cire

Nothing new here. Just the same regurgitated info that has been circulated before. I think most people on this forum are well aware of the domestics' shortcomings and wrong turns. It's time to stop dwelling on the missteps of the past and look toward the solutions for the future. For the domestics to survive, they will need to start thinking outside the box like they never have before. It seems Ford and GM are already doing this. I'm not quite as sure about Chrysler; they seem to be much more quiet about their recovery plans than GM or Ford. This could be because Chysler is now privately owned or that GM and Ford have simply been much more vocal about their plans. I have faith that with a little ingenuity, all three can survive and become healthy again. Like Oldsmoboi pointed out, it's not like the foreign companies haven't committed their own share of blunders. Both Toyota and Nissan were aggressively trying to grab a share of that hallowed truck/SUV market that was dominated by the domestic companies at the height of truck/SUV mania. His example of Toyota's recently built Texas truck plant perfectly illustrates the kind of planning errors that foreign companies are capable of committing. The recently introduced Kia Borrego would be another excellent example of poor product planning. The Borrego's late arrival in the market is like Kia arriving to a party after it's over and everyone else is nursing their hangovers. The domestics may not have been as prepared for the sudden shift in the market as some of their foreign counterparts, but that doesn't mean that they can't quickly rectify the situation and still emerge healthy and competitive. All the gloom and doom reports are getting ridiculously repetitive and extremely tiresome.

Here is a Motor Authority article that has some additional pictures (that were previously released) that show the entire vehicle: undefined

Wow! Kia actually stepped up their game in this segment. This is the first product produced by Hyundai or Kia that I would actually consider buying (as a daily driver of course). Hopefully, they don't cheap out and offer a 4 speed auto with the 2.0 liter engine. The market is rapidly moving beyond 4 speed autos and Kia shouldn't allow itself to be left behind. I'd say this car's styling ranks up there with what I consider to be the best in the compact segment: Mazda3, Lancer, Cruze, and Astra. I hope to be able to add the next gen Focus to this list.

This article appeared on Autoblog today: undefined

I think it looks great. Chevrolet has finally moved beyond the compact sedan styling language that they originated with the '95 Cavalier (For some reason, the Cobalt's styling looked like an evolution of the '95 Cavalier's styling to me). There are only two minor details about the exterior that need to be addressed: 1) My major pet peeve: the black plastic fakeout on the C-pillar. Chevy needs to lose it and have the chrome trim surround the actual window area (which would make it look more upscale). Without the fakeout, the car will take on a sort of Mazda3 profile, but that isn't a bad thing. I rather see the car somewhat resemble the Mazda3 than to see that (Sebring-esque) cheap looking black plastic slab on the C-pillar. I don't know why designers or car companies think this styling practice is acceptable or attractive. 2) I like the Chevy bowtie symbol, but does it have to be gold colored? I would rather see the bowtie hollow in the middle or solid chrome. Gold colored anything on a car looks ghetto to me. Other than these two minor issues, I think Chevy did a fantastic job with this car. I do agree with many of you about the delay in introducing the product to the U.S. market. With the tremendous slide toward smaller cars in this market, why should the brand's home market be the last to receive it? That just ain't right!

I'm not a big Honda fan, but that is a fairly nice looking subcompact sedan. It's much better looking than the Aveo, Yaris, Rio, and Accent. Honda should really consider bringing a version here (U.S.). The Fit already sells like crazy here (although I don't particularly appreciate its styling). Just think how well this would sell to those people who prefer a sedan configuration instead.

I checked it out already. I think the website represents what GM could do with this product and brand in the U.S. to appeal to import shoppers. The Saturn experiment needs to be concluded when the current generation of products reach the end of their model cycle. I would delay the launching of the Insignia and Opel in the U.S. until the next gen Astra is ready to be introduced to the market. I would then launch Opel with the simultaneous introduction of the Insignia (sedan and wagon, and maybe the 5-door too) and the next gen Astra (3-door, 5-door, sedan, and maybe the wagon and "TwinTop" coupe too) in the U.S. Other products could be added later when the next gen models are ready. I would even consider combining Saab with Opel in the U.S. to reinforce the import identity of the brand in the U.S. I know this is all a pipe dream since GM announced that we will get a next gen Aura that will be significantly altered from the Insignia (which, to me, means that it will be decontented and diluted to continue the role of the current gen Aura). While the current Aura is a nice car (and one of the better looking mainstream midsize sedan offerings), it doesn't really attract any new shoppers to GM. It essentially provides in house competition to the Malibu in the affordable mainstream midsize sedan segment. GM could accomplish so much more with Opel and the Insignia than it does with Saturn (which is still perceived as an affordable brand by the buying public) and the Aura.

