Croc

Actually, believe it or not, the bean counters weren't the ones who rushed Kappa through with all its limitations. You need the bean counters at GM. They're an easy scapegoat, but they need to be there since their job is to prevent the wasting of money. GM needs a balance between bean counters and car guys. That's where Rick Wagoner comes in. If the car guys who were pushing Kappa were more circumspect, we'd have a more flexible platform that would be better in almost every way as well as being able of spawning different RWD variants.

First of all, I don't think you would. Half a mile is like 5 blocks. If you were morbidly obese with a severe case of asthma, then you might have a problem. My mother, in her mid-50s, runs 8 miles several times a week. Actually, biking is really $h!ty exercise. That's why it is easy to go long distances at decent speeds without much sweating. Walk or run...but biking if wasting your time.

I'd still call Kappa II a "failure" though simply because engineering 2 platforms when GM should have been able to do the job with one...thats spending twice as much as they should have. Remember, Kappa is so damned inflexible that to get it to support other types of vehicles would require so many modifications that it wouldn't really be the same platform.

You really just need self-discipline and access to a weightroom.Or you can go running at least 3 miles every day through a mixture of flat and hilly terrain, but that requires discipline. Then there's always dieting, but that too requires discipline. Really, there is no magic bullet. If you want to lose weight, then instead of sitting on your ass logged into C&G for 4 hours everyday...use at least one of those hours running, doing yoga, weightlifting, dancing...anything physically active.

Exactly. Companies can/should do more image vehicles when the finances are all in order. A company making a frivolous, limited low-volume vehicle platform "because they can" while they are reporting $10B losses is just stupid. Toyota, however, is swimming in cash and can afford to waste money.

Ahhhhhhh OK...

My apology.

Oldsmobile O4 Centieme (f@#k if I know) G6 Concept Aztek Concept What is that middle one?

Actually, there weren't really any. The entire argument was flawed. See evok's post above RE: Corvette. Also, I do believe the XLR opened a new market for GM. In fact, the XLR was a very important pillar in the resurrection of Cadillac. The successful Art & Science design language started with the 1999 Evoq show car, the concept version of the XLR.

More logical than you. Look at the two cars on that platform (which, by the way, was an extensive reworking of the 1997 Corvette platform and NOT a start-from-scratch, from-the-ground-up new platform): one costs $44,490 base MSRP, the other at $77,295. The profitability equations for these two products are much different than the SKY and Solstice, two highly differentiated cars priced only a few grand within each other. It is a known fact that profit margins increase as MSRP increases. The XLR costs over $30k more than the Corvette, minimum.Also, you grossly misinterpret my main argument. Could it be that you didn't read my posts very well? No one is saying that GM shouldn't make the Solstice and SKY...merely that they should NOT have been produced on a platform that was rushed to market and therefore very inflexible. The Solstice and SKY could have easily arrived 12 to 18 months later with no impact on sales. No impact on hype. They could have been better engineered in that time too...this more fully-evolved Kappa might have better trunk space. The interiors could even have been better (especially in the Solstice's case). More variants could be produced on the architecture, leading to profitability. Sure, they would launch a year after the Miata, but at least then they might actually be a BETTER package than Miata, instead of just competing well. GM rushed Kappa. The argument is against Kappa, not Solstice or SKY. Until you can separate the cars from the poorly-executed platform, you will be failing to comprehend the logical arguments being made. GM rushed Kappa to market, and it shows. The Solstice and SKY, however, are generally excellent little roadsters. GM did not rush the Corvette and XLR to market. That platform is already a segment best, frequently beating out much more expensive rivals (in the case of the Corvette) in comparison tests. For the XLR, it always comes in as a close runner-up, mainly because it just hasn't had as luxurious an interior as the competition.

The front clip is almost identical!!

I don't think that's quite what evok is talking about.

Camino: word.

