CARBIZ

Can you imagine the possibilities if the 'upscale' Sky was a Pontiac and the 'cheaper' Solstice had gone to Chevrolet? Properly positioned, they wouldn't have competed against each other, and 2 years ago would have probably sold double what they have.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

Thanks for posting that: it gave me a much needed laugh this morning.

I, too, was wondering about this Cerberus thing. I was under the impression that they had more money than God - so why would they need to bail out Chrysler? In fact, with their assets, why couldn't they prop up Chrysler and GM? (Not that I am advocating that to happen. With the stupidity of buying Chrysler from Daimler at at time when Detroit was in decline seemed like folly to even the likes of me!) A tiny, cynical part of me is wondering how much of this bankruptcy talk is posturing and how much of it is reality. After all, if the UAW gives in to more concessions and a few hundred dealers go under, won't that be better for Detroit in the long run?

Ven, I always look forward to your posts. It is nice to have at least one voice of sanity around here.

You do realize that the U.S. has been in recession for nearly a year already. If true to form (with the most 'severe' recessions of the past), the U.S. economy should emerge from 'recession' by the 2nd quarter of '09. With 5 million less vehicles sold in '08, it looks like the final couple quarters of '09 could have banner sales. It's not like the 5 million people who put off buying in '08 won't ever buy. Potentially, we could be seeing a 20 million sales year for the period June '09 to May '10. It would be a crime if all that business went to Honda and Toyota.

I was working at a Pontiac-Buick-Cadillac dealer in the early '80s, and I can say that the 6000 created quite a stir. The SSE created quite a stir: it had suede seats, a cool techno dash and actually was pretty peppy - for its time. The key thing to remember when looking backward is to judge a vehicle in the year(s) it was released. As I've said before, we can laugh at the K-Car today, but in '81 it was pretty revolutionary. The same can be said of the 6000: it was a much better incarnation of the Chev/Buick/Olds offerings, IMO.

First off, the Aztec was pre-Lutz and even pre-Wagoner when it was conceived/designed. It may have been ugly, but it was ahead of its time in every other way. The Vibe is all that is holding Pontiac together in Canada right now - they aren't selling anything else. Hell, our dealership has sold 3 of them this month - and we're Chevrolet! Not sure how the G3 is selling in the U.S., but even in the U.S. the Aveo was matched for sales with the Fit (as of mid -year '08 sales anyway). To add to what MyerShift said, I would agree that based on looks alone the Intrepid won, but the mid-90s was not a good time for Mopar quality. Canada's Wonderland had to be rented for a month or two while the powers that be in the Bramalea plant tried to figure out why the engine block was LEAKING. It's not joke that when we took trades from mid-90s Intrepids or Caravans we wanted to know if it was the ORIGINAL tranny or not. Chrysler has ONLY survived the past 15 years because it HAD the best looking vehicles on the road. As boring as the Lumina was, I still see many of them on the road around here. GM's biggest flaw for the past decade or so has been BORING designs. Lutz has been fighting hard to change that. Chrysler, on the other hand, has gone in the other direction. They've gone from the best interiors, to among the worst and from sharp looking vehicles to, at best, quirky. I mean, how could you put the blockbuster PT Cruiser design of '99 in the same league as the new Compass?

There is a big difference between an airline going under and a multi-national automaker. If you fly AA and they go under, at most you are out a ticket. The fear for many is that if they buy a GM car right now they will not be able to get parts in 6 months and/or their warranty will be worthless. (See Daewoo a few years ago.) Anyone with SENSE knows this will not happen. First of all, even if GM completely vanished into a black hole tomorrow, with the tens of millions of GM vehicles on the road, parts will be easily accessible for many years to come. Secondly, if GM is forced into Chapter 11, it will be to shove off the excess (read: pain in the ass) dealers and UAW/CAW. It would not be a payday for the shareholders, either - but then they've already lost their shirts. The bankruptcy team (and trustees) would ensure that the parts suppliers and end-customers were taken care of. WE KNOW THAT. However, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Q Public does not. At this point, part of me wants to see a bankruptcy; however, due to the sheer size of GM and the myriad of companies it owns/controls, a quick emergence from protection would not be assured, yet that would be an absolute necessity. Many bankruptcy proceedings drag on for a year or more. (See: Delphi.) This more than anything cannot be allowed to happen. Plus, if more assets are forced to be sold (ie., Opel, GM Canada, or whatever) the company will emerge weaker, not stronger. Make no mistake: IT IS THIS UNCERTAINTY THAT IS HURTING GM RIGHT NOW, NOT ANY LACK OF BUSINESS PLAN OR POOR PRODUCT. People want to buy GM, but they are scared - unreasonably so, but scared nonetheless.

