PurdueGuy

um, those are both ugly, and not worth bringing this old, dead thread back to life, IMO.

I have no complaints about GM standing tall in the truck market, not then, not now, not ever. Have they maybe over-focused on trucks at times? Maybe. But again, they are a company that exists to make a profit (and in the process provide tools [vehicles, etc] that are vital to our economy, and jobs that are also vital). Trucks have been and will continue to be in demand. I see no reason GM should be ashamed of making a solid product and selling every single one that people want to buy. They should and would love to do so in every segment, and generally do. People that want to get mad about trucks need to be mad at people that don't need 'em and buy 'em anyway, not get mad at the company. Companies sell what people want. McDonalds sells greasy burgers because people buy them. Obesity is the fault of the people (somewhat including myself ) that make that buying decision, NOT the company that supplies it, unless the company deceives the customer.

This isn't some "GM Death Watch" thread. This is industry-wide. Who do you think the next brand or company will be to leave the US market? There's been serious talk about Mitsu leaving, occasional talk about VW leaving, though I haven't had that impression myself. Then of course there's the occasional clamor for axing a GM brand. Isuzu is gone (practically has been for a while, though). So, who's next to leave the US market or shut down?

full production readiness? How is limited production and lease only "full production readiness"? It does seem to be a well developed product, and is probably closer to full scale production than, say, the Equinox fuel cell vehicle, but I'm not sure I'd say it's there yet. How much is Honda losing on these vehicles (or would lose if they were selling them)?

Ya'know, this whole "GM is late to the hybrid market" isn't the simple big failure people make it out to be. It should be rephrased "GM is late to giving in to making PR cars that don't make a profit and don't pay for themselves." GM HAS to make hybrids now because the culture says so. Hybrids may be becoming slightly profitable in some cases now, but overall, they're pure PR. GM has desperately needed profit, and while PR plays into that indirectly, I can't blame them for not jumping right into hybrids before there was customer acceptance. It had the potential to be like the EV1 all over again - very expensive, no real payback, and little recognition until everyone whines that they stopped making it, turning it into proof that GM is an evil corporation that doesn't care about the environment. It's a company, and it HAS to make a profit, and product development has to reflect that.

I hope you're joking...

In mixed conditions like he stated? At what performance level? RWD certainly doesn't instantly mean fuel economy in the teens like some people seem to think. Heck, friend of mine who's had 2 crown vics regularly gets over 30mpg on the highway, low-mid 20's otherwise. I look forward to seeing the Alpha offerings.

ha ha, using a push production system. Please, keep doing that, Hyundai/Kia. Push, push as many cars out the factory doors as possible. Faster, faster! And whatever you do, don't read about the history of Chrysler.

GM will be around for a long, long time. (Well, most of the brands and much of the infrastructure will be anyway.) Whether it will go through any bankruptcies/sales/etc in that time is another question. Look at Chrysler and all the crap it's gone through and is still around. Even with the death of AMC, many of the brands still stuck around for a long time via Chrysler.

Let's see... if we assume that the additional parts for the drivetrain are the reason for the loss of mpgs, then potential solutions include: a) lighter (if a little more costly to produce) drivetrain parts. Probably a good area of research in general, the results could be good for upping mpgs in all vehicles. b) rear engine, eliminate driveshaft I'm SURE there are more... Then there's the issue of whether the added components even have more then a marginal effect on mpgs, or if the relationship of lower mpgs in RWD has more to do with RWD typically being in bigger, heavier cars, and with beefier engines and drivetrains in general compared to FWD cars, which are more often smaller engine/trans. I'm not a "everything should be RWD!!" person, but I agree that innovation>across the board product cuts.

