispute that? I've also never said ANYTHING about additional development time being free. You came up with that on your own. Also, derr CTS influenced STS...but reread my post. STS did not influence CTS...which is what you were saying: the later "Buick" would hold up and influence the "Pontiac." No, the opposite would happen. Reread my post. I don't really want to continue this much either...it seems pretty circular.

Well of course the structural rigidity would have to be addressed in adding the extra inch or two of overhang.I am well aware that generally a platform spawns identically dimensioned vehicles...though look at the last-gen G-body. Aurora had a dramatically-different overhang than LeSabre or Deville. As for the Nomad, tweaking the exterior dimensions for an extra inch or two of length wouldn't be enough for a vehicle like the Nomad. It would still be painfully deficient in cargo room--that's why a flexible Kappa that can be stretched would be necessary for a Nomad.

You make a claim like that, though, and you need at least some anecdotal proof. Did a similar program cost that much more? Just guessing 5-10x more cost isn't very convincing. Not every Kappa would have to be produced in one plant. The GMT900s are produced in 3. The point was that GM would have the capacity to support volume if that's what they wanted. Even if they just had two plants hand-building Kappas at a max capacity of 40k, then that's still twice as much as current. Huh?? The basic engineering of a platform would be completed for the vehicles initially planned for it. In Kappa's case, that was the Pontiac Solstice/Saturn SKY. None of these other body styles had been greenlighted at the time. That said, GM should have made Kappa more flexible so they could have feasibly been done.As for your hypothetical scenarios, the Buick affecting the Pontiac's styling would only have an effect if the two were being developed simultaneously with the intention of having identical dimensions. Again, that wasn't the case with Kappa. The Buick would have come later, and the essential architecture would have been completed. Had Kappa been flexible, then Buick could stretch it slightly to accomodate that legroom, but that wouldn't affect the Pontiac. What you're saying is like saying the Sigma STS wanting more legroom would stretch and affect the Sigma CTS and its styling...it doesn't. Even though Sigma isn't all that flexible either, it can at least be feasibly stretched a bit to accomodate different lengths, unlike Kappa. What do you mean? The same way they develop any other program and juggle all of them. All that was really needed was for an engineer or two to say "Hey, let's make sure this platform can be stretched to accomodate more than just the two roadsters currently planned for it!" As it is now, GM made a platform that is great for small, 2-seat roadsters...they try to develop other vehicles, and go "$h!...we didn't develop this program with a 2+2 wagon in mind...and there's no way to give it any cargo space."The whole "juggling" platforms just doesn't make much sense from an argument standpoint...Kappa was already being developed, my gripe is that GM didn't develop it enough. Would it have cost more money? Yes...but until you can provide some basis for your 5-10x more cost estimate, I am going to continue to assert it won't be anything near that. The additional costs would be recouped through the additional volume and higher MSRPs that these other variants could provide. Also, a more flexible platform is something GM could be using for over a decade. Limited unflexible platforms have much shorter lifecycles, meaning that there is less time for GM to recoup the sunk costs. Look at Ford's Panthers. That was an incredibly well-engineered platform in its day as it has lasted all this time and only in the past 5 years has it been showing its age less than gracefully. The point is, though, that all of the sunk costs in engineering that platform were paid off loooooooooong ago.

So, Josh, how does the SKY differ dimensionally from the Solstice? Does the SKY have more legroom? More trunk space? No, didn't think so. Nice attempt to attack my credibility, though next time you'll have to do better. Vehicles of the same segment (i.e. midsized sedans, compact roadsters, etc) generally have identical or near-identical dimensions if they share a platform for obvious reasons. If Buick wants more trunk room, then they will have a longer rear overhang. Also, if one vehicle requires extra engineering to accomodate some special need (brand-specific engine, different rear seat, etc) then it will just come out later than the other models on the same platform...in other words one vehicle won't hold up the entire platform. Did Solstice get delayed until SKY was ready? No.