Isn't that just another urban myth? If you're over 30, it shouldn't matter what color the vehicle is. It's only the young'uns that get hung out to dry for their model, equipment and color choices. I mean, of course a red CORVETTE is going to have high insurance, but I doubt a 35 year old would pay more for a red Cobalt over a white Cobalt.......................

Considering that 5 million units has blown out of America's vehicle sales in the past 8 months, it is little wonder that ANY model could post a sales increase. The fact that the Malibu sales are up at all, in view of the fact that both the Camry and Accord are 'all new' in the past 18 months, is also amazing. The CTS, from the last sales I saw, is holding its own against the ES, which is impressive in this awful market. We know too well that GM is facing at least a dozen model launches a year from its competitors and as the 'biggest' car company on the planet, it has an obligation to match every one of them - or at least it did in the past. It was the decision (or lack of decision) to match the Camcord, Civic and Mazda3 of a decade ago (before RW time) that has led to the fiasco we are seeing today. We can only imagine what would have happened if the Cobalt came out in '01 or '02, rather than '05 and 'this' Malibu in '04; instead, resources were directed toward the pickups and SUVs - as we all know. But then without the profits of the pickups in '07, GM may have not lasted this far into '08. I don't disagree or agree whether RW should go, but I can't see the real benefits to dropping a new captain onto the Titanic in the middle of the Atlantic. On the job training is not a good thing during a crisis of the proportions GM is facing at this time.

Although I think this interior is okay, the best interiors GM has come up with lately LT2 Malibu, CTS, for example) use more 'two-toning.' This 'Regal' interior is too much sea-of-grey, like BMers are 'sea-of-black.' If all those little plastic bits have to be moulded and installed separately, would it really be that much more expensive to use contrasting colors to ease up on the boring-ness of the design?

My point is that even in the glory days of the mid-80s, the last thing GM needed was another brand. Saturn is a 'junk' brand in the same way 'junk' bonds are junk: value-less. Oldsmobile was top-tier in the mid-80s. The Cutlass was one of the top selling models in both our countries. The billions poured into Saturn could have gone into Olds to go after the import buyers at a time when Honda and Toyota were starting to become a threat. Plastic bodies or not, the concept of a 'premium' small car like the Acura Legend could have come from Olds (as much later the Alero was a feeble attempt at). We can only imagine what an Alero-esque vehicle brought out in the late '80s would have done for Olds. (Let's completely forget the Acheiva!) If you look at the demographics of who bought the Cutlass in the mid-80s, and look at who is buying the Acuras and Madza 6's today, I am sure you will have a match. At the time, Saturn may have seemed like a good idea, to get around the UAW, to start a new, fresh dealer network, but we all know how that has turned out. There is no reason any of their actual models couldn't have been folded into Chevrolet or Pontiac at that time.

I'm saving those positive juices for the BF's birthday on Saturday.

My stunning good looks, segacity & wit, unbridled optimism, clarity of thought, brevity of intercourse, ability to build consensus, low-key demeanor, charm, but mostly.....my sheer modesty! (All other attributes are totally unprintable on this forum. Wouldn't want to scare away any of you!) [Would you settle for my ability to drink coffee and stare out the window all day?]

:rotflmao: Reg, you crack me up! Insurance industry revise their policies? So there rates can go DOWN? Put down the bong, Reg. They only look for excuses to put them up! My rate went up $18 a month in September, and when I queried my agent he sniffed, "general increase." WTF?

Around here a lot of seniors are buying Elantras and Altimas. With many seniors retirement funds imploding, they are seeking 'cheaper' cars. An Altima with leather is cheaper than a Malibu or Allure (or whatever you guys call it down there.) I"ve lost two deals in the past month to the Altima.

Enzl: from where I sit, about 80% of the trouble facing GM right now is customer fear and the money markets. People with money are watching their savings implode. People with jobs, fear for them. People who want to lease, cannot any more. Bill Gates himself would have trouble getting approved for a loan right now. And to add insult to injury, the major banks in Toronto (Canada?) have told us that they will no longer accept contracts put in a company name. 3 major banks have told us that. A fourth bank has said it will do so with TWO YEARS of audited financials, which is the same way as telling the prospect to f-off. This goes for all makes: the banks are gun shy and don't trust anybody these days, which pisses me off to no end since they are the bastards that made this mess in the first place. How is any of this Wagoner's fault? If we back up only a year ago, with all the product launches and announced launches (Orlando, 'Nox, Cruze, Traverse, Volt, CTS coupe, etc.) it looked very much like GM was ready to kick ass in '09, then the wheels fell off the financial cart. It would be an incredible shame for GM to collapse now, just as things were ready to unfold and as the U.S. will undoubtedly be facing a 20 million vehicle market within 18 months.