I hate inorganic popcorn. lol seriously, though... what's different about it? Pesticides & fertilizers used? Genetics? Oils for cooking? back on topic I personally think the H2 is a silly vehicle, but it has seemed to sell pretty well, and people seem to either love it or hate it. Granted, the "hate it" crowd sees it as the spokesperson for silly big SUVs that rarely leave the pavement, but it's gotta cost GM very little to develop/build since it shares so much with the Tahoe, I'd think it's somewhat of a cash cow. I don't mind GM selling silly vehicles to silly people at a nice profit if that's what they really want to buy...

gauges waaay down there = bad idea. I don't care if it's retro, we have since learned that it's better to keep our eyes on or near the road, not looking at the passenger's shoes.

he's a witch!

their greed will fuel our pursuit of something different, which may be for the best long-term anyway.

I wouldn't mind if this was my caddy:

*imagines a bicycle with a roll-bar*

LETS ALL PANIC ABOUT GAS PRICES!!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!! Glad I already drive a compact & get 30-40mpg. Though driving the 'burban on occasion will hurt a little more if things go up. Oh well, we're still paying less than many other places.

yeah... real ricerboys don't ever shut up, even if they get straight up owned. lol

GM is working on their prius-fighter. Yes, they are behind. Hopefully the final Volt product will be better than the Prius, and not merely comparable. The BAS system isn't about high mpg, it's about small gains for small money.

I think I'm right. of course... it would be odd if I thought I was wrong. Then why would I think what I think if I think what I think is wrong? What if I think what I think is wrong but what I think is wrong is right? Does that make me right or wrong? Maybe I'm just not right... but I think I am.

oh boy, sketches, it must be truuuuue! I'm gonna guess that a purpose-built police car won't sell in enough quantity to sell in enough numbers to be produced in enough volume to get costs down enough to get the price down to appeal enough to police fleets to sell in volume to... etc, etc.

They've announced that there will be a 1.4L turbo, which sounded like will make it into this gen Astra. Hard to tell if it's going to be set up for fuel economy or performance, though. For the most part, this gen is a stopgap product, and won't get too exciting. Next gen is in 2010, so not far away at all, and that's when they should be turning up the number of options and stuff.

I did the analysis when the Vue GL was first coming out, and did a table for multiple fuel and hybrid system prices: Looking at the '08 Vue vs Vue GL, the difference is around 6mpg, which is better than in the chart above, plus fuel prices could easily push beyond 3.50 in the next few years (I refuse to freak out like some & start yelling "$5 gas by summar!!! OH NOES!!!") I don't know what the problem is with the Aura's system that it doesn't give similar gains, GM definitely needs to figure something out there. Overall, it is absolute GENIUS for GM to have an affordable hybrid system, and continue to make it more so. You may resume your regularly scheduled pessimism.

Ok, I gave up on reading all 5 pages of this thread, but just thought I'd throw this thought out there... Lessee... GM brands... Chevy GMC Saturn Hummer Buick Cadillac Saab Pontiac IMO, the problem isn't that GM has 8 brands. The problem is that GM keeps trying to operate like it has 8 VOLUME brands. Pick 5 brands, and intentionally grow them in PROFIT MARGIN instead of sales numbers. The other 3, retain value pricing and grow in sales numbers. IMO: Grow sales numbers: Chevy, Buick, Saturn Grow profit margin: GMC, Hummer, Cadillac, Saab, Pontiac A part of me considers swapping Saturn & Cadillac in the above list, though. Opelized-Saturn has great potential to be a strong volume brand, though, and investment in development for the brands is a big payoff since it is applied through so many markets. Cadillac should remain at the top, and thus should command higher prices and an ever higher level of prestige, though, so I think where both brands are listed is probably best. Saturn has some major marketing and market access issues, though.

How do you define competitive? Ultimate mpgs? That's a PR game. A system that pays for itself is true competitiveness, and the current BAS system has come closest to paying for itself within a reasonable lifespan of any of the hybrid systems I've done break-even analysis on. IMO, this system may be more important to GM than either of the other systems, that while more technologically advanced and more potent in delivering high mpgs, are so expensive that GM has to either sell them in very small quantities, or give the system away at a loss.