evok

Let us be fare: Decreased production in Iraq compared to pre-2003 levels. I wonder why? General instability in the middle east including escalating tension with Iran. I wonder why? Oh yes - our government may not be able to control global demand, control a diminishing natural resourse but in many ways they have contributed to the rise of crude.

I think at this point it is pointless for all of us to continue to discuss what might have been. Decisions have been made and GM is currently stuck with the current kappa platform for the near future.

agreed

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0374/1148/rss25 As for Cadillac padding the sales in 1999. GM is a big company and some people do bold things. Plausible Deniablity!

May, possible, could - I would not read to much into a my comments on rwd.

And Cadillac did not fudge sales figures back in 99. Come on. GM's PR people pushed for something or that somthing would have never made the news. This was published way before that autoblog wrote their piece. This had a lot to do with an editorial Reich wrote in the Washington Post about 8 months ago where he stated if memory serves me, that the unions are attributing to the competitive disadvatage in this country because the Unions are not represented in all the US manufacturing operations. He used the example of the UAW in the US Big operations and all the none union transplants. It was not an anti union piece but an objective article that hmm coincides with the Big 3s situation and the GM buy out. Find the article for specifics but that is a very brief gist.

Yes - Why the Impala SS was chosen is beyond me with the new system. But GM can always donate a base V6.

I think I know what it means also but the problem I have with the PR is that I have to think, instead of laying it all out and being open. A poster above recently referred back to the PR as a supporting claim. My point is that there is nothing in the PR that actually supports anything without a solid model by model comparison instead of a quick snap shot. If it is that important for GM to point out, than have the breakdown in the sales numbers so it can be properly quantified off line if need be.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...=74&docid=24824 From GM's sales PR. "Consumers and dealers continue to respond very favorably to the new Chevrolet Impala. Retail sales in March were 16 percent greater than February and the sales mix has been very favorable, with strong demand for the SS version." GM's statements mean nothing. What does strong demand for the SS version mean? Without a breakdown of the sales mix, the statement is without context. Impala Sales March 24,071 2006 25,072 2005 Impala Sales Feb. 18,714 2006 19,135 2005 Retails sales up compared to Feb 2006 but total delieveries are down. How does this compare to the same period last year? Were the March 2005 retails sales up also when compared to Feb.? Really, relying on the latests sales PR does not mean anything. There are more questions than answers.

I am speculating on timing to align with the replacement for the current kapps if replaced. Also - it is possible there are some engineers and designers developing something on the CAD tube for future use. Some platform to have in the hip pocket when times call for it but, there are no programs that are scheduled to use a new small rwd platform. Kappa II is just spculative and/or placeholder for the small rwd platform that was a focus of a Fastlane question to the public.

I understood. Just want to clarify that there are no plans for a kappa replacement on the books or programs allocated to a small rwd architecture. The rwd small car speculation were begun because of a Fastlane blog asking questions. What this means for timing is that if anything were to be given a go today, nothing will arrive into showroom for another 5 years or so.

In addition - there are no replacements on the books as far as I know to replace KappaIs.

There is nothing else planned for kappa on the books for stand alone models.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...=73242558736058 Yea I misread the article. The IIHS tested the Impala SS. I guess the extra mass upfront changed the rating from the previous generation V6. The 2000-2005 received a good in the IIHS test. Now this begs the question, why test the SS? Knowing that people buy based upon these ratings. Considering, the V6 probably gets a "good". And is the volume vehicle. Or for God's sake GM should send the IIHS a V6 Impala for testing. Assuming the structure is a "Good" like the other Ws, that way there will be both ratings on the IIHS homepage.

Good read. Most important thing I take though is this: "New car shoppers whose trade-in has a negative value - they owe more money on it than it is worth - are known in the trade as "upside down." They have to come up with more cash to cancel the installment debt on the old car before they can out and buy a new one. At Chevy, Pontiac and Saturn, more than one-third of the buyers are upside down, according to JD Power." Personally I do not think it is a swipe at those brand but a good, solid indication of a growing problem in the business. I am sure the other OEMs for select brands have similar situation and not a good sign for the greater economy. Also, people can be just stuipid.

Yes - I was just about to type the same thing. The rear end shot is 319, the front shot is the Captiva.

"an honest misunderstanding". That says it all.

Yea right! I think the evidence coincides with the GM April sweeps and PR push.

This sums it up. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...315/1148/AUTO01

Thanks and appreciate the thought.

Actually there was a post on the last CG boards back in Nov04 where I was one of the first to state publically that GM would loose money in the 1st and 2ndQ05. Some around here refreshed my memory last June 05. But I never anticipated implosion!

Check your mail. Got ya.

Josh: Croc can attest to it, I will throw my words around, especially when I know/think/believe or an IMO the discussion is not correct. Croc knows this and even The O.C. a personal friend for 20 years can atest to. We have bantered back and forth about all the discussion on these boards long before there was the internet. I do not hold grudges. Really, does it really matter what any of us say around here in the end. I never asked for or sought anything when I started posting years ago. No, I did not want to be labeled an insider, I did not want any claim to fame, or warning from auto companies etc. I posted starting on TCC not to give the scoop but for one reason only, because I wanted to talk cars. That is it. To that end, Josh, I just want to talk cars.

Josh, really I do not care.

Appreciate the kind words. Seems I am on the $hit list with a few around here because of my blunt tone at times. PM and refresh me on your MO at the old AH-HA site. It was good over there and reminded me of the old TCC days. We are working in theory on version 2.0. I think i might need your support around here in affirming that I can have a civil discussion when... Read the rest of this thread. ha ha - Either way thanks again.