enzl

Cadillac Imaj Concept Car meets CTS front end with Vue proportions. Need to see this one live to judge. Pics aren't entirely flattering, IMO

The BAS is a glorified stop-start, not a real hybrid, so I think this VUE hybrid will have similar difficulties as the Honda Accord did. People will buy the regular or BAS 4 cyl. if they're concerned about MPG/$ and won't know what to make of the $10,000 more expensive VUE with a little better mileage sitting across the showroom. The VUE will never be cross-shopped with the RX...that's a pipe dream. It'll be cross-shopped with the similarly priced Outlook on the showroom floor and the not-much more expensive ( but more roomy/useful/efficient) Highlander, amongst others. As a 6 cylinder, this car makes no sense. This is (again) where the compromises inherent in trying to bring an old platform forward (theta) results in a compromise of excess weight to get world-class feel that many markets demand. And, if power was a concern...how about the super-efficient and powerful 2.0 T DI wasting away in the Kappas and the HHR SS?

A car company isn't going to change the world...if anything, they'll find a way to substitute a new version of the car for old...and that's about it. The cold, hard truth is that good old Adam Smith was dead on when it came to economics. Supply & Demand dictates prices. With the 3rd World in a race to catch up to us (along with almost 10X our population), the days of $1.00 gas are finished--we probably face a $5.00/gal. short-term future. Most importantly, our dependence on our enemies for this resource must change--and that'll take much more than the best Volt GM could imagine. That'll actually take courage/vision on the part of our leadership & perhaps, a little individual sacrifice that Americans are not particularly good at.

Along the same lines...why isn't this a 4 cylinder? It seems like a clean diesel could match these MPG # easily---and a 4 cyl. two-mode should exceed Escape #s.

That' s putting your money where your mouth is my friend. We may disagree (often) but that is living by the word, so to speak, and deserves great respect. Good luck!

The only difference between my opinion & yours is that I'm yelling 'fire' while you've just smelled the smoke--different takes on the same situation--I might be in the kitchen while you're in the balcony, It doesn't change the fact that the theater is on fire. I've never said that every GM decision is/was bad, just that the performance of THIS administration has been poor ( & clearly, I've struck a nerve with the examples I've cited) ---and that with the coming challenges, may get to be an even tougher job than it already is. I'm advocating a new direction...I'm sick of people treating GM like its a vastly different enterprise that can't be run by an outsider, so we avoid changing course. You're entitled to disagree. But if you were sick, you'd want a doctor to tell you the truth, wouldn't you? Too late is not as far around the corner as some here think. If that makes me unpopular or appear harsh, I'm OK with that.

Except, the Volt is being separately developed to succeed 2-mode--and I don't see how the 2-mode is a great advance over Toyota's current system to begin with... So, GM is basically reinventing a system it hasn't even rolled out yet---brilliant.

FH- I'm afraid that you are missing the bigger pic.... GM had seen the future...and it looked like Toyota's hybrid version---they've already spent billions developing the Two-Mode system shared with BMW & DCX....so they've already gone where Toyota has--and then installed it first on some of the least Green vehicles (which they do not plan on building in great quantities for the near future.) Now, they have a better idea--the Volt---so its back to the drawing board, only this time, the project has been given a timeline (of sorts) & is dependent upon battery tech that does NOT exist! (yet). So...in addition to the Two-Mode adaptations (which costs big $) that are being rolled out, you're developing an expensive, unrelated system that may or may not work---while advertising it's existence as if the tech is a done deal and Mr. & Mrs. America will be able to buy one soon. All of this doesn't occur in a vacuum---it's happening at a time where GM is hemorrhaging money and cannot afford a misstep. The misallocation of resources previously now drives GM forward with a Hail Mary gameplan...if Volt doesn't work, you've sacrificed Billions of $, small car development, MCE's on models that desperately need them and a host of cancelled Zetas that might have been the MSRP sales that replace the sinking large truck market. I disagree with the Hail Mary strategy. To answer your question as to what others have been doing while GM's been fiddling, the answer can be found in Honda & BMW's hydrogen vehicles that are fully production ready, the advancements in emissions in the EU for clean diesel (you know, the original gas saving alternate tech)--and GM would have had a full range of super-modern diesels, but they couldn't get out of the Fiat deal fast enough due to a prenegotiated disaster. Let's not forget that light weight materials are also part of the answer--but GM has left Aluminum unibody development to others like Audi or Ford (Jag) who have complete vehicles in this metal. or BMW, which has figured out how to use AL as part of their chassis. In other words, while GM MAY have Volt, others will have Alt Fuels (& not the E85 boondoggle), advanced, clean diesels sold here in passenger cars (ever tried to buy a used VW diesel?), modern chassis further developed and lighter mass produced cars... If you believe the above is BS, I can live with your opinion of my ideas....

