evok

Not true. GM Corp. according to the 10K filed last month lost 1.2B in the 1Q05.

The article is in error with regard to Pontiac. See my post on page one of this thread. The US demographics show the average age of the US population to be 35. The average car buyer is app. 45. When a manufacturer becomes more main stream and covers a wider market, their average age will converge on age 45.

There is a problem with this study/article. Pontiac's average age is already about 45 and has been for some time. There is faulty math embedded in there data or just bad data. Based upon the sales of the Solstice and if a fertilized eggs bought Solsti, it would only drop the average a few years. Not what they claimed. Bad article.

As usual you talk out of the lower half of your body. Why don't you do some research before pulling down your pants to talk. Your wrong. Look it up!

What is there to discuss. I stated an arguable point that the 55 Chevy is regarded as the standard for its day in the mid sized segment and a classic. The 2007 Camry I stated re-captures that formula. It is not drooling over a Toyota, it is stating an opinion. A fact is, there are no GM products that can compete head on with this new Camry in either sophistication of public appeal without resorting to fleet numbers to come close to the Camry. In either case GM is still a far cry from reaching Toyota in the car segment. That is why Toyota is the best selling car manufacturer in the US. And with Toyotas latest round of cars, they have leaped frogged GM again and moving the standard for excellence a lot higher than it was. No one can argue with the sales numbers. A tough critic will not disregard the new Camry when a vehicle like that sells 400k retail and GM's closest is half that.

CG Used to have a motto, "GM's Biggest Fans and Toughest Critics!"

I don't care and have been around a long time. I don't have a reputation for BSing but cut to the chase. Your new around here so...

I call a spade a spade.

Not one of these "Quotes" explain why they agree with the plan. Without explaination it is meaningless. These people that you have quoted still do not know the business of GM. Even you do not sell vehicles to those without GMS discounts. That is why your plan continues to be out of touch. But the fact remains, you are a slave to being blown off by RW and his team. Your ego is severly hurt and you are retaliating with this public intrafada. By persisting your immaturity only becomes more evident and does nothing to benefit GM or its stock price. Even by quoting these people that show support for your plan, you continue to show that your ego has been cut down by RW and you are grasping at any outside reinforcement to piece together that part of you that was lost.

Ignore works wonders for people like him.

The 1955 - 1957 Chevrolets are arguably some of the best midsized cars for their day. And they have been collectors classics for their appeal for many years now. Just an all around great package for their time.

I like the effect. With or without it, it is still better than any of the GM interiors.

I take that back - maybe a 55 Chevy. The 57 IMO is overrated.

I agree 100% on you assessement of the 07 Camry. It is a modern equivalent of the 1957 Chevy. There is a certain sporty, elegance that not only has been lacking from Toyota but in the mid segment of the market for many many years. The appliance has come of age. And as you have said, that is tough to say.

These are people that report news, review vehicles, or in one case built product, not analyse the business or work in the business. They are unqualified as are you so their opinion lacks merit assuming their quotes are not taken out of context. Keep grasping at straws and stroking your ego. Katie Curic reads a telaprompter, she is not an analyst.

The neophyte is an admin. Ah there is the rub. http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ts&CODE=leaders

Yes - that is exactly my point. On the car side of the business they are always reacting. That was why I proposed my design bake off with the future and not current target vehicle as the focal point. It would make for a very interesting exercise if nothing else. It scares me to think that I will have to look at the current LaCrosse for another 3+ years. It was dated and old when it arrived. Same goes with the rest of the current new fleet. The truck/suv market is a different beast all together.

The vehicles are a generation behind the competition. It would be smart for them to pick a target and design for the target. In ways that is what they do but instead of picking an a 3 year old Altima or Camry as their design target, they need to anticipate the design direction of the next generation Altima or Camry. They benchmark the current vehicles instead of predicting the next. It is an "art" and not a science. GM needs to learn that art to stay ahead of the curve. That is the only way for a company to gain momentum. Nissan is a perfect example of how to gain that forward energy and break out from the rest of the pact. Another case in point is the G6 interior. Honda already had the update to the Accord that is leaps and bounds above the G6 when that came to market. The G6 interior and even exterior would have been great in 2000. Because of GM's brand structure they have to offer midsized vehicles in their fleet. Until divisions go away that is not an option. But you don't beat competition by going after their current product. Here is an exercise for Lutz and Design staff. When you style a vehicle and pick its target, have one team style what they think the next generation competitior will be. And try to top that when you design the GM vehicle. It is not to hard to do particularly the evolutionary process the competitors take. That way you stay ahead of the curve. That way Pontiac, Buick etc can target different vehicles and buyers and reduce the over lap in competing agaist each other.

