guionM

Next so called "Barracuda" is going to be on that platform.

Mr Devereux is being a little cagey in his answer. Although final decisions haven't been made (and things can always change at the last moment at GM), there are some things that can be said. 1. The next Commodore will almost certainly be Alpha. The next Falcon will be much the same car as the next Taurus (FWD/AWD), and GM will have a large version of Alpha under the skin of the CTS coming up next year. Holden has to decide if they are going with that platform or the Espilon II under the new Impala/XTS. I don't have the ears in Holden as I used to, but they're going to almost certainly choose the large Alpha. 2. As for Zeta disappearing after 2017, not quite. To a large degree the Cadillac Flagship will be a spinoff of Zeta.It will likely be shown shortly after the new CTS is in showrooms. The short development time is a dead giveaway that it's based on an existing platform, and the fact that it's RWD and larger than CTS pretty much leaves only one choice. This chassis will be called Omega. Expect weight reductions using much the same ways used on the Alpha.

Few things. First, yes, the Commodore is coming to Chevy and should be available next year. The Commodore is getting a new nose and rear which will bring it closer to Chevrolet DNA (Holden and Chevrolet will evolve into a essentially a global brand). Second, no, as far as I know production isn't coming to the US. But I can see where it might make financial sense. The US dollar has depriciated a lot the past decade, while the Aussie dollar has held it's own (in effect, increasing it's value), so I can see where GM could make money moving production here and exporting there than making it down under and exporting to here. But there's still OEM support. Even if they simply dismantle the assembly line and reassemble it here in an existing plant, GM will still need to set up an OEM network to support it. When GM's "volume" Alpha goes into production, (about 2015-2016).then maybe. Third, it isn't likely to be called simply "SS". Although any name isn't finalized to the last moment ('82 Trans Am almost was called simply "T/A", Fusion was nearly called "Futura", then there's the last minute change of the Z28 to ZL1), Lumina, Commodore, or even Monte Carlo seem to be the leading contenders. Final item, the El Camino and a station wagon. I doubt the wagon will make the trip, and if the El Camino does finally make it here, it will be here about the same time as the sedan. If it isn't here about the same time, then we'd have to start asking if it's going to happen at all.

The Impala is due to be shown this season. Could very well be shown in Chicago, but I'd put my money on Detroit.

I live in San Francisco and can very well sympathize with you on the idiots we occasionally run into. My experience is that people who easily believe something done as a parody had that belief already. Right now it's trendy to have a Prius or drive Hondas. I myself actually live inside San Francisco, and I drive a Polar White B4C. I find the political stereotypes funny at times. Other times I just feel the idiot babbling liberal this and Democrat that are just mindless morons. They are the types that instead of actually watching what's really going on ion the world around them, they find it eaiser to go for the same tired labels. Bush didn't raise a finger to help the US auto industry. In fact, at times he seemed hellbent in driving Us carmakers out of business in favor of import brands. It was Republicans that derailed the US automotive loans (perhaps with good reasons) and are the only ones that seem to prefer they go into bankruptcy, even if that means liquidation and dissolving the company. We import 70% of our oil from outside the country, we've just seen how we can be held ransom by OPEC and how we compete with China on the oil market while at the same time borrowing from them to give to oil producing nations so we can have gasoline for our vehicles. Yet, still, despite all this, and the fact that till the big 3 CEO's clueless performance 2 weeks ago, & even though the market is driving up actual Corperate Average Fuel Economy quicker than what's mandated by the government (cars should be averaging nearly 32mpg this year... they averaged 30 last year) some here simply can't let go of the "Treehuggers, Liberals, & Democrats are the enemy of cars" mentality. Since you can't insert a disc in their bottom and scan out whatever virus casuses that mindlock, the only thing you can do is either point out facts till they screw up or simply ignore them. They are simply the diametric opposite of those morons who simply can't accept the fact that something with a Chevy or Ford logo on it can be as good or better than something with a Honda or Toyota logo. FWIW: I have owned about 22 cars in my life. All of them American brands. All but 6 were V8s. 3 of those had superchargers. Libertarian as well. Thanks partner. I don't have as much time to post as I used to, so I tend to limit myself to just a few sites per sitting.

