Z-06

Or may be not giving away money was part of their hidden agenda? Regardless, the actual bill has lost much of its steam since inception. I do not think many will take advantage of it.

Now render the interior. I love the details of the wheels.

If I buy it and give you cash for all the parts needed, will you restore it for me?

I know for one that Honda Civic has wipers of different length more close to 6-8 inches than a foot.

Starting 2007, tell me ONE vehicle in which GM has let the ball drop when it comes to design? And I am not talking about MCE or rebadges like Aveo or G5, which were stop gaps to make sure the new platforms takes over in 2011. GM has had design reawakening, reemergence, the article would have been completely true two years ago, not now. Compared to almost all the manufacturers GM's recent design has been in the top percentile. Unless he is talking about Toyota's or MB's design, which indeed has deteriorated, Siddle makes invalid points. One thing GM needs to improve on is the details, small things which can be pesky to some most of the times or most for sometimes, but other than that overall design motif has shown renaissance.

[source: Motortrend] First Drive: 2010 Chevrolet Equinox The End Of "Good Enough For Chevy" Class Leading Fuel Economy Active Noise Cancellation Device Employed - A first for GM Bests Interiors of Any Competitors in its Class Chevrolets at their best offered "more than expected." This separated the revolutionary 1955 Bel Air from its popularly priced rivals at Ford and Plymouth. It defined the first two generations of Chevelles and the downsized 1977 Caprice. But as GM moved into the troubled 1980s and '90s, the clarion call at Chevrolet became "Good enough for Chevy." This sad phrase steered product planners, designers, and engineers into producing a generation of Chevrolets that were little more than segment placeholders, something to give the brand a presence in a category. The original Equinox embodied this attitude to the hilt. On paper the specs were on target: a standard V-6 and automatic transmission, independent suspension, and discs at all four corners along with a roomy, reconfigurable interior for five. Dynamically and aesthetically, the vehicle was far less than the sum of its parts. Following in the path of a series of upgraded Chevrolets (the Malibu and GMT900 full-size trucks), the 2010 Equinox has eschewed the good-enough-for-Chevy attitude and has become a transformed crossover in the process. After a deep-dive into the compact-crossover segment Chevy came to significant revelations. First was that owners of these vehicles appreciate and seek refined, comfortable products. Buyers told Chevy V-6 engines are not a high priority. Most important, Chevrolet decided if it was going to play in the CR-V, Escape, and RAV4 sandbox it must try to beat the best. Of course, manufacturers have claimed this countless times in the past. Starting with the architecture of the first Equinox, the stage was set for another case of overpromising and underdelivering. Overall width is up a fraction over an inch and vehicle length has been shortened an inch. Powertrain offerings were rethought and both the old-fashioned "high-value" 185-horsepower, 3.4-liter OHV V-6 and the modern "high-feature" 264-horsepower, 3.6-liter DOHC V-6 are no longer offered. The Equinox Sport has been axed along with the 3.6. Instead, a 182-horsepower direct-injected 2.4-liter DOHC I-4 is standard in all Equinox models and a 3.0-liter direct-injection version of the high-feature DOHC V-6 making the 3.6's 264 horsepower is available on LT and LTZ trim levels. Either engine is available with front or all-wheel drive and GM's six-speed automatic is standard across the board. The 3.0 in a front-drive Equinox is estimated at 18/25 mpg, 1 mpg better than the 3.6 in city and highway mileage. When mated to the I-4, a driver-selectable "eco mode" is added to the six-speed automatic, which allows the torque converter clutch to lock up at lower speeds and changes shift points to improve fuel economy. The result is a front-drive compact crossover estimated to deliver 22 mpg in the EPA city cycle and 32 mpg highway. That beats the Ford Escape Hybrid's number, making the 2.4-liter Equinox the segment highway fuel economy leader. Government 5-star and IIHS "good" crash ratings were a program target from the outset and base curb weight is up over the previous model. However, improved impact performance doesn't tell the whole story of the 110-pound mass rise. With its interior of amusingly grained hard plastic, the original Equinox was a real boom box inside. Playing for segment leadership rather than mere participation made silencing the 2010 Equinox a gilt-edge priority. GM employed Active Noise Cancellation for the first time on any of its production vehicles. The system (on 2.4-liter models exclusively) employs two microphones to detect low-frequency sounds in the cabin and then uses the car's audio system speaker, including the