gmcbob

Interesting - anyone notice the plastic trim piece around the nav screen and radio is missing?

My guess, based on what I've read on an earlier post on this site, is that at the very least we'll see this interior in the 2008 STS. Can't find the post - something from Left Lane News ??

Nice car - I love the color!

Jerry is okay. I actually wrote him an email today and he responded to me, to my utter chagrin. What's weird is that the STS is selling about as many units as the Lexus GS as far as I can tell from the sales ticker reports. Isn't that one of the key direct competitors for that car? I see more GS's on the road here in Houston than I do STS', but that doesn't surprise me as Lexus and Toyota sell real well here in Houston anyway. Is 20-25k STS' a year that bad if Lexus is doing about the same with the GS?

I agree, each one should be slightly tailored for a different audience. In Texas, we have a lot of billboards for the new Tahoe claiming how it's built here. That's actually a smart move because you know Toyota is going to play the built in Texas theme with the Tundra. But, I still think the billboards that are in Kentucky would work here too, just the way they are. I'm not sure that many people here in Houston would make the connection though.

These need to go in key markets like Washington D.C., New York, L.A., San Francisco, Miami and Houston - all areas where GM doesn't sell that many cars anymore. Does anyone know how widespread this ad campaign is supposed to be?

It's funny, I talked to my Dad last night, a 68 year old retiree who once worked for GM back in the 70s-80s. He didn't seem too bothered by the Renault alliance. He figured that Renault is in it for the technology they can gain from GM and that they really have no intentions on "destroying" the company or anything like that. Just another take on it I guess. I personally think the merger or alliance or whatever it's referred to as is probably going to be worthless for GM. Also, it will be a huge distraction and a colossal hassle at the middle management level to integrate these megacorporations together. GM has some killer product/technology, they just need to learn how to market it better and get it to market faster (like the 6 spd. trannys, the rear drive Impala, the new Camaro and CTS,etc..., and the new dual mode hybrid drivetrains).

Oh, one very nice positive in my opinion - the large wheels on the Chevy look great!

Well Ponchoman, a quick answer to your question about old V6 motors and old school 4 spd. transmissions: cost. They're cheap to make. My opinion on the tranny after the next comment. Overall, I like the new GM trucks, they look good. I'd love to see GM crush Toyota in the full size truck game once again (and they will, they have a bigger fan base when it comes to trucks). Not only does GM have a fanbase advantage in this arena, the Toyota looks ugly as sin. I'm sure the 07 Tundra will be a lot nicer than the truck it's replacing, but the styling will kill it in the marketplace. Only the die-hard Toyota fans will embrace it. On the transmissions for the new GM trucks, GM should have introduced these trucks with the 6 spd. transmission. This is a glaring example of how GM has a few sluggers on the team, but they don't have any defense. It's like the 1st baseman can hit home runs all day, catch and field, but their pitching staff is all single A club quality. Why not just speed up the production of the 6 spd. and have that be the standard transmission??? I don't get management's thinking sometimes. It's as if the GM fans (like the guys on this site), know more than the people being paid to run the company. Oh well, go figure. Hey, it's not like GM doesn't have the resources. They've been building modern, 5 and 6 spd. transmissions for a long time, I think they could have figured out a way to put them in the new trucks right from the get go. But I digress - the trucks aren't bad. Too bad gas is $3 a gallon, or I'd probably consider having one just because I think they're cool. Oh well.