I'm not joining you in your "Hate Mail" campaign. I think it's silly, and serves no purpose. You expect SNL to take a look at your hatemail and decide never to play a skit like that again? Perhaps have remorse? I have a bridge to sell you if you actually believe that. SNL has been on air for over 30 years.... you think that skit ranked even in the top 50% of skits that generated angry letters? Think again. The skit was obviously a parody, and to a large degree you can fit all the people who look at Saturday Night Live as a factual news program around a small coffee table in a very small room. The skit, like it or not, like all jokes have a grain of truth. In this instance, the CEOs of the big 3 were as a group ridiculous in front of congress. Mulally (as much as I love what the guy is doing at Ford) actually said he's very comfortable where his pay is (over $23 million), obviously oblivious to how this sounded to a congressional panel listening to what is a plea for money. Rick Wagoner was little better dancing around the issue. Nardelli seemed not to be able to articulate any Chrysler plan beyond tomorrow a mere month after GM went to congress for a loan to buy Chrysler. All 3 arrived on private corperate jets. All 3 spent most all of this past decade shoveling almost all their money and resources into large trucks and SUVs which left them venerable (for the 1st time in their history) to sudden jumps in fuel prices or economic downturns. Ford killed off most every car they had in their pipeline early this decade that Jac Nasser had initiated. GM can develop a new car in less time than it takes to get it approved. Chrysler created the very well made and high quality for the day Chrysler 300 (as well as the Magnum & Charger), then proceeded to make it's successive new models (save the Ram) with even cheaper materials than before. I understand the issue that plenty of jobs are at stake here. The economy as well. The summer 1998 strike against GM dropped the US economy 2%. 1 in 7 jobs in the US depend on to some degree or another on the US auto industry. But what seems to be forgotten here is that the auto industry itself got itself into this current position. What if GM devoted as much effort on cars as it did on the GMT900? Or if GM ran all it's car programs like they have done on the new Camaro? From striking design, to streamlined development, to emphasis on quality, to being directly competitive (in more than advertisements) to imported cars. What if Chrysler made the Avenger and Sebring with the same solid materials and the same "make us or break us" mentality that the LX cars were developed under? What if Ford turned a fraction of the resources it used on the F-series towards updating the Crown Vic? Or letting it's stylists enjoy the freedom they have now that Fords against the ropes back when they were doing the Five Hundred? The unions have their share of the blame too. While they have been very clearsighted and levelheaded the past 2 negotiation cycles (give backs, rule changes, allowing non union people to handle all positions not directly in manufacturing), and they are a mere fragment of their size in the 70s and 80s. But it's odd seeing some of the same people that advocated all but firing the union and hiring minimum wage workers now taking the view that seems to support them. Returning to the SNL skit, it's going to be offensive to those who see no humor in it. That's the point of edgy humor. Wanting to send hate mail because of some idea that the nation will look at it as fact is ludicrious. Just as ludicrious is the post on this thread that seems to think treehuggers are behind the thrashing the US industry is getting in congress. It was the republicans that blocked aid, and I don't suspect it was because of treehugging reasons. It was because.... read this part carefully.... as a group, the big 3 had no plans for recovery. General Motors wanted backed loans to essentially keep the lights on. Republicans (rightfully) wondered what's going to happen when that money runs out unless they have a plan? Chrysler fell into the same catagory. Chrysler was even worse because only a month before they were saying that they wouldn't survive unless they were bought by General Motors! If they were in that bad a shape, again the correct and rightful question stands: "Why send money into a rathole?" Ford was there not even looking for money, but a line of credit and making sure GM didn't collaspse bringing OEMs and suppliers GM uses (and Ford also depends on) down with them. In the end, US automakers will get loans. Cerberus will be forced to actually plan a future for Chrysler that doesn't involve selling it off in pieces. Ford will get a line of credit which all but gaurantees it will have more than enough money for it's turnaround. GM will be forced to revamp it's bureaucracy and streamline it's operations. The "Job Bank" and other useless union freebees will disappear. Cars will get more emphasis than trucks. We'll finally get the great cars our big 3 make overseas instead of dumbed down cars. And, unlike the outgoing Bush administration, we'll actually have a government that actually is intrested in keeping a US auto industry instead of doing everything in it's power to move jobs and car production overseas.

