cmattson

I agree with you FOG; but I think that improvements can be made and I think that it all depends on the packaging.. take for instance this scenario: rather than giving "big bad business" a tax break.. why not wrap some legislation in the flag (works for selling every other damn thing in ths country--from war to t-shirts) and pull this one out: A tax break for people buying a domestic-manufacturer automobile. (Give them an additional credit if it gets over 35mpg. ?) It isn't anti-anybody. It still requires GM/Ford/(DCX?) to build a quality/competitive vehicle, it drives their sales and gives them more income/market share. Which in turns keeps GM/Ford in business and workers employed (& hopefully, out buying more American goods).

I don't think that tariffs are the answer -- or any kind of bail out. I do think that the US government does need to act on behalf of US manufacturers-as a whole. It needs to tackle some of the core issues that affect US business's competitiveness: 1) Healthcare costs. Something needs to be done to get these under control. Double digit increases are killing virtually every labor-intensive business 2) Prescription drug costs (see #1, above) 3) Pensions. If you are a historied manufacturer in this country, you can virtually guarantee that: 3a. You've had a pension plan (it was commonplace back then) 3b. Your workforce today is much smaller than it was back then, 3c. Competition has forced you to cut into your profits and your market share. 3d. That the combination of 3a, 3b & 3c leaves you unable to afford your pension liability. The key to #1 and #2 is to increase competition. When I can see a company like Exxon making $1b/day in profit, then you can't tell me that there aren't industries that are "closed" to competition. I believe that healthcare and prescription drug companies are largely sheltered from competition - as is the oil sector. Who couldn't undercut $1b/day? You don't need expertise: you can hire that. You don't even need all the money. Investors should be banging down your door if $1b/day can be made. #3 is a bit more tricky. They need to be able to transition their current workforce to a 401k plan; something where the business isn't on the hook for the workers retirement - which is more of the workplace climate nowadays. Throw them a tax-break to help them out.. make it contingent on them building a top3 selling car - or a 40-45mpg car or something like that. The public benefits and so does the auto manufacturer.

100k on a chevy small block is like 200k on a 4cyl. You haven't even broken in a small block until 100k miles. I've seen *several* small blocks in excess of 400k. I've actually seen one with 620k on it -- which is the most I've heard of. Unless you abuse it, you'll be sick of the car before that engine gives up on you.

I'd volunteer to "rotate" the tires on your Solstise if you lived a little closer Happy Birthday Josh.

That's pretty fair speculation. I'd agree with you, Evok. There's no question that Tundra sales will grow (as the population grows, so does automobile sales - go figure). The next Tundra will be more competant as well - and let's face it, Toyota not offering a full-size truck lineup (3/4 ton, 1-ton, diesel, etc) has put some people in the position to buy domestic only because their favorite foreign manufacturer doesn't sell one here. Who knows how large that number is exactly.. one can only guess. As it is, GM's next-generation truck appears to have enough capability to hold it's own. Toyota's a bit scary because they have the capital to (1) over-content their truck, or (2) discount their entry price. Either one can be considered an incentive-of-sorts. GM and Ford simply can't afford to compete against either scenario for long; which is why it's critical for each to get their financial houses in order asap. I don't see the truck market playing out like the 1970's car market for several reasons: 1) Emission laws aren't changing. Emission laws crippled the large V8s that populated American cars. If your V8 didn't have a hp advantage, then why buy one? Especially since gas prices were starting to soar, which brings me to... 2) Gas prices pushed Americans towards purchasing smaller, more thrifty automobiles. Nobody foresaw this. Small cars were cheap to transport. They were cheap to build as well -- a key fact when Japan doesn't have the natural resources to manufacturer it's own steel. Japanese auto manufacturers had to have scrap metal shipped in and recycled, which made steel a key expense. 3) Quality. Due to the lack of competition (or stagnant competition), American manfucturers could get away with substandard efforts. That attititude certainly isn't shared today. GM leads in several quality surveys and several GM brands exceed the Toyota brand in quality surveys as well. Unfortunately, in a rush to adapt their product lines to smaller, more fuel efficient automobiles, quality only worsened. Several auto-executives "head in the sand" management approach didn't help things either. The 1970's were a "perfect storm" of sorts, directed towards domestic automobile manufacturers. They didn't fare the storm well, and they didn't move to correct any of their issues. in any sort of timely manner.

