Croc

THAT is an acceptable Buick interior. Looks like it already has been upgraded over the Opel. Either that, or the prior rendering made everything look like matte plastic.

Oh, I see the confusion. What I meant was a 2005 STS maybe competed with a 1995 5er due to the chintzy interior and lack of features on the '05.

As was I. FWD Seville competed with...uh...the Deville? I truly don't know.

W-O-W...I guess I assumed too much from you guys. There have been a lot of stories the past few years of employers who limit healthcare coverage to people who are obese, who smoke, etc. Limit, not eliminate. And it only applies for employer-based health care. Basically, if you smoke, they won't coer smoking-related conditions, or at least not in full.

How so? Frankly, I think it's outrageous for thin, in shape people to subsidize the healthcare of lardasses. Which we do. I used to be very large, but I'm fine now. It really isn't that hard, either. ETA: Regarding Balth's point: I don't use BMI for those reasons. When I say overweight and obese, I'm using body fat percentages. There are size 2 women out there who are nothing but lard despite thin dimensions...and they're just as poorly off as the 300+ pounders.

The STS never competed with the 5-series. Only a GM exec would tell you that. In features offered, interior width, quality of materials, and style, it competed with a 5-series maybe from 1995. The CTS always has competed with the 5er. Just priced like a firesale at the dollar store.

I think a tax is the wrong way to go about it. Put another way: if I'm thin and work out, why should I be charged more for a cola than bottled water? I think the best way to go about it is the employers and insurance companies who tie health benefits to obesity.

And I'm asking, "Why the hell not?" Why couldn't Buick sell a rebadged S-class at $40k? A 1986 Skylark Limited sold for today's equivalent of just a hair under 20k BASE. A 1988 T-type Electra based at today's equivalent of 30k. A 1988 Reatta would cost almost 45k in today's dollars. And with features/content going up every year, there's no doubt Buick could push past 40k on some models.

Slightly disagree. I think the CTS should base no lower than 40, preferably around 42.5...but all lesser-equipped trims than that should be dropped. In other words, same equipment per price, but knock out the lower models that don't do anything but cheapen the brand and its image. What does it say when your pretentious, upwardly-mobile acquaintance drives up in a brand new CTS, you get inside a Cadillac for the first time, and see how poorly-equipped it is? It certainly doesn't make you think "man, I REALLY want one of these."

Absolutely. If Alpha becomes a reality, I'd love to see both Pontiac and Cadillac vehicles on it. I'd price this entry-level Cadillac at 35k+, in current dollars, and that would be the base price. Most would sell equipped in the 40-45k range. As OC has said in many posts, most CTSs are equipped and priced around the 42-45k mark. IMO this should be the new base price for a CTS, 42.5k with current equipment levels and in 2008 dollars. The sub-40 models aren't nice enough IMO to wear the wreath and crest. "Oh, but he said Cadillac shouldn't be under 40k a few posts back! omg omg wtf liar..." Yea, with the current lineup. Add in a hypothetical vehicle that's smaller and ACTUALLY competes with a 3-series, then we have something else to talk about. I still maintain that every Cadillac should come standard with certain levels of amenities, so this hypothetical Alpha platform car should adhere to that, and with current levels of equipment and corresponding prices across the industry, I'd say 35k is a good base price, maybe 32.5k as an absolute stripper model. Again, Cadillac built its mythology on being the Standard of the World, of being the best, to such an extent that calling something a "Cadillac" meant it was the top of the line. As a result, I feel there should be a certain threshold to own one new. An "admission price" if you will. Cadillac is NOT a volume brand. It is well documented that their troubles arose in the late 1970s and early 1980s when they started chasing volume. It cheapened what a Cadillac is. And please note, that as much of an enthusiast as I am, I would rather Cadillac be successful, prestigious, and coveted than to be something I could ever afford to drive in the next decade. Cadillacs used to be the car one bought when one had "arrived," and Buick was more the mass-luxury, premium brand.

I think EVERYONE knows what a "Crown Vic" is...the ubiquitous cop car. Same with "Vette." Pretty much anything else though is just lame, and I will judge you for your lameness if you use non-standard nicknames for your car. Though I think I wouldn't give a second thought if someone said "little bitch" because I know 3 people who call their Cavalier that.

Wow! Great job on the pricing GM...maybe someone does read my posts occasionally...

I nominate this for best post of 2008.

Wow, I can see why you've gained a reputation for being a troll. This site isn't Fox News--by that I mean you don't "win" by talking over and repeating your claim in increasingly shrill pitches. On this site we debate ideas. So if you want to keep responding like clockwork to my posts, great, but if you don't start responding with anything of substance, it'll be a very quick trip to being ignored.

Sorry Paulie, but when he was honking the horn with his ass I immediately thought of a story you posted on here many years ago...

