dford

Can I be the 1st to call BS on the General. Look at the model by model breakdown, and notice the 80% increase in Cobalt sales nicely corresponds with the unit sales increase for the entire company...... Sales suck, dump'em into the fleets.

By all means , STRIKE! GM would love a week or so of downtime to cut back on inventory. The UAW is so stupid. they are more worried about their retiree benefits that the job security of their current members or the ability of GM to grow the business and add new jobs. Of course, GMs executives don't do themselves any favors by giving themselves bonuses and maintaining their perks.

The revival of Saturn has got to be the quickest product turnaround of all time! Great job GM.

A tactical retreat should include a plan to regain ground lost. Lutz doesn't give much hope that GM will soon produce a top notch minivan. Sounds more like capitualation to me...

The logic that the Lambdas are good replacement for a minivan is ridiculous. If I am shopping for a minivan and search online, will the Outlook pop up next to the Odyssey? No it won't, it will be on the SUV or CUV list. Will the Enclave have remote opening side doors like a van, no they won't. Will they have the cubic ft of space inside like a van, no they won't. The Odyssey and Sienna may be "overpriced," but they are priced like they are BECAUSE THEY SELL. If Ford and GM gave up on every segment they weren't a leader in, each would only sell trucks + the Mustang and Vette. How can they hope to regain market share by retreating from mainstream segments? If they want to take sales back from the imports, they have to sell what the import customers want to buy. If you look at the sales decline in the minivan segment, you would see that it is mostly attributable to the decline in vans sold by the Big 3. YTD thru October, the Big 3 sold a total of 455900 minivans vs 547360 last year. The Japanese/Koreans sold 341282 this year vs 320962 last year (the Sienna sold about 800 units less than last year). Sales in the category dropped 8.2%, almost totally from the domestic side. So, if the GM and Ford had fresh designs, would those sales have gone away???

So by Bob's logic, Toyota shouldn't waste its time and money on the Tundra, since the Big 3 have the segment covered???? Get real. I guess GM should give up on the Camaro too, Ford's got it covered. Give up on the Malibu too, Toyota's got it covered. GM execs are afraid that they don't have the engineering chops to develop a competitive minivan, to they gave up. How hard is it to develop a box on wheels? Even Hyundai figured it out.

That was MY point, but then again, I'm just a Caddy hater.

Ok, I never meant to start a flame war bashing Caddies. I merely was expressing my opinion that these particular commercials were not the best way to bring in new buyers to Cadillac. The current crop of Caddies have a lot to offer and should be considered by open minded luxury buyers. Cadillac would be best served to keep the advertising focus on the current cars' luxury and performance attributes.

" after the 1932 V16 Dual Cowl Phaeton & the 1959 Biarritz the ad makes it's point, Cadillacs are for Emperors, super flashy celebrities & billionares. " Thanks for making my point. Cadillac wants to do a heritage ad, but it's best work until 2002 was back in 1959!! And Cadillac USED to be for emperors, super flashy celebrities and billionares. You've got the celebrities(drug dealers) back, but Cadillacs customers until recently have been dying WWII generation. Show me the quality, the unique features, the performance of the Cadillac that makes me want it - that what they should be showing in there ads. It's there, but instead, for me, they are reminding me of cars best forgotten. And win a few comparision tests in those biased buff magazines so the car guys have to rethink their positions......

"Sadly, for Cadillac, Taylor says baby boomers are pretty much a dead end for Caddy. They saw the brand’s bad years in the 1980s and 90s and moved on to Asian and European brands." "When Caddy launched its “Break Through” campaign four years ago with Led Zeppelin music, it was a game-changer at GM and the Caddy brand, which had become asoociated more with the white-shoe and matching belt crowd than those wearing Dr. Maartens or Gucci. And while four straight years of sales gains is nothing to sneeze at, Caddy recently identified a problem. Beyond the Escalade, young people had no clue about the rest of the lineup. Also, while the average age buyer had come down to 59 from 64, that's still too old and too few women have been shopping the brand." Source: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/bra...lac_reachi.html Ok, you got me on the Teddy Bears. "Anyone under the age of 30 will have no first hand memories of the 8-6-4 and most non-car people under 40 will never even have heard of it." - so Cadillac has to hope for ignorance of its customers to get sales? And many people get their car buying advice from "car guys" they know, and the car guys remember the bad old days, however brief or long ago. Infinity is spelled I-N-F-I-N-I-T-I Note: I am not a Cadillac hater, I think the latest generation of cars are great. I just don't think that these ads will help them bring in new customers.

