cmattson

I don't disagree that they stack up well against the Accord & Camry -- but if you are a traditional Camry or Accord owner, this me-too- styling isn't going to get you to switch brands is it? The styling doesn't invite you to get you onto the Chevy lot. That's an opportunity loss. If GM wants to acquire foreign sales, it must do BETTER than their foreign counterparts.. not the same and/or similar.

Dang - I don't know how I got this into the 'Site News & Updates Forum'. I just had Lasik done a couple of days ago - I'm gonna blame it on that. I beg forgiveness of the mods & hopefully one of them won't mind moving this over to The Lounge (where I originally had intended it to go). Tks!

I'll join the group on this one too: whle the car looks nice, it's styling isn't anything close to 'gotta have'. It's looks are nice & clean, but it just doesn't have much of a 'wow' factor -- much like the current Impala. If GM is serious about conquest sales, then it needs to put forth a product that has something it's competitors don't: either by way of feature-content, price, hp, gas mileage, or styling (or a combination of these). So far, the styling doesn't move the bar any (at least for me).

What do you guys think? http://www.rickwrench.com/50dollarpaint.html

Toyota brings this upon skepticism upon themselves. In the past, they've used ridiculous methods of testing hp (like removing required engine accessories -- alternator, power steering pump, etc). They've removed the rear seats of a prominent SUV before calculating interior space. They've measured ground clearance on a certain pickup truck from the bottom of the door sill to the ground (as opposed to the frame-to-ground like everybody else). The question shouldn't be "Why are do you question them?" but "Why SHOULDN'T you question them?"

While I've always been a fan of the Riveria and it's graceful curves. If Buick wants to acquire some conquest buyers, it needs to shake itself away from the vehicle names that lead you towards 'grandma car'. That's why go way back and bring out something with a rebelious edge to it, something with a swagger: The Buick Wildcat. I'd go over the top with it to. I'd introduce it at halftime of a Kentucky football game. Drive it out to center of the field and unwrap it. I'd tape the whole segment and use it as a commercial -- get shots of some football, the crowd cheering, the band playing, and cheerleaders jumping around, and even more cheerleaders jumping around and even mo.. ok I'll stop. It's oozes Americana: you've got a hot ride, football, youth and middle-America. If you can't market around that, you are absolutely brain-dead (wha? ummm. Ok: immediate apologies to previous GM marketing individuals and their 'efforts'). It needs to be bold and agressive -- similar to Caddy's Art and Science. You want something that makes people stand up and say 'Wow -- I want one of those'. Something that dashes the Buick=Old stigmatism.

Saturn needs one as they are leading the charge in targeting conquest sales. As I previously mentioned, a crowd of people exist that don't even identify Saturn as a GM brand. Saturn doesn't have the baggage associated with other GM brands. GM can use this to their advantage. Saturn's lineup cannot remain small (Ion, L-series, Vue, and Sky). Saturn needed a people/cargo mover. I'll step back on my comment in questioning the need for a Buick version. Let me retract that and change it slightly: why does Buick AND GMC need a crossover? It should've been one OR the other. You can certainly make a case that Buick should've been the lone recipient: it will certainly restore some luster to Buick's nameplate. The Enclave looks premium and luxurious -- something that couldn't always be said about some recent Buick vehicle entries. Arguing against the Acadia, you could say that a car-like riding crossover hardly fits into GMC's 'professional grade' personality. I'm simply struggling with the idea that the BPG channel needs both vehicles. I really believe that if the Acadia didn't exist, 98% of those Acadia sales would be Enclave sales -- and vise versa.

