enzl

You may be right, but I seem to remember an issue with TT availability because of the switch to the 2.0T at some point...I thought it was an emissions compliance issue.

'Biz and 'boi- It's not about being right---and perhaps both of you have been unfairly roped into my beef with some of this sites lesser characters in regards to their foolish blindness--its about simply being given my due. Did either of you ever consider that the glass is bone dry? That's simply reality. I've never said anything on here that was untrue, nor have I 'bashed' GM--although I've certainly pointed out when other posters were misleading or wrong. GM is in the fight of its life--the fact that I was stating that years ago may imply that I know something you guys don't--or perhaps I have the experience necessary to make that judgment--whether either of you want to hear it or not isn't germane to the arguments we have here. I'm not thumbing my nose at you, nor am I gloating. There's nothing that gives me more displeasure than GM's fate and the likely outcome. If I truly wanted to screw GM, I could have aired my grievances publically, years ago. So I've been a team player---in the way that counts---but anytime I bring up my CV here, I'm 'bragging' or 'boasting' about my personal success. Clapping along with a bunch of misinformed GM fanboys as they spread complete stupidity because this is a GM fansite doesn't wash with me. I'm sick of excuses for GM--they f'ed up, they haven't owned up to it & the changes they've made shouldn't be congratulated because they finally woke up from the stupor that has led thm to the place they are. I've said plenty of good things here--just check out the last 4/5 topics I've begun here as proof--its so easy to do, but, again, that might require people to look into things and know something before commenting. You guys see what you want to see. And then shoot the messanger because the news isn't what you'd like. I'm OK with that position here---but I won;t apologize for it and I won;t back down from it-- I can't win here. I know that. But I seriously resent being hammered due to my opinion---and furthermore, the facts support my position and the severity of the problem requires immediate, 'my house is burning down' type action. Negative is how it looks, guys. Period.

There is a huge difference, but that's not the argument. GM (at large) is selling the deal with MOST of its product. Your experience (as a GM fan & Caddy buyer--so we're doubly sure) only reconfirms MY argument. BUT FOR the deal, no sale. Whether you would have bought something else is immaterial. If what GM must do to put an entry-lux shopper who Loves the CTS a "DEAL", can you imagine what it takes to get a customer cross shopping BMW? I know, your personal situation is relevant...to you, sir. To GM, that's another sale that the MSRP was an imaginary fantasy. It's troubling and I can't believe YOU don't see that. If GM listened to people like me, they wouldn't be in the place they're in. Why can't you just admit, I'm right. OC is right. Evok was right (until the a$$holes here chased him away.) There's a bunch of other people who have called for severe and immediate action on this board for years!!!!!!!!They were right. Just man up and admit it, finally. If they had been listening to us all along, they'd have competitive cars, economical product & flexible manufacturing to move on trends quickly. It's time for you guys to fess up--admit you simply misjudged the severity of GM's problems. You'll all feel better. You just don't want to 'lose' to people like us. I get it. Still doesn't change the fact that you were (and probably are) wrong. Personally, I think it's incredibly short-sighted and selfish to want to be correct so badly that you'll sacrifice GM's future. Without people of my mindset, nothing would be advancing and GM would be doomed. Your need to be right even outweighs the needs of the company...incredible. Remember, the first patriots were revolutionaries.

You have conveniently added details to your CTS lease deal until it appears that you weren't buying at that moment because of the deal. Just admit your original reply was erroneous and move on with the tortured logic... The deal is the deal. All other considerations down the line must include residual value, if you're going to pull the down-the-road costs into the argument. And, if your idea of success is Kia or Hyundai...well, that explains your spirited defense of GM's current state. (Psst....Kia and Hyundai have gone thru so many management guys because they aren't making the money in this market that their masters in Korea thought they would...and profitability at H/K stores is razor thin, at best....but since you don't know the biz, I wouldn't have expected you to know any of that. You just like to pretend you 'know' stuff. )