subwoofer when fitted, to generate canceling sound. The noise-cancellation system also allowed engineers to drop the idle speed of the I-4, which yielded about 0.1-mpg-better fuel economy. Further noise mitigation is attained through the use of laminated acoustic glass for the windshield and front side windows as well as triple seals on all four doors. Additionally, the level of interior materials is significantly upgraded to the point where the Equinox cabin is measurably better than Chevy's own Malibu. Yes, there are still some large hard-plastic components, but they've been moved out of the driver's primary touch zones or have been covered with soft (or soft-touch) trim. Compare interiors side by side with the chief competition, Ford Escape, Jeep Liberty, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Toyota RAV4, and the Chevy eats 'em up and spits 'em out. Climbing into an AWD 2.4-liter Equinox LT during a rainstorm, we almost hot cranked the ignition. The engine was running, but the sound of rain falling on the sunroof drowned it out, and its idle didn't vibrate through the toe-pan, seat, or steering column. And the triple door seals, acoustic glass windshield, and front-door windows have pretty much eliminated -- eliminated -- A-pillar, wiper, and mirror-patch wind noise at speeds up to about 65 mph. According to Chevrolet, the front-drive 2.4-liter Equinox is good for a 0-to-60-mph time of 8.7 seconds. The V-6 shaves nine-tenths off that time. Setting the I-4 Equinox transmission into Eco Mode doesn't significantly change the driving experience when puttering around. Even though the converter clutch engages a lower speed, there's no appreciable added roughness. The Eco Mode's revised shift points are not quite so transparent. At part throttle, acceleration becomes more leisurely, not to where the Equinox feels doggy, but apparent enough to a sensitive driver. The majority of drivers in the segment would be hard-pressed to feel the slight decrease in performance. To the enthusiast, discussing vehicle dynamics in this segment seems irrelevant. If you're looking to carve up a canyon road in a CR-V rather than a Civic, for example, you've got one strange set of priorities. With that in mind, the 2010 Equinox is a less than optimal choice for said twisty driving than a Cobalt SS. But when the road becomes more challenging than a thoroughfare, the Equinox will do nothing untoward or dangerous unless provoked by a madman. The base P225/65R17 all-season Michelins are optimized for reduced rolling resistance and good tread life. They become the "fusible link" when pushing the Equinox very hard, giving the driver plenty of audible notice before they let go of the road in complete frustration. The ride/handling compromise has been biased in favor of comfort and predictability, the segment rule. Compliance and road isolation is the order of the day for driver comfort and reduced cabin noise. Cars with the optional P235/55R19 Hankooks generate considerably more tire sound than those equipped with 17- or 18-inch rubber. Power steering with the V-6 is a hydraulic system, while the I-4s get a new rack-mounted electric power-steering system. Steering feel is noteworthy for a direct-acting electric rack, better than some electronically controlled hydraulic systems. The 2010 Equinox LS carries a base MSRP of $23,185, with power driver's seat, tilt and telescope steering column, power windows and locks, air conditioning, and alloy wheels among the standard equipment. Mid-range 1LT model starts at $24,105, adding privacy glass, roof rails, and an electronic compass. Higher-end 2LT further adds auto climate-control A/C, Bluetooth, USB connection, rearview camera, foglights, and upgraded audio with steering-wheel controls, and starts at $26,190. The topline $28,790 LTZ throws in a memory seat and mirrors for the driver, heated leather seats, sonar rear park assist, exterior chrome package, and power tailgate. Pricing may be the biggest news of all since a 2010 Equinox LS undercuts the previous version by a hefty $1825. The mid-range 1LT carries an MSRP $905 less than that of the 2009 base version. With the 2010 Equinox, Chevrolet has a product that genuinely outperforms its best competitors in the areas of NVH, accommodation, and fuel economy. That it does so with better content and more than competitive pricing marks a return to the "more than expected" philosophy that brought about Chevrolet's postwar golden age. Just as important as how it performs in the market, the Equinox should be the final nail in the coffin of the jaded GM concept of "Good Enough for Chevy."

AA Bottom

I personally think it will because for one, GM did more wheeling and dealing with the vested parties, especially bondholders and UAW than Chrysler did. I am glad it ended so fast.

Can you post the contents of it? It requires subscription which some of us do not have it. Regardless, it is a good news.

Happy Birthday Dude Enjoy the happiest day of the year in a fine way.

