smk4565

Buick sales were down in Asia by 15.8% in 2008, they are losing traction there almost as fast as they are in North America. Although what is really sad is Cadillac sold 187,000 units worldwide in 2008, when Audi, BMW and Mercedes sold 1 million. Cadillac needs help fast before they become the next Saab.

Buick owners don't want something that handles like a Vette or M3, otherwise they wouldn't have bought a Buick. If Alpha can't surpass the current M3's handling and performance abilities, there is no point in even making the platform.

GM just needs to stop bringing over cars from other countries thinking they will work here. These cars aren't designed or tailored to the American market, and it isn't like the Opel Omega had an S-class type reputation. The Catera, GTO, G8 and Astra were all duds, yet they keep remaking the same mistake. Rebadging in the 80s and 90s killed GM, yet in the 2000s, they did the GMT360 clones, the Uplander/Montana/Relay/Terrazza, G3/Aveo, G5/Cobalt, Torrent/Equinox, Chevy/GMC, etc. I don't get why GM keeps doing the same thing, expecting a different result.

Buick doesn't need the Alpha platform, the Alpha Cadillac is going to have to handle like a Corvette to rival the next generation 3-series that will hit the market before Alpha does. Delta II Buick should be like the Jetta in size and equipment and price, but not as firm of a ride. Regal is a true midsize, make it nicer than a Malibu, competes with top end Camry, Passat. It won't have that many direct competitors because the TSX is smaller, Avalon is bigger, but that is a good thing I think. LaCrosse is their full size and 3 cars is all they need.

I think they should call it the Buick LaSalle Concours de Elegancia. And add a "Brougham" to that name for the sedans with those canvas/vinyl roof things.

Alpha was delayed until around 2014, I don't think Cadillac will survive that long without it, but oh well. I've always thought Buick should get smaller cars, I'd hope for upscale version of the Cruze, rather than another Astra import. Importing Opels and Holdens is not working, they don't fit the American market, and we often get them after they were on sale over seas for a couple years and are a little dated by the time they get here. We don't need to keep reliving the Catera, GTO, G8, Astra mistakes.

Perhaps not, so there is no need for this engine in a Buick then. But isn't awd offered only with the 3 liter? The 3 liter awd is 0-60 in 8 seconds, so they may care about that when an MKZ is 6.5 or so.

True

They have the awesome and rugged HHR.

The A8 was never offered in front drive, they are all Quattro standard. It shares a platform with the dead Pheaton and the Bentley Continental, no one is going to tell me the Bentley Continental is a front driver with it's 600 hp, 12 cylinder. That is a rear drive style platform, engine and transmission set up with a permanent awd system. My original point was that the 320 hp turbo V6 in a front driver with an awd system is fine for a Buick that is just trying to keep 0-60 under 7 seconds and compete better with Acura or Lincoln (or the Taurus SHO), but it isn't a performance car, or worthy of the GNX name or anything like that.

They lack a minivan also, and some people just need a van since they have more space than an SUV does. More customers for Honda I guess.

Cobalt sales have been bad, in 2004, the Cobalt was thought to be GM's small car savior and it wasn't. Now they are saying the same about the Cruze, so we shall see what happens. The Cobalt just isn't competitive enough, even with high gas prices and now a down economy when people might look for a smaller and less expensive car it isn't selling. Interesting that they are laying off people at the Enclave-Acadia factory, so I guess the Enclave is not such a hot seller after all.

Uncompetitive and poor image models get a bad reputation so they have to change names. Changing names leads to consumers not being aware of what the car is, so sales drop. It is a catch 22, stick with the bad image and lose sales, or change names and lose sales. I would guess that the majority of people now have no idea what a Chevy Cruze is, even the first 6 months on market few people will know what it is (kind of like the Astra), yet you can go almost anywhere in the world and they know what a Toyota Corolla is.

Not enough people want a performance Buick, especially a front wheel drive one. A turbo 3.0 V6 could be useful in the LaCrosse since it is large and even with the 3.6 DI posts a 6.9 second 0-60 time; the turbo model could get that down to 6.3-6.5 seconds to attract those who want a little bit of performance and prevent those shoppers from going to Acura or Lincoln. Also since it seems that AWD isn't offered with the 3.6 engine, they could offer it with the turbo engine.

