Z-06

I wonder that automakers' blame "public take rate" for their own reluctance to bring a particular model or style to US. If Australia's market of 3,000 odd Cruzes a month can justify three body styles, US market of 20,000 odd Cruzes can CERTAINLY justify three body styles.

Fap, The arm chair critics (H-R-S) still do not get who Corvette's real demographic is. Looking at the numbers of Cayman, Boxter, and Corvette it is clear that the demographic that purchase those vehicles were clearly hit by the recession. In one of my posts in another thread about Corvette, I had made clear that Corvette demographic includes mostly people who are either self-employed or with small businesses that took a hit during the economy. Not the blue haired mid-life crisis men trying to show penile-power as press and arm-chair critics try to paint. Apparently no matter how many times the message is passed to the people (H-R-S), Bitch-Moan-Whine about what the "ideal" Corvette should be continues. The only thing that can bring younger people into Corvettes is to make it appear snazzier with better interior and "hep". Speaking with an M3 owner, he said that the engine was the best part of a Corvette because how easily and cheaply it could be tuned, the LS engines are highly regarded in Porsche community, and so within the VTEC fanboys.

3.62

The 6.2L AMG costs a cool $40,000 while the LS7 costs around $15,000, both produce similar numbers, with the LS7 certainly to give better fuel economy. Is it the price to pay for perception? May be GM should start marketing LS engines as most advanced engines in the world and go head on against AMG and M engines, then people will perceive differently. In one thread there was a need to lower cost of Corvette, now there is a desire for having expensive engine in it. Does not work both ways.

Do you actually read the other posts?

No doing something which is inefficient, heavy while being costly shouldn't be the way for GM. Reread dwight's post if you believe that he knows better about the engine science than anyone else on this board. Yes, Malibu's price skyrocketed tremendously by fixing the interior.

Everything went fine till I saw a high revving V8 with a displacement of only 3 litres. Another rumor wish-list for Corvette.

Is that backwards? Do they mean the new 2013 Malibu and 2012 Impala? 2011 is the last year for the current Malibu. 2012 is the last year for the current Impala (it's getting the 300hp V6 for 2012 remember?) 2012 is the first model year of the new Malibu going into production very very soon. I thought it was getting the 302hp V6 for 2012, and isn't new until 2014? Aren't they talking model years and not actual years? Model years.

Get them on Amazon Roger, that is why I added that link. All my cards have been from there and none have failed so far.

Imagine as Lego blocks. The common base design should always start from the smallest possible vehicle that will be build, and then consequently build on to bigger vehicles. As a matter of fact an entire gamut of Audis share the MLB - ultramodular platform. MB and Toyota are good about hiding things about their platforms, so the idea remains sketchy at best. Remember, the E class coupe was originally thought to have shared platform with the E class Sedan, till MB went out to say it is in fact based on the C class platform. I will not be surprised that these people share platforms in a vertical manner too.

I think this is the key aspect of the platform that we should be focusing on. Zeta was remarkably flexible in this regard (although the attribute has so far been under-utilized). I expect Alpha to be even moreso. You have to think that some lessons have been learned. I remain optimistic about both Alpha and the Zeta II/Zeta light/Zeta-Sigma larger car platforms. I believe that GM ran into an issue with the flexibility of Zeta when they tried to start using it for things it wasn't originally intended for. Look at the amount of effort and changes just to get the Camaro we have today. But as you say, lessons (hopefully) have been learned for Alpha. Hence the requirements that it be able to accept 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines. The problem with Zeta or platforms in general is going smaller, which shows in the Camaro. You can add to a platform, but you cannot go other way around in an efficient manner. That is why GM decided to go with a smaller platform - Alpha and then build up to various configurations. Audi's ultramodular platform similarly was build to target smallest vehicles prior to building bigger ones.

Cruze or Jetta or Focus?

What is the fuel economy have you gotten so far?

Disagree there slightly. The structural components used to support the engine will vary in size depending on the size of the engine. Since the size is directly proportional to the mass of the vehicle, increasing engine size means increasing structural components' mass to carry the load while maintaining the same structural stiffness. Most of these components are high strength steel alloys, which add a lot of weight. So for a hypothetical example, if a 3" diameter torsion bar is selected for a 8 cylinder engine member support, for a 4 cylinder engine, the same job can be done by a 2.1" diameter member, assuming the the 4-cylinder weighs exactly half of the 8-cylinder engine. That is almost 30% weight saving. What if control arms, etc, were repositioned in order to gain clearance for a DOHC V6 or smallblock V8? Yes, they will be needed to modified to control the additional weight transfer more than gaining clearance.

It is basically half the speed of the Extreme for the same price! Let us meet then if you have time. I will be Denver from tomorrow till Tuesday, 24 and in Charleston 27th onwards. We can meet on 25th or 26th. PM me if you are interested.