Well, I've gotta thank Pete again on this one. They overbooked the plane by about 9 seats. Then NWA had plane issues and had to switch in a smaller plane - so they then had about 30 angry people in Montreal. I was one of the unfortunates that didn't get a seat assignment, so I knew I was going to be jobbed & stuck in Montreal for a while. Pete had an assigned seat, so he boarded the plane. While waiting to get some crummy voucher, I hear the ticket agent's walkie-talkie (at the boarding desk). I vaguely hear something about duplicated seat assignments, blah, blah blah. Well, it turns out that when Pete got to his seat, there was somebody already there. It turns out that they had the same last name and the same first initial - which apparently caused the duplicate seat-assignment issue. Pete shouldn't have had a seat assignment on his boarding pass - but he did. Pete refused to leave the plane, claiming that he *had* a seat. They kept raising the voucher amount until he de-planed. When he came walking off of the jetway and claimed a $1000 voucher, I very loudly exclaimed "if he's getting a $1000 voucher, then I'm getting one too! " - solely to get the crowd behind me. The poor ticket agent didn't have much of a chance at that point. NWA got their *sses handed to them that day--I'm pretty certain that everybody there got the $1000 deal. Of course, I went from supposed-to-be-getting-home at 4pm to actually-getting-home at 3am (and still had to work the next day), but you can't really complain when you make out that well.

It's easy to be non-existent in a game when you never get to see the ball. I think Kobe is one of the most skilled athletes in the league - but I don't think he's every going to have the success a Michael Jordan has had simply because he doesn't share the ball enough. Jordan knew when to take a game over & when to distribute/keep teammates involved. Kobe doesn't quite have that down yet. Oh yeah, Jordan knew how to play defense too.

Okay, here's the deal: Back about 4 years ago, the company I work for had a company-wide (and this is an international firm mind you), mandatory week-end long meetings in Montreal. We were set to fly out on Friday, do all of the weekend bs and fly back on Monday. About the Wednesday previous, a co-worker of mine (Pete) and I were talking while having a morning cup of coffee. I'm not sure how we got on the subject, but Pete mentioned that a buddy of his in college used to pull this prank where he would tape a dildo to his ankle and then head out to a bar. At some point during the evening, when talking to the female gender, he's casually cross his leg and non-chalantly inch his pantleg up so that the tip of this thing would stick out below his pantleg. He'd do it just for the gag-effect. Pete said that women's reactions to it were funnier than hell. I jokingly suggested that we should pull this gag in Montreal at one of the corporate dinner functions. Event #1: Friday morning, Pete and I were drinking coffee. Another co-worker (Don) is approaching from behind Pete --so that Pete doesn't see them. Pete mentions (loudly & jokingly) "Damn it, I forgot my dildo". Don (who doesn't know what is going on) proceeds to choke, spit, and spray coffee across the office floor. A good 90% of the office bails out for their flights between mid morning and early afternoon. Pete and I are one of the few people that were unfortunate enough to have later flights. What do we do before we head to the airport? Find a sex shop. We each purchase a "cheap" dildo and bury them in our suitcases - hoping that Canadian customs don't decide to peal open our bags in front of some co-workers upon entry to Canada. Fortunately they don't. Event #2: Saturday night, before heading down to dinner, we proceed to tape these extra units to our legs before heading down to dinner. Casually at dinner, Pete and I flank Don and while talking, slowly inch up our pantlegs. I never knew the man could fly. I think he bolted ten feet in the air. We (bravely) then proceeded to selectively continue the prank on various other co-workers. After sucking down some free booze, we then left the hotel and made a walking tour of various night spots around downtown Montreal. With lots of liquid courage we'd take turns calling each other "tripod" and hoisting our pantlegs to unsuspecting Canadian women while pointing at our exposed units and saying "look - we're American. I'll prove it to you". Childish? Absolutely. Funnier than hell though. To top it all off, NWA totally F#*$#ed us on our return plane flight - and we were able to soak them for $1000 vouchers. That's the highest amount that I've ever scored for an airline screwup. The weekend meeting bs was boring as can be. The rest of the trip was unforgetable.