I wonder how much of this is related to a brand/image type of thing. Saturn doesn't resonate as a main-stream brand -- a chunk of people don't even associate it with GM (there is an up and down side to that). Buick's name doesn't resonate the level of prestige that it used to. GMC has always been a niche/prestige division. It markets itself as heavy-duty ('professional grade'). It's always been a step-above Chevrolet. For people crossing over from a lux. import, the GMC brand may carry a premium. I guess I'm not too surprised by this. I'm not going to question why Chevrolet is getting a variant of these vehicles; Chevrolet is GM's everyman brand.. it should have something to offer the minivan market segment that these crossovers are targeting -- especially when GM's minivans are extinct. My question is why BUICK is getting one? How doesn't this conflict with GM's B-P-G strategy. You've got overlap not just across brands, but withing the combined BPG network itself. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Is that 2.9l supposed to hit NA? I thought it was mainly for European use..

Not sure how true this is, but I heard that GM had built 3 prototypes of an Oldsmobile version of the GTO. They were sent to a contractor who was supposed to crush them. He crushed 2 -- and saved 1. He later tried to sell the unit and GM sued him to have it crushed.

I had the 2.2l in my '04 Malibu. Had almost 60k on it before the car was totaled. I've got the 2.4l in my '06 G6 - and almost 50k on that car. Here's my observations: 1) The engine (or engine as it's applied) doesn't feel all that refined. The exhaust note sounds coarse. As for vibrations, I'd say it's only average--it doesn't "wow" you, and it doesn't make you sat "wtf?!" either. It does rev eagerly. You can tell when the 2.4l switches profiles at around 3000rpm. The whole feel of the engine is different after that point. 2) I never did get a chance to take my 2.2l out and set the cruise at 55mph to get a pure highway gas-mileage estimate. In 85/15 mix of freeway/city (with 40-50% of those highway miles in stop&go rush hour traffic), I was able to get 36mpg repeatedly. I was very pleased with the gas mileage. The key was to keep the speed around 60mph, and a gradual, steady throttle when accelerating. If you didn't do that, the car would drop into the 31-32mpg range for me. The 2.2l didn't feel altogether powerful, but it was adequate as a daily driver/people-mover. The 2.4l is much more fun to drive. In the same mix of driving, I get only 30-31mpg in the G6 -- a decided step down in gas mileage. If I'm more agressive in the throttle, the 2.4l gets me 28-29mpg.

I didn't intend for the msg to end with a theme, but I had to shorten it down to that 'cause I had a conference call I needed to attend to. Anyways; here's some ideas on Chevrolet: BRAND MARKETING: Chevrolet is the family brand. It's got tremendous value. The part I'd play up on? It's been around - and it'll be around. Chevrolet should pimp that 100,000 mile warranty. You wanted dependability. We're giving it to you. We're so confident in our vehicles, we've put our name to a 100,000 mile warranty. VEHICLE MARKETING: Silverado. It's an all-around winner. You want payload? You need towing? You want gas mileage? Stylish exterior wrapped around an award-winning interior. The truck of the year is the right truck for you, no matter how you want to configure yours. Fantasy segment: here's our camshaft (insert picture), here's our competitors (show camshaft in two pieces). Tahoe/Suburban: Gives you it all. Tows your boat while hauling your family around. Everyday gas mileage is segment best. First hybrid, no-sacrifice SUV. Cobalt/Malibu/Impala/Equinox. I can't advertise their strengths because what does the Cobalt/Malibu/Impala offer you better than the competition? Nice products, don't get me wrong, but does any of them have a segment-leading or segment-busting advantage to them? Sorry, but GM needs to perfect the product before you can put out advertising that plays-to-a-strength. Sounds harsh, but I'm calling it like I see it. Camaro. Get's your blood racing - and the rest of your body too. It's as fast as it looks. As quick off the line as they are off our lots. Bring back the "We've got a mean streak" slogan of old. The Camaro has heritage and legacy is spades. Play advertising against it. Make people long for their youth!

