Cortazzo

Really like the looks of the 355s, wanted to get one but they are pretty expensive once you include basic options like power windows/doors etc and if you require 4x4 which I would. I don't think the engines are the problem, I think the price is. I still don't understand why GM would take the time to develop the 4 and 5 cyl engines in such small quantities when they have very good ecotechs and such. I'm sure the torque of a DoD 3.9 with flexfuel would be a natural choice instead of the current 5. The Ranger would be much more formidable to the 355s if Ford actually put some powertrains that weren't terribly outclassed. But I suppose the largers Tacomas and Frontiers are the watermark now.

But don't you know that you are a certified genius if you buy a Toyota? Toyota is very clear about that fact. After driving an automatic for my driving life to now having a stick shift car, I don't think I could go back. Even on faster cars (that I have driven) like my dad's A6, it feels sluggish off the line. The GS300 he had before that felt even more sluggish off the line, it would take a full second or two for the trans to downshift and give you forward motion. Let me slip that clutch and take off, thank you very much!

Wow, that is AN AMAZING interior. The fake wood looks fantastic, Just as good as any recent BMW IMO. If this is what GM can do when they put their mind to it, gosh, they are as good as anyone out there!!!

A very handsome car, it must be new the malibu as we've heard numerous reports that the Malibu will grow to better compete with Camry and allow Impala to go RWD and do battle with the 300 and Charger. Engine lineup, 3.5 and 3.6 with 6 speed autos all around?

The deal makes sense because there really isn't that much overlap. Nissan sells the bulk of their cars in Japan, Gm in the USA, and Renault in Europe. Yes, Nissan sells many cars in the USA, but their market share is only a few percent. If they can collaborate on technology and platform sharing, it should theoretically reduce costs for all parties and make them more competitive. But I didn't really understand this deal to be a merger of sorts, more of a strategic alliance. A merger would be far messier and probably less beneficial to GM. An alliance on the other hand would allow GM to keep their structure and identity, but lower costs and R&D. For those that suggested that GM and Ford team up rather than this, there could be anti-trust issues considering how anti-detroit this administration is. And do you really want GM to have ANYTHING to do with Ford's management structure??? They are by far the worst in the industry IMO.

I'm surprised how even the pros and cons are on this site, considering the rabid reaction I got on another popular GM fan site for saying I thought the alliance was a good business decision. This would be not much more than a technology/purchasing alliance where the 3 parties would develop joint platforms and powertrains and share costs on things like diesel nad hybrid development. It's smart, and it will help GM produce better vehicles for less $. I'd welcome GM utilizing more european small car platforms and Nissans RWD platform for small/medium sized cars to fill out holes in its lineup w/o reinventing the wheel. But i'd ultimately hope that the 3 could use eachothers best practices to improve, especially GM in the areas of platform development/sharing, powertrain utilization, and supplier relations. Nissan excels in these areas, and GM could have a lot to gain. From the tone of Nissan/Renault's response statements, it looks like it would welcome an additional partner, not a takeover targer. So GM would probably also buy a piece of the partner companies as well, so there is no dominant party. Then they can buy common components and develop platforms that will spread R&D costs of millions and millions of units, and we can all beat back the onslaught that is Toyota.

Yeah, but who wants a GP anyway? http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/style...icons/icon4.gif http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/style...icons/icon4.gif

Good points made by all on the coupe market. There is a market for it, but not in the 80k+ volumes. I think there is plenty of room for Camaro, 100k is a little high, but if it brings conquest buyers then it's completely possible. The difference today is in the demographics, in the 80s and 90s boomers had lots of children who were growing up and getting too big to fit in the back of their coupes, so the sedan/suv/minivan craze started. All of those people that bought these cars don't need all of that utility anymore, and would be attracted to a creatively packaged hot looking product. A RWD/AWD fullsize coupe might attract this kind of buyer, considering there isn't really any competition in the full size non luxury coupe market. I'm not saying they'd sell 100k a year of these, but 40 or 50 is certainly in the cars if GM can afford to make that many to piggyback off the Impala (which they only plan to sell 150-170k of in RWD guise anyway). Obviously more than a camaro and a full size coupe in the chevy lineup is crazy, only MB can get away with such uselessly overlapping products). On the other hand, they can just make the Impala a really swoopy 4 door and keep everyone happy.

There is a market for two coupes, but GM has to work hard to keep the variable costs low so they don't need a ton of volume to make it work. There are a ton of retiring baby boomers who will have lots of $ and no kids at home to cart around anymore. They won't buy camaros, because they won't want the low ride height and tighter quarters that a camaro (or mustang) provide. However, a sexy two door that has generous room and a v8 might appeal to that aging demographic more than the lackluster current monte does. As a young man, I bought myself a small two door coupe, my older dad loves how it looks, but would never get one for himself, it's too small for him. But if he had the disposable money to get something hot and relatively comfy, he'd probably buy it.

