Croc

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.

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.