evok

That is unsupported opinion and not fact.

Lets look how ridiculious your arguments are: Fuel economy: The 16/21 mpg is right in the middle depending on what other awd/4wd pu you compare it to. Unimpressive compared to what? Flat tire/trunk: Yes, I get a flat tire every single day, it is such a chore a burden. Same argument you make could be used for putting the spare tire in a car in the trunk. Come keep grasping at straws.

What's your point? You can't change history. Ten years and 2 billion in investment, GM for many reasons could not turn the division around. Based upon their cost structure, and Olds being the least viable brand of the bunch, the decision was to axe it. GM is more than anyone brand. And back in 2002 time frame, ad spending per vehicle for Olds was on par with the rest of the divisions. About 500 bucks per car.

GM still could not give them away. And yes, soon as the Rainier was given to Buick it outsold the 360 Bravada, excluding the 9-7.

Boo Hoo - Quit you crying already.

Some might say the same thing about all of your posts.

When in doubt wave the flag.

I was refering more towards the Avalanche, Rendevous, Vue, Equinox, Escalade EXT/ESV, Rainier, Relay, Torrent etc., that has been added to the GM portfolio that in theory made up for the 200k that were lost when Oldsmobile ceased sales. The problems GM faces now on the product side are not because of the lack of Oldmobile. Gas prices significantly hurt truck/SUV sales across the market and their passenger cars have not hit the market strong.

Give me a break. You need to read into what LaNeve is saying. This is damage control and reassuring dealers that other brands will not be cut. Nothing more and nothing less. GM lost little to nothing by getting rid of Olds because of other moves they took to balance their porfolio. If you want more badge engineered product keep believe what you do.

There is only one minor plant GM can close in the next 12 months that will not have an impact on sales. Any other plants that GM announces will close when the products they are building are either phase out at the end of their life cycle or market share for a product reaches a point where production can be consolodated into a redundant plant. This balancing act could take two years at least before the electicity is turn off at any major facility.

What's your excuse?

My only conclusion after reading a bunch of these GM bankrupcy threads and other threads is that, the American education systems is in a lot worse shape then I first thought. It appears, a lot of Children have been left behind.

Never say never. It is already starting in other high priced areas. And soon as the principal on all those people that purchased on the interest only loans kick in, the down ward potential is great.

Some of the plants listed in the article are based upon 'ill informed speculation". Trust me.

No, for the most part that is just speculation, by the "insiders" behind the scenes.

If one is going to "speculate" than the author of that article should have been more complete and present the pros and cons for all possible candidates. This first thing the author should have started out with was a time frame.

Piss poor speculation, that is what this is. What about the ancient Flint Truck plant building the GMT-880's, or D-Ham, or Wilmington that are underutilized for their foot print. More bla bla bla from somone that does not know the industry.

No, people here are reading into it too much. Centralizing operations and the decision making process is key. Nissan NA in CA is primarily a sales, service and marketing organization.

Lets step away and think about Nissans decision for a second but with these caveats. Would I want to move from the LA area and uproot my family and head to Nashville. No. If I worked at DPH and was told I would be making 10 buck an hour starting next month, I would be very upset to say the least. But, after some time people get over it and... Now, if I ran Nissan and wanted to consolodate my US operations to make decision making easier. This move to TN is smart in the long term. Because Nissan had their HQ in LA metro was not the reason why they have succeeded. Prior to Ghosen, Nissan was a bust and their HQ for NA was in LA. The importance of having your HQ in LA is over rated. What does it really give you. Nothing, beyond enthusiasts stating how important the market is. Yes, the market is important but so is the rest of the world. Does anyone really think that Honda designs for CA or does Honda, Nissan, Toyota just happen to design products that appeal to those in CA not because of it. HQ location means very little.

I have been reading the various debates all week. Here are my comments and opinions: Column shifter: To free up console space in the 7 and new S Class, this appears to be a new design direction for vehicles that will not offer a manual. I see your point from perceived sportiness and design, but is it really necessary in this type of vehicle where space and packaging are more important (and saves spending unnecessary cash). The interior is about as perfect as GM has gotten in recent memory. Styling: I think the biggest question people should ask is, will Cadillac continue to sell 30k + Escalades a year with this vehicle. In my opinion, easily if the market segment holds. Content: GM hit the head on the nail. For those that do not like the new grill, get used to it. It is Cadillac's new signature grill. IMO, given realities, this is the best Cadillac yet and all the GMT900 utilities appear to be best in class and generate plenty of money for the General while continuing in changing peoples negative perceptions about the company. Would I have prefered an Escalade that shares no metal with the other 900's and featured more distinctive sheetmetal, yes. Given what we got, and not a 100% rebadge or no Escalade, I will take this vehicle. And I think the market will have no problem agreeing with me. This is by far the best vehicle GM has ever made and will show where they are going. This vehicle is about the details, and by God, GM got the details right. That is by far the most important revelation about this vehicle and the rest of the 900s. Details, details, detail......... The Sleeping Giant has awoke... now if they can stay in business.

Without taking this tread off track - in an ideal world GM does not need GMC around, most of those sales would be absorbed back into Chevy - but given their dealer structure and franchise laws and uncertain truck market (up or down) and GM's foundering market share that will not happen. Now is not the time to fold GMC.

Back in the 2000 time frame there was a business being drawn up to do just that, get rid of GMC and Olds. GMC was saved at the time because the fleet mix was changing towards light trucks. Things appear to be changing the other way right now. You fail to take into consideration that there is a huge marketing cost associated with supporting the clones and the brand. Not to mention the structural and human costs.

People got it into their heads that the "Sixteen" is the future styling direction for Cadillac. That is not the case for future Cadillacs.

No it isn't. This is the last of the Zarella's. Details are Lutz, though. Well for a little history of the evolution of the design: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/[email protected]@.ef270e9/8

Perception that a V6 is more fuel efficient than the V8. That is the reason. And I was told the product mix for the V6 is small. But that was before Katrina.