dfmoeller

It wasn't quite the same thing. The early concepts for the 2nd gen had shorter doors and a real rear window (of course, no B pillar in the heyday of the hardtop body style). The current issue of High Performance Pontiac has some pix of these early styling exercises. That was changed to make the door much longer, incorporating the rear window into one giant door window. There was no door frame. When you had the windows down, it still had the wide open feel of the hardtop. This style lived through 2nd, 3rd, and 4th gen models. Thats why the ungawdly heavy/large doors. Sixty8 - just to let you know, you are NOT alone in this insane desire to see the hardtop body return. If they don't engineer real roll down windows for the coupe, what are they going to put on the vert???? Another 80s-style wrap-around top - god, I hope not. I may be wrong, but I'm sensing a polarization on this point between those around to enjoy the hardtop body style, and those that started driving after it had disappeared (it disappeared because of roll-over safety rules - not impossible to meet if designed in, but the bodies being produced in the mid-70s were never designed to support the car on the roof without a B pillar. It did not go out of fashion due to style concerns). I was thinking of getting a Challenger (I know - heresy) to tide me over till the Camaro arrives, but with those rear windows, probably not. Just my $.02. If GM cheaps out on this styling point, what else are they cheaping out on? The design language of the '69 really requires no B pillar. It was this "good enough" attitude that got them in so much trouble in the first place. The devil is in the details. And so is the difference between great and "also-ran". Doug

The below quote is a sample of an ongoing debate on this and other forums regarding whether GM should accelerate Zeta or accelerate the Epsilon II. I've been giving it some thought, and I've come to the conclusion that if they don't do both, they are probably toast. They need both and they need them yesterday. Here we go: The effort on the 900 series trucks showed it was possible to focus the company and do things right. The Enclave shows that the crossovers are going where they need to be. BUT, GM needs 4 things critically: 1. GM NEEDS a high volume mass appeal car (the Accord/Camry fighter) - This is where the profits are. Everything else is supporting effort. Delta and Epsilon are better than earlier efforts, but still not where they need to be. GM keeps missing the mark. That only leaves Epsilon II as the candidate. The Epi2's need quality, reliability, assembly fit and finish, interior upgrade, world class engineering and mechanical features (fwd ok, even preferred) and last but not least, great STYLING. But, the truth is, once someone settles in with a car brand, he stays until something forces him to switch. Even if GM builds this uber-appliance, GMs customer base has switched and just making a better car, simply won't bring anyone back. Epi2 can be the best car ever, and the buying public will yawn. GM has got to give buyers a reason to switch, and to do that, they need to: 2. Get buyers into the showrooms, GM has got to bring forward some "gotta have" cars. They need cars that are so compelling that buyers will take a chance with a GM product even if they suspect they won't get as GOOD a car (don't flame me, I don't believe this, but it seems everyone else most certainly does believe this). Not just one hit, but several. The only thing that fits this bill is Zeta, but luckily, it may just fill it very well, indeed. The Camaro is the biggest hit in the auto enthusiast world in many years. Its the first American vehicle that everybody I know openly professes they would buy without reservations, import buyers, high end buyers, low end buyers, young buyers, old buyers, men, women, everyone. Every day that passes without it in production pushes GM closer to the "B" word. It is said the Impala is equally, if not more, stunning. I only hope the other production candidates are also knockouts. The RWD and V8s play into this by appealing to the enthusiasts. The styling, so far, seems beautiful; not just new, fresh, or edgy, but truly timeless. GM is not going to sell millions of these each year, but these cars can very well get people into the showrooms, and that is their real task, along with not losing money. 3. Price, or more accurately, margins must be improved. GM must reduce their costs of each car. The real window of opportunity here is during the next round of contract negotiations. If they can't lower their fixed costs by at least somewhere around $800-1000 per car, they are toast. Its just that simple. Time will tell. 4. Time. The biggest problem now is in getting there. GM may just run out of money before the above happens. It may be ancient history now, but the same thing happened to Packard. They had a killer product line set for 1958 intro, but ran out of runway and had to accept a horrible deal with Studebaker. People need to stop deluding themselves; dreams of a bankruptcy driven reorg with cash in hand, and a broken union can only happen if the creditors back off, and that seems unlikely. If GM runs out of money, show over. If GM declares bankruptcy before they run out of cash, remember GM has a ton of debt to go with their remaining cash, the debtors get to pick the carcass first. With the new $11 billion loss, they don't have much time to turn this ship around. That burn rate is staggering!!! Even if they start selling off pieces, it may not be enough. How much is Saab worth, couple billion? That only buys 3 months. Hummer? I doubt they could even get one billion. Who would buy it? GM doesn't have until 2010 to get these products out. I'm not a financial guy, but this seems pretty elementary. Summary: GM has got to have - Class LEADING Epsilon II Zeta Union concessions Do It NOW The profits from the new trucks and crossovers may get them through the bigger hurdles that come. Now they need to turn their attention to both Epi2 and Zeta. Either one alone won't get them where they need to go. Just my $.02, but I really hope someone at GM is listening and can give us some evidence that they are headed in these directions. Doug

The below quote says it all. Everyone seems to forget the massive debt carried. If GM goes bankrupt, the creditors get first dibs. There will be nothing left. This talk of bankruptcy being a good thing is lunacy. The folly of the naive. If GM goes bankrupt, they go under; end of story.

Got to throw my $.02 behind your post. 1. The advantage that FWD has on slick roads comes at the expense of handling on all other roads. That is, the reason the FWD gets better traction in the snow and ice is because the bulk of the weight is over the drive wheels. That same fact makes a poor handling vehicle. 50/50 is optimum, and its far easier to approach 50/50 with RWD. 2. The advantage in tractive force in the snow is often interpreted as "safer" by the masses. In fact, this is simply not true. Most snow/ice related accidents happen (overwhelmingly) because a driver cannot stop - not because he cannot go. FWD offers NO advantage in stopping power. This is also true for AWD. Additionally, as you pointed out, when traction is lost with FWD, ALL STEERING CONTROL IS ALSO LOST!!!! Not so with RWD. 3. A RWD vehicle actually offers more "usable" room than a typical FWD one. The transverse FWD layout seriously encroaches on front passenger legroom. A well designed RWD vehicle doesn't have this constraint. Don't believe me? I'm 6'5". I pay attention to these things. Sit in a 60's MG. Extremely small car - extremely large legroom! An extreme example, but demonstrable in many other vehicles. FWD does have a place, but its on small vehicles for small people. If you really are that concerned about traction in snow, get something with AWD.