CARBIZ

That is much of the problem with the media in general: they climb out of their BMW 5, drive a loaded LTZ Malibu and proclaim it 'worthy.' They wouldn't be caught dead in a lowly 4 cylinder anything, which is why when they crow about 'power pedals' and the 110 V outlet, etc. I just laugh: the LTZ will be such a small part of the over all build of the Malibu, yet it is the one getting all the accolades. I am sorry, but it is humanly impossible to fairly judge something objectively when you yourself live in an ivory tower. These fat cat auto 'journalists' have driven so many vehicles of so many lofty categories that they probably can't remember the last car they drove. As part of their full disclosure process, they should list the vehicles that they currently own (if any, since they are 'given' vehicles to drive) and the first couple vehicles they owned growing up. The latter would be very, very telling about how and why they are biased.

You make good points. A lot of the trouble with the business world is that the latest social-engineers think we should all be pigeon-holed, but the business world has become too complex. It is also getting too hard for one person, or even a small group of people to really understand what is going on at the macro and micro levels. I mean, how hard was it to design, build and sell the Model T? Now compare that to any modern vehicle, even something as simple as the Aveo or Fit. It isn't just the auto industry. Look at retail, the service sector. Good bosses are hard to find because a person can have charisma and charm, but not understand the complexities of the business, or be an asshole but be a genius with the product. I see it with sales people in all types of businesses. It used to be that all you had to do to sell something was know and understand people. Now, most employers want reports and projections, goals and business plans. It is rare to find an alpha-type personality that is good at both. They are almost mutually exclusive.

This is a truly loaded thread, frought with personal opinions and dislikes. The Express/Savannah sell something like 150k or more units, don't they? They actually outsell the Ford, last I heard, so I don't think they should be abandoned. In fact, we get a lot of people who miss the Astro/Safari. The trades and construction companies need these vehicles. Ford has always cut corners in this segment, and Dodge got out of it, so GM is the dominant player. The Aveo needs a major overhaul (which it is getting in a few months), not a cancellation. When (not if) you and us hit $5 a gallon or more, the Aveo/Versa/Yaris and others will be very, very popular. GM needs to get more competitive with this model, the Astra and others. From my standpoint, I have no use for the Trailblazer or the Tahoe. With the upcoming Traverse, both those vehicles have no point. If you need/want a real truck, get a Suburban or a pick up, but the Tahoe/Yukon are useless, IMO. They will become further redundant as gas prices climb. Still, since they are on the same platform as their bigger siblings, I don't suppose it hurts GM to have the Tahoe/Yukon around. The Impala needs to be drastically altered, or it risks becoming redundant. I know the RWD thing seems to be over, but that would have been a good idea. The Equinox should be overhauled. The Uplander needs to be replaced. I want to see a new interior in the Cobalt (although the ebony cloth isn't bad.)

I agree with you, but WallStreet would never allow it. How many MBAs have you seen running around with their charts and graphs, thinking they know it all? That is what WallStreet likes: people with charts and graphs. In my cynical opinion, it is more about looking like you are doing something, rather than actually doing something. Guys like Lutz (and I am making an assumption here) probably HATE charts and graphs, which is why they will never run the company. More's the pity, I say. I don't know Wagoner personally, but he did have the fortitude to hire Lutz. That has to say something, no? The real talent to running a large company is knowing how to get at the correct information and to not be above surrounding yourself with talent. I would have thought '08 would have been the year of GM's turn-around (and there still are some encouraging signs, I might add), but with the impending mortgage implosion, I am not so sure now. I would say, let '08 unfold and see how bad things are after the 1st quarter of '09. If things aren't noticeably better, then roll some heads at the top.

True, but the Versa is a much cleaner and more balanced design.

If one looks at the history of the Big Three, they have often surrounded themselves with 'lifers,' which served them well in the past. Now, well, I will admit that I am uncertain. Fresh blood can be good, but not necessarily. After all, Wagoner had the good sense (even if it was forced on him, who knows?) to hire Lutz back. Too much of Corporate North America has been raped in the past 20 years by the bean counters and lawyers. Running any corporation is a balancing act. I cannot imagine the complexities of one as large as General Motors. Wagoner may be a 'lifer,' but it isn't like it is a dynasty. He has been at different posts. Even the Ford family has eaten crow recently and admitted they need to stir things up. I have also seen first hand what happens when a company either diversifies too much out of what it knows, or hires talent that know nothing about that particular business. I strongly suspect too many MBAs are being born that think everything can fit into a chart or graph: customers, engineers, designers, widgets - EVERYTHING. At some point, a decision has to be made and a risk has to be taken. That takes guts and instinct. They cannot teach that at university or college.