1 great decision, 1 maybe, 1 bad decision, 1 good idea (I'll call Bob on Monday) GM's poor decisions far outnumber the good. All I want is some accountability. Only question to ask: If your job performance matched GM's for the last 7+ years, would you still have a job?

Really? That's absolutely not the impression Lutz left at the auto show last year. Nor on his blogs. More important question: Then why is GM spending millions to advertise the Volt? I would venture to say that the implication is that it is a short time away? That is certainly what the consumer viewing is led to believe.... Actually, it may not ever work--the battery tech isn't here as of today---and the Prius & co. have been around for about 10 years---is that GM's response time?

I did. I started this thread. I was attacked. So I gave my reasons for doubting the Rickster & his cronies---now that I've explained myself, I need to start a new thread? Maybe you should, here's a working title: GM's Lackeys and Apologists.

One--you're using revisionist history--the Volt has been promised, now it's intro is being hedged...nobody wants to admit it might be delayed unless there's reason to--that's just basic PR Second-They've been lying about plenty---that record-breaking write-off/loss a few weeks ago, their creative use of fleeting &, quite frankly, who knows what else? That doesn't bother you--fine--it bothers me.

This is not just about the Volt, my friend. Just the fact that you're arguing that somehow that one vehicle will have an impact on whether we're here in 2015 or 2050 shows how you don't understand the gravity of the situation. The current management has been in place for years---they have overseen the most disastrous loss of marketshare (proportionately) in the domestic auto business' history. They've shown little respect for their stockholders, little vision, poor forcasting, terrible distribution and, furthermore, have leveraged GM to the point where they CANNOT develop the vehicles necessary to move forward. (for just the latest, see Caddy HF V8 cancellation) How can you defend that? I don't want Ghosn or York...but there were, apparently, plenty of good auto people out for the taking: Toyota just lost 3 of them, Bernhart has been underemployed for months; & Porsche, BMW and a ton of other carmakers have human beings that MIGHT want to work for the Biggest CAR Company on the Planet... This administration has been taken to the cleaners by Subaru & Fiat, poured Billions with nothing to show for Saab, depended on trucks knowing that China's economy (& energy needs) was growing at double digit rates---C'mon, man. You can hate on me---but they've done ALL the damage themselves. Don't worry about hurting Rick's feelings---he made sure to make his Golden Parachute bankruptcy-proof---how about that for confidence in your leadership ability?

More ass covering by your esteemed leader...and you guys buy it hook, line and sinker. I'm not sure what's sadder-the endless defensiveness of the group here or the fact that thousands of people depend upon RW's meek leadership. One question: If this wasn't news, why would Rick mention it at all in one of the blogs?...unless it's a set-up to cover the inevitable backtracking when the program pushes into '11 for an '12 intro or later. While you may see my constant harping as disloyalty, I look at it as the ultimate form of passion for GM and cars in general. I don't agree with the leadership at GM, I don't think they're doing a good job & I believe that a new direction is necessary--clearly, some of you don't. Since I have more at stake than 95% of you, your constant sniping at my 'motivation' just adds fuel to my fire. You've chased almost every other voice of dissent away from this board--that's not winning an argument, that's just bullying people. There's a huge difference. Glad to see there's still a place for narrow-minded stubborness in our PC world.

