ehaase

Yes, especially if their presidential candidate is another moderate Southern governor, like former Va. governor Mark Warner. Democrats win the Presidency with moderate Southern governors (Carter, Clinton). Long-term demographic trends (declining percentage of non-hispanic whites) also indicate a chance for Democrats to be more successful in the future. Canadians seem to have the same social views as most people on the West Coast and Northeast have. The Ford and AFA threads showed me that few people at C&G are from the South.

Unless someone really prefers the handling of a small car, I don't know why anyone would pick this over a two year old used Impala. The fuel economy is awful for such a small car.

I would buy the Yaris because of the fuel economy. Fuel economy is the only reason to buy such a small car. Otherwise, a two year old mid sized car is a better deal.

Will the 2007 Aveo get 34 mpg in the city?

Small 2-seater? Corvette is the only 2 seater that interests me at all. Coupe? Mustang GT Sedan? Chrysler 300C Wagon/Hatchback? Ford Freestyle SUV? Chevrolet Suburban Van? Toyota Sienna Truck? Ford F-150 SuperCrew Used? Used versions of any of the above

Perhaps a case could be made that GM should use FWD only for crossovers and entry level 4 cylinder economy cars and move everything else to RWD. GM keeps trying to compete with the Camry/Accord and keeps falling short. If it weren't for fleet sales, how successful would the Impala be?

GuionM's post at the Z28 board is interesting http://64.65.63.61/forums/showthread.php?p...084#post3497084 Especially this comment - "In all this, it seemed the "Chevy" RWD chassis evolved into the favorite, and when the money got flowing again, it seems that the Chevy chassis was put on the fast track, and seems to have become the priority over even the Espilon 2!" If this is true - and if GM is pushing back some of these FWD programs - to speed up new RWD cars, I doubt that most of you would be upset. Perhaps more RWD, V8 cars from GM would generate more profits than updating FWD cars that keep failing against the Camry/Accord.

The HF V-6's get relatively poor fuel economy. Both the 2.8 and 3.6 get 17 or 18 in the city (while Toyota's 3.5 is getting 22 in the city), while the 3.5 OHV is getting 20 to 22 in the city. The 3.9 HV also gets relatively poor fuel economy, around 18 or 19 in the city. Unless GM can get better fuel economy out of the HF V-6's, I can see keeping the 3.5 HV, especially for lower end Impalas and Malibus for CAFE purposes. I don't see the point of either the 2.8 HF or 3.9 HV. I'd drop the 2.8 from the CTS and make the 3.6 standard. I'd replace the 3.9 HV with the 3.6 HF across the board.

Considering how Toyota has enlarged the RAV4, cancelling the sub-Thetas makes perfect sense for me. I think that the HHR is sufficient for that market. If GM pushes the Malibu back to 2009 or 2010, I wonder if it will also end up pushing its RWD programs back to 2011 or 2012.

As much as I wish that things would improve for GM, Jerry Flint did not write one thing in his article that appears incorrect to me.

Why don't you all wait and see what is being cancelled before having a tirade? None of us are financial experts. GM only has a limited amount of money and must invest it where it will receive the best return.

I don't care much for People with tattoos and body piercing Rednecks People who drive while on their cell phone Traffic gridlock

How certain is anyone that GM is going to develop two more RWD platforms in addition to Kappa and Sigma? Is everyone absolutely certain that the Camaro, if produced, is going to use a different platform from potential RWD Chevrolet and Buick sedans?

Here is an excerpt from the e-mail Wall Street has speculated that Henderson would be a logical successor to Rick Wagoner, GM CEO, in the event that Wagoner loses his job amid GM's current financial crisis. Henderson has been chairman of GM Europe since 2004. Born in Detroit, Henderson has worked for GM since 1984. He started out in New York as a senior analyst in the treasurer's office and held several financial assignments before joining General Motors Acceptance Corp. in 1989 as director of mortgage banking. In 1992, Henderson became GMAC's group vice president of finance in Detroit. Henderson was GM vice president and managing director of GM do Brasil in 1997 through 2000. In 2000, Henderson was named president of GM Latin America, Africa and Middle East. He then ran GM Asia Pacific from 2002 to 2004, when he transferred to Europe.

Yes. I just got the e-mail from Automotive News.

But demand has already faltered.

You fellows are overreacting. The TB is not dying. Because of higher fuel prices, demand for mid-sized truck based SUV's is shrinking - even more than demand for full sized SUV's purchased by more affluent buyers who can afford the fuel. GM is doing the same thing Ford is doing - cutting back production of these truck based mid sized SUV's. This is a very sensible move by GM (and Ford).