Actually, he did. The Toyota Star permitted a 1 1/2 page treatise on how the Grand Prix (which the Star had earlier slagged) mopped the floor with the Maxima. One and a half pages. Then, Laurence Yap, who Loves All Things Asian , actually did print a retraction, admitting that 'sometimes' 'we auto journalist types' have 'preconceptions' when they drive certain vehicles. GEE. TELL ME SOMETHING I DIDN'T KNOW, TOYOTA STAR. But, Jim Kenzie is usually fair and always amusing.

As I've said before: GM and Ford laid off 2,400 people and Toyota hired 900. Great math. "Would you like fries with that?" Practice.

But you are re-writing history. As a 26 year old man, who read all the car magazines, who haunted all the dealerships back then, I nearly bought a Regal back in '87, but it was a little out of my budget range at the time, so I got a Shadow ES instead (now, that was a mistake!). I never considered a BMW. Wouldn't then and wouldn't now. Never saw the point of a BMW then, nor now. The trouble with 'enthusiasts' is they start convincing other people that they 'need' this much car when, in fact, 95% of the people out there don't. Tyranny of the enthusiasts, I say. Now look at the mess we are in. We have 300 hp sedans that get 25 mpg, instead of 160 hp sedans that 45 mpg. In trying to measure up to what 'enthusiasts' demand, the manufacturers have gotten sidetracked for the past 20 years of 'cheap' gasoline. The chickens are coming home to roost, my friend.

Yeah, Jim Kenzie is a rare voice of sanity on the AJAC. I used to enjoy his articles in the Star, back when I cared what that paper had to say. I especially enjoyed his mea culpa when Lutz challenged him to a duel with the (then new) Grand Prix, versus the Maxima. Kenzie also rants against our ridiculously low speed laws and how the cops would rather ticket speeders than left lane hogs and other culprits that slow traffic down.

The flight of manufacturing jobs from Ontario, Michigan and other areas is truly frightening. Sadly, it will take double digit unemployment figures to convince anyone that the current economic model isn't working.

Did you see the bit in the Star where the salesperson is still the #1 source of information for the buyer? Look at the www.Torontostar.ca and go over to the business section. Intersting survey results. Even the authors admit they are surprised that since the last survey (40k people were surveyed - that's statistically significant) the percentage of people relying on the salesperson went up 3 points. So much for the internet taking over the buying decision. 'Family/Friend actually dropped 3 points. It's a good read.

Firstly, I was referring to the upcoming Aveo, the one with the NEW MOTOR. The Traverse really is just a replacement for the Trailblazer: more modern and up to date. In fact, if the Trailblazer name wasn't so damaged around here, it might have been an idea to just call it the NG Trailblazer. Secondly, Tahoes and Trailblazers haven't sold around here for years, so that is a non-starter. As I have said, GM needs to look to its 'foreign' holdings to see what the future holds. There is on 'foreign' holding right across the Detroit River with a wealth of information about what the world in the $5 a gallon will look like. Thirdly, since GM's problems are only in North America, I fail to see how any of the Europeans will help out. Whatever the solution is going to be on this side of the pond, it will have to be an 'Americanized' version of what is happening Over There. And, lastly, you yourself exemplify what is all wrong and right about our countries. The company that you work for long ago decided that this market was changing and hedged its bets by throwing in with the competition. Free markets and free enterprise are great on paper, but GM had the market share to lose and every half-baked car company on the planet is gunning for this market because it is The Biggest. It is also the most open. Perhaps that should change. It is great for you that your company(ies) have covered their bets, and to a certain extent, so has GM. I see conflicts of interest where-ever I go. That is the main reason my former company abandoned its GM store: conflicts of interest. GM's problems are as diverse as the countries we live in. It is somewhat symbolic of the decline of North America, I am afraid. Most of our problems are of our own making, and most of them come from the hubris that we believe everyone else wants to be like us. The fact is that they don't. So man those boats, and everyone for himself, because I think it is no truer today than it was 50 years ago: As goes General Motors, go we all.

Do you think running 8 marketing divisions, 8 sales divisions, 8 sets of middle managment, 8 sets of dealers...do you think all of that is FREE? The real trouble here is that the brand management teams of the 90s have become victims of their own success. This constant splintering and fragmenting of the market is costing a lot of money. Don't like wagons? Let's call them SUVs. Don't like hatchbacks? Let's call them '5 doors.' Government sticks us with CAFE, lets build a lot of trucks. The chickens have come home to roost, folks. Our futures are being sacrificed on the Alter of Choice. It makes far more sense to have one or two strong models represented in each category, rather than 5 or 6 - just in the hopes that some wandering spirit will like what you build! Ever hear of the Law of Diminishing Return? I want Oldsmobile back. I lost a lot of customers over that, but it is not gonna happen. GM needs 3 or 4 strong brands, not 8 that are slitting each other's throats. Ever play Musical Chairs?