I've been: Mpls to Orlando (4 times) Mpls to Phoenix (once) Mpls to LA (3 times) Mpls to Montreal (once) Mpls to Las Vega$ (4 times) Mpls to Chi (twice) Mpls to Denver (once) Mpls to Salt Lake City (twice) Mpls to Atlanta (once) I think that about covers it for me. Places I enjoyed? Orlando's cool; it's been for vacation 3 of the 4 visits.. so that's easy. Pheonix didn't strike me as anything special. I *loved* LA. Really lived it up all three times I was out there (I *love* expense accounts). Montreal was a cool city -- it was winter when I was there -- colder than snot.. and it was all-star weekend, so no taking in a Canadian game at the forum.. but the city has some history - which makes it cool. Got drunker than I've ever been there (again, I *love* expense accounts). Got a wickedly funny story that goes along with it.. involves dildo, a company dinner, and some bar hopping. I've never been so afraid to have my suitcase checked @ customs.. Las Vega$ is getting boring. Been there - done that. I'd still go again. Chicago's ok. Wasn't there long enough on either trip to really comment. Denver was alright. Nothing struck my fancy - wasn't there too long either. The view in Salt Lake City is breathtaking. When booking a trip sometime, take Delta and just have a stop-over in Salt Lake City. Exit the plane and find a window. The mountain view is simply amazing. I really enjoyed my time in Atlanta. Great history. Lots to see and do. Ate at some fabulous restaurants (I *love* expense accounts). WTF is with the waffle-house's on every freaking corner? I swear, I exitted the freeway in Duluth, GA and at the top of the exit ramp was a waffle house. If I would've taken a left to take the bridge across the freeway I just exited, there was another waffle house on the other side of the bridge. You could literally stand on the doorstep of one and read the sign for the other. WTF is that all about? Food was ok -> nothing that would dictate building two of the f'ers a block away from each other.

What is forgotten here is brand-loyalty. The big-3 enjoy loyalty in their full-size line that is similar to what Toyota and Honda enjoy in their cars. I'm certain that the next Toyo Tundra will be a wonderfully competant vehicle, but unless it can substantially improve on what the domestics offer, then it's sales gains will be limited to being incremental in nature.

Let me guess: zero assists? Last time I looked, basketball was a team sport. How many wins do the Laker's have this year? I'll take the Pistons or the Spurs any day. They play a complete game: they rebound, they play defense, they PASS the ball. It's a bit more interesting to watch - and guess what? It generates WINS. Hmm.. imagine that. Actually, in playing everything-but-4 seconds, Kobe had a whopping 2 assists. What a black hole: the ball goes in and never comes out. 46 shot attempts. That's more than the rest of the club, combined. I hate selfish players -- no matter how talented they are. What a waste.

Well.. if people are going to go on blind faith and buy Toyota's for namesake alone, then tell me why the supposed full-size Toyota pickups (T100, then Tundra) have failed to garner a significant share of the market - even though they've had a presense for 10+ years? It's because Toyota has failed on that vehicle in several areas: the truck is too small, underpowered and gets mediocre gas mileage. Execution *is* important. I'm not about to hand Toyota pickup truck sales - they haven't shown a history of doing anything competent in the NA full-size market. As for the shocks: the blown shocks came from edmunds. Spend more than 3 1/2 seconds there & you'll quickly learn that Edmunds is about as pro-foreign as they come.

That's one of the reasons I enjoy your posts; plus I have this sick, twisted mind that enjoys watching other people come unhinged.Now back to the truck: I do believe it's real. It fits the descriptions that have been dropped about ti being similar to that Jeep-wrangler wanna-be. It's much larger, more "macho" and it looks like an American-design that's been ripped off and then "Japaneezed" (yeah, I enjoy making sh!t up and flying by the seat of my pants). Anyways: external looks only go so far. This version is rumored to have a larger powertrain, etc. Look what it brought Nissan? Lotsa press and little sales. Of course, Nissan probably shot themselves in the foot with their numerous quality issues.. but just because it's got a Toyota emblem on the front doesn't mean that they've screwed the vehicle together properly or thought out everything that they need be. Take a look at the Ridgeline with 4 blown shocks: you can't tell me that engineering didn't screw something up. Now, if it's anything like the SUV's, then GM's full-size has an interior that should take a backseat from nobody. It's got a 6 speed transmission has only improved on it's already-gas-mileage-leading engines. Powertrain-wise, GM's truck should be more than competitive. My only question is whether GM is going to play this too-safe external-styling wize.

