balthazar

Keep 'em coming, Harley! So far I have agreed pretty much unilaterally with your opinions on the Big E. I never really noticed the '71s harkening to the early '50s in a few details, but it is there. I used to pass a commuting '70 last summer- a bit worn but still an imposing beauty. I have the half-handful of collector vehicles I really want, but on my short list of others I'd like to get one day is a '67-70 Eldorado.

Blorf!! I'd infinately rather have the New Yorker in the background.

It's a terminal illness and the patient's condition is worsening.

It simply looks dated. Specs~ HP & weight numbers are admirable, but acceleration & MPG aren't anything great. $34K is overpriced for what I see.

Haven't heard anything beyond Transistor off the new one. I have Follow the Leader and it has both its good & bad, Life is Peachy which I thought sucked and Korn, which is by far the best of the 3, and is truely excellent, IMO. Most rocks bands' best & most inspired work is their earlier rather than later stuff. Millions of dollars always takes the edge off hard rock/ metal.

How did the above experience make you feel about "Chevrolet"? This is supporting testimonial that sales & marketing need to be overhauled. Like Razor posted; these are quickly implimented actions, rather than waiting thru the years-long cycle of new product development. And like caddycruiser posted on page 7, strong effective marketing & dealership experiences can bouy less-than-world-class product. In other words, Saturn is a successful national-level case study for implementing at least some of the Steps outlined. I too must compliment Buickman's commitment to his cause. Way too many people sitting back with their arms folded, griping & whining, both inside & outside General Motors.

Why is this so difficult to understand??? These steps are designed to address marketing, yet the primary complaint is basically 'But this only addresses marketing'. But, as you imply, it IS a problem. Why the outright refusal to fix that?

Looks pretty good. I think I agree (?!) with Croc tho; I would like to see flat out ballz-2-da-wallz action-- some of the clip is great (the drifting) but a few clips do seem fairly moderately paced. Especially if it's the CTS-V- it should be a total monster. Music is fine IMO.

The one from C&G that often makes me crazy is break/brake.

In other words- you have seen no evidence that GM has refined product & improved quality and is focused on that whatsoever. Not targeting you, TurboRush, but look how well this edit fits: >>"Their's nothing fine about a car that looks as dowdy as the 9-3. Nobody but old-time saab fans will consider it. That's fine if you already like saab, but most people don't. Get it? They have lost sales catering to the same audience that prefers 1980 automobiles with a complete lack of refinement and luxury, and plastic bits that make Toyota look like Lexus."<< You likely won't agree, but understand that I don't agree either with your assessment of Buick.

Sound advice, Razor, agree 100%. Myself; I don't give a rat's ass about perceived egos or personal differences- as a true General Motors supporter I want to see results. Very little behind the scenes action from HQ has impressed me in recent years, among some colossal blunders (fiat, suzuki, saab). Frankly I think the think tank is fresh out of 'momentum' ideas, and I welcome level-headed discussion about any new proposals that would turn that around. Proffered with the contention that marketing costs will simultaneously be reduced and you have a listener here. Many of the counterpoints above 'disprove' the steps as individually "not saving the bottom line" at the same time acknowledging they still may be a net positive. How is that "shredding" anything? Bottom line: no one has ever unilaterally praised GM's marketing (quite the contrary), yet a 20+ step proposal is unilaterally damned without being tried. I should say: 'hasn't been tried nationally', because it has been successful regionally. The bulk of the counterview seems clearly to be personal, and there's really no time for that for GM today. 'We' need all the help we can get.

The C6 was a pre-introduction production car, the Camaro is not (concept). Cipriani makes a valid point. I don't know the answer, but if it was intentional, I agree with Cipriani: it's a smart move IMO, for a vehicle discontinued only a few years ago (directly) for falling sales.

I thought this was a serious discussion; bullsh!t like this contributes nothing.

That is a great ad, Sixty8! I wish there still was a factory limousine (RIP: 1984).