The Return to Greatness as I have pointed out hundreds of times is a smoke and mirrors con job. It will do nothing for GM. It is childish and does not address the root cause of GM's troubles. My support for Wagoner is based on him actually addressing what ails GM (in brief), the product and legacy cost. No one knowledgable or experienced in this business would claim it is anything otherwise. And I am not the only one with the knowledge or experience that has gone on record stating that. Instead of listening to us and evolving your ill attempt at developing a plan, you ignore the critique. You deserved to meet with LaNeve and for LaNeve to hear you out. Why because I would have done the same thing if I were LaNeve being new on the job and listening to their sales force. Upon listening to what you had to say and reviewing your plan, I would not have signed you on as a consultant or put you on retainer. Why, because you or your plan do not address the real problems facing GM. Even your plan does not address the marketing problems that are common to every single OEM. Also at the time you were presenting your plan, GM at most only had one quarter of red ink under them, 4th Q04 and they still made money for the year. The real plan to Return to Greatness was already being devised by Rick and company. Yet you continue with your misguided jihad against Wagoner which only reinforces evidence that your bruised ego can not accept the rejection of your plan as not being worth the paper it is written on. That ultimately is what this is all about. Your crushed ego.

It did not fail the side impact test. The vehicle without side curtain bags still received an acceptable. From the IIHS: Side impact test results Overall ratings shown; follow links for test details and component scores Good: 2005-06 models mfg. after Feb. 2005 with optional head curtain airbags for all three rows of seats and optional front seat-mounted torso airbags Acceptable: 2005 models mfg. after Feb. 2005 without optional side airbags Technical measurements (structure, driver injury, and passenger injury) for minivans http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=422 And I just looked at the technical measurements for the Sienna with and without bags for the second row passenger seating position in the side impact test. Head injury criteria was very low for both. In the critical injury measurements there were no statistical differneces in the Sienna's test. Not even in chest deflections which should be lower with the thorax bag. Still from the data, it did not FAIL as you say. But even looking at the dummy measurements, there is nothing apparent that would even indicate why there is a difference in the ratings for the side impact test when comparing the two vehicles. Unless there is something subjective that is being factored in. Both Sienna's should have received a good because the dummy injury values were very low and very little difference. Yes I did go on to read that it appears the Sienna without bags was ranked lower because the dummy's head, almost hit the barrier even though all the measurements were about equal. So get your facts straight.

Hell there is more creativity within GM but outside of their NA operations. This just gets frustrating because watching GM is like Chinese water torture.

This has been an ongoing struggle at GM since the GM-10s were launched in 1988. Why the hell have 4+ divisions (Saturn, Pontiac, Chevy, Buick, Olds, Saab) sell midsized product that are going after small slices of the mid sized segment when the main competitions can do it with one vehicle. The sad truth is, the G6, Malibu, Impala are not going to appeal to the foreign competition. The Aura could have been a good attempt but Saturn is a brand in transition and not a premium brand. That will take time and consistency of product to pull off. GM still would have been better off rebadging the Vectra even with its premium markup and selling that as a Aura instead of spending the money on yet another midsized entry. They would have hit the sales volume of the Aura without the development cost, in theory. The L series did just that. Now add to the fact the Ion will not be replaced on schedule and Saturn will have to run without that volume until a replacement arrives. That is lost volume. The multi brand mid sized strategy could have worked in 1988 when Pontiac and Buick still had a loyal following but almost 20 years later they are damages and have lost their appeal to mainstream shoppers. In order to pull that off today, design and execution must be polarizing. Much to Chrysler's credit with the LX cars, styling sells. The Malibu, Aura, G6 are just another round of placeholders in a segment that is lead by the Japanese and being erroded by solid entryies by the Koreans. The Sonata outsells the G6.

In case you did not read my post carefully I will spell it out again! Saturn Aura - Projected sales 70 - 100k Nissan Altima - 225 - 250k Toyota Camry - 400k Honda Accord - 400k The Saturn is a niche vehicle for the segment.

I know, it is sad that there is more creativity from hobbiest than people that actually get paid to make decision.

The problem with the Aura is that it is designed to be a niche vehicle with a constrained volume between 70 - 100k vehicles. So why not push the envelope on interior and exterior styling since it is only a niche vehicle. Or move the bar up on sophistication. The Aura does not even offer a level of perceived sophistication when compared to the competition on refinement or asthetics (interior/exterior). As you have pointed out in the past, a significant majority of Camry, Altima and Accords are 4 cylinders. Yet GM believes they are offering the 3.5 in the Aura as a horsepower advantage to the competition but sacrifices the OHC refinement. That is old school thinking as is the the wood grain interior trim. The Aura with the 3.6 is a hot car and the Redline will be nice but the problem is that they have limited appeal, in a new market, a questionable brand with no history in the segment - how much is that going to add to the bottom line. Maybe 20k vehicles at most. Plus at a price point of app. $30k for a Saturn is tough to swallow in this market. When compared to the New Camry and Altima, the Aura is just another product in an already crowded segment. It does not stand out as anything special to the average person that buys on perception. Let the future prove me wrong but I do not see the Aura being for Saturn like the 2002 Altima jump started Nissan. The 2002 Altima increased in sales from 100k to over 200k last year. The new Camry is a solid hit and will hold what Toyota already has. The Aura is typical GM two step forward, one step back approach to product planning. GM needs buyers on the left and right coasts, will the Aura succeed in that mission?