cmattson

My understanding is that the ultra V8 is the Northstar replacement. I've heard SOHC, and DOHC. I've heard 4.7l in size. Now, I read your quote of: and I see the V8 in plural form. As in more than one. Is that a typo, or is the "Ultra V8" a series of engines (as "Atlas" or "Vortec" is, or as I'd wish "Duramax" would be)? Anybody have any info on this engine(s)? When is it expected to debut? I'm wholly ignorant on this thing (and yes, if you haven't guessed it, it's bothering me). Honda uses variable cyl. system on their V6 -- so I wouldn't rule out GM's D-O-D (in some form) on a future DOHC engine.

You might want to try reading the remaining postings on the website: and Lastly:

Okay, here's more fun: If you look at average incentives (not weighted by units sold), GM's average incentive per vehicle is $1223.21 Age of vehicle since last design/redesign & average incentive: 1999 (8 yrs old): Silverado, Sierra: $2750 2000 (7 yrs old): Yukon, Yukon XL, Suburban, Tahoe: $3500 2002 (5 ys old): Rendezvous, Escalades, Avalanche, Trailblazer, Envoy, Vue:$1750 2003 (4 yrs old): CTS, Express, SSR, Svanna,H2,Vibe,9-3,Ion: $375 2004 (3 yrs old): Rainier, SRX, XLR, Aveo, Colorado, Malibu, Canyon, Grand Prix: $1063 2005 (2yr old): LaCrosse, Terraza ,STS ,Cobalt,Corvette, Equinox, Uplander, G6(sedan), Montana, 9-2, 9-7, Relay: $833 2006 (1 yr old): DTS, HHR, Impala, Monte Carlo, H3, G6 (coupe), Solstice, Torrent: $563 GM has 21 vehicles with $0 cash incentive, 3 with $500, 8 with $1000, 9 with $1500, 1 with $2000, 6 with $2500, 3 with $3000, and 6 with $3500. GM trucks & suv's account for every incentive > $2000 (all full-sizers + Envoy, TB, Rainer) As you can clearly see, GM's oldest (& highest volume) pickups/suv's are killing GM's incentive average when you weight it by the number of units sold. All data was gathered from the north central region of www.gm.com. Data for each vehicle as follows: 2006 Vehicle Total Cash Year Released Age Chevrolet Silverado 1500 $3,000 1999 8 Chevrolet Silverado 2500/3500 Reg, Extended & Crew Cab $2,500 1999 8 GMC Sierra 1500 $3,000 1999 8 GMC Sierra 2500/3500 Reg, Extended & Crew Cab $2,500 1999 8 Saab 9-5 $0 1999 8 Chevrolet Suburban $3,500 2000 7 Chevrolet Tahoe $3,500 2000 7 GMC Yukon $3,500 2000 7 GMC Yukon Denali $3,500 2000 7 GMC Yukon XL $3,500 2000 7 GMC Yukon XL Denali $3,500 2000 7 Buick Rendezvous $2,500 2002 5 Cadillac Escalade ESV $0 2002 5 Cadillac Escalade EXT $0 2002 5 Cadillac Escalade $0 2002 5 Chevrolet Avalanche $3,000 2002 5 Chevrolet TrailBlazer $2,500 2002 5 GMC Envoy $2,500 2002 5 Saturn VUE(6) $0 2002 5 Cadillac CTS $0 2003 4 Chevrolet Express $1,000 2003 4 Chevrolet SSR $0 2003 4 GMC Savana $1,000 2003 4 HUMMER H2 $0 2003 4 Pontiac Vibe $500 2003 4 Saab 9-3 $500 2003 4 Saturn ION Sedan(6) $0 2003 4 Buick Rainier $2,500 2004 3 Cadillac SRX $0 2004 3 Cadillac XLR $0 2004 3 Chevrolet Aveo $500 2004 3 Chevrolet Colorado $1,500 2004 3 Chevrolet Malibu $1,000 2004 3 GMC Canyon $1,500 2004 3 Pontiac Grand Prix $1,500 2004 3 Buick LaCrosse $1,500 2005 2 Buick Terraza $1,500 2005 2 Cadillac STS $0 2005 2 Chevrolet Cobalt $1,000 2005 2 Chevrolet Corvette $0 2005 2 Chevrolet Equinox $1,000 2005 2 Chevrolet Uplander $1,500 2005 2 Pontiac G6 Sedan $2,000 2005 2 Pontiac Montana SV6 $1,500 2005 2 Saab 9-2X(4) $0 2005 2 Saab 9-7X SUV(4) $0 2005 2 Saturn RELAY(6) $0 2005 2 Cadillac DTS $0 2006 1 Chevrolet HHR $0 2006 1 Chevrolet Impala $1,000 2006 1 Chevrolet Monte Carlo $1,000 2006 1 HUMMER H3 $0 2006 1 Pontiac G6 $1,500 2006 1 Pontiac Solstice $0 2006 1 Pontiac Torrent $1,000 2006 1

Don't be disappointed; GM isn't the only one increasing incentives: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051103/ap_on_...centives_glance I think GM was too optomistic in moving too quickly from incentives to "total value pricing". Interesting to note that GM incentives were down almost 25% while Toyota was increasing their's by almost 16%.

