Croc

Well yes and no...The students aren't, but the people who live there are conservative...that's what makes it kinda weird...It's schizophrenic.

I don't need to, and even if I did, I couldn't since I was dealing with hypotheticals. You said a definite. That a more flexible architecture WILL cost 5-10 times more. Prove it. My guestimate of 6-12 months for additional engineering isn't that unreasonable of a guess, given the short development time of Kappa. Essentially my point is that if GM hadn't trimmed the 12 months off of Kappa that they had, they would have a more flexible platform...not a Swiss Army Knife platform, but something MORE flexible than they currently have. Frankly, this argument is stupid. So Kappas start out hand-built. As volume increases, GM automates it more. GM is idling/closing plants across the nation...I'm sure if they produced a higher volume Kappa they could have found a plant to build it. No, I'm not kidding. Just because the platform is developed doesn't mean it's earmarked from the start for every division to use it. Whether or not Kappa were delayed 6 months to further engineer it has no bearing on the fact the first two vehicles off of it were SKY/Solstice, two nearly identical vehicles. Was the Saturn guy holding everything up because he wanted more leg room? Please.Basically, GM was once again being shortsighted. Had they the forsight, they would have made the platform more flexible and more usable for FUTURE PROJECTS. Not every vehicle is envisioned at the outset of a platform.

Simultaneously producing platforms isn't an issue at all...the problem is simultaneously developing them. Platform development costs money, but once a platform comes to market, the platform becomes a sunk cost that generally needs volume to pay it off...because most cars are not niche market cars. MSRP and volume have an inverse relationship for the most part.

Ummmmmmmm well I don't know what to tell you...everything pivots a couple inches for access...and it's been demonstrated. People have seen it.If you're referring to me ambiguously, well, I am not a fan of the G6 convertible, but the hardtop/lack of trunk space is the least of its issues. I would be to embarrassed to be seen driving the top down with that hideous interior on display. No. That car needs a new interior...yesterday. Styling is fine...everything is fine (more power is always good, but no problem), but that interior makes me wanna go buy a Ford.

No one's disagreeing with that. Agreed. Of course not; the Y-bodies are some of the most profitable cars GM sells. The Kappas are not at all. In fact, their profitability has been questioned. Well, maybe...but other than a true coupe, I don't see it happening. It doesn't need to, though, because the pricing of the Corvette (and now XLR) make the Y very profitable. Spawning variants is only an issue when fixed platform costs are high compared to the transaction price of the vehicles. Corvettes base at twice the price of Solstice. The financial profit models for each are completely different. That's the point. 6-12 months wouldn't have hurt Solstice/SKY sales. Yet that time would've yielded a much better platform, one that maybe could address the issues of Solstice and SKY as well, providing for an above-and-beyond better package than MX-5 (as of now, they are all about equally matched). Also remember...the Solstice launch was delayed almost 6 months from what was initially forcasted. You and I both. I always liked the Bonnie, but as for a next-generation, the outlook isn't too good at this point. Pontiac is really a big question mark right now...and GM needs to figure it out soon! What "more"? What else is going to come out of it, other than excellent roadsters?

LOL

The Montego is a really nice sedan. It just needs more power and a sharper exterior (2007 baby!)

Bloomington, Indiana. Go IU!! Very eclectic...lots of people there. Great party atmosphere. Kinda quirky though with the very short divided street with the grass and water in the middle...and the cops are schizophrenic there with their enforcement.

Can you back that up with facts and figures?Also, I highly doubt there would be a lot of VLEs involved...pushing things back. What would have happened is likely what sort of happened...the architecture is developed, the two main vehicles are rushed through...and then the other variants requiring more time would come later. The only difference is an extra 6 months wasn't spent making sure Kappa could be stretched or modified AT ALL. Again, though, if you have facts or statements from Lutz and Wagoner on this that I haven't heard, please prove me wrong. Finally...thanks to the people keeping this discussion intelligent. Discussing the technical aspects of Kappa is really helping with our collective understanding of things, and I especially thank enzl and evok for bringing their vast resources to the table. Now let's continue keeping this thread intelligent

Zeta vehicles stealing sales from trucks Could you maybe explain your rationale?

It does.

The Alfa looks a lot more expensive though, even with cloth seats.

Of course not...when was the last time you actually heard the "doth" in it? Most people change it to "does." Oh no they're ruining it!!!I look at the whole thing this way: Bush can comment on language once he learns to speak English himself.