I don't think the Astra sedan looks that similar to the Cobalt sedan. I think the Astra sedan has a somewhat smoother and sportier appearance when compared to the Cobalt sedan. I think there is enough of a difference in the appearance that it doesn't appear to be a rebadge (unlike the Cobalt's relationship to the G5). One thing that I found odd about the Cobalt and Astra sedans were the difference in their wheelbases. The Cobalt sedan has a 103.5 inch wheelbase while the Astra sedan has a 106.4 inch wheelbase. I thought the sedans would have the same wheelbase since they are nearly identical in their exterior dimensions and are based on the Delta platform. I realize that the difference in wheelbase measurements is not really significant, but I did find it interesting. Just in case someone doesn't believe me, I have attached links to the cars' specifications pages: undefined undefined

Actually, I could see your proposal working too if they kept Chevy mostly FWD (except the Camaro and Corvette, which are iconic Chevrolet products in the U.S.) and kept Pontiac RWD. I do think GM could make Pontiac something unique in the market if they would give the brand an affordable RWD lineup. I'm a little doubtful that they would do this for Pontiac based on some of the corporation's recent product/platform decisions. You're right, I did derail this forum topic. Oops!

We could of had this instead: undefined undefined undefined undefined I think it might have fared a little better than the 3-door or 5-door if GM would have ensured that it had the right amenities and more power. Oh well...

The Astra is suffering because it is the wrong product for the wrong division: 1) The car does not offer some of the amenities expected by U.S. buyers (especially at this price point). No front center armrest, no front cupholders, no auxillary stereo input, no satellite radio, 24 hour clock, bizarre ergonomics, etc. The Astra begins to look overpriced and underequipped when test drove back to back with competitors that cost the same or less that have those amenities. 2) The car is underpowered compared to most of its rivals. The U.S. Astra should have the same powerplants that are available in the Cobalt/G5. A premium compact should never appear underpowered when compared to its more affordable platform mates. 3) No sedan version. Many U.S. buyers prefer this configuration. It should have been offered along with the 3-door and 5-door versions. 4) Wrong division. Saturn will never be perceived as a premium division. It started its existence as an affordable small vehicle division and I don't think GM will ever be successful at moving it upmarket. Therefore, the division will not be successful at selling premium products in the market. What it comes down to is that the current Astra should not have been offered in the U.S., especially as a Saturn product. If GM wants a midmarket premium division, then they should replace Saturn with Opel and simultaneously introduce the Insignia (sedan and wagon) and next generation Astra (sedan, 3-door, 5-door) when they launch the division in the U.S (the next gen Meriva, Zafira, and Corsa can be added later). To me, GM is wasting money trying to support or transform Saturn because it will always be perceived as a Chevrolet alternative in the minds of the buying public. There is no need to market 2 brands to target the same portion of the market. A couple of words of advice for GM if they choose to offer next gen Opel products here as Opels: 1) Make sure that the products offer all of the amenities that U.S. buyers will expect in a premium vehicle before you make it available here. 2) Focus the cars marketing on the Euro origins/styling/engineering/driving dynamics of the brand. Make the brand's advertising sophisticated and appealing to the premium shopper (the current Saturn ads are very dorky and don't really indicate the new status or purpose of the brand). Downplay GM's connection and involvement with the brand (the target demographic will be attracted by the brand's Euro origins but repelled if they think it's just another GM division).

GM is never going to get lean, mean, and competitive if they keep trying to maintain status quo by stuffing a rebadged clone or platform mate into every division; this is how the divisions lost their identities and relevance in the first place. The Enclave is luxurious enough and successful enough to handle the large luxury crossover segment. A Cadillac version will only cannibalize the Enclave's sales which means GM spent money to develop and market a product to compete against itself (again). This needs to stop. There should be a maximum of 3 vehicles each spun off the Lambda and Theta platforms. This would all be simplified if GM would see the light and combine Buick with Cadillac to form the luxury dealer network. Buick would handle FWD luxury cars and FWD/AWD luxury crossovers while Cadillac would focus solely on well executed, world class RWD luxury cars.

Yet another underutilized platform that the General is scrapping. If it is true, then this was a sheer waste of money, time, and effort by GM. I hope this is not a sign that GM will eventually eliminate all its RWD platforms. Cadillac will never compete with the luxury big boys if it reverts back to a FWD product portfolio. I think the RWD platforms should be essentially maintained for Cadillac with appropriate niche products spun off these platforms for some of the other divisions (except for the Corvette platform, which should be prioritized for the Corvette with a possible Cadillac spin off; just like the current Corvette/XLR relationship). I am also wondering why there hasn't been any info on the status of the Alpha platform's development lately. Has this program also been put on hold or cancelled?