I had a 96 Jimmy that had similar waterpump and head gasket problems, i like the truck and the torque of the 4.3, but it was a POS with numberous problems in the few years I had it (from 60k-85k miles). I know a lot of GM engines from the mid to late 90s had head gasket problems, i wonder if it WAS from the dexcool??

For light duty I would go ford, for HD either chevy or dodge because the powerstroke is just too damned trouble prone. My uncle uses Ford trucks for his contracting business and he says they are built to withstand amazing amounts of punishment. I remember when the new Ram came out, I asked him if he liked it and he said, "Have you seen how thin a dodge frame is?! I don't think so!"

That car looks awfully big to be a Malibu, that's a genuine full size car there, look at how long the doors are! It looks like a BWM 7 in size to my eyes at least. And I didn't figure GM to adjust the Malibu wheelbase until the platform change in a few years yet, so if it's a malibu, it looks awfully big to me. But then again, it's way too early to see NG impala cars in that level of finish...

You do make legit points, v8s aren't needed to move around even larger cars like they were in the 60s/70s. What I would counter with is, the affordable v8 engine is the american tradition. The N* isn't exactly a budget powerplant, and is a very expensive stepup for the SRX and STS. Same with all Luxo v8 engines, you have to really pay a lot of the privilage. Some have made the claim that as detroit stopped building large rwd/v8 cars, many consumers switched to trucks that were RWD/v8 equipped. I think a great marketing/pr move would be (specifically for GM) to downsize the next generation of LS engines, utilize 3v heads and all the applicable engine technology like DoD and VVT to make a small displacement variation that would be suitable as a powerful and efficient step-up motor in RWD or FWD passenger cars instead of a larger displacement v6 (like the 3.9). The inherent smoothness of the v8 is unquestioned, and consumers desire to drive a vehicle with a v8 engine is very strong. Save for the last year when 4 bangers gained the most share, v8s have been gaining for years on the backs of pickups, SUVs, and even new passenger cars like the LX cars from chrysler. If you can make a v8 that gets at least comperable power to a top shelf v6 (300hp in todays market), but keep displacements relatively low (in the 3-4L range) and use available technology to keep economy high, and focus on economy, you could have a strong differentiation tool for domestic producers. People are gaga over Hemi, I don't see why a serious infusion of hitech LS engines wouldn't produce the same effect. They may not be a necessity in today's market, but if developed with passenger cars in mind instead of trucks, you could have a domestic resurgence of the cylinder layout.

I've posted this before here and elsewhere in the GM community, but I think the v8 could be the savior of the domestic sedan market. Before I state anything else, look at the Charger, Magnum, and 300C, the HEMI is a gigantic sales tool, and people are ponying up lots of dough for the top level trim packages to get it. A few points: *v8s are popular with guys, if a car has a v8, even if it's more family vehicle oriented, it will at least have some appeal and be a good compromise vehicle with the wife *large production v8s are pretty much an American exclusive. They are strongly associated with the 'golden age' of cars in the 60s and early 70s, and those feelings of nastolgia are particularly strong with baby boomers as shown in the super high values of old muscle cars *the japanese won't follow suite, as they'll stick with their bread and butter large v6s for most situations. *GM happens to build one of the best v8 engine familes around, not to mention its as powerful, more efficient, smaller, and lighter than competing v8s (and lighter and smaller than some v6s!) Beyond that, a v8 is not a necessity, and it hasn't been in 15 years even in larger cars. But it is something that is very desirable, and people are willing to pay more for the grunt off the line and the bragging rights. Now, how can these sentiments play out for GM? Well, GM only happens to have the greatest mass production v8 family in the industry. What they need to do is shrink displacement to between 3.5-5L, add the 3 valve heads for greater power/efficiency, and make them the available on all sorts of passenger cars and trucks as a replacement for large v6s. A pushrod v8 is compact and lightweight, probably moreso than many of these hipo v6s that are sported by nissan and toyota. HP doesn't need to be much greater than these larger v6s, but tune them for great efficiency with DoD and the 3v heads.

We use e85 because 100 percent ethanol would have difficulty lighting during the winter months in norther states. Brazil on the other hand offers 100% ethanol, because they don't get nearly as cold winters as we do in the northern US. I was watching Meet the Press the other day and they were talking about oil and such. The democrat on the panel, dick durban from Ill was pro ethanol, but refused to consider dropping the tariff on imported ethanol to protect the nascent domestic industry. I don't think the politicians promote ethanol as a way to wean us off oil, they just do it to give money to their farmer constituents in the midwest. Considering that, I still think it's a great way to promote domestic fuel sources, and combined with biodiesel which i hope gains just as much publicity and growth as ethanol, can go a long way towards shrinking our imported oil usage. Also considering that, only 50% of all oil in the US goes towards gasoline, the other half goes to heating oil and chemical usage in things like plastics and other synthetic materials. And oppossing popular belief, i think only 7% of our electrical power comes from oil fired generators, during the 70s oil crisis we basically converted to mostly coal, with a significant nuclear presence as well.