Let's play O-Boi's quote game: "I got an amazing deal on the CTS"--But you didn't buy based on the deal---yes, that makes it clearer "No one buys a Cobalt <non-SS> or Corolla because they are pining for one, drooling over it ever since seeing it at the autoshow. People buy one of these cars because of "the deal"." --Don't see anything about reputation, research or reliability-- As for your scree against Toyonda purchasers sources: EVERY magazine, independant journalist, website & CR (& my gay Uncle) consistently rate MANY products above GM products---other than the CTS, 'Bu & GMT900's. But everybody is wrong because the all-knowing O-boi has decreed they are wrong, or biased or blind--pick the excuse du jour. As I said before, if you have to sell the deal, than the vehicle is doomed. That's fact--if you're selling the deal, than you will, inevitably, be fighting it out with the product that the 2nd lowest price appeared on. How do you make money doing that consistently? And pay Union wages. And pay the banks you're in hock to. And pay employees. And pay for R&D. Simple answer is you can't--and GM's precarious position supports my view, not yours.

Yes, you can. If the Volt displayed at Paris is "production ready", than GM deserves all due credit. But, lets keep in mind that "production ready" means that the car displayed is identical (allowing for minor detail changes) to that which can be purchased by the 2011 Model year roll-out in October of 2010. I'll certainly be watching closely.

You can't make a deal with someone who won't even walk into your showroom, so your points are moot. And if you don't think Joe Lunchbucket doesn't look at safety or reliability or reputation before buying a car, then you're just being elitist and naive. Many people are paying 'more' for their Toyonda...and perfectly happy to do it. BTW- You're still admitting you got the CTS on a 'deal', regardless of how you try to wriggle out of your own statements.

Still trying to sell me a Cobalt, huh? I don't want a deal, I want a car, man. When people are coming to a GM dealer for its product, rather than the deal, you'll be 100% right. Until then, you can keep the Cobalt. There's simply much better choices out there. And deals to be had on many of them. (Subaru has 0% financing, Mazda is at 1.9% and even BMW is advertising 3.9% on Certified Used, for examples.) Apparently, GM doesn't own a patent on selling deals.

You make my point for me: BUT FOR the deal, you would not have purchased the car. Macro matters as individual anecdotes are meaningless when it comes to an argument. Gimme a call when GM isn't going to have to bribe people to buy most of their product. Simply put, if you want to compete with Used car lots and 2nd tier Japanese/Korean intenders, then GM is doing all that it can to sell cars. However, if you peruse the latest public filings, I think you'll see that GM selling cars doesn't equate to GM making money.

In the real world, lots of folks are following my prescription, so I'm afraid you're being proven wrong everyday. By lots of people that don't have an axe to grind. And your numbers still don't work because, regardless of Toyota's position on residuals, you & I know that GM is subventing it's leases with absurd residuals to make the payments work---then they take it in the shorts a second time when the vehicle comes off lease and is auctioned. Besides, smart money knows you buy used and save the steep depreciation of the first year or so...that would net you lot's more than $1500 + interest--you're simply making more 'deal' talk... But, you know all this. You're just fighting this to fight--I get it, you sell Chevies, you hate Toyota--but it doesn't change the fact that GM has showrooms full of product that need desperate attention--and then the good marketing skill to get the message out. Without those two things (which GM has repeated shown it is unable to bring consistently), we're all dead in the water. As I said, if you have to sell the deal, the vehicle isn't what it should be, either in perception or reality.

As I stated before...if you've got to sell the deal, not the car, you've already lost, my friend. But since you insist, I'll tell you how the cost differential is covered: The Corolla will be worth 10 points more come trade time in the middle of that loan (you know, in the real world, where needs change because of things like marriage, kids, etc...) That 10 points is $2600, in the worst case scenario you paint: Therefore, all things being equal, the $80/mo. (assuming the same guy can't get a $ knocked off at the Toyota place too.) will take 32+ months before the Toyota actually 'costs' more... Again, just for the sake of argument, as this is an academic exercise. Chevy can't get most Corolla shoppers in the door, so that's really why the Chevy deal is sooo good. To posit this argument the way you're stating it only begs the question why GM can't ask the same amount for a similar vehicle, doesn't it? Adam Smith is still correct today.