I totally agree. Well said!

I think Buick has a wealth of past model names that they could successfully resurrect if the name was attached to a well executed product and marketed aggressively. Look at the wonders Chevy did with the "Malibu" name. Up until the 2008 model arrived, the "Malibu" name was synonymous with "bland & cheap rental car queen" (at least with the 2 generations that preceded the 2008 model). Within an extremely short period, the name was transformed by attaching it to a desirable and attractive midsize sedan and by marketing it aggressively to let the market know that something great could be found at a local Chevy dealership. I believe any of the past Buick model names listed below could be just as successful if GM followed the same practice that they used in transforming the "Malibu" name: "Century", "Electra", "Invicta", "LeSabre", "Park Avenue", "Regal", "Rendezvous", "Riviera", and "Skylark" I am normally against GM changing model names so often because they lose market recognition when they do this. In Buick's case, I think it would be wise to retire the "LaCrosse" and "Lucerne" names when the current products reach the end of their model cycles in the U.S. (GM might want to continue to use the "LaCrosse" name in China where the model was part of the brand's rise in that country). Neither model seemed to resonate or build much market recognition with the buying public in the U.S. I would revert back to some of the model names from the brand's past listed above to signal the renaissance of the brand in the U.S. The only product whose name should stay the same is "Enclave" since that product seems to be a success in the market (and the true first step in the brand's renaissance).

I agree. The Aveo isn't bad for a budget subcompact, but I wouldn't mind paying extra for some other choices in this class. Unfortunately, none of my top choices are available in the U.S. yet (choices 2 & 3 probably will never make it here). My top 3 choices for a subcompact car would be: 1) Ford's new Fiesta 5-door (I think they have started production for some of the foreign markets, but not the U.S. yet) 2) Mazda2 5-door 3) Opel Corsa 5-door I know the 3-door versions of the cars mentioned above are sportier than their 5-door counterparts, but I prefer the extra utility offered by the 2 extra side doors.

I totally agree. A well executed STS would have helped Cadillac reestablish their luxury cred much more than the SRX. Sometimes it is better to pick your battles and establish your priorities than to introduce multiple halfbaked products that fail to do the job.

Other than the C-pillar fakeout and the ridiculous name, I like it. GM appears to have a potential hit on their hands.

It looks to be a nice alternative to the ugly egg shaped dedicated hybrid alternatives being cranked out by the Asian auto companies. I do hope the faux honeycomb treatment on the grille flaps(?) does not make it to the production vehicle; it somewhat cheapens what looks to be a really cool design.

This is one gorgeous wagon. It is certainly more brand appropriate for Cadillac than the new second gen SRX. I would rather see Cadillac build their portfolio by expanding their car lines (such as adding coupe and wagon versions to the CTS line) than sliding FWD crossovers into their lineup. After Cadillac gets the CTS wagon and coupe up and running in the market, they should then turn their attention to diligently developing the compact car line (sedan, wagon, and coupe) on the RWD Alpha platform. I think getting these expanded car lines to market will truly help Cadillac make more of an impact on the luxury vehicle market.

I think it's a nice looking FWD crossover, but I think it dilutes Cadillac's image somewhat. A Theta based premium crossover belongs in Buick's lineup, not Cadillac's. If they were going to give Cadillac a second chance at a crossover, then they should have based it on the updated Sigma platform that underpins the new CTS. The biggest problem with the first gen SRX is the styling. It looks too much like an overgrown station wagon (a problem that I believed plagued Ford's Freestyle/Taurus X). A new one based on the updated Sigma platform with a genuine crossover look and AWD standard would have done quite a bit to improve the sales performance of this vehicle. I don't dislike the new version, I just think it is not exactly appropriate for Cadillac. I still hope it succeeds and lives up to GM's expectations. I would still like to see them combine Buick and Cadillac into a luxury dealer network. Buick could then carry a product like this (a premium Theta based crossover) and Cadillac would be free to focus on building the best RWD luxury cars in the market. To me, the CTS wagon better represents what Cadillac should be than this new Theta based crossover.