1. It's NOT a mule. It's the Holden built Chevrolet Lumina. A few are (were?) here for evaluation by GM and to set final caliberation specs and tuning for US bound G8s (which are nothing more than Lumina SSs with a unique Pontiac nose). 2. It's sold in the Middle East. Holden has been selling large cars under the Chevrolet name there since the US stopped making B-bodies after the 1997 model year. 3. Holden has also been making the Chevrolet Caprice since 2000. It's based on their Statesman. 4. Only Japan and countries that were British territory when the automobile arrived are RHD. The rest of the world (including the Middle East) drive on the correct side of the road. 5. You're at least 2 years away from seeing any street "spyshots" of the US Impala replacement (which is now extremely unlikely to actually be a replacement). Chrysler Sebring is sold overseas both in Europe and in Australia. The Chevrolet HHR is made in Mexico. Yes, it's sold in Japan. Ironically by a company called Mitsui (no 'bishi suffix)

What's the point of even showing a NASCAR Impala. The cars of NASCAR had zilch to do with real cars before the COT. Now, even the upper body profile has no resemblence to any actual production cars. NASCAR is no longer a race. It's basically the old IROC but without real cars and around an oval. Give me Aussie V8 supercar series, a good SCCA race, or even a Formula 1 race (at least some of the engines come from real manufacturers) any day!

A CTSv preview, anyone?

And the "Most Racial assclown remark at C&G in memory award" goes to.....

To make it easier for everyone: 1. $30,995 Aussie dollars equals about $25,200 Us dollars 2. The 10% tax is indeed included. Remove it, and the base price for a V6 6 speed comes in at around $23,000. If you REALLY want to put this into perspective, Starting with a $39,900 Holden Ute SS, adjust the Aussie dollars into American dollars (which becomes $32,400) and remove the 10% sales tax that's included into the price & that $39,900AUS LS2 powered, 6 speed SS comes in around $29,000. Hardly a bad deal considering what you get.

Care to elaborate, or is this just another mindless & pointless bashing of a successful car that has gotten both GM and Ford off their laurels to get RWD American cars back in the showroom? Chrysler has a VERY solid presence overseas compared with other US car divisions. The PT Cruiser is also made in Europe (Austria if I remember correctly) along with 1 or 2 other Chryslers. The Chrysler 300C is the best selling large car in Australia, beating out the local Holden Statesman and Caprice (I've personally seen how successful Chrysler is in Australia). Jeeps are also made in Egypt. The Charger SRT8 has recently gone on sale in Japan. To be honset, Chrysler seems to be the most successful at selling "American" cars abroad, let alone manufacturing them outside outside North America. Quick rundown on Chrysler's international operations: http://www.daimlerchrysler.com/Projects/c2..._CG_mapIntl.pdf As for Chrysler's deal with Cerberus: 1. Everyone wanted Chrysler. The sticking point was that most wanted Chrysler to cut up into pieces and sell off. To Daimler's rare credit, they actually made keeping Chrysler in tact as part of any deal. Also, although Chrysler was generally better off than Ford & GM, no one wanted to inherit the pensions and healthcare liabilities of retirees. 2. As part of the deal, Daimler completely pays off all of Chrysler's debt. That includes pensions, healthcare, loans, the whole enchalada. I believe this also includes the cash value of funding of all current projects in the pipeline or at least those that are already approved. If I'm wrong on that, then that still means Chrysler has more money for future products because of the funds freed up by not having debt or retiree liabilities. 3. Chrysler's deal with Cerberus has brought back quite a few of Chrysler's heavy hitters who had a huge impact on the company. This includes not just Wolfgang Bernhard, but design chief Tom Gale to name two. If it wasn't for Bob Lutz's current gig at General Motors, it would likely be a safe bet that he'd be pulled in as well. 4. Cerberus's Stephen Feinberg is an auto buff. So what can best be determined through this, the moves to get top former Chrysler people back, combing through product plans with a fine tooth comb, and the stated purpose of not dismantling Chrysler (part of the deal for purchasing it) is that the whole effort not only is serious, but is also likely to succeed since Chrysler is for all intents and purposes "Debt Free" once the ink's dry on the final signatures. If anything, I'd put Chrysler ahead of Ford on the survival list. Anything that would bring down Chrysler would almost certainly bring down Ford first.

The 1st official hint the Monte Carlo was going away was when GM announced they were closing down half of Oshawa. Monte Carlo is the slowest selling W-car. I don't believe that of all the cars being made there anyone would think that the Monte Carlo would be one of the W-cars to continue.