No. I do NOT want average vehicles. What does Josh have to do with this? You keep bringing him up, and it is really irritating me because I really couldn't care less about him. Why? Because he owns a Solstice? Ummmmmm...try again.You really are not very bright if you have read my posts in this topic and think my dislike for the Kappa platform is even partially because of Josh. Last time I checked he didn't rush it through. Again, you fail to separate the vehicles from the platform. Vehicles are cars. They are built on platforms. I hope the difference is clear now. The Solstice and SKY are excellent vehicles built on Kappa. Kappa as a platform sucks because it can only support small 2-seat roadsters. If GM makes a vehicle it should do it well. Small 2-seat roadsters turn out well on Kappa because the limitations of Kappa do not pose problems for them. Those segments have special unique attributes that fit perfectly with Kappa. You start trying to build a more practical vehicle on Kappa, and the platform's limitations prevent it from being a world-class vehicle. That is why it sucks: because platforms are expensive in and of themselves to develop, and Kappa just plain isn't as useful as it should be. Are the two vehicles on it excellent? Yes. Would different body styles be as excellent? No. That is why Kappa sucks: it is just too limited. Now, if you keep bringing up Josh in an effort to try and start $h!, I will just ignore your posts because guess what? you are a waste of time to the enthusiasts here trying to have an intelligent discussion of Kappa. EDITED TO ADD: Unlike the MX-5, GM intended for Kappa to spawn a variety of body styles, but because Solstice and SKY were rushed, those other variants are no longer feasible. MX-5 was intended for MX-5. Also, the two companies have completely different situations. The problem is, that in GM's situation, they needed a flexible platform. Flexible manufacturing is the big buzz in the industry. Also, you never addressed my earlier point regarding Nissan/Infiniti. Nissan and Infiniti have multiple vehicles on the same platform, ranging from sports cars, sedans, coupes, and even an SUV. Explain that. GM cannot afford to waste money when their bread and butter sucks. GM still builds average vehicles and they build them as "values." This is moronic. There is NO aspiration to own a bargain-basement vehicle. GM builds a vehicle for a price, not to be the best in its segment and charge a premium. GM needs to shake the value and "price" mentality with their cars. Until GM can successfully design and produce mainstream vehicles that are continually best in class and great sellers, they have no business appealing to 20,000 per year sales of roadsters. Hello, those roadsters are NOT going to keep the company afloat. Build a desirable Malibu. Build a Malibu that kicks butt and owns the segment like GM cars did in the 50s and 60s. Show some innovation. GM lacks innovation in its mainstream vehicles. GM used to be innovative back in the day.

I don't think it's an issue. GM wants sales, and they feel more sales will result from this being a Daewoo versus a Chevrolet or Opel. In Asian countries, there is a lot of national pride, hence the Daewoo badge makes it more appealing.This won't be sold as a Chevrolet in Opel countries.

I don't think it was a feasible vehicle. The main problem with Kappa is the lack of trunk space. Have you seen the trunk? It's non-existant due to the fuel tank. People with roadsters are much more forgiving of that than, say, an owner of a wagon. You start carrying 4 people you need to carry their stuff. Nomad and Curve both failed at that.I think some preliminary engineering went into it, but I don't think it was money "wasted" at all.

Eh, I'm over it. Don't care too much. Really doesn't bother me any way...

Ummmmmmm...I disagree.

I could see them limiting the legalization to pot...but the others wow that's a bit much IMO.

Um, no one else posted between him and me...derr of course no one else brought it up What are you trying to pin me down on? Seriously...it's ridiculous to perpetuate this. There were multiple questions in his posts. Some were addressed by the first part of mine, and the last couple were related to the last part of my post. There were 2 Nomads. One in 2000 that was universally praised and well-received, then there was the 2004 that was almost as universally panned. One was likely "flushed" and the other has been hinted by GM that they might want to bring it to production, though that is unlikely now given the amount of time that has passed since 2000 and the Camaro of 2006 (sitting in a drawer somewhere, ignored). Since he didn't specify which Nomad concept, I did not assume either, and simply asked. So what's with the third degree, Ven? If it isn't clear to you now, then please PM me...or better yet just drop it because it isn't a big deal at all (though its continuation is beginning to irritate me) and I fail to see why you are continuing this tangential and inconsequential discussion.

Again...I wasn't confused at all. Those were two separate thoughts...???

I think you misinterpreted my post. The main point was that those were one-off concept cars and were not engineered for production. As such, very little actual engineering went into them, hence no money wasted.That was the first part of my post. The second was asking which Nomad he was referring to, since the first one tended to be much more popular than the second with a lot of enthusiasts asking for that one to be produced on Kappa. It really wasn't an unreasonable question. Either way, it does not change my response regarding Kappa variants.

Curve and Nomad were concept cars...not much actual engineering going into those one-off cars. Which Nomad, by the way? The one from like 99 or 00 with the A-pillar side mirrors...that design predated Kappa by a lot...

Because we want GM to have more conquest sales. Ever sit in a Honda Pilot? Lotta attention to detail...it really makes you feel valued as a customer. Also...see my post in the SATURN AURA DEMONSTRATES REFINEMENT or whatever it's called thread.....on the two houses...maybe then you'll get it more clearly.

DAH!! Got to that before I was able to edit it out...