Drew Dowdell

There are only 3 Alpha cars and two of them have starting prices substantially higher than the LX cars. One of the Alphas has a starting price higher than the most expensive Chrysler. Not exactly a apples to apples comparison there. I am a big fan of the LX cars. I think the bones of the car are sound and and I'll go against Hyper and say their weight isn't as big of an issue as he makes it out to be as they are on-par with all other sedans of equal equipment and size except the Avalon. Rendering the weight even less relevant is the fact that they are among the best in class for real world fuel economy. There are certain constants in the world, the sun setting in the west, rising in the east, and me getting 33+ mpg out of a V6 LX car on the highway. That said, as much as I like the LX cars, the interior update they got was just "sufficient". Just enough to keep them from falling too far behind. Aside from the Taurus which feels just as out of date, the LX cars feel at least 5 years behind all of the competition in interior materials and craftsmanship. The Impala, outgoing Lacrosse, Avalon, ES, Camaro, Mustang, Accord, new Maxima all feel much newer inside. I'd still pick up a 300C Platinum Hemi in a heartbeat... but that is due to the overall package. I am realistic about where the car is in terms of advancement in the marketplace.

The 300C Platinum would be at the very top of my sedan choices if I were shopping for a sedan instead of a truck.

I'm surprised it lasted this long. The Viper is a handful compared to much more composed yet equally capable cars.

Those people were already not going to buy a GM anyway.

The case to be made is that each incident has to be looked at individually.

And to answer the pending question of "Why China first and not the US?" - The Envision is selling in China at a rate of 12,000 per month... which means they sell as many Envisions in China in 5 months as they expect to sell in the US in 12 months.

Yup, it is our fault. Not faulting the Chinese Government for taking advantage of it, I'm more angry with GM for doing this as I don't think it's needed and it makes them look bad especially when people are still angry over the bailout. You want them to be bad at business? If anything, from a strictly business standpoint, more Buicks should be built in China because that's where most of them are sold. GM cannot and should not be spinning up a whole new production line just to build 60,000 cars for the U.S. They've already had to move the Terrain and Equinox around a bit just to accommodate those two. If they build Buick's in China and sell them there I have no problem with that. I think you all are downplaying the way this will play out in the media and in the mind of consumers. We may be rooting for GM, those that aren't will come down on them harder than I am. As for not being able to produce the Envision in the U.S. that's just another sign of GM's shortsightedness. I think GM needs a new CEO, have thought it for a long time. Barra is not up to the job, IMO No one said they aren't able. They are not ready to and there are profits to be had in the meantime. The Envision is the first crossover on the new D2UX platform. There are ZERO D2UX platforms being built in the US at the moment. That will change when the new Terrain, Equinox, and whatever other future crossovers start being built in the US, at which time, production is likely to move state-side. As for the PR.... the people who won't buy a GM over this move weren't going to buy one in the first place. You don't walk into a GMC store ready to sign your name on a lease for a new Sierra Denali, spot the Envision in the showroom, find out the Envision is made in China, and then leave in protest. The people who are angry over this just go and lease a new Camry or Sonata every 4 years at $250 down $250 a month deal completely ignorant of their hypocrisy. If you want a Buick, you can buy one made in America, or Korea, or Poland, or Canada, or China.

Yup, it is our fault. Not faulting the Chinese Government for taking advantage of it, I'm more angry with GM for doing this as I don't think it's needed and it makes them look bad especially when people are still angry over the bailout. You want them to be bad at business? If anything, from a strictly business standpoint, more Buicks should be built in China because that's where most of them are sold. GM cannot and should not be spinning up a whole new production line just to build 60,000 cars for the U.S. They've already had to move the Terrain and Equinox around a bit just to accommodate those two.

Well.. no... my 0.56% or 1.3% is the percent of airbag non-deployment fatalities vs number of all recall affected cars involved in a crash. We simply don't have enough statistical data from a control group and the recall group to get much closer than this.

I don't think I minimized anything regarding their death nor is it my intention to. I am minimizing the hysteria that exists around the issue.

.... and the argument Steve is using against China, the US does the exact same thing but with trucks and SUVs. Or did you think Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Kia, Nissan, Volvo, and Mitsubishi built manufacturing plants here out of the goodness of their hearts to the American worker?

I don't follow your reasoning for your first item a. In that study, 2% of fatalities happened when the airbags didn't deploy, but were expected to have deployed. You cannot compare that to just the ignition related fatalities and not take into account the number of airbag deployments that did happen. It's not 2% vs 100%. If you want to look at just the main ignition recall numbers, that's fine too. Assuming a rate of 0.5% of the 2,600,000 recalled vehicles have a crash that deploy the airbags, 169 where the airbags didn't deploy is still less than 2% ringing in at 1.3%. What makes it hard is that both this study, and the 169 fatalities only count fatalities and not crashes that happened where no one died, but the airbags still did not properly deploy. If you start to compare all injury claims on GM from this issue, you cannot then compare it to the 2% number from the DOT because that only counts fatalities. In your first item b, you make an incorrect assumption. The study was specifically looking at fatalities in frontal crashes. From the study: Yes, it is a design flaw. Yes GM must fix it. However, the "mountain made from mole hills" comment refers specifically to the rate of occurrence of this issue compared to airbag non-deployments industry wide. Further, 169 fatalities is a drop in the bucket in relation to the over 30,000 fatal car crashes each year. I don't want to sound like I am minimizing the 169 deaths that might have been prevented, but that number over 13 years when over 30,000 a year are dying in traffic accidents, one has to keep things in perspective. 18 times as many people die just from not using seat belts each year (3,353 - 2010 : 3,394 - 2011 : 3,031 - 2012) than died from the total 13 years of this ignition switch issue. 4.5 times as many people die each year from not wearing a motorcycle helmet. (708 - 2010 : 706 - 2011 : 781 - 2012)

Then buy an Enclave instead of an Envision. Problem solved.

I hope the US gets it. They won't sell a ton, but the people they sell them to will be very loyal to the brand.

While the names (and brands) were changed to protect the innocent, the movie Christine is based off a true story of what happened after Balth had inappropriate relations with a '59 Buick and various other spare parts in his garage.