There's absolutely no trouble with 'nay-sayers' like me. The trouble is with people who knowingly twist the current situation into something it isn't... GM is in real trouble. You can debate Chevy's role in the automotive universe until you're blue in the face. Competing on price is meaningless if you can't get people in the door. The Impala, Cobalt or Aveo do nothing to advance the case for returning to a Chevy or GM showroom. There are simply better alternatives out there, available for a few dollars more a month with the advent of 60-84 month finance. I have no hidden agenda. I'm not at liberty to discuss what I do in full, but suffice it to say that noone on this board has more at stake than I do when it comes to GM. I oppose the ostrich mentality because that's what put GM on their back in the first place. When I see the boneheaded moves, both product and business, it bothers me. You and I would not have jobs if our performance was as poor as GM's management over the last 5-10 years. Lost marketshare, record losses, product missteps, strikes, union agreement f-ups, multi-national investments gone awry---I mean, what does RW need to do to get fired? And what is the Board of Directors seeing in their meetings that tells them that next quarter will be different? New blood is needed. This evidence is overwhelming. If pointing out the obvious makes me a 'nay-sayer' rather than a realist, so be it.

You guys are unreal. If you don't qualify for Manufacturer's Top tier promotional rates, you get commercially available rates from independent lenders....meaning, for those who are so eager to 'trap' me in your maze of dubious logic, the rates are about the same for either the Chevy or Toyota customer. Those are the facts...the nonsense 'biz is confusing you with is a 'hard close' using math that means little. You get the customer into the F&I box with those figures, then you hit 'em up with every aftermarket item on the planet to get back the gross you need to sell the car....

Actually, I think RR has recovered nicely from original missteps...they're selling 1K/yr., IIRC. The 16 influence in the sketch is glaring...The actual car has already been photo'd as a running prototype. GM should sue... http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...=1065&CRED=

There's no absolutes, just statistics: GM has recently closed the quality gap...but for years, the average repair rates were dramatically higher than Toyonda. That's simply fact, with a few exceptions for Buick and the occasional NUMMI product. So, if my car has .5 more visits per year to the dealer, GM's timing belt longevity means sh!t. Besides, if we're going to reach back to 90's LeSabre's as examples of GM's superiority, than I think you've just made my point for me. When I'm wrong, I'll admit it---but there's no empirical evidence to support any other conclusion than GM has been mired in mediocrity for decades---with a rare flash of genius or luck in the mix, granted. That's simply not a record I would want to run on. You're entitled to disagree.

You always take the sales approach to your analysis...and, quite simply, you're wrong. In the states, financing rates are similar (although Cobalt has been out many years, so its not surprising to find better APR) for most buyers, as most don't qualify for "promotional' rates, so throw your finance savings out the window. Toyota is proving Adam Smith right: Supply & demand give you pricing, not magic calculations. Toyota can get $20K for a Corolla--GM simply can't get that for a Cobalt. All of your other stuff is sales crap---closing a deal, not about Toyota or Chevy or Honda for that matter. 'Biz--you're simply too biased to see it for what it is---but we've already established that long ago. Just in case you believe I'm just being a jerk---did you notice GM's dump of bad news last Friday before the long weekend? Or the fact that 2 Zetas have been cancelled? GM can't get out of its own way & people who think like you are only standing in the way--just enough isn't good enough anymore. When you're selling the deal instead of the vehicle, you're already on the losing end of the argument, my friend. To win this running argument, you're going to have to do better than selling me a car. GM's got plenty of salesmen...its the engineers and designers that need to save this ship.