Saturn is a junk company. All the resources plowed into that useless brand should have been poured into Oldsmobile 20 years ago. Olds had the cache back in the late '90s to go after Acura and Lexus. Since then, the only reason I can think of for Saturn's existence is there must be some VPs in the RenCen who were responsible for Saturn's inception and until they die (or are fired) they can't let Saturn go: petty fiefdoms and all. Even the vaulted 'Saturn experience' is a crock. I have personally been involved in Saturn dealers wrenching deals away from me, and I can assure folks that they do haggle, negotiate and obfuscate to get the deal, so any slogans to the contrary are

Exactly, twice I've written a post and then gotten an error message. It just happened 5 minutes ago, but this time I got smart and 'copied' the text first, then re-posted it when I logged off and back on again. Wierd. This has been happening for a few days. I always blame everything on Vista!

The article was an excerpt of an editorial from somewhere else. I tried googling this guy to find out if there was a reference to the full text of his editorial, but I came up with nothing. I, too, thought it was odd that the Sun would publish such a brief article, without any references or back up. But then, this is the Toronto Sun, known for it's grade 4 level reporting. This Malackowski guy is supposed to be some reputable intellectual property consultant, however. Still, I wonder where the original text is from. An American newspaper article perhaps?

Even buying a used import indirectly supports the myth that they hold their value better (the more people demand to buy them used, the higher their prices will go), which then adds to the profits and sales of the new imports. Plus, there will be times when you are unable to buy an after-market used part, which would then mean you require a new part from the OEM, thus adding to their success in Canada. And in a more insidious way, just the large quantity of imports polluting the parking lots these days gives a person thinking about buying a new vehicle that, 'gee, with all these Civics and Corollas around, maybe I should buy one of those because they're so gosh darn popular!' I suppose you're one of these people who feel 'entitled' to drive across the border and do your shopping in the U.S., because the retailers here are 'robbing' you. There are a million reasons why the West is in serious decline. We all need to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

EXACTLY!

Sorry, no linky. This is in the paper edition of the Sun today and I couldn't find it online anywhere, but felt it was relevant to one of my main arguments, which is the amount of intellectual property that could be lost if GM or Ford went under "An excerpt on why the Big3 are worth saving by James E. Malackowski, an expert in intellectual property: 'General Motors, Ford and Chrysler are collectively one of the world's primary sources for the research and development of green and fuel-efficent technologies. As Washington decides on aid to the industry, top consideration should be given to the significant potential of these Big 3 technologies for stimulating economic and job growth and creating a greener and more fuel efficient world. Much of the privately funded green and energy innovation in the U.S. will stall or never come to fruition if the domestic auto industry fails. Consider that: - GM has higher average quality and newer green technology and patents than the other 14 auto makers combined. -GM has 70% of the patents in the emerging technology category. This domestic share increases to 85% if Ford is added. The Big-3's green technologiescan help the U.S. move towards further energy independence, serve as the building blocks for creating and improving alternative power plants, and increasing fuel efficiency for standard or hybrid vehicles, both of which will decrease harmful emissions. If GM, Ford or Chrysler should fail, many of these key technologies would likely be lost to the U.S. and create a historically unique opportunity for their foreign competitors to acquire a vast amount of crown jewel technology for a fraction of their true value.'" The last point is what sends chills down my spine. Translation: North America will be relegated to a backwater as these technologies shift to Asia and Europe. Like I say to every Lexus driver I can: "tell your kids to start practicing 'would you like fries with that?'"

But that's assuming you like that Teutonic look. I don't. Never have. GM and Ford are better to steer their own course than trying to out-do the Germans. I've driven many BMWs and I am not impressed. The interior of the new CTS - now that impresses me, especially with the UltraView roof! Look at GM's pinnacle in the '60s - they weren't afraid to try different things in the interior. Some worked, some didn't - but they led, not followed. The '66 Pontiac dash is a good example, so is the Riviera and Toronado of the day. The CTS is a good looking interior, but it's time to get rid of the hood over steering wheel look and forge their own course!