cmattson

Don't forget to add a wing, a "Type-R" badge and a fart-can; you'd make 300hp while getting 45mpg too! :P Uuugh, 300hp & 45mpg?!? This is starting to sound like a Car and Driver/Motortrend test: "We're going to compare a 10-speed bicycle, a big wheel, a hot wheel, a Prius, and the Corvette"

I recall the humble beginnings of Acura; where the Acura legend was little more than a Honda with leather seats and different tail-light trim (1988). Here we are less than 2 decades later and Acura has been an established, credible luxury brand for at least the last 5-10 years. I wouldn't say that the Hyundai doesn't stand a chance -- it does. It's window of opportunity is far smaller than the one afforded Lexus and Acura. Luxury makes were either ungodly expensive (Mercedes, BMW), or were lack-luster in design and/or quality (Caddy, Lincoln). Still, given time, I'm sure Hyundai will make some in-roads.

Ditto for me!

Creating hydrogen on the fly: http://www.physorg.com/news7499.html

Gas is actually $2.21 here (Mpls/St. Paul).. but back to this author's main points. I don't think you can measure with the black and white, success or failure benchmark. GM will achieve degrees of success/failure in each of his five areas: 1. Close assembly plants and eliminate jobs. Comment: GM will clost plants and the UAW will back off; while they won't like it and they'll scream a bit, even they know GM's current situation. As long as GM doesn't ask something drastic (hello Delphi CEO: "We need a 62% wage cut from our rank and file"), the UAW will be willing to listen and bargain. GM may not get everything they want, but they'll get something.. and every little bit helps 2. Adopt value pricing without a huge loss of market share. The author is quick to note sales stats--but those stats are faulty! GM had more than it's share of "pull-ahead" sales; which easily contribute to the dismall Sept/Oct stats this author wishes to share. Nobody said the transition would be quick or easy. Nobody said that GM wouldn't lose sales along the way (and marketshare with it). The key thing is this: while sales in MY 2005, MY 2006, or MY2007 are important, the bigger picture is this: how are GM sales going to be over the next decade? The next 2 decades? The simple fact that escapes this author is that GM doesn't need to just look out for sales this month, or this year, it needs to look after it's sales outlook/corporate health into the distant future. GM will have far better, stronger brands 5-10 years from now if it depresses sales today and transitions itself away from it's giveaway campaigns. You want to build GM's brands? You need to start addressing it's issues; one of which is resale; which is *directly* affected by the sales promotions. GM's strategy is the right one on this. 3. Sell all or part of GMAC. This appears to be all but a foregone conclusion. While I'd like GM to have the diversity (and cashflow) of GMAC in it's backpocket, I think it's reached a point where GMAC is more valuable to GM is GM owns just a minority stake in the company. 4. Fix Pontiac-Buick-GMC. This is on the way. I haven't heard much feedback on this -- which I'm reading to be a good sign. If dealers were fighting this, I'm sure we would've heard about it by now. I actually like the strategy -- it certainly beats closing one of the brands - ala Oldsmobile. I'm curious to see the future product for these brands. GM needs to produce a few home-runs and right now, it appears only the Solstice has reached that mark. What about Buick? GMC? What about a mainstream, non-niche Pontiac? Only time will tell what product GM's got in store for these brands 5. Ensure a flawless launch of full-sized trucks. I don't think this is as much of an issue as the author is making it out to be, primarily for one reason: GM's current GMT800's are class-leading for gas mileage, while offering best-in-class or near-best-in class performance. The GMT900's only increase that standing, with hybrid models right on it's heels. There is a market for full-size trucks and suv's. There is a large segment of the population that needs vehicles of this capacity. While the market may shrink, GM's market-share should increase.

25-27mpg isn't horrible. It isn't going to be a selling point nor will you lose a lot of customers because of it.. it's just average. Personally, I'd hoped it would be closer to 30.

Hmm.. isn't th H3 spawned from the same platform that brings us a Canyon/Colorado? I wonder...

Hitch weight and trailer weight are both considerations in towing. When you pull more than your vehicle is rated for, you are putting everybody on the road at risk. I pull a 3500lb travel trailer with my Suburban - and it handles it very, very comfortably. I've pulled into a headwind, uphill at seventy and it hardly brakes a sweat. If GM finally gets their full-hybrid systems to the market, they might finally beat Toyota to a hybrid segment. I'm wondering if Toyota is having any problems adapting their single-in-line hybrid system to work on their full-size units. How well can a single electric motor power a full-size truck; I'd imagine that it would labor quite a bit and that it's range of speed would be very, very limited. You'd need to either (1) build the electric motor around the transmission gearing to make use of the additional gearsets (like GM), or (2) use a larger motor. Using a larger motor would be a bit unappetizing because it would add expense and weight -- so GM's approach really makes sense. I'd imagine GM's got a magnitude of copyrighted/patents in the dual-mode/built-around the transmission design. I wonder if that's going to hinder Toyota's efforts any.