I won't buy Sunbeam anything anymore. Back a number of years ago, the board brought in a new CEO (Al "Chainsaw" Dunlop) for the explicit purpose of sectioning off the company, and bumping the bottom line. Good old Al did just that -> selling off any "non-core" holdings, which infused them with a one-time bump in cash. When financially beneficial, he layed off thousands and closed down plants - just to sell the land and buildings. Anything for a buck type of guy. Screw the long-term - what benefits the bottom line today? Sure enough, shareholders were rewarded with a great return on investment for a couple of years. I won't reward such business practices with my money.

It's a hit-and-miss situation on vehicle size. If you make it RX-sized, then people will complain about the lack of a 3rd row seat (of the lack of a useful 3rd row seat). If you make it large enough for a usuable 3rd row seat, then you suffer the gas mileage and/or nimbleness that other makes can offer. I'm wondering if this crossover isn't going to be a dual-purpose type of vehicle. If designed properly, a vehicle such as this could replace GM minivans while also serving as a replacement for the mid-sized suv's (GMT-360 vehicle: Trailblazer, Envoy, Rainer). Perhaps a Chevrolet "version" is in the works that offers a sliding rear-access? Geez, talk about being unique.. A side benefit, of course, would be that GM can save itself the expense of developing, marketing, and producing two seperate vehicle lines (a midsized suv and a minivan <- especially since they've really never made a competitive minivan). It certainly wouldn't be badge engineering as the Chevrolet would be a "minivan-like crossover" and the Buick would be a "suv-like crossover". It would especially be interesting as GM would be "developing" or "leading" a market segment rather than simply following others through it. That would definately signal a change in approach by GM.

Congrats on your new purchase! I sincerely hope that this car delivers many problem-free miles for you and your wife. Hopefully the HHR has found a niche that delivers many, many customers into the GM fold.

That's a huge difference - moreso than you'd think. Before purchasing out '03 Suburban, we test drove an Av, back-to-back with a Suburban. The difference in ride between the vehicles was unbelievable - you'd think you were driving two entirely different makes completely. The Suburban is much more composed.

Actually, here's a scary thought: With the Chinese population gaining discretionary, spendable income (notice the fact that the car market is growing over there?), it's inevitable that they displace the US as the "world's consumer". We won't be able to hold this carrot out in front of everyone for too much longer.

I agree with you. If GM can make and sell a decent small car for profit (Aveo, Cobalt), then why can't it make a true small, compact (not mid-sized) pickup truck? I think there would be a market for it as well. What exists in that market now? The ancient Ford Ranger? You could *easily* displace those sales. The Ranger, seemingly, hasn't been competitive in a decade.

Perhaps the next version will be the "Super-Duper Handling All-Wheel Drive" SDHAWD? If you put five of them together, to they "combine" into an oversized superhero to fight evil-doers? Just wondering..

Patent lawsuits are getting ridiculous. People dream up a not-to-far out concept and sit on it until something vaguely familiar comes along to file a lawsuit. Take the idea of dual-fob transmitters. You know: you & your wife each have a car.. who wants to carry around two transmitters. It'd be nice to have a "car1/car2" type of switch on it.. but guess what? Somebody is sitting on a patent for it -- just waiting to cash in.. which is keeping a simple, beneficial idea from ever reaching the market. Can I put a patent on breathing air? You f*ckers will be mine! BWAHAHAHA! My lawyer can beat up your lawyer..

Perhaps the US govt can artificially manipulate the value of our currency so that our automake... oh, wait.. um, that's Japan. Nevermind.

Way to buzzkill a thread there Josh.. making most of us realize how fantastic a social life you have - and how lacking ours is. I don't hate the playa 'cuz he's got skilz. <- ok, how did that sound? Did it sound "lame" coming from a 35yr old, married white guy? Anyhoo, it sounds like NAIAS was a success on several levels..

If history is any indicator, this idea is doomed.

I told you the auto reviews would bash the lack of a flat-folding rear seat. There at least should be the option of IRS & fold-flat seat; if not on the Tahoe how about the GMC or GMC Denali, or Escalade?