What is a maintenance-free schedule if you have to drive a penalty box everyday? Even non-enthusiasts have become aware of the competition's superiority in many respects that have nothing to do with service intervals, timing chains or 'quiet' recalls. Simply put, your point, while somewhat valid, goes nowhere when you consider that GM's product, up until about 2 years ago, simply wouldn't have avoided the shop, statistically. Would have left an owner who trades every few years thousands short on residuals. And, furthermore, putting aside the 900's & vette, there were simply NO product that even sniffed the upper echelon of its class. So, while service intervals are one point in favor, there are simply a dozen others where that same customer would have had an opportunity to say 'No Sale' well before facing a timing belt replacement. That's GM's biggest problem---simply no consideration by a large proportion of the population---and then an underwhelming greeting when faced with the likes of an Impy, Aveo or Cobalt in the showrooms. GM simply cannot replace these products fast enough--nor will any amount of updating make them truly competitive--that's the cold, hard truth--played out everyday in the sales reports and any reputable judge of things automotive.

It's also been reviewed elsewhere: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstD...veo-1.2/231196/ http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/Drives/Search...&R=EPI-5646 It's a rehash of an '02 daewoo. It's simply not a Corsa.

While I think there's real merit to both sides of the argument, I have to quibble with a few points... 1. Tilt & Telescope isn't too hard to master if designed correctly. I suspect most like the good systems---and GM's ratchet tilt was/is awful. 2. If On-Star was sooo good, wouldn't it have become the standard by now? Why would co.'s build their own? There's nothing OnStar does that internet connectivity won't provide. Other than that, GM is doing many good things product-wise, but they still tend to half-ass just enough to drive me crazy. Luckily, it has been occurring with less frequency.

You mean, you haven't seen this Saturn Commercial? http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/16/video-n...a-bleep-saturn/

I can't disagree. That's what makes their logic so difficult to follow in this particular case...I think if you honestly could strip away the fact that this is GM we're talking about, then simply recite the devastating information released by GM themselves in the past few years, you'd find it difficult to defend either current management or the board. I won't bore you with my own experiences, since it'll be interpreted as 'bragging' about myself, but suffice it to say that Boards can run the gamut from 'rubber stamp' to highly activist. This one may simply err on the side of current management too often.

As usual, you take an example and apply it the every situation to make a lame point. I don't think the Volt is the panacea proclaimed by GM and by posters. I've been very clear as to why I think the incessant PR campaign could backfire, why I think the smart money should go elsewhere in product development and why I think developing another hybrid system when you've got a perfectly good one GM dropped $billions on is dumb. You, again, are entitled to disagree. As I said before (and you dodged with your answer)--I've said many positive things and most negative posts were because another poster had misled, misinformed or completely pulled stuff out of their a$$. Most merely correct the erroneous info. You haven't articulated a proper reply because their isn't one. If a jacka$$ on this board can fly a confederate flag without so much as a peep, then I can say whatever about GM, all I want. you simply can't have it both ways because it suits your agenda. As before, check my posts---you'll find truth, highly defensible criticism of GM and just enough positive comments to prove you completely wrong. Of course, you won't do that, since that might require you to admit you're wrong. And to admit you're wrong about me means I might be right about alot of stuff you don't care to cop to...but that's fine. It's deeply ironic you'll bend over backwards to apologize for GM but won't take the time to look at my posts that clearly prove your thesis about me wrong.

Correct. They possess the first quality, but show no evidence of the latter 2....especially the last, which goes to show you that things are so dysfunctional that they can't even convince their fellow gods of wall street to give GM a shot.

Please support your accusations with facts. I've said nice things about GM--specifically the CTS, Saturns new product, the quality of the new product, the fact that the 900's are best in class...all you need to do is look it up! Most of my negative commentary centers around materially misleading or outright false statements made by others on this board...at minimum we should educate here, not misinform--which the apologists must do to justify their positions. I can't/won't defend anyone else, but I can assure you that 0% of what I have said here is untrue. Yes, I think management sux and yes, I think alot of the older product is mediocre at best--but if you're going to paint me as simply anti-GM, I'd like you to support that position with evidence, not whining about what I chose to believe when it doesn't correspond to your opinions.

These are highly qualified, highly compensated individuals with VERY serious full-time jobs. D&O Insurance protects them personally from liability. I may not be as smart as them, but I know I have alot more to lose than any appointee to the BofD. And It looks like we have more auto experience than most, if not all of them, so I'm not sure that being 'smart' is the issue.