Who cares if the 85 Seville was supposed to get conquest sales. TODAYS cadillacs are supposed to - because previous generations of Cadillacs lost the customer. My point is: Many import luxury buyers have a negative perception of Cadillac. Whether is the big boats of the 50's-70's or the too small, poor quality 80's cars (V8-6-4 anyone?), the perception of Cadillac to most luxury consumers (that don't live in Detroit) is of poor quality and out dated technology. Cadillac wants to change that perception, and should not be running ads that remind potential new customers of cars those very customers perceive negatively. You are not going to change the perception of a car by flashing its image and playing some Iggy Pop in the backround. But you can change the perception of a brand by showing the current cars in a contemporary context - that the cars are relevant to todays luxury buyers. One commercial is not going to get the buying public to say "Gee, I was wrong about Cadillac all this time." Remember, 5 years ago Infiniti was a joke: rebadged Maxima as the I35, the too small G20, the ugly Q45. Look at it today.

The problem with heritage ads is that while you remind people of the good, you also remind them of the bad. How does even the appearance of the 85 Seville help conquest buyers from BMW, Audi, or the Japanese?? And in the 30 sec ad, jumping from the Seville directly to the XLR is especially bad. Nothing Cadillac has produced in the last 30 years - current models excepted, warrants fond remembrance in an ad, especially if the desired goal is to change people's perception of Cadillac. This ad is for loyalists only.

....and the music sucks too. If you want Cadillac to be aspirational for the next generation, why pick their parents music??? If you are targeting people in their 30's and 40's to be the next generation of Cadillac buyers, why pick music from before we were born?? Same with Led Zep. Using such old music is just "remember our youth" stuff for the 60 year old baby boomers. Oh, wait. Even they have a bad impression of Cadillac. I am not saying I think Cadillac sucks. They have some competitive cars now, but these commericals miss the mark.

Horrible!!!!! Reminds everyone of the terrible cars Cadillac used to make. These commercials are only good for evoking fond memories of the faithful. To all the people Cadillac wishes to court, it draws a straight line directly from the CTS and STS back to the Seville and Cimarron. You don't see Infiniti fondly remembering the G20 or the 2nd gen Q45 in their ads for the 07 G35, do you??? You don't see Ford reminding you of the 4 cylinder, landau roofed Mustang II do you in their ads for the GT500?? You don't see Chrysler reminding you of the K-car New Yorkers in their ads for the 300C, do you? (though they did revive the Aspen name - God knows why..) If they showed those commercials only in Detroit, maybe it would be ok.

Most of the media have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to cars, so their opinion means nothing - i.e regular news, CNBC, CNN etc. What we need is for the automotive media to do objective comparos and let the chips fall where they may. They need to keep the pressure on GM, Ford, and Chrysler. As for GM's positives, I am excited about the Lucerne, the Solstice, the upcoming Malibu and crossovers and the new CTS. I think the new RWD chassis will be a hit, but I hope they make the Camaro a little more practical. The Mustang sells so well because husbands can convince the wife it is a real car and not just a toy. I think the hydrogen cars could be the big breakthrough, but only if GM can come up with a refueling method - in home? That skateboard chassis could be huge. I don't care if they cost $100k, if they lux them out to the max and make them the car to have and get the rich early adopters to bite, then they could scale up the technology and lower the cost. To me hybrids are a short term solution that really don't solve the problem.

Regalguy, As far as the C&D article, sadly the STS is our only entry into that class of car, since Ford and Chrysler can't seem to bother. I don't consider the Chrysler 300 competition for those in the article. That makes it all the more upsetting that it was left out. I suppose they could have included the Jaguar S-type, but it is 6 years old. As far as bias in magazines goes, C&D might be import biased, but they seem to be the only US magazine that actually tests the cars. MT drives them and reports results, but it seems like they don't critique the cars, and Automobile drives them, but just takes the manufacturer's performance data and doesn't do many in depth comparo tests.