No changes to Impala till 2010. The current Impala is how GM will be winding down the FWD Impala's life. There will be minor, low cost changes, but don't expect a new front end clip or a restyled body. We'll get new grille textures or a restyled tail lamp or new dash trim...... if we're lucky. Malibu is targeted to pull Impala sales, and theres a better than 50/50 shot Impala will briefly die in sometime during the 2008 calender year, completely skipping the 2009 model year entirely. However, Cobalt is due for touch ups. Will be done for 2008 model year. Monte Carlo is dead after model year 2008. Possibly sooner. No word if the name will be back.

Everyone who disagrees with you and or sees through your act is just a blind follower, yet you and your "Plan to save GM" is the only thing that "can" save GM. Fortunately, it seems people here are begining to think for themselves and once again, you bring up that tired old "Blind Follower" flag. Everyone and their brother inside GM, inside OEMs (Original Equiptment Manufacturers for those who don't know), and people outside of both who have above average math comprehension and a room tempreature IQ have all either attempted to explain things to you, or attempted to focus your efforts into a more constructive or helpful direction. In short, you've pretty much s*itted on them. Recapping for those who haven't had the pleasure of knowing who Buickman is, 1. His name is Jim Dollenger. He's made a tidy living selling Buicks to GM employees and retirees up in Michigan. 2. He fancies himself an expert on how the car industry operates. As a salesman, he believes it's not the product that's important, it's the sales. In short, if it ain't selling, it's the way it's being sold, not that someone else has a better product, or the market is changing. 3. He created some multi point plan he's been hawking for longer than I can remember. He posted it a few times, and invited constructive criticism, then proceeded to either ignore, ridicule, or act condesending to everyone who took up his offer. 4. He attempted to sell this plan to GM for millions of dollars. GM offered him a corperate position to implement his "plan". He refused and demanded the money. GM understandably showed him the door. 5. He's been on this anti Rick Wagoner and GM board of directors rampage, and created his GM Deathwatch website as his own little self aggrandizing shrine to himself. Of course, every anti-GM person flocks to this place. It also has plenty of "testimonials" from so called believers in his "Plan to save GM". 6. This past year, he has advocated Delphi workers to go on strike, specifically so he could damage GM. He went in to GM's annual stockholders meeting and made a complete a** of himself by calling the CEO names, & insulting the board of directors and creating a disturbance... of course, earning an ejection from the gathering. 7. He used this little stint of his to say that he was tossed out because GM was trying to "silence him" because he had plans to "save" GM, and they didn't want to listen to him. If there's anyone left on this website that might be tempted to actually believe him and his sincerity in saving GM, ask yourself: 1. Why do you only hear from him when he wants to slam GM? 2. Why can't he go more than a few posts without showing a disturbing and alarming hatred for Rick Wagoner in particular? 3. Where is he when there's good GM news to report, and why does he never give GM credit? 4. Bob Lutz is the most respected car executive in the business. He has worked at Ford, BMW, Mercedes, Ford Europe, essentially ran Chrysler, and has forgotten more about cars the past hour than Mr Jim Dollenger ever learned about cars in his life. Every automaker would kill to get Lutz on board. Yet, Jim slams him incessantly. Oh yeah..... Lutz criticised Jim's tactics too. That probally explains it. 5. Everyone who has more than 3 posts here is aware that it takes years to get a new car from idea to the showroom. 3-5 is the norm. Also affecting time is the money available to create these new cars. Why isn't Jim aware of that being in the car business all these years? 6. Finally, this is the guy who slammed the new Buick Enclave. He made the point in another thread on this site (do a search under his posts to see some of his posting jewels) that the Rendevous was a great ride and shouldn't be replaced, and if only GM followed his plan, they wouldn't need to create the Enclave. This was about the same time that story came out that had the Rendevous as having the worse depriciation of any "Truck" in America. I never slam anyone, and i don't have a reputation as someone who flames others. Even when I debate, I try to keep things balenced and civil. However, I have never come across anyone who is just so destructive while saying he "wants only what's best for GM". As long as it's $$$ for him, and he gets his revenge against the bully's who kicked sand in his face at the beach, then in his mind it's "Best for GM". Unlike what he'll probally post, I'm not going to attempt to sell you my views, or resort to name calling if you disagree with me, or pretend I'm some savior of a plan or a thought. And I'm not going to speak in cute metaphors an an attempt to impress you of the wisdom of what I say as a disquise to hide the fact that it's all just a con job to get you on my side. I can talk in regular straightforward language instead and get my point across easily. All I'm gonna say is do a search on Buickman's posts, and make up your own mind. Nuff said.