That's dispicable! I'm appalled! For those of you curious, I'd say the same thing if GM was in this position. There's no place for something like this in our society.

GM Sales Jan-Oct '05; http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...n=3&docid=20121 Hmm.. Uplander 63,348 + Terraza 17,615 + Relay 14,042 + Montana 22,799 = total minivan sales of 117,804 over 10 months. Annualize and it's 141,137. If GM's goal was 200k units, it's about 71% of GM's target. As per the article, Honda's target was 50k units.. and they've sold 25,787. Contrary to what the article states, the Ridgeline posted sales in Feb -- not Mar.. so the Ridgeline has been on sale officially for a little more than 8 months. If you annualize that, you'll find that the Ridgeline would have sales of 38,680 roughly 77% of it's target... not much better, IMO -- especially when you consider: 1) The first full month of sales for the Ridgeline was 4008 units -- a far cry from the 3223 monthly avg the Ridgeline is currently showing (that's a 20% drop). This leads credence to the idea that the Ridgeline initially benefited from Honda loyalists who were waiting for the truck. GM's minivans had no such advantage. 2) The Honda Ridgeline has "marketing support" of $1000 right now -- something that wasn't available a couple of months ago. I'll disagree once again. In my book, when you are decreasing production, increasing incentives and still falling short of your low-ball goal by 20% - you are hardly enjoying success. I know that it increases plant efficiency for Honda - but plant efficiency is only ONE expense in a vehicles production. How about engineering costs? Extra tooling costs? Marketing expenses?

http://www.mph-online.com/web/news/00159 The Accord has always enjoyed robust sales, defining itself as one of the key players in the midsized market. In current form, it's powertrain is widely accepted as a benchmark of the industry for refinement, hp, and gas mileage--hitting high marks in all three. What's been the buzz in the last 12 months? Hybrids. The Prius has won several awards and despite questions about their overall gas benefit, you'll endlessly hear journalists point out who has them and who hasn't. So what happens when you combine one of America's darlings with hybrid technology? Ka-ching. A fairly large (for Honda) dealer incentive.

I guess the key to success is setting the bar low enough! The Chevy Venture Minivan sold 66,522 units LY but is widely viewed as a flop in a market where DCX, Honda, and Toyota sell 5 times that. But, now consider the Ridgeline. If it's lucky, it'll be on pace to hit 60k units in it's first 12 month of sales (and will have had the benefit of pent-up demand as Honda has never previously made a pickup truck). Yet, in a 3+ million-unit market, the volume of 60k is considered a success. Go figure. Now, before you start in with how the Ridgeline is a "innovation", being that it has never-seen-before-car-like handling (ahem, bs: Ranchero, El Camino), a dual-hinged tailgate (ahem, more bs), and a trunk in the bed, ask yourself this: are those "innovations" enough to overcome it's numerous shortcomings (lackluster towing capabilities, mediocre gas mileage, and a damn-near unusable bed)? Now consider what a pickup truck has historically represented: utility. The ability to tow/haul large and/or unusually shaped objects. Historically, those have been the criteria for owning a pickup. This trucks shortcommings fall squarely in the area of utility--the be all/end all of owning a pickup. It's a truck pretender in a pickup truck market. A truck for people who don't need trucks. While I can see your argument that the Ridgeline is a success, I guess we'll disagree on what defines success. I set my bar a bit higher than 60k in a market of 3+ million.

By style, you mean the sloping bed-sides? Other than that, what does the Ridgeline share with the Avalanche? They look the most, exterior-panel-wise, but after that, the Colorado is clearly the closest competitor (in Chevy's lineup) to the Ridgeline.