My views on Buick are outlined below: 1) Buick is supposed to be a premium, near luxury brand. It shouldn't need to offer a decontented version of a car under a different model name to appeal to budget shoppers or fleets. GM has three brands at the affordable end of the market (Chevy, Pontiac, and Saturn); Buick shouldn't need to compete on this level. GM needs to stop trying to make Buick be all things to all people; if it doesn't, Buick will never be fully accepted or recognized as a premium brand in the market. The next gen Epsilon II based LaCrosse (or hopefully Invicta) doesn't need to be cheapened or decontented to attract budget shoppers; it should be detailed and equipped to compete with the best premium, near luxury FWD midsize sedans on the market. The base version should be well equipped with a long list of standard luxury features with upper trims adding on the most elite optional features. If this is GM's intention for Buick (and I hope it is), then there is no need to repeat the rebadging fiasco that was the last gen W-body based Century/Regal twins. 2) It's fine for Buick to share platforms with other GM products, but the division's products should receive their own distinct exterior/interior designs and luxury features/detailing to properly differentiate and position them upmarket from other GM division products. The current lineup doesn't share any sheetmetal with other GM division products and I expect GM to continue this tradition into the future. 3) Buick needs a sub-LaCrosse sedan and a sub-Enclave crossover (in size, not luxury content). If GM decides to give Buick these much needed products (and they will if they are smart), then they should be just as distinct and luxuriously equipped as their larger counterparts. This means unique and appropriately premium products should be developed on the corporation's compact to midsize platforms (Either Delta II or SWB Epsilon II for the sedan and Theta Premium for the crossover), not decontenting the brand's larger products to compete with the corporation's affordable divisions. There are some other products that I would like to see developed for Buick (a Riviera coupe or coupe-cabrio for one), but the two mentioned above are the most urgently needed additions. Again, Buick has a lot of potential. If GM clearly defines Buick's purpose and status in today's market and gives the division products that effectively reinforce the division's market mission, then I think GM will be very pleased with the results that this great, historic brand can deliver.

No, the last gen Regal was a direct rebadge of the Century. Except for changing some minor cosmetic details and the powertrain, they were the exact same car. Anyone can clearly see that. The fact that GM wasted money marketing them as separate vehicles when it could have covered the same territory with different trim levels under one model moniker seems totally ridiculous to me. I feel the same way about the mid 90's Lumina and Monte Carlo. It was clear that the '95 Monte was nothing more than a coupe version of the '95 Lumina, but GM insisted on looking silly by slapping the "Monte Carlo" name on the coupe anyway. As much as I dislike the looks of the last gen Monte, at least its exterior looked distinctly different from its Impala platform mate. The Altima/Maxima and Camry/Avalon are examples of platform sharing. The cars may share platforms, but they have their own unique exterior/interior design to differentiate the products. In the case of the Camry and Avalon, the two cars even have different wheelbases and overall sizes. The Altima and Maxima overlap much more in size than the Camry and Avalon, but each car still has its own unique design and purpose in Nissan's lineup. There are times in the past that GM has correctly executed platform sharing. The Regal shared the W-body platform with the Impala, Grand Prix, and Intrigue, but each car had its own unique exterior/interior design to differentiate it from its platform mates. The first gen Aurora shared a platform with the last gen Riviera, but you couldn't tell it by looking at the cars. The Aura, G6, and Malibu share the LWB Epsilon platform, but each car has its own distinct appearance. I don't have an issue with platform sharing; it can be an economical and effective way for a car company to cover different market segments if done correctly. I just think GM looked ridiculous marketing the same overall exterior design as 2 different cars within the same division when it was obvious that the 2 models were essentially the same car. It's a scenario that I hope GM doesn't repeat with Buick. GM needs to decide what they want Buick to be and give the division appropriate products to reinforce the brand's intended purpose in the market.

Of all the rebadging blunders that the General has cruelly unleashed on the market over the years, the last gen Century/Regal had to be the most ridiculous. It's bad enough when you rebadge something for another brand, but it's much worse when you do it within the same division. I agree with you. I hope GM knows how silly it was to do this. Buick really has a lot of potential for GM if they don't cheap out on tapping into that potential. I think the brand can reach that potential with 4-6 good products, if those products are well executed and positioned to fulfill their purpose.

That side crease on the Invicta Concept is a modern interpretation of the classic "Buick Sweepspear" styling cue. This styling cue dates back to 1949. I think it's great that Buick has managed to integrate their classic design cues (sweepspear and ventiports) into their modern designs. These cues display the proud heritage of the brand and add a lot of character to the division's products. These cues are better integrated and much more tasteful than that hideous new Acura grille or that disfigured wheel arch on the front fender of the upcoming 2009 Acura TL. Although I thought the overall shape of the TL was attractive, the poorly executed details (grille and fender arch, not to mention the C-pillar fake out) ruined the car for me.