The pig nostril grille on BMWs- never once were they even remotely "kidney bean" shaped.

I haven't been in Detroit in a number of years, but when I was, there was much scariness. I had thought overturned, burnt-out cars sitting at the curb were the stuff of 'racial tension' movies, but no-oooo. Still, there was a ton of really cool stuff and I know I didn't see but 2% of it. I remember walking all around the Ford plant in Highland Park & looking in the windows. Wish I could get back there and snoop around.

I have had non-auto collections in the past (radios, TVs, typewriters), tho they have all fallen by the wayside. I also have a personal library; books, manuals, magazines, clippings and 4500-some print ads. 2 vintage cars & 1 vintage truck.

I'm not against that idea, TR, but I just don't have any free time. There is a dealer along one of my regular routes of travel, perhaps something will work out; at least a close-up visual inspection. Kaylan- I searched online but was unable to find either when saab first had heated seats, nor if in fact they were the first to introduce it. Cadillac's first offering may well be '66. I only brought up Cadillac because many people seems to think both saab is in the luxury segment. As for the interior issue: most pics I've seen of recent saab interiors were shockingly dated, IMO. I couldn't put those interiors in even the same ballpark as my Pontiac's interior, but I am easily as biased in this case as you are on saabs, so our opinions probably cancel each other out. ;) My Poncho isn't exactly 'recent' tho.

Oh, 'Policeman's Benevolent Association'. Basically sez 'This (below signed) cop sez this cardholder is a safe driver & a great individual'. They are tendered in times of duress in a sort of 'under the table' manner and they usually work to reduce that stress to a warning. empowah- without going into it all deeply; it was a T intersection, traffic was directed right but the road was blocked by the cruiser, a water tanker truck & a stopped motorist. I went to the left of the half dozen cones and turned left, since the cone-directed flow to the right was dead-ended (temporarily).

I would have to consider myself 'out of the Buickman loop' in that I have not followed the details in... detail, but I have yet to read much more here in response other than personal differences with no specific point-by-point objections. If it can be shown that the proposal would indeed reduce marketing costs (and frankly, the millions stuffed into Tiger's and Martha's pockets has accomplished nothing), what is the specific reason to not try it? Anyone? Is there a better plan to address marketing on the table? No one is saying this is the 'be all, end all' solution, but if it fixes one problem area, that's one less problem area... get me?

My State Police PBA card got me out of 2 very serious tickets today: driving on the wrong side of the road and 'failure to follow the direction of a police officer'. >>Insert gigantic WHEW!! here<< Last time I had a road altercation was '97: a woman stopped short in a busy roadway right in front of me, I swerved and would've missed her completely (my left headlight clipped her right taillight), but a dump truck was parked & blocking the shoulder (so much for 'less-than-ridgeline-handling'!). Then, the officer said "I'm not going to give you a ticket" but 2 weeks later one arrived in the mail after an 'administrative review' of the report. Keeping that in mind, I will be sh!tt!ing a brick for the next 2 weeks or so. Any PBA card stories out there? Will this one be the "Get out of jail free" card like the nice officer said or is my mailbox a ticking time bomb? sign me --Nervous Norvus

sushi pie...

The original maybach company had no organizational connection with mercedes. 20 years passed between the end of maybach production and M-B purchasing a majority stake in the old maybach engine plant. Therefore, IMO, while it may be legal to use the name, it is reprehensible to claim ownership of the previous long-dead entity's vehicular accomplishments. Bugatti has a likewise formidable gap in time between incarnations (30 years), but I have not seen evidence that the current administration has made outright claims upon the original company's accomplishments, as DCX has so brazenly done, so I should rightfully withdraw my protest here. I realize I am reacting to the ramblings of a Pavlovian 'journalist' and I am probably expecting too much yet again, but the implied automatic benefit-of-the-doubt based on the reputation of a long-dead company gets under my skin...

"The real answer" is not addressing the tires, it's addressing the driver's contention that 'It's a honda' was primarily responsible.

Oh so mindlessly typical.