I'm sorry, I can't let you get away with that. How convienient to compare to the Avalanche.. a FULL SIZE truck. Why not the Colorado? Let's see here.. let's start with exterior dimensions: Ridgeline: wheelbase = 122, length=206.8 Colorado: wheelbase = 126, length=207.1 Avalanche: wheelbase = 130, length=221.6 Hmm. The Colorado definately seems to be a closer match. Let's take a look at towing capacity: Ridgeline: 5000lbs Colorado: 4000lbs 5.3l Avalanche: 7900lbs Hmm. Again, the Colorado seems to be a closer comparison. How about hp/torque? Ridgeline: 247/245 Colorado: 220/225 5.3l Avalanche: 295/335 Hmm. Yet again, the Colorado seems to be a closer comparison. Price? Priced for comparable features (as close as I could get them, anyways): Ridgeline RTS: $30,625 Colorado (crew cab, LT3): $27,990 Avalanche: $37,885 Need I continue? Ok, Curb weight: Ridgeline: 4494 lbs Colorado: 4062 lbs Avalanche: 5654 lbs Clearly, the Colorado is a closer comparison to the Ridgeline. Gas mileage? 17/22 for the 3.5l Colorado.. as compared to 16/22 for the Ridgeline. While the Colorado has slightly less hp/torque, it's also hindered by having just a 4spd transmission.. so I think it equates fairly well when you look at the whole picture. You want to know what's an even closer comparison to the Ridgeline? A DCX minivan: with the 3.8l engine, it puts out roughly 210hp/240ft-lbs of torque, tows 4000lbs, has an even larger "trunk", definately has more flexibility, has AWD, and gets 18/25 mpg... it also costs thousands less. Face it: the Ridgeline doesn't offer anymore flexibility/capacity than anything else on the market. It's wrapped into an odd-looking exterior, and an even odder-looking interior. The "H" symbol on the price pushes the sticker about $3k higher than anything comparable. Personally, I'm not at all surprised by it's current sales performance. I'm not ready to count Honda out of anything. Take a look at the 1st generation Odyssey "minivan". It didn't even have sliding doors. Take a look at what the 2nd generation Odyssey did in comparison. Honda is relentless in their pursuit of a market. GM would be wise to take the Ridgeline seriously--even in it's current lackluster form. To GM's credit, I think that they have. We've all heard about the Lambda chassis and what is to come off of it (crossover's, suv's and pickups). If that's true, than Honda's niche will get even smaller.

I think there was a substantial amount of pull-ahead sales that accounted for October. I think that truck and suv sales cooled as gas prices soared. Now, the question is: did GM lose truck/suv sales to cars, crossovers, etc OR did potential suv/truck purchasers sit on their hands wondering where gas prices were going to go? I think a bit of both occured. But, in case of the latter, those potential sales would still be out there -- and would be a prime target for the new, more fuel-efficient GMT900's.

If GM is going to build small crossovers, does GM need to continue with the Vibe/Matrix combo-platter? Just a thought. Other than that, this could be fuel cell related. Perhaps GM's got a couple of dual-mode hybrid patents that Toyota wishes to buy into? Perhaps Toyota has battery technology that GM wishes to buy into? The possibilities are endless.

I'm really surprised the Honda Ridgeline made the list: it's not eye catching and it really doesn't do any one thing all that well. What's it got that's unique? A trunk and a car-like ride? Hmm. I could get that from a minivan for $thousands$ less.

I'm not ready to say the Ridgeline is a success or a failure. The fact of the matter is that some Honda loyalists have been waiting a long while for a Honda pickup truck; and you'll see an initial blip that results from that. As for gas mileage skewing numbers for/against either truck, that's a bunch of garbage as well - the gas mileage of each truck is comparable--and are nothing special (something Honda should be held accountable for-- the power of a V6, with the fuel consumption of a V8, LMFAO). A vehicles success or failure can hardly be judged in less-than-a-year's time. Look at Toyota's T100 and Tundra; Toyota's had a full decade of "full-size" pickup production and the have failed to gather any sales momentum at all. A decade plus of luke-warm sales and no increased market penetration and I think you can safely call the Tundra not much more than a niche offering in the pickup truck market. The Nissan Titan, regardless of it's numerous initial quality problems is more capable and has seemingly found an easier in-road into the market than the Tundra has at this point.

Honda Emblem aside, what would attract you to the Honda truck? Honda doesn't have a large history of building trucks in North America. It's gas mileage is very ordinary (only marginally better, if at all, in comparison to other trucks). It's bed is undersized, it's interior certainly isn't luxurious. It's exterior looks aren't drop-dead gotta-have gorgeous either. It's payload is relatively small, as is it's towing capacity. There are numerous competitors that outrank it in hp and torque. The Ridgeline is ordinary -- except for it's price. Now factor in the top-notch owner-loyalty in the pickup truck market. It's no great wonder on why the Ridgeline's sales are lackluster. The pickup truck market, in some ways, is a mirror-image of what the domestics face in the car market. The solution is to offer something innovative--like Honda did with it's magic seats on the 2nd-gen Odyssey -- or to offer a combination feature-set that is too hard to ignore. Take a look at the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan. It's styling is relatively sharp, while it's powertrain isn't leading-the-segment, it isn't lackluster, and it's price is simply outstanding. I don't have any doubts that the car will be a success for Ford.