I thought that Zenith was the sole remaining American TV manufacturer. I also heard that they were getting some sort of gov't subsidy as a result -- something about the Dept of Defense needing an American-based TV/CRT for national security reasons. That could all be BS; but it's something I remember hearing a while ago..

Agree with it or not--it happens; medical plans cover your whole health -- which includes everything from mental illness to inablity to (insert mental image here). Here's more ridiculousness: When my first-born was soon-to-arrive, I had my hospital "pre-approved".. that is, I filled out the paperwork in advance, and submitted it - and basically greased the wheels for all of the upcoming costs associated with child-birth. It's a fairly commonplace thing to pre-submit paperwork so that everything is ready. We were using a "in-network" hospital - so everything should be good-to-go, right? Wrong! My insurance company didn't pay a bill for 14 months; I kept getting notices for the remainder (we are req'd to pay 10% of a bill upto a cap amount) every month throughout that time period. I was getting notices that they were "submitting the bill for third-party pricing" and that the original paperwork wasn't coded correctly. The best? It was when my son recieved a form asking whether the above charges (his birth) were the result of a workplace injury. At that point, I gathered all paperwork and photocopied everything. I wrote a scathing letter and I mailed a copy to the state's attorney general, to the better business bureau, and to the ins. company itself. My next piece of correspondance from them? A statement showing the full balance paid. BTW, the BBB didn't do much but the atty general's office was tremendously helpful; writing a letter (cc'ing me), and making several phone calls on my behalf. After that I was quick to discover the ins. co.'s limit on "preventative medicine". Quite simply, they covered preventative medicine upto $150 per family member per year. My newborn, as every parent finds out, requires something like 5-6 shots during their first year -- at a cost of about $300 ea. Yup -> that's considered "preventative medicine". So what's more ridiculous? Viagra coverage or denying a newborn's shots? These aren't UAW issues or GM issues. It's ins. company/medical industry issues -- and it is a HUGE problem for every employer and every worker in the US. It needs to be dealt with soon.

What an intriguing idea! How realistic would it be to expect other manufacturers to contract-out assembly work? Could a GM/legacy-based assembly-co. be profitable (for the spin-off itself, or for other manufacturers to make use of it)? Would there be image concerns? (i.e. would manufacturers (like Toyota) prefer to hold assembly close-to-themselves over conerns of quality/perceptions of "GM is building Toyota's vehicles for Toyota", etc)? I guess GM wouldn't exactly have to limit an operation like that to auto manufacturers either. Technically, you could assemble anything from farm tractors to bulldozers.. Hmm.. it's intriguing to say the least; thanks for the brain-candy.

It's interesting to note that Asian incentives have risen during that period as well; which means the Asian competitors were marginally increasing their incentives to dilute the effectiveness of GM/Ford's onslaught.

Usually I agree with you on almost everything Evok, but on this one I simply cannot. Ever spent an hour in rush-hour traffic? Perhaps you are a female alone on the highway? Perhaps it's nighttime - and you are in a bad spot in town? I can pick scenario after scenario where pulling over or traveling to a service station isn't a desireable option. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the battery-only option available upto a certain speed (like 20mph)? If I'm doing 55-65 on the freeway, losing the gasoline motor and having electric-power-only-up-to 20mph isn't an appealing option. Lastly, the article clearly states that: "the vehicle shut down at the same time thet they felt the gas engine stalled". That tells me that the vehicle died - with no power. Sure, they could restart it and run on battery only, but again, that isn't a very viable option on the interstate. Toyota is clearly putting makeup on a pig here.

Take it for what it is: a step in the right direction. The UAW didn't have to renegotiate anything. Getting them to the bargaining table is a milestone in itself. Yes, the changes look small; but when you have half a million retirees & another 120,000 (or so) active employees, these small changes add up to a significant amount rather quickly. Not to mutate this topic too badly, but... Has anybody stopped and thought about GM, why you like GM, and what GM must do to transition and survive today? I like GM because it's a product I grew up with -- my dad owned GM vehicles and they were reliable for us. Out of that grew a sense of loyalty to an American company, who employs American workers. Today's landscape dictates that GM must shed a large percent of it's American work-force and move those jobs outside of the US, where wages are cheaper and healthcare is gov't-subsidied or non-existant. One of the core reasons why I love GM is being stripped from GM -- and it bothers me greatly. Does anybody else struggle with this?

Again, why justify Toyota's failure's by pointing out another's set of problems? I thought Toyota's were supposed to be bullet-proof! Isn't that the mantra you hear from every auto rag, every salesperson, every auto reviewer? Import-loving people will be quick to point at a GM recall as proof of them being of lower quality. But when Toyota issues a recall (let alone 3 within a week), then it's all whitewashed over with "hey, everybody has issues - look at domestic brand x's recall". How conveinent.

There's soo much music to hate, it's jhard to narrow it to any one song and/or artist. Personally, I cannot stand Mariah Carrey: all of her songs sound the same.