...and if GM grouped the sales channels such that similar brands were under the same sales channels, dealerships could be tightly focused AND be ensured volume. Right now, GM has Chevrolet, Saturn, SAAB, Cadillac, and the "catchall" of B-P-GMC. Let's try something that makes sense, plays to the divisions' strengths, and gets GM to stop competing with itself. I'm also going to keep every current division, even HUMMER. Chevrolet & Saturn Pontiac, SAAB & HUMMER Buick, Cadillac & GMC The logic: Chevrolet and Saturn are both family-oriented brands. If Saturn retains uplevel Opel models, it no longer needs entry vehicles and can essentially be a premium version of Chevrolet, car-wise. Think VW compared to Honda or Toyota. Same type of buyer, different income bracket. Pontiac SAAB and HUMMER would be the "enthusiast" grouping. Pontiac for raw performance, SAAB for refined euro performance, and HUMMER for offroad performance. Remember how HUMMER dealerships all got those offroad test courses? Add an inner ring and slalom for the Pontiac and SAAB prospectives to test the limits of those cars. Buick, Cadillac & GMC are the premium brands, or are at least marketed as such. Rescued from the Misfit Group, GMC no longer has to be a clone of Chevy and could essentially be the Denali trim levels of appointment. Higher profit margins than current. Buick gets to grow and actually BE premium, instead of just marketed as such. Buick used to be the American Jaguar, and now it can be this again, emphasizing luxury and comfort, while Cadillac tackles luxury and performance. Buick, Jaguar, AUDI and Lexus, versus Cadillac, Mercedes, BMW and Infiniti. Also, with these groupings, Chevrolet dealerships still get their volume, as well as some premium product so Chevrolet division isn't so bipolar since Chevrolet likes having one of everything. Pontiac SAAB and HUMMER get entries in nearly every product segment and price, so no pointless rebadges to placate dealerships needing/wanting more volume, and a unified focus on performance--all three brands are somewhat unified vs. the current B-P-GMC grouping. Buick Cadillac and GMC are all premium, so no more internal politics and competition. Cadillac and GMC are in the same dealership, so the competition that resulted in BOTH a GMC Denali and an Escalade never would have happened. GMC can have uplevel product, while the ultra premium product can be sold as a Denali trim, or under the Escalade lineup. But GM can pick and choose what works and resonates with consumers instead of mindlessly duplicating across the sales channels. Cadillac and Buick dealerships are the same, so both divisions can get product without the dealerships engaging in infighting and corporate sabotage. Win, win, win, win, win, win, win, f@#king win.

G's are on their way out, and they are also different size classes. They do not compete. That's the point. Move Buick upmarket so Cadillac can move upmarket. Right now Cadillac makes the wonderful CTS, but it's playing dual roles, trying to compete with the 5-series, by the specs, but with the 3-series on price because GM needs an entry lux car. Let Buick be entry lux...you know, like it used to be back in the Sloane days when the divisional structure functioned and they didn't compete with each other anywhere near the extent they do now. Also, as I have proposed in other previous threads, GM should structure their dealerships by division focus. Buick and Cadillac, both being luxury/near luxury marques, should be paired together. If Buick is to be remotely premium, why should those customers have to put up with the same type of service and volume-seller sales tactics at a Pontiac and GMC dealership use? It doesn't make sense. And then Cadillac dealers don't have a problem with a more premium Buick. Why should GM even build the Regal if it competes internally? Malibu and AURA...two cars at the same price range, same platform. GM doesn't need to compete with itself.

Progressives don't have a problem with Pelosi...the House has been doing their job thus far...it's more Harry Reid and the Senate that have produced criticism.

Because Pelosi is a Democrat, and D's never try to save a company and fat cat executives while screwing the wage-earners. That's the flip answer. The long one is that there would be no fast, clean bankruptcy, that so many people are tied to the Big 3 in the US that a bankruptcy would almost certainly send us into another Great Depression, if for nothing else than the domino effect on other auto companies. The union didn't design the Aztek, the union didn't choose to produce vehicles with substandard interiors, and the union didn't decide that using loose factory build tolerances would reduce costs even if $h! gets asembled with glaring misalignments. The union therefore should not pay the price for GM's poor foresight.

Even better would be to go "honey, you got a dribble on your cheek."

...Everyone plays off that phrase. It's getting so annoying now...

Yup. I think the state, if it chooses to pursue it, could have a real case against these parents for child abuse. I hope they rot in hell for what they're selfishly doing to those poor children.

Received mine the other day.

No, it is just you. GMC is virtually the only time GM has succeeded at "brand management" marketing; research shows that consumers, particularly women, perceive GMC as premium to Chevrolet, and that not as many people cross-shop the two brands as one might think. Because GMC required virtually no development costs, its sales are nearly pure profit. Just like when GM shuttered Oldsmobile, and buyers didn't flock to other GM divisions, GM would be crazy to shutter its pure profit divisison.

Bingo. If GM is serious anout Buick, they need to actually sell premium vehicles through it. As is, it's like they think Buicks are "premium" by virtue of the badge and that association hasn't held true since the mid-1970s.