It's funny to read posts about seeing Lucernes everywhere, because when I do see a Lucerne, I feel like I'm getting some kind of rare treat here in Houston. I'll probably start noticing them more because of this post now. hehehe. It's good to see Buick doing well in other markets though. I like Buick, my Dad worked as a District Manager for Buick Motor Division for a long time back in the 70s and early 80s, so I remember him bringing home a different Electra or Park Avenue (or an occasional Riv) every other day - a 1980 mint green Electra comes to mind as one of my favorites. Apparently GM has done away with field reps, so my Dad has claimed that positions similar to his don't really exist in the same way they did then, forming a big disconnect between GM and the dealer network. Maybe you guys can confirm or deny this claim.??? Personally, I think Buick desperately needs a rear drive sedan on the STS or new Zeta chassis to really round out the lineup properly. I think a vehicle called "Electra" or something similar needs to come out soon, and at least be on par with the 300C in terms of power, refinement and overall handling prowess - and most importantly, price. If Buick had a car that was something of a cross between a 300C, and say, an Infiniti M45, at a mid to high $30s sticker with the current Lucerne, Acadia waterfall grille type styling and smooth sleek lines that the current Buicks are starting to have, it would be a hit. Coupe and convertible versions too of course.

I actually like the Lucerne, but if I was going to spend $35k on a nice car, I"d probably buy a 300C - something about the rear drive and 340 hp. that just makes me want it more. I'll consider Buick when they bring over the Holden VE with Buick styling.

I have family in Buffalo and when I'm there (I haven't been there in a while) it completely BLOWS my mind at how many American cars I see when I pull up to a traffic light there. In Houston - it's nearly the opposite (although GMT800s and Chevy and Ford trucks and SUVs and new GMT900s are everywhere, probably the only American products I see tons of here in Houston). In Houston, Toyota and Honda rule the roost as far as your typical 4 door sedan or coupe, it's actually kind of annoying. Lately, I have been seeing more of the new Impalas and Buick and Pontiac products, but many of those have the bar codes on them, probably better than half actually. Lots of Impalas, most of them with bar codes on the window or someone who obviously looks like a salesperson (fleet company car). I would say the most popular GM *car* (not SUV) that I see in this market that doesn't have a bar code on the window might be a toss up between the G6 and perhaps the Malibu or HHR. Now that I think about it, I see a lot of HHRs on the road here. No bar codes either. But overall, I'd say the market is definitely skewed in favor of the imports here in the Houston area, and out on the West Coast. GM - you have a lot of work to do in areas that aren't close to your home or in areas where there aren't very many ties to the auto industry.

Good point on the question of many were sold to fleets. I'd also like to know if anyone has sales by market information? I see a lot more newer Avalons here in Houston than I do Lucernes. I would say 5 to 1, and that's not an exageration at all. I see more VW Passats (which I always mistake for a Lucerne somehow) than I do Lucernes. So, either they're mostly going to fleets and/or they're mostly being sold in the only place where GM sells a lot of Buicks - the midwest. Now that I think about it, in the parking lot where I work, I've actually seen a few 2007 ES330s and no Lucernes. I just wonder, where are they?

I figured the readers and responders on this forum may generally agree and be able to relate to this particular write up in the Washington Post. The author touches on some good points - that mainly Kerkorian has proposed this alliance or merger with Renault simply for the price of the stock - with absolutely no regard for the long term health and well being of General Motors. Moreover, he touches on how unsuccessful Nissan (and Renault) have been in so many areas, even in some where they've tried to take on GM directly (like the Titan). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071401040.html