Audi has a longitudinally mounted engine (this is transversely mounted), therefore the weight balance is close to 55/45 in the A4 and A6, and the A8 is a rear drive car. Audi's don't perform as well as a BMW. My mom drives an Audi, I've driven it, and some BMWs, and the BMWs are far superior in driving dynamics, it isn't even that close really.

Would that be the 3.0 V6 with turbos? Or the old 2.8 with boost turned up? Although Ford has a 355 hp turbo V6 and awd set up, but neither are driving the rear wheels, so people that really want performance are probably going to look for rear drive.

Vue is 180 inches long, but a rather portly 4300+ pounds with the V6 and awd, it is actually slightly heavier than the current SRX with awd and V6. Edge is 186, Highlander 188 as Moltar pointed out. The new Nox is around 189, new SRX around 190, so the 9-4x and Terrain should be that size. This group of theta crossovers are midsize, Lambdas are full size and GMT900 full size. So GM will have 5 mid-size suvs (counting H3), and 8 full size SUVs (counting the Escalade trio as 1, Tahoe/Suburban/Avalanche as 1, and Yukon and XL as 1). It is full size suv overkill.

They are midsized, they are bigger than an Edge, Highlander or RX350 which are considered midsize.

I have an Olds Aurora, and I agree that there was no product at the other GM brands for Olds faithful to go to. The import brands had refinement (DOHC, 5-speeds), nav systems, technology, etc in the 2002-2006 era when GM was still peddling the 3800 and 4-speed auto and even now is reluctant to use LCD touch screens in anything but a Cadillac. It comes down to spending $750-800 million to design the Malibu, Aura, and G6 combined, then another $250 million to advertise the 3, or spend $1 billion to make the absolute best midsize sedan on the planet and market it like crazy and sell 400,000+ per yer.

Hooray, another SUV, because GM doesn't have enough of them already and SUVs are the hot market right now.

Saturn isn't Oldsmobile, GM hoped to turn Saturn into some kind of import fighter that was more expensive than Chevy (after 10-15 years of building ecnoboxes cheaper than Chevy). It is like Kia trying to be VW over night, not going to work. Anything Saturn, Pontiac and GMC make is redundant product, those 3 brands aren't needed. The few unique products like G8 or Sky can go to Chevy, or the Vue or GMC Terrain can be turned into a Buick. GM doesn't need brands, it needs outstanding products. 100% of GM's products should be Malibu or CTS level execution or better. The Malibu is even a middle of the class product, that is the bare minimum level that GM should accept.

I am guessing one can buy a Mercedes in Australia.

I would agree, and this is a reason I was never glad about the Lambdas or GM's constant SUV push and trying to fund 8 brands, because they stopped spending money on cars and Cadillac. An Epsilon Cadillac would be an absolute joke, but with a 2010 or 2011 lineup that could be CTS, SRX, Escalade, I could see them doing it. On the plus side, Jaguar has an XF coupe, F-type roadster, new XJ, refreshed XK and an XE supercar that goes 225 mph coming. Too bad Tata didn't buy Cadillac.

On 3/31/05, Toyota had $16.6 billion in cash, so they actually have more cash today. Toyota had another $6.7 billion in short term investments in 2005. So it goes beyond just cash, but how their assets are diversified. Some if it could be traced to the exchange rate of the Yen as well. In 2005, Toyota had $272 billion in total assets, today they have $363 billion, their asset position is strong, even if cash and short term investments are down a little bit. If they are able to continue their record R&D spending while all the other automakers cut back, when this recession ends they will be in a better position than many of their rivals. I don't like Toyota products and wouldn't buy one, but looking at their income statements and balance sheets from the past 4 years, they are still financially strong. GM by comparison has $51 billion in cash on January 1, 2005 and now they are down to under $10 if you don't count the government loan money. GM went from $480 billion in assets to $150 billion in the past 4 years (likely due to GMAC sale), the General is shrinking fast.

Toyota expects a $1.7 billion operating loss for the 4th quarter of 2008 (calendar year). An operating loss isn't going to translate directly to net income, because of taxes, depreciation, and other forms of ancillary income. The quarterly hit will probably be close to 1-1.5 billion in actual losses, so they are still making $7.5-8 billion in profit.