Enzl, you sound worse than my last employer: all doom and gloom. I know all about sales targets and how artificial they can be. Sold 300 vehicles last year? How about 320 this year? Triple Crown is full of those. I've seen dealers with their doors barely open and creditors at the door acheive their sales targets for the year. I wonder how much of your attitude seeps out to those around you. Or are you reserving your sunny disposition for us? If you call the new Aveo 5 and the upcoming Traverse 'nothing' for 2008, then your standards are mighty high, indeed. To address your other point, yes, GM has been a global company for decades. However, if you really studied automotive history, as I have, you would realize that before WWII, the automotive world really was one huge market. After WWII, while Europe dug itself out of the Dark Ages and South America sank into decades of corruption and morass, Detroit can be forgiven for thinking itself above it all, as the '50s, '60s and '70s saw unparallaled growth and changes. Shrinking resources and the global economy are bringing the automotive world closer together once again. I think Wagoner 'gets it.' He has worked in South America. He as seen how other markets (with fewer resources and stability) behave. Did he not have the foresight to bring Lutz back from exile? Look at how people on this board scream and stomp their feet because their precious V-8 might be going away! Can you imagine what Wagoner faces every day in Detroit and at other plants around North America? Americans are many, many things, but open to foreign ideas is not one of them. If GM was shooting a fixed target, then I would say you have a very strong point. However, what is happening in the past 5 years in North America is a fork in the road. Ten years ago when pickups and SUVs were flying off the shelf, we would have been screaming blue murder if GM had been spending money on hybrids. Hindsight is always 20-20. Sadly, GM is doing very well in all other markets, just not the ones we make our money in. GM is the Goliath being confonted by not one David, but several.

I see a lot of 'flex-fuel' vehicles on dealer lots around here. Too bad there are no stations to serve them, but like with the unleaded fuel thing 35 years ago, GM has to put the cart before the horse, so to speak. Nearly all of GM's vehicles in Brazil have been 'flex-fuel' for a few years now, so the technology is neither new or expensive. It makes a lot of sense to me, and GM has a big jump on the technology. Whether the market goes over to ethanol or not, it doesn't cost a lot more to build a flex-fuel vehicle and it makes sense to hedge our bets against any future (artificial or otherwise) oil shortages.

Who calls the shots at Cerebrus? I mean, who are their major shareholders? They cannot be this stupid, to piece of Chrysler so soon after 'buying' it. Jeep has been the only consistent jewel that Chrysler has possessed over the past 20 years. What could they be thinking? Of course, Chrysler is too small to go it alone. Of course, a Nissan/Renault alliance (no pun intended) or whatever makes sense. But selling off Jeep?

Well, that is exactly the point, isn't it: the media has dug the same old skeleton out of the closet (didn't we already debate this 'loss' back in November?) to beat GM with, just when it was beginning to look like Detroit finally was getting a road block up to Japan Inc. Strange coincidence, that, no? Doom and gloom sells papers, plain and simple. There are a lot of nasty things going on in the U.S. market right now. Wagoner & Co. are not responsible for that. I would be more inclined to be harsher on them IF we weren't seeing a huge renaissance in product. I have not seen such interest in a vehicle as I have with the Malibu. I can say that I have had many, many Honda owners come to at least LOOK. That is a huge accomplishment. What would be the proper course of action, Enzl? Fire Wagoner NOW? How is that going to improve things? Mullaly's impact on Ford is in its infancy. Cerebrus is having apoploxy. I can't see how changing the captain of the ship, this far out to sea is going to benefit anyone. A lot of American icons have had to reinvent themselves. Look at IBM and what it does today, compared to 25 years ago. GM is first and foremost a MANUFACTURING compay; worse than that, it is an AMERICAN manufacturing company. Take a look around at the ruins of what was once Industrial America. Name one American manufacturing company that is doing well right now. Those that are surviving are doing so by 'off-shoring' everything. I don't envy the position Wagoner & Co. face. They have impatient WallStreet on one side, Japan Inc. on another, and the apathy of the North American public to contend with. IBM sold its manufacturing base to Russia. Is that the solution here? I think we need to be a little more patient with the product. I like very much what I am seeing with that , at least. 2008 will be nasty by any measure. Let's all survive that, then reconvene this tired subject in 14 months or so and see what is what.