Renault and Nissan don't want to kill GM brands. Despite all of GM's problems with so called legacy costs and some of the slower selling, non competitive models (like the current Monte Carlo), the last thing Renault would want to do is spend $3 billion to get a hold of GM and then start killing brands and rebadging Silverados as Nissans or Renaults. GM may be in "trouble", but keep an open mind when reading Forbes.com and Business Week. They want to sell magazines, and in order to do that, they're going to follow trends (analysts aren't happy with GM these days, so they'll pick up and run with that), and they also like to spin things in a dramatic, often exageratted way that makes a lot of people panic. (GM bankruptcy talks from late 2005 into the springtime, remember that???) There's a lot to be said about brand identity. GM still sells the most cars in trucks in North America. Chevrolet has a HUGE following in North America, WAY more history and identity than Nissan has in North America. Ghosn seems like a smart dude, and I'm pretty sure he realizes this. If anything, Renault and Nissan have quite a bit to gain from this by NOT killing any GM brands. I'm sure they studied the Oldsmobile fiasco and realize they'd have a huge problem on their hands if they completely alienated GM's entire dealer network, or any one significant portion of it. The lawsuits and other financial troubles would be ongoing for years. Renault wants the benefit of a brand name like Chevrolet or Cadillac under their umbrella. The pickups and SUVs that are sold in America mean HUGE profits. And yes, although the sales are down, they're still cheap to make. And Cadillac - that's definitely a good name. Why in the world would they kill a brand that has soooo much potential? The profits are enormous when an Escalade or an STS go out the door, Renault would be nuts to kill that golden goose. Seriously. The reason these things happen in the business world is money. Plain and simple. Renault would not make any money at all by spending $3 billion to turn and around and kill brands to a company that generated almost $200 billion in revenue during 2005. Once GM gets out from under the goofy ass union troubles and some of the other costs they have, they'll be *extremely* profitable again with the current 7 or 8 brands they already have, and Renault just wants a piece of that pie. So killing brands...highly doubtful and extremely stupid if that's what Renault wants to do. So don't worry, if this goes down there will probably be a Camaro - with a good old pushrod all aluminum 6.0L V8, it's just that now Renault will enjoy 20% of the profit that they make off me when I slap my $$$ down. hehehe. Think about when Mercedes took over Chrysler - did they kill Dodge and Chrysler? If anything, they made them better (300C, Charger R/T, new Challenger). They knew it would be the kiss of death for the company in North America. Same thing here guys with Renault and Nissan.

I'm glad the Lucerne is selling well. But I have only seen a couple on the streets of Houston, and Houston is the 4th largest city in the country.

Even if you took all 85k fleet cars out of the picture, the retail sales at GM would still be about 30% more than that of the largest Asian brand, Toyota. And I would guesstimate that of the 160k cars that Toyota sold, probably 15% of those were fleet, so you really have to think about it like this: on just retail sales alone, GM was still 75k units ahead of Toyota (based on my guesstimate, I have no idea what Toyota fleet sales are). What's impressive about Toyota however, is their unrelenting growth. I haven't really bothered to look into it, but I'd be willing to bet that the gap was a lot bigger 10 years ago.

What do die-hard GM fans make of this recent article posted on Wired.com? It's amazing how many people don't actually want to give GM a fighting chance in the market place. http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/cars/index.bl...ntry_id=1237739 Friday, 30 September 2005 Toyota on Top Now Playing: Pearl Jam Although hybrids are currently less than one percent of total auto sales, two investment gurus believe that sales of gas-electric vehicles will enable Toyota to pass GM and become the world's biggest vehicle manufacturer. I attended the Investing for Clean Energy in Oregon event yesterday, where Roger Ballentine, the president of consulting firm Green Strategies, said he wouldn’t be surprised if Toyota owned GM one day. Ballentine said American automakers blew it during the past decade when they focused on delivering powerful and sexy sedans and SUVs while ignoring their fuel efficiency. The charismatic Ballentine, who previously worked for President Bill Clinton as chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force, said that reducing our fuel consumption (and therefore purchases of fuel from the Middle East) is critical for national security. "We are fighting a war on terror and funding both sides," he said. Ballentine is also aiding the effort to use coal to fill our gas tanks. He helped draft an amendment that changes the definition of "refinery" to include plants that convert coal to diesel or gasoline, thereby enabling them to be eligible for government tax incentives. Winston Hilcox, who manages the portfolio of environmental initiatives for the California Employees Retirement System (CalPers), was equally high on Toyota's future. Hilcox, said CalPers is using its leverage as the country's largest pension fund ($194 billion) to push auto companies to develop cleaner vehicles. Calpers, which has $900 million invested in auto companies, asked them to quit a lawsuit that is attempting to block California's new greenhouse gas regulations. Hilcox said Calpers will use its muscle to join any shareholder action that asks auto companies to be more eco-friendly. Money talks!