Ok, I'll bite. I know you are probably looking for more particulars, but I'm more into a theme: GENERAL THEME: Every individual car advertisement should emphasize a strength of a vehicle. "American Revolution"? Great tagline, but what does that tell me about the car? Flying cars? Grabbed my attention, but again, it doesn't tell me anything about the car. The Saturn Aura/sharing the award with owners? Gives you a warm fuzzy, but it doesn't tell you why I should consider the car. In general, SELL THE DAMN CAR based on it's strenghts. I should be seeing Chevrolet adds touting that their full-size trucks and SUV's get better gas mileage than their Ford/Dodge counterparts. I'd advertise that the pickups have a larger payload. I'd advertise the VARIETY of engine-sizes in the Silverado. Don't want a wattered down 4.7l or an over-the-top 5.7l? We've got a happy medium: the 5.3l. It isn't that damn hard. GM's got some quality products -- but you've got to educate the consumer on that. Ford touches on it with it's Fusion comparison advertisements. It lets people know that OTHER people repeatedly chose the Fusion over their Toyota/Honda counterparts. It doesn't highlight any particular area, but it leads you to the conclusion that under scrutiny, the Ford not only stacks up well, but it wins more often than not.

This topic doesn't seem to fit well into any of the categories, so forgive me for posting this under "GM News".. but I've got some question on the Lambda's: 1) The early complaint is that the Lambda's are so large (weighing 4700 lbs). I fully understand the minivan market for which they are targeted for requires them to have a capable third-row which necessitates the long wheelbase & weight, but are there any considerations for a short-wheelbase variant? Something like the Tahoe versus a Suburban. Virtually the same vehicle minus a row of seats. A short wheelbase Lambda might have some appeal. How flexible is the Lambda platform? Would it accomodate something like this? 2) Originally, the Lambda platform was supposed to spawn a line of vehicles: from CUV's to pickups to GM's next-gen minivan. As we know, GM realized that the CUV's would likely eat into minivan sales and that the minivan market had leveled off (if not showing signs of fading) and the Lambda minivan was rightfully pulled from the table. But what about the pickup? Did GM pull back on that as well?

Part of my original point was that diesel fuel is (currently) cheaper than gasoline -- by about 18% where I live -- which only compounds a diesel's benefit. One other thing to keep in mind is this: paying a premium for a diesel engine is something that you'd likely recoup a portion of upon resale.

That's kinda the point I was making with the numbers: the even if you had a $3k premium on the engine, you'd break even in as little as three years. Everything after that point is pure benefit.

With gas prices rising as high, if not higher than they were last summer and with VW's Jetta bluetec 2.0TDI rumored to get 40/60 mpg, I'm wondering if GM is missing an opportunity. I know that diesels cost more - and GM is skeptical that people would be willing to pay that premium, but consider this: If you drive 15,000 miles/year and your 4cyl car averages 30mpg, you'll consume 500 gallons of gas. Prices in my neighborhood for gasoline just jumped to $3.39 today.. so that's $1695/year. If you get 60mpg in your TDI, you'll consume 250 gallons of diesel. Current prices for diesel here are $2.79/gallon, which gets you to $697.50/year. You are a 2 diet coke's away from saving a cool grand -- in just one year. That oil-burner pays for itself pretty darn quick, doesn't it? Now factor in that the diesel would be cheaper to maintain over the long haul and that it's offering you a much better driving experience (way better torque). How about the idea of GM offering a high mpg vehicle? You want to change people's perception of what GM can or is willing to produce? Here's a golden opportunity to do just that. GM's either playing this really close to the vest, or they are moving very cautiously (read: slow) on this one. Seeing how long it's taking to get those 6-speeds into their cars and trucks, I think I know the answer to this one. Somedays it's really frustrating to be a GM fanatic.