The article said 300 hp Mustang V8, not V6, for the same price. And they're right - I would take a Mustang V8 over a G6 GTP for the same money any day. And so would most of you.

All the V8 diesel premium sedans that Mercedes, Audi, and BMW sell in Europe that we don't have here.

Can Wilmington build cars on more than one platform? I may be wrong, but I think I have read that GM has no plants that currently produce more than one platform. I have read the proposals that Spring Hill and Oshawa may eventually be flexible.

Unless the production coupe is on Kappa (as Hudson has said several times, and he has proven to be very accurate over the 4 or 5 years that I have been reading his posts at various places) and can be built at Wilmington, I do not see the Camaro coming out before 2010. Most of you just want to talk about Camaro, Camaro, Camaro, but the fact is that most of the cars to built off Zeta will be sedans. These sedans will replace the Impala, Lucerne, and DTS that were just introduced. I do not see a Zeta or Sigma lite Camaro coming out before any of these sedans are ready to replaced because I do not see the Camaro being built at its own plant.

Most of us at C&G got worked up into a state of ecstasy two or three years ago by the prospect of RWD V8 powered cars that GM was supposed to introduce for the 2007 model year. Remember when we were told that there would be a new RWD Impala, Camaro, Grand Prix, GTO, LaCrosse, and premium Buick sedan for 2007? Some people virtually cursed me for being skeptical (because I knew that GM had new W and G body cars coming out 2004 to 2006 and would not be replacing these cars so quickly). I am not going to get excited about 2009 RWD cars until GM announces them. At this time, they are nothing more than proposals.

Although you are certainly correct about the Epsilon II Malibu, most of your posts are just guessing. No reliable source has confirmed that any of these RWD cars will be out for the 2009 model year. (GuionM is interesting, but is not at the level of AH-HA, Evok, Thegriffon, Hudson, or Hogans_Heroes.) GM already has a full plate for 2009 - the TE platform crossovers, the Epsilon II LaCrosse, Lambda minivans, possible sub-Thetas. No one has said that the Ecotec will get Direct Injection by 2008. GM just finalized its 2008 model year plans. While your theories makes sense and hopefully will be true, most of us here should not be presenting ourselves as authorities on future cars.

This is a lot of speculation about cars that are at least three years away. I seriously doubt that even GM has yet finalized its RWD plans. We didn't know many details about the 2005 Mustang before 2003. We knew very little about Chrysler's LX cars before 2002 or 2003. I don't think that we will know details about these cars until sometime in 2007. The fellows on the Camaro Z28 board are interesting, but I prefer to wait until the insiders here post something (if they don't stop posting, because I know that some of them are getting weary of some of the posters).

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/payne200511290819.asp November 29, 2005, 8:19 a.m. Labor Pains Detroit needs to play by market rules. By Henry Payne Detroit, Michigan — Massive job cuts at General Motors, America's largest carmaker — coupled with the bankruptcy of Delphi, America's biggest autoparts maker — have provoked predictable handwringing from liberal pundits who worry that America is "losing its manufacturing base." But the wrenching change now buffeting the auto industry defies the usual press formulas. Just listen to Steve Miller a turnaround specialist who is steering Delphi's restructuring process. He exploded the myth of America's "endangered" union manufacturing jobs at his October press conference announcing Delphi's move into Chapter 11: "We cannot continue to pay $65 an hour for someone to cut the grass and remain competitive." Grass cutting is a manufacturing job? Miller's frank assessment of unsustainable labor contracts is a refreshing dose of candor in an industry that for too long has talked around union-labor costs in a way that is totally divorced from the realities of the U.S. labor market — much less the global labor market. While America's national press has gleefully covered the front-office shenanigans of Republican fat cats like Enron's Ken Lay, it has entirely missed the disease eating away at the roots of American manufacturing: Behind the threat of strike, greedy Democratic union bosses have built an unsustainable entitlement-wage culture that is now crashing spectacularly in America's heartland, disrupting lives, and threatening some of America's biggest publicly traded companies. Take grass cutting. As defined by the current United Auto Worker contract negotiated with the "Big Five" (GM, Ford, Chrysler, and top parts makers Delphi and Visteon), an auto "production worker" is a job description that covers anything from mowing grass to cleaning the toilets. In the real world, these jobs would be outsourced to $8 an hour, no-benefit wage earners, but on Planet Big Five, these jobs get the same wages as any auto line-worker: an average $26 an hour ($60,000 a year) plus benefits that bring the company's total cost per worker to a staggering $65 an hour.