Croc

So how long are you going to wait for someone to show up? Log off now and run around your house for 10 minutes!!! SCHNELL!

Isn't Aveo only initially offered as a sedan? At the shows it was shown as a sedan only...

Swimming is a mixed bag. It actually promotes fat retention (for bouyancy). Another thing that one should keep in mind is that no matter what you do, your body will get used to it and you will plateau. Trainers always suggest mixing the workout up every now and then so your body doesn't settle into a routine. Aerobic activity is the most efficient fat-burning, though frequent anaerobic activity can be almost as effective as long as it is intense and frequently recurring. Trainers generally recommend combining three different exercise activities into one workout regimen: 1 primary aerobic activity and 2 supplementary activities. Swimming, due to the fat-retention propensities, should only be used as a supplementary exercise. From personal experience, I recommend: Primary: Running Secondary: Weight Training Tertiary: Biking If you are going to bike, get a spedometer/odometer. Try to maintain a constant speed throughout the different types of terrain. Starting out, 15mph should be easy enough, though push yourself to go to at least 20 ASAP. Also, incorporate "sprints" into your activities. Sprints can be literal sprints, or intensity changes, such as maintaining constant speed yet going up a hill. The key is to sprint for a couple minutes (2-3) and then return to the same pace/intensity as prior to the sprint. DO NOT REST. Staying constantly active promotes fat loss. Best weightlifting exercise? Squats. They can be a total body workout when done correctly. Leg presses and leg extensions work wonders as do leg curls. Lower body should take precedent to upper body if fat loss is the prime motive.

Well, it can be kinda hard to drive when you've been drinking vodka all day...

Wow, that interior is even more boring than the exterior. At least the exterior has some "flame surfacing" to keep you awake...

Which hybrids are you referring to?GM plans its hybrids around a model program profitability model. By that I mean the GMT900 hybrids are not measured on their own, but within the context of the entire GMT900 program. The image goodwill GM receives on the few they make and sell (relative to the production and sale of non-hybrid models) is certainly more than worth the small amount of money (again, relatively speaking) that GM might lose per hybrid model. The GMT900s are GM's cash cows...that program most definitely will see profitability. GM appears at this point to be only including hybrid models on established volume products. As such, I do not believe GM will actually lose money on hybrid models offered, though they may earn less profit on the vehicle program as a whole. I think this is why we will likely see Greenline hybrids and Tahoe hybrids, but no Cobalt, Malibu or G6 hybrids (for the time being). GM is producing them to compete with the competition, but guaranteeing their volumes will be limited so they do not cost GM much in the way of profits per sale.

I highly doubt we will see anything other than a 2-seat roadster on Kappa. I think it might be possible that a SAAB version may be approved...but I personally do not think that it has any more of a shot at production than a Bengal, in fact less. I do not think the SAAB could sell for much more than the Bengal would have, and the Bengal would certainly sell more units with a more extensive dealer network (although sharing showroom space with the Solstice). I think GM is already saturating the market, and any additional models should be badge jobs in other countries. I wonder if a Buick badge job of the Solstice for export to China would be a good idea or not...something that would cost very little to develop but would snag a few more sales.

That's pretty hot. Unfortunately, I have this sinking feeling the next ION will really be the GM do Brazil Vectra...

It's not low expectations, per se, it's just that since I've been through it, I know the pitfalls and cop-outs all too well. It sucks...but I'd rather tell it to you straight than paint a pretty (and false) picture of how if you just do three things, it'll all magically melt away. Cuz guess what? It doesn't. If there were a magic bullet, we'd all have it and all look like the A&F model on their splash page. Of course...the weightloss methods I outlined previously are the healthy ones. There are other ways to lose weight...but they are unhealthy and sometimes dangerous. Just stick to the healthy stuff...the other ways might be faster, but they are more trouble than they're worth... Edited for spelling

The Pontiac Cobalt coupe, Bob?

What, you aren't soiling yourself in anticipation of the all-new Pontiac G5?? You've got to be kidding me.

Very interesting, indeed. Silly Chargerino...

Actually, I think it would have been delayed, but slightly. Nothing significant. Though IMO, I don't think any delay would be significant since GM is making small RWD roadsters a competitive segment instead of a single offering by Mazda. The fact that they were released later than the MX-5 would be made up by their addressing the current Kappa shortcomings (of course assuming that GM would have actually designed the platform better given more time).ETA: the MX-5 is so evolutionary...I think most of the sales of the Kappa twins are simply due to the fact that they are visually different than the Miata, which has looked about the same for over a decade.

No. That is not what I said. Re-read my post.

I think there will be a rear revision of the sedan to match the coupe. I remember hearing that 2007 is a MCE year...and with the Pontiac G5 I would imagine the sedan will have something closer to the coupe's rear.

Actually...it isn't the same. The taillamps look different. Also, Cobalt gets an MCE this fall...think a new rear to match the coupe is in the works?

Bull. There would be no "far and away better" Kappa coming if the first one had been done right.GM actually could have (and should have) afforded to spend more money to engineer Kappa for greater flexibility. Yes, it would have cost more money in the short term...but then we would have a platform that could be used for many years and even more vehicles. Platform engineering costs are amortized over time and through volume. The higher the volume a platform the sooner its costs get paid off. Again, it will take a lot longer to pay off Kappa through 2-seat roadsters than if we had 2-seat roadsters...and small sport coupes, hatches/sportwagons or even sedans. All of those would lead to more volume. More volume leads to greater profitability. Oh, and in 2003, GM's future cash problems were quite predictable. The GM of today is a continuation of the trends of the past decade (at least!). GM's turnaround plan has been in the works ever since Wagoner brought Lutz on board, and that wasn't 12 months ago.

But updating Kappa won't let it spawn other variants. The modifications necessary to let it spawn other vehicles would virtually make it a whole new platform.

Not if they are all similar targets. Look at the Infiniti FX, G35 coupe and sedan, Nissan 350Z...all of those are very successful vehicles, and all are on the same platform, with just a few modifications here and there. They are pretty different targets, no? So...what's Nissan/Infiniti's secret of producing one platform that is flexible enough for multiple variants?If GM had been more practical, they could have produced a small RWD platform that could spawn small roadsters, compact coupes, maybe even a sedan or hatch/sportwagon. One platform can underpin a wide variety of vehicles successfully as long as each application is calibrated and tuned for the needs of each segment. If Nissan/Infiniti can do it, then GM could have as well.

Except the GXP is better and on the same platform...

Cocoa with Cashmere? Has that been a running change, because that sounds a lot like what my father's 2006 has. Very nice combo.

He'd get a better workout running those same hills.Face it, the reason people use bikes for transportation is because they are efficient machines. You go farther and easier than you would on your own. I'm tired of arguing this. If you don't believe me, ask any trainer which is better exercise: riding a bike on hilly terrain or running on hilly terrain for the same amount of time.

Yea...again...when you're running/walking...you can't bull$h! it like biking. Biking hard constantly through hills requires a lot of discipline...and this is BV we're talking about. If BV wants the "easiest" way to lose weight...it is through running. Just trust me on this. Chargerino, were you ever needing to lose a bit of weight? I'm speaking from first-hand experience here.

Look, I used to bike extensively. I didn't lose my weight until I switched to walking/running.

Yes, but it is a lot easier to bull$h! exercise on a bike than by walking/running. Also, unless BV invests in one of the newer safety seats, too much biking will make him impotent.