Congrats Roger. You need to buy a faster SD card to get better bang from your camera. Usually local stores do not carry those. For another $11.00 or so get something like Sand Disk Extreme. I have seen difference in my P&S using faster SD cards. and a tremendous difference between a slower or a faster card in my 7D's buffer. WDW Orlando?

The more I read the article, the more I see the author's lack of understanding between a "car" and a "platform". I think initially GM was going to have three independent RWD platforms - light Alpha, medium Sigma, and heavy Zeta. It seems like GM will end up having two, Alpha and the new Chi?? Future vehicles on Sigma and Zeta platforms may be now part of the Alpha, which may also be inter-related with Zeta "light" or Zeta 2.0. Since these cars (Camaro and CTS of the two) shift to Alpha, the author's argument that bigger engines were added later is true. However the author fails to understand simplicity of modularity. If Alpha is modular, for a 4 cylinder engine the structural component of a bigger size may just have to be replaced with a smaller size and the weight essentially is decreased.

Well said. That is the beauty of a platform being very flexible. No one knows what vehicles GM wants to build on this Alpha. I think someone at GMI is feeling a little insecure.

The cost is not out of proportion for a brand new platform development. That is why platform sharing is important to recuperate the costs.

It's all through effective, clever marketing..it's amazing how trivial cosmetic differences like grille and badging (and fender creases in the current generation) can sway a buyer one way or another.. So is it wrong to perceive buyers of what you want them to believe? Look at BMW, MB, Toyota, all these manufacturers perceive their image through clever marketing and effective propaganda. What is fair for goose should be fair for the gander. The truth is: GMC is profitable by a vast margin. GMC customers are NOT Chevy customers and vice a versa. GMC needs differentiation and innovative lineup to survive going forward. Killing GMC is NOT a solution. In one breath people talk about GM should listen to customers in other breath people say that GMC should be killed. Well killing GMC is not listening to customers who made it the second most selling GM brand, is it?

I don't think the GMC brand should go away. I think the Chevy Truck and SUV operations should wind down and go away. Chevrolet should simply concentrate on Coupes, Sedans, Convertibles and passenger crossovers like the Traverse. No trucks, no body on frame SUVs for Chevy. Not even a baby SUV like the Equinox for Chevy, that's the GMC Acadia period. All GM trucks should be GMCs -- work trucks are GMCs, spiced up articles get the Denali post-fix. All Chevy Dealerships will be given the option to carry the GMC brand to make up for the loss of Chevrolet's truck and SUV lineup. That is not going to fly both from volume and profitability perspectives.

Interesting. A LS7 with 6-speed manual and we are in business.

Being a GM fan more than Mopar one, it just sickens me that GM has no competitor against the Jeeps. May be GMC would be the right brand to go against Jeep. For smaller vehicles let GMC compete the oddities such as Soul and Juke with Granite and its family. For higher end let it have Jeep competitor vehicles with the Sierra finishing off the lineup.

Nissan and Infiniti Ford and Lincoln Honda and Acura Toyota/Scion and Lexus (the exception with a pair), Subaru Hyundai, Kia, BMW and Mercedes are alone. GM and Chrysler are the ones with multiple brands, that have overlap, and share dealerships. They were the two that went bankrupt. Personally, I think GMC is here to stay, at least for the next 10-15 years, but I think if you had 3 strong brands, all could support their own dealer network. Fixed it for you. For your own convenience you can add Subaru as a pair to Lexus and modify the data to claim your hypothesis is correct. Now let us look at outside the United States shall we? Audi/Seat/Volkswagen/Skoda Toyota/Daihatsu/Lexus/Hino Nissan/Citroen/Renault/Infiniti Kia and Hyundai are overlaps too based on your logic of having priced close to each other. Bankruptcy was not because of more brands. In 2006 Ford was in the same situation as GM was in 2008 but was luckier to finance its operations while mortgaging everything but Mullaly's underwear. GM at that time was sitting on 25+ billion in cash. When market turned sour in 2008 Wagoner and company did not find anyone to mortgage their underwears. Having multiple brands creates confusion among competition for there is no single brand to hit on. Not everyone is vanilla flavored like Toyota wants buyers to be. Multiple brands should be handled wisely. What GMC just like Buick needs is more differentiation than Chevy brethren and GM is working on that. Yes there will be overlap, but the efforts should be to minimize such. Because we have learned from Oldsmobile, Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer, and now Mercury that American manufacturers are not good at replacing what they pare and thus risk losing customers. GM has killed enough brands while losing market shares and effective profitability at the same time. Just because the managers cannot handle brand differentiation does not mean that the brand should be killed.

+1. Buick is redundant. Give GS and Buick trim levels to Chevy and save $150 million in marketing dollars. For you diehard fans who won't buy a Chevy, the GS and Buick versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only GS and Buick badging remaining. Cadillac is redundant. Give Cadillac trim levels to Chevy and save $200 million in marketing dollars. For you diehard fans who won't buy a Chevy, the Caddy versions can be stripped of all Chevy badging with only wreath and cres badging remaining. Chevy is redundant. No wait a minute.......