Suddenly, it's 1980......... At worst, we may see a temporary (5 to 10 year) 'hump' as the manufacturers adjust to the new reality. I lived through the onslaught of the K-car, J-car, Escort and Tercel. So will we all survive it again. Look at the hp numbers that a typical 4 cylinder today put out, then compare that with an 8 cylinder of 1980. The engineering advances are remarkable. The new CAFE numbers will scare the manufacturers temporarily, but then they will adapt. Fun will never go away, it may just go on hiatus for a few years while the engineers figure out how to make fun vehicles that get 45+ mpg.

I can't speak to GM's actual profit/vehicle, but as to comparisons with price/value, the Cobalt has the Koreans and the Japanese beat hand's down. In this market, the Cobalt is $30-$50/mo cheaper on a lease than a Civic (difficult to make direct comparisons because of 'decontenting' in the base Civic), and $5-$10 cheaper thann the Korean stuff. Keep in mind, there are all kinds of variables, from market to market and within makes. For example, Kia/Hyundai do not write their own paper and you will pay $350 for an 'acquisition fee,' something that Ford, GM and others do not charge. I have driven the Cobalt on and off since inception, and I have found its gas mileage to be okay: better than the Optra, worse than the last generation Malibu 2.2. As has been discussed, the Japanese build their vehicles to look good on paper, but the real world is a different matter. NO way, no how are you going to get 35+ mpg at 5,000 rpm, which is where you have to drive a 1.8 engine half the time to get any power. If GM is guilty of anything, they are guilty of providing a small engine that provides respectable power with decent gas mileage. I challenge anyone to drive the Corolla automatic and the Cobalt automatic and tell me they would seriously buy the Corolla. I don't think 2 or 3 mpg is a deal breaker for anyone, but a rattling, shaking driving experience with no guts would be.

Sorry, I am new around here and nobody knows that I am Canadian.

Sorry, but one rental does not an expert make. We spent a lot of time pouring over the 2000 re-do of the Venture and comparing it to the Chrysler and Windstar of the time. From the LED trilight, to the higher step in angle of the windshield to the (then) convenient as hell flip and fold seats, the Venture was leagues ahead of the competition. BACK THEN. I am in now way, shape or form implying that the current Uplander is class-leading, but then it is about $10k cheaper than the Sienna, so it does have its merits for a family on a budget.

I dunno, I counted the DAYS until my lease was up on my '87 Shadow, but as I took the plates off it (and my sister was waiting to take me to the Chevy dealer to pick up my new, factory ordered '91 Caprice), I actually choked up a little because there were so many memories tied up in that car - even though it was a POS and left me stranded on the side of highway 69 (now, girls, no jokes about that - there actually is a hwy 69 in Ontario), went through 2 head gaskets, the rack went...well, I could go on. Still, that car took me and my (long ago ex) BF to MOntreal a million times, Buffalo (when the $C was at .90 - oh, wait, it's better than that now) for cheap drinks, canoeing up in the Timmins area. So, it wasn't really seller's remorse: I was just damned lucky it was leased and no longer my problem

Smart sold 2,433 units last year, about 60% of what Mini sold, and Smart's sales were down almost 20% from 2006. Their appeal would be to the same silly people who would rush out and pay $34,000 for a Prius: a triumph of neither form or function. I have to take exception to SMK's pious declarations: the Venture and Windstar were more than competitive in their day, but as is often the case, GM and Ford got distracted counting their cash in the SUV market and dropped the ball. Or are we conveniently forgetting the silly first generation Odyssey and the original Sienna - which both were competition to the Venture and Winstar, circa '98 when the Windstar and Venture were in their prime? As is always the case, Japan Inc. sat back and anaylzed Detroit's hits and misses, then aimed further. CAFE and $5 a gallon will sober everyone up. All I am saying is GM needs to get competitive (again) in the small truck market (like they were in '99 when the last generation Tracker arrived) before the market for V8 dinosaurs crashes.

Agreed on the Freestar remark: it was an okay van plagued by the legacy of the Windstar, but not a horrible van over all. the Uplander/SV6 twins are doing okay up here, but it is getting harder and harder to justify them. Your remarks on the HHR and Tracker are myopic, at best. Detroit needs to start paying attention to Canada because it is HERE that the trends start. Being as we pay $1 a gallon more than you guys, what sells here today will be selling down there next year. Just wait and see. Besides, GM needs to be thinking globally, and a competitive CUV would sell extremely well in Canada, as well as in Europe and South America. Once America joins the Rest of the World, it will do well there, too.