Whether the SKY was the "free" vehicle or the Opel GT (I actually think it is the latter) is irrelevant. Since those vehicles are not Solstice badge jobs, they had a price tag. The program cost more than just Kappa/Solstice. I will cautiously agree with those numbers. The fallacy is still that the Opel GT/SKY have a price tag on them. They aren't just $2000 profit. If the product life cycle is long, and if more vehicles are proposed, like the possible SAAB. Why do you think these other vehicles keep getting proposed? Because GM wants to make money. As of now, Kappa will essentially break even. GM needs substantial, meaningful profits. The reason GM keeps doing this "Kappa Dance" with approval/rejection of products is because:1) There is a very limited market for 2 seat roadsters. 2) Any new product that isn't a straight badge job (Opel GT) costs money. 3) GM has yet to dream up a product that can sell in substantial numbers, spread out the sunk costs of Kappa more than it contributes to program costs (i.e. not cost too much to make) 4) Be a product that is actually desirable GM offers 2 vehicles in a segment that really only consists of 3. Adding another will saturate the market further. As is, a few years down the line the SKY, Solstice and Miata will be cannibalizing sales from each other since the buzz will have died down. ------------------------------- To all those who think Kappa shouldn't have been rushed to market, one last point: Yes, we have the cars now...but GM is going to have to spend lots of money for successive generations. Kappa isn't a platform that will underpin generations of vehicles. No, it was one platform that, because it was rushed to market, necessitates a large capital expenditure if GM wants a real small RWD platform that can underpin more than just small, 2 seat roadsters with no trunk space (without massive rear overhangs).

Oh, I agree. There is only a very limited demand for a 2-seat roadster with no trunk space. Therefore, it really is necessary for GM to limit production. That said, when production is artificially capped, I just don't see the cause for celebration. Again, it isn't the Chevrolet Impala selling out at maximum capacity. I just don't see the celebration: "Yay! GM limited the production to less than demand and it SOLD OUT!" No $h!, Sherlock...I'd frankly be very worried if it hadn't. ----- Also, selling the vehicles above MSRP benefits the dealers, not GM. GM still sells them at the invoice price and receives the invoice amount regardless of how much the dealership charges the customer.

Only if it's profitable. Guess what? It isn't!

That would make you a moron.Kappa isn't making any money for GM due to the engineering costs. It is losing money. Having a more flexible platform that could spawn more variants would result in better economies of scale and spread the fixed costs out so that the platform might reach profitability. That's it. My dislike for Kappa has to do with the fact that it was rushed and not thought through very well before being approved. As a result, we have two roadsters and that's it. Every proposed variant doesn't make it past the green light. Why? Kappa isn't flexible enough for anything other than 2-seat roadsters. What about a hardtop? Doubtful, since the gas tank still takes up 90% of the trunk. Roadster buyers are a lot more forgiving of virtually zero trunk space. But coupe buyers? Not as much. Had the business cases been more properly thought out and the platform created so that other types of vehicles could feasibly produced, then I would be a fan of Kappa. But it wastes money, isn't likely to be profitable, and just exacerbates GM's problems... Yea, ocn, it just HAS to be because Josh owns one

Because they lack the crop space for biodiesel. USA/Canada won't have that problem since we have lots of wide open spaces.

Comparison to biodiesel?

Pontiac and Saturn wouldn't be entering a segment "too late" since they are practically creating the segment. What else competes? Miata? That's about it.Producing them now is an investment...yes...but a bad investment. We have a white elephant platform that is decent at producing one type of vehicle. That's it. Hardly an investment for the future.

So? If one more year would have meant a more flexible platform with more derivatives, more trunk space, etc, then I think it would be worth it. People want the car based on the styling, not because in 2006 they decided it was the year of the roadster. A better overall package that wasn't so damned expensive and limiting for GM would also mean derivatives to keep the buzz going, a more consumer-friendly package that could be in greater demand and sell out still while producing a higher number of units...and more profitability.

Well, yes, because in the GM hierarchy Buick > Olds. I'm asking about Buick having something better than Cadillac...which shouldn't be happening.

Wait, are you saying the Roadmaster had a better, nicer climate control setup than the Fleetwood did? Blasphemy!

I agree, evok. There is a Pilot that is parked outside of my apartment often enough. When I'd go and have a cig break, I'd notice it, and damnit they have little details that are just nice. The red led blinker for the theft alarm is integrated into the popup door unit. Is that an important feature? No, but it shows that Honda sweats the small stuff. Because I noticed that one little detail, I too like the Pilot and want to check it out more thoroughly this summer. As for the SRX? No, not worth the money. That interior is $h!. If the 2007 refresh is decent, then I may have one in my future. If not, Subaru gets my money for the Tribeca. Our M-Class is on its last legs. When it goes out this summer, we will not be waiting until February to replace it with a Lambda, either.

But this would be on existing farms that either get paid to destroy their crops or are paid not to plant at all. Given the amount of greenery lost to city development...I don't think the photosynthesis is an issue (is it ever an issue?)...as for the fertilizer runoff? That assumes more fertilizers are used than in standard aggricultural operations, something I'm just not convinced of at this point.