Ok, since I have nothing better to do , I went to fleet-central.com to find out what % of sales GM does to fleet. Since that site was mentioned here, I am sure we can agree on the #'s. Cars: GM does 41.6% to fleets Trucks: GM does 21.4% to fleets So I exaggerated(guessed), I apologize. Some #'s for you: Chevy: Aveo 26% Cobalt 33% Malibu 60% Impala 54% Monte Carlo 68% Pontiac: Sunfire 6% Vibe 36% G6 42% Grand Am 20% Grand Prix 74% Bonneville 3% Buick: Century 1% LaCrosse 29% Lucerne 28% Park Ave 3% Regal 3% LeSabre 6% Cadillac: CTS 13% DeVille 9% DTS 28% STS 5% Saturn: Ion 14% ....and don't crow about those models with low %, Either they are a discontinued model, or a low seller....

No offense, but is GM's ignoring of the "negative Nancy's" that got it where it is today. At least GM fans should be realistic about the situation. I want Ford and GM to succeed, and I celebrate their successes, but I won't turn a blind eye to their challenges either, and neither should any of you. If you stifle opinion in your forum, then you are no better than the Unions banning non-GM cars from the parking lot or GM executives banning non GM cars from parking in front of the Ren Center.

MY point is that you are preaching to the choir here.

I am by no means a GM hater, but I believe in being realistic in assessments of the Big 3's challenges and progress. A rosey view like yours doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. I was very upset to see the STS left out of that comparo test, as I am each time a GM vehicle is, because I want to know how far GM has come, and not just assume the worst. But even a GM cheerleader should be concerned when 1/2 of all GM cars go to fleets and not to customers (include the trucks, I'm sure it's close). That means regular people aren't buying the cars, and GM will never have enough $$$ to fund it's obligations AND develop great cars if consumers aren't buying. At least GM has a plan and seems to be executing it, while Ford still wanders aimlessly. I, for one, would love to buy a Pontiac G8 with RWD, 400hp and 6spd manual for $32,000. Let's see if such a car comes to be....God knows it won't come from Ford!!!

While that was a great article for the faithful, it ignores many of the challenges that GM still faces going forward: #1 Healthcare, despite all the buyouts, this problem isn't going away any time soon and will still cost $billions, all of which comes from product development. #2 Product - yes GM has released some greatly improved models recently, we can't forget that for many of its most mainstream models, more than 50% go directly to fleet sales which are least profitable and hurt resale values for actual customers. Chevy can sell 300,000 Impalas year after year, but until those 300,000 are consumers and not fleet, GM isn't making much progress. When Chevy sells more than 50% of Cobalts, Malibus AND Impalas to fleets, it is hard to pat them on the back for sales figures. Then look at Pontiac, same thing: more than 1/2 of G6 and Grand Prix go to fleets. #3 Competition - I'll know GM is back when the car magazines put GM vehicles back into the comparo tests. When C&D does a comparo of $50,000 luxury sedans and leaves out the STS, which on paper matches up to those tested, there's trouble (They didn't even bother giving an excuse why, suggesting the STS wasn't considered at all). Or when they do a test of midsize cars and only pick the Ford Fusion to battle all the imports (it came in 2nd to the Accord BTW). Where was the Malibu or G6?? And when they do include GM vehicles, they fare poorly. Witness the recent C&D test of luxury SUV's. The brand new Escalade came in 4th out of 5 - only the (also new) Navigator fared worse. GM may be on the right track, but it will take another 10 years of progress to get where they need to be, if they have that long.....

I guess I assumed that GM had a plan to bring these cars or at least this platform to the US all along. Now we find out they will begin to consider it soon?????? No wonder GM is in such a mess! So if the Board approves, it could be years before these cars get here.

Think about that......25 years and GM has NEVER had a competitive minivan - nor has Ford for that matter. How can the 2 largest car makers not be in a huge segment of the market for so long?!

Looks too similar to the Ford Freestyle, same style grill/side profile, but taller.

titan, GM has actually done the best job of the big 3 making unique cars from common platforms. Aside from the pickups and SUVs which are badge engineered with only minimal changes the rest of the cars pretty different style-wise. Badge engineered cars: Cobalt/G5 Uplander/Relay/Montana Equinox/Torrent But these cars are on common platforms but have different interior/exterior styles except radios/HVAC: Malibu/G6/Aura Impala/Grand Prix/LaCrosse Lucerne/DTS Solstice/Sky CTS/STS/SRX Corvette/XLR Cobalt/HHR As far as the Lambdas go, the Acadia and the Outlook seem very similar, but the Enclave has a unique style Toyota and Honda go further than GM by having unique drivetrains in many models on a common platform, but even they are consolidating. Ford and Chrysler do the least differentiating between nameplates.