I think the only way GM is going to be able to keep a 4-year product cycle on such a large volume of brands is to really make use of it's global resources. Using Opel/Vauxhall's as Saturns? Why not? It's fresh, it's a shot in the arm, and it doesn't divert GM's North American resources. Using Daewoo to boost Chevrolet's? Sure. Using Isuzu on diesel powertrains? Absolutely. How about Holden cranking out a couple of RWD models for NA consumption? Yup -- bring'em on.

Full news release here

Yeah, but what about when the VTEC kicks in? That thing would be good for at least 40,000lbs (and get 40mpg).

I'm not the biggest fan of the rear of the vehicle, bug I love the front; I think it's way better than the current HHR; which is just so-so IMO.

I think the HHR is the right idea in slightly the wrong packaging. You are giving people a cheap to purchase & cheap to drive alternative to SUVs. It's is as extremely practical as it's price is insanely good. If the HHR had a modern, SUV-like front end, I think these things would sell even better (and it would shed the "me-too cruiser" label to boot).

Whaddya mean? GM has REAL hybrids; just not ones that you or I can buy. They are in the full-size busses, and unlike Toyota's PR-heavy Prius, it has a far bigger impact environmentally than all of the Prius's put together. Seems to me like GM is walking the walk when it comes to being environmentally conscious with it's hybrid strategy.

I think the tax credit was $2,000 (upped from $1500). Let's say it's $2k A $4325 difference less $2k = $2325. Let's look at the best-case scenario for the Prius: A 2.2l Malibu gets 35mpg (minimum), A Prius 55mpg: To do the typical 15,000 mi/yr, a Malibu requires 429 gallons of gas A Prius takes 273 gallons of gas, a savings of 156 gallons over the Malibu If gas is $3/gallon, then the Prius saves $468/yr. Thats the 4.96 yrs. However, that's not really the full story: Your state has sales tax, doesn't it (don't they all?): In Minnesota, it's 6.5% - and thats PRE income-tax credit, so that's an extra $281 in sales tax. Are you financing it? The difference in interest expense on $4325 over 5 years at 5% (which seems to be the current average) is another $610. That's a total of $891 extra, or almost TWO MORE years above and beyond the 5 years listed -- and that's if gas remains at an all-time high of $3/gallon (the high water mark here in Mpls). Currently, our gas is $2.13/g -- which puts you somewhere between 9 1/2yrs - 10 yrs for the Prius to finally start to turn a profit; about which time you should be concerned about the battery. Can you tell me the last time you've seen *ANY* battery last 10 years -- let alone one that has a constant charge-discharge being applied to it? In summary, if money is your driving factor, the Malibu is MILES ahead of the Prius. Of course, as a Malibu owner, I may be a little bit biased.

Yup - I'm in Andover (northern Mpls suburb), MN -- although I work in Bloomington (southern Mpls suburb) -- which is one of the primary reasons why I chose the Ecotec-powered Malibu; I avg. about 75miles of driving to/from work each day.

Amy Lee (from Evanescnce) has my vote.

More info from edmunds: http://ualuealuealeuale.ytmnd.com/ The new Tundra will debut at this year's NAIAS. The truck will reach production in early '06 - and the hybrid model will be avail. in 2007 (presumably as an '08 model). Clearly, Toyota is attempting to keep GM's pace in the full-size truck market -- this pretty much matches GM's timeframe. GM might be viewed as a little bit behind this because of their choice to push the SUV's ahead of the full-size trucks. I don't think this is going to hurt them, sales-wise, because Toyota has shown an inability to garner significant market share previously + Nissan has offered a more-than-competant import-spawned truck. Nissan is struggling for market share and now must split some sales with Toyota. Most truck owners are fiercly loyal. As for marketing-wise, GM is going to get their *ss handed to them (as usual). Most of the rags will jump all over the Tundra - and GM's trucks will be largely-seen as an also-ran. One last thing: DOHC, 5.5l, and only 300hp? WTF? GM's now-6-year-old 5.3L pushes well past 300hp -- and doesn't have nearly the "technology" Toyota's latest effort has.. I'll wait to see the final numbers, but if Edmunds is accurate (and that's a HUGE if), then Toyota will definately be a step-behind GM power-wise (again).