True, despite of its dumpy reputation for the previous generation, Malibu retained the name, and it is bringing good reviews from import humpers too. I personally think GM should keep the Cobalt and show how leaps and bounds it improved from the previous gen.

GM erred with the Kappas. I think the Sky should have never been a Saturn. GM needed one volume Kappa and one niche Kappa or one volume and two niche Kappas. Therefore a Chevy Kappa (may be a Nomad or any other Kappa) and a Pontiac/Saturn would have made sense. Kappa has its severe limitations, and it was a platform which was 70% engineered. But despite of this the Solstice is a great car. I love that vehicle and its capabilities. It would have been a perfect test bed/mule for GM's foray into racing and bringing performance community back to GM from ricer fold along with the Cobalt SS turbocharged. Resources really cramped GM big time. That is precisely the point of all these ragtops. No one buys Z4, SLK, Boxters, Miatas as his/her first family car. Usually the people who buy them as first vehicles are professionals who are road-warriors and want to have the car to putz around, or family people like Chris who need a project car or are dabbling in racing. And unfortunately those are the people with money and will spend money on these cars. GM's idea with Kappas was brilliant, but like other of its ideas its execution was poor.

Possibly www.notgonnahappen.com Read other topic, China may not accept the Hummer deal.

Eagle

Caddy is lacking a second solid product after the CTS to shore its line. Escalade trio is shrinking in volume. Alpha could not have come fast enough. Buick will get a nice bump once Lacrosse hits the deck.

Happy Birthday. I wish you a fabulous day.

Not all is lost, the road is tough, but not impossible. GM can be back if it keeps the heads in the right places, keeps constantly leading rather than following and listens to what customers have to say and provide what customers want.

Happy Birthday Sir for now being twice as old as me. I hope you are having some good feast and fun.

This is something which was published in NG way back. National Geographic - Homosexual Animals Really intriguing when I first read it.

Over

Bi

The basic 101 of owning shares of a publicly traded firm is that you get dividends for owning its shares at the risk of losing all the capital when the company goes down. If the people fail to understand or do the research about a company's strength then their shares are put at their own risk, not the company's. Just ask Warren Buffet about it - he will just not buy shares if he thinks he is going to lose the capital. Legally GM or ANY publicly traded company is not liable to those investors.

First of I am saying it again that it is not about GM, and second off in no way am I celebrating and finally I am not beating down Honda either. What I am doing here is calling out the people who think that GM had failed because it did not have a balanced product portfolio like Honda which has small cars as well as big ones and therefore will do better in these dire times compared to uni-minded car manufacturers like GM, given the time that people want to be as miserly as possible. I am asking the question why despite of this perception Honda is sitting in the same boat as the manufacturer who is already known for being mismanaged, lacking depth of products, and having bad quality. I am asking a bigger question rather than the cat fight of GM vs. Honda sales. If I had to do that I would rather bring Toyota in the focus than Honda as I know for a fact Honda has never been about volume, its core has always been about better product. Who is denying that GM will not lose sales? I personally believe selling/shuddering brands is ludicrous, but there is nothing GM could have done, other than going under its own weight if it would not have pared those brands. So rather than pigeon-holing my comments on this topic read my other posts about GM and then let me know if I celebrate for every pie GM produces and sales or not.

Regardless of your long post you are still not getting the point. What I meant was the rate of drop in sales of Honda is higher than GM's given what GM has been going through in recent past - considering in people's perception Honda is a much better car company than GM, considering GM is in bankruptcy mode, considering automobile magazines, reviewers give five thumbs up to most of Honda's products compared to muted Hurray to GM's products. GM's trend of sales has been declining for a long time so it is a moot point as another decline possibly with a higher rate given the economic situation is in-sync with that trend. Honda should show a smaller rate of decline, than GM's because it being perceived as a better company with a better car product portfolio in common people's perception. And common people do not browse VEE-Tyak or other forums they read Consumer Reports, Edmunds, which give Honda the best medals. Common people's opinions are like the ones of the receptionist at my office, who bought Honda Civic based on Consumer Reports, and told me Mini and BMW 128i are based on the same FWD platform. I have not made comments of sales of Civic equaling pre-recession level. I am agreeing with you that Honda will suffer too because of the economy, but if it is perceived as a better company then it should not suffer more than a company which is not perceived to be nearly as good.

Go ahead post them DF. I love Aircrafts especially the WWII ones always fascinate me.