The more secure the loan is, the better rate you can get. It's no secret that GM's junk-bond status negatively effects it's borrowing rate. While it seems quite circular, Tracinda backing GM's loan with GM stock will let GM borrow that $200m at a better rate than having it unsecured (or secured through some other means). Tracinda owns 56 million shares with the current trading price is $28.38/share, which equates to a shade under $1.6b. Bank of America is obviously confident that GM stock won't loose the kind of value that turns $1.6b into less than $200m & is willing to give GM a better rate. If GM performs better financially (something a lower-interest loan would allow them to do), then Tracinda should see a return on their risk with a better (future) stock price.

GM is researching special body panels which repair itself: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/61060/bo...ive_itself.html

Electronic valves and 48V electrical systems will happen in time.. as expenses on these new products decrease & as the electrical demand grows. Look at the "by-wire" technology in your car now: propulsion, steering and throttle. You can't tell me that brakes won't be next (wires & small motors have to be cheaper than calipers, steel lines, proportional valves and master cylinders). Didn't Mercedes debut some sort of eletronic braking system a couple of years back on one of their models? Electronic components are lighter, cheaper, and are less complex. The only limitation is that current technology is bound around 12V systems. At some point, somebody will make the jump and costs will start to come down (think Toyota and hybrids). As for electronic valves, I believe the capability has been around for quite some time -- but it's application has been limited by computing power (think D-O-D and Caddy's 8-6-4 system). I believe one of the hurldes has been programming the algorithm for the "soft landing" of the valves. Instead of having the valves noisily slap shut at full-force, you need for the valve to slow down and shut softly - so you need an algorithm developed that allows the valve to open/close in time necessary and allow for the valve to speed up/slow down as necessary to fascilitate quiet operation.

Here's what I find extremely interesting: (1) The article title: "Recall of 1.27 Million Cars Mars Toyota's Reputation" The Wall Street Journal 10/18/05 (2) The first line of the artlcie: "Toyota Motor Corp.'s stellar reputation for quality took a drubbing with the announcement of a major recall of 1.27 million vehicles because of a faulty light switch on the steering column." Toyota will start to loose it's perceived quality advantage when the public starts to see articles that call into question how reliable Toyota cars really are. Personally, I think Toyota's been getting a free ride on quality: while they aren't making lousy vehicles, their reputation far exceeds their actual quality. When you read reviews like: http://www.freep.com/money/autoreviews/phe...1e_20050811.htm and http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/oneyea...erd/index1.html When you have noticably sub-par quality on Toyota's current-generation vehicles (and flagship ones at that), you start to wonder when the general perception will start to change. Perhaps a few more recalls will fill the task.

Let's think about this from a business/cost-benefit perspective. Future gas prices are an unknown. It's unlikely they'll significantly drop -- but even if they do, the scare of high gas prices will be at the forefront of consumers. I'm not sure I'd rush out and buy a Trailblazer given the high gas prices we've just encountered. It'll take a long time of low(er) gas prices for that mentality to fade. GM certainly knows this as well. Now factor in that the GMT360's platform isn't exactly the best performing thing in the world, that the Lambda architecture is more flexible (fwd, awd, fold-flat seats), and that the Lamda platform's costs would be spread out over trucks, minivans, suv & crossover vehicles and that a Lambda-SUV would provide greater product seperation between it and the Tahoe/Yukon and you can easily see why there is tremendous appeal to dropping the GMT-360/361. After listing the reasons, I think it's a foregone conclusion that the GMT360/361 will be dropped. Does it really matter if the next TB would be Lambda-based? If it got better gas mileage, fold-flat seats, car-like handling.... would that be so bad? If you really need the towing/storage capability, then isn't that what GM's got the Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban for?

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Consumer...=Malibu&src=vip As you can see via the link, this shows a "CR snapshot" of the '06 Chev. Malibu. See how many errors you can spot on the page. MSN hosts the connection (and I'm sure pays a fee to make the CR data available to them). It's simply pathetic beyond belief. After seeing this mismatch of data, how much would you trust the rest of what CR compiles?

I hope that doesn't translate into "The bean counters have descended upon the proposed new models. Every car now features genuine burlap-covered furnishings and wooden benches instead of traditional seats."

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...n=2&docid=19615 Understatement of the year: Really? $15b in savings? Time well spent? What insight! Other news This is interesting because GMAC is GM's cash-flow darling. There's a reason why GM hasn't divested itself from GMAC earlier than this: it's because GMAC brings in big money to GM's bottom line. You remove this, then you'd better be pretty confident you can make money selling cars. If GM makes this move, then they better have the rest of the ship in tight shape.. While it's nice to see that Delphi's bankrupcty isn't going to cost them a full $11b-$12b, it's still depressing to see that they'll likely be on the hook for something between $5b-$6b.

I hate to say it, but $11,000 isn't that a-typical of a discount on the Yukon-XLs/Suburbans. When I purchased my '03 Suburban (January '04), my discount-from-sticker was around $11,500 -- which shows you that GM's discounts haven't changed much in 2 yearstime. For a "legacy" vehicle (read: a non-new GM product, new being defined as re-engineered; Cobalt, Malibu, G6, etc), I guess I'm not too concerned.