I agree with you Bobo -- Honda has definately spent some time in the noise reduction / refinement areas -- commonly referred to as NVH (noise, harshness, vibration). I've got an Ecotec 2.4l G6 right now -- and it's not as quiet as I'd like at idle -- and acceleration it's quite loud. Before that I had the 2.2l in my '04 Malibu - and it was identical to the 2.4l in terms of noise and courseness. As it is, the 2.4l is a nice little engine -- it's peppy, revs easy, delivers fairly decent gas mileage if you keep your foot out of it (personal best: 32.5 mpg), and non-spectacular, but not-boring acceleration when you put your boot into it (and then it's gas mileage drops to 25-26mpg). It's smooth is how it revs, but it sounds course. My Suburban's got the 5.3l and it's got a really nice burble to it. It idles nice and quiet. Accleration is audible, but it's pleasant - and never loud. Things brings me to a point: When doing a review, two things would 'make' a review for me, yet I struggle to find anyone who consistently delivers these stats across all of their reviews: 1) DBA noice level: Noise at idle, noise under acceleration to 30mph & 55 mph, noise cruising at 30mph & 55mph. 2) Acceleration 0-30 & 0-60. Most people can't connect the dots with: horsepower, torque, vehicle weight, and transmission gearing. All of those can and will make a marketable difference to acceleration. Why can't you consistently find the acceleration #'s?

It would help if GM had effective advertising. Instead of advertising their deal-of-the-week, they should be advertising things like how well jdpa has ranked the Malibu in terms of initial quality & vehicle dependability. The Malibu has placed within the top 3 (if not #1 outright) on both of those for 4 of the last 5 years -- the Accord & Camry didn't even make the top 3. It's effective in conveying your quality improvements and dispelling the myth and the Camry & Accord are the quality leaders in the segment. Of course, to pull off this type of advertising, you need to have competent product - and GM's vast product line always seems to have models that lag their segments in some sort or another. Oh dear, that brings us back to the money again, doesn't it?

Way to buzzkill my short-lived euphoria. Sigh.

If GM is serious about changing it's image AND acquiring conquest sales - then it needs to build vehicles that appeal to those outside of it's traditional sales base; having fuel-conscious alternatives to offset it's large SUV's isn't exactly a dumb idea either. Building them in a foreign market to keep costs in check & having their base models 'loaded up' would allow GM to sell them at a bit of a premium -- especially since the US market is completely freaking devoid of something in this class that has any sense of styling to it. I think that GM should pursue at least one of these models..

The SAE techbriefs is a can't miss favorite of mine to read. The April 2007 edition shows you why: http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/04-2007/1-115-4-22.pdf After you read the interesting article on GM's 2.9l V6 diesel PCCI (pre-mixed charge compresion ignition) technology, scroll on down to the end of the article & read about the Viper's V10 with cam-in-cam variable valve timing. Note the quote in the tail paragraph:

I like the looks of the Lucerne -- but 4,000+ lbs is just too much car for the commute I endure. Would love to see a small version (think Malibu sized). Whenever I go to Canada, I want to unwrap their $1 coins and eat the yummy chocolate center.

I agree with you Griff: The turbo DI-2.0 appears to be a very sweet motor - long on both hp and mileage. It needs more applications than the Solstice & Sky, IMO. An even smaller displacement (1.6l?) with a similar setup would be even more appealing: 200-210hp with even better gas mileage. Mate it with a stick and bolt it into an Astra -- that'd be a fun combo platter -> all with excellent gas mileage. As for gas mileage, GM is losing the publicity war. GM needs to get something more economical into the Cobalt and especially the Aveo. There's no reason the Aveo shouldn't get at least 40+mpg on the freeway. GM's got small displacement 4-bangers all-over Europe. How about bringing something stateside? I know it's not quite that simple -- but if GM is serious about changing public perception, then the job's gotta get done.

I'm guessing you can ferret out some of these vehicles by browsing the www.autoshowny.com website. Some interesting vehicles to note (although, I'm not sure how many of these you could title 'debuts'): Saturn PreVue Camaro Convertable 2008 Malibu 2008 Cadillac CTS 2008 Saturn Astra