Absolutely will be made. I think the US will get it first & it will be an export worldwide.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/04/autos/volt...sion=2008010408 GM may miss target for plug-in hybrid CEO Wagoner says automaker pouring massive resources into battery-powered Volt, but can't promise it'll be ready by 2010 target date. NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors might not be able to hit its target to have its breakthrough electric-powered car the Chevrolet Volt in production by 2010, according to comments made by CEO Rick Wagoner during an online chat. Wagoner, who participated in an online forum Thursday to mark the 100th anniversary of the automaker, said the company continues "to put massive resources into production as soon as possible." But he cautioned, "2010 would be great, but (we) can't guarantee that at this time." The Volt, unveiled at the Detroit auto show a year ago, is a so-called "plug-in" hybrid that would have a lithium-ion battery that can be recharged on common household electric current. GM says it should be able to travel up to 40 miles powered by just the battery. On longer trips the Volt would use a motor powered by gasoline or ethanol to charge the batteries, a system it calls "E-Flex." Automakers end tough '07 with weak sales GM (GM, Fortune 500) has already started to build advertising campaigns around the Volt, even though in the best-case scenario it is years away from production. It is seen as a way of trying to change public perceptions about the fuel efficiency and environmental responsibility of the U.S. automaker, which is more closely associated with large SUVs or pickup trucks. "The Chevy Volt, and the E-Flex system, are really important for GM's, and I think the whole industry's, future," Wagoner said. "With the growing demand for oil, we need to diversify the sources of power for autos." But GM and its suppliers still have work to do on developing a battery that can meet the demands for the car. Wagoner said GM is are currently bench testing batteries, but didn't give any more details about how those tests were going. GM reported a drop in December sales Thursday that left its 2007 sales down 6 percent. Its market share fell to 23.7 percent from 24.6 percent a year earlier. While rival Toyota Motor ™ also reported a drop in December sales, it ended the year with a 3.1 percent gain in sales, taking its U.S. market share up to 16.2 percent from 15.4 percent a year earlier. The sales gains at Toyota were helped by a nearly 70 percent jump in sales of its Prius hybrid sedan, as well as its other hybrid offerings. The Toyota hybrids run on a combination of power from a traditional gasoline engine and an electric motor, but they are not plugged in to recharge the battery. Those sales helped Toyota move past Ford Motor (F, Fortune 500) into the No. 2 spot in U.S. sales. It also helped its Toyota brand move past both Ford and Chevrolet to become the nation's best-selling brand.

The problem with niche targeting is the resources required to differentiate said product--the 3 'overlap' cars mentioned are different platforms, built in different countries with small overlap of shared componentry...I would sooner see 2 great competitors (FWD/AWD & RWD/AWD) than 5 different products, each compromised by a shortage of development $. That's why GM is considered over-branded---and why the GMC-P-B sales channel makes business sense, even if it upsets individual fans of those marques...

You need to. No you... No you first.... C'mon...can't take a light ribbing? I know exactly what you guys mean, and I still take exception to it, and I'll tell you why. Your (collective) obsession with each and every nit-pick, slight or humorous degrading of past transgressions is similar to the PC-itis that has afflicted ordinary discourse in the US. All of the sudden, some slight in some part of an article becomes the fight itself. I understand exactly what you mean...I just think you're wrong about how it affects things. 75% of your product being average or worse (with no improvement in sight) hurts sales far more than a few words, regardless of placement. And, if these words so upset you guys, perhaps you should also be mad at the devious GM PR machine, which has hidden, buried or diverted attention to the fact that GM created the illusion of recovery through renegging on their promise to cut fleeting--they lied, hurt their customer base & further eroded the modicum of credibility Slick Rick & the other money men over at the Tubes. GM is dead meat if there's a true recession. New blood is needed desperately---as fans, I thought you guys would be more alarmed at that than parsing words with me.

Media Bias. I can't believe the media has the nerve to let facts get in the way of the GM feel good story on the latest news cycle.

10. Equinox. Happy now?

Or, more likely, the rest are just worse....have you even sampled the wide variety of mediocrity and cynical marketing-driven products in the small CUV sector? There's a reason there are big profits to made in this class---mostly because these are economy cars on stilts, sold at $5-10k more than their car cousins....

Sorry for the confusion. I was posting off my BB and couldn't get the link...

http://www.windingroad.com/back-issues A use for the kei van? The e-mag is worth a look anyway, but check out this article.

Toyota sold at least 20%+ more Matrix/Corollas with 1/3 the dealers and 2/3 the nameplates (than the Cobalt/G5/HHR....probably more like 30-40% retail...) I can't get to this years' #'s, but I've linked to '06 as a possible hint: http://www.fleet-central.com/af/t_pop_pdf....gistrations.jpg '06 Corolla vs. '06 Cobalt is no contest: 10% vs. 31% (HHR was also above 30% and the Matrix was below 7%)... http://www.fleet-central.com/af/t_pop_pdf....gistrations.jpg Toyota is still below 12% on fleet this year, IIRC. GM still hasn't broken their addiction...nor have they admitted to going back to heavy fleeting to produce illusory gains in sales numbers, but that's another thread or five...

My point, which apparently has gone ignored, is NOT that the HHR has no merit, rather, the economics of the HHR makes it a diversion from the real business of getting Chevy back on track...For The Cobalt to suffer from the inexcusable lack of sales gains in an economy-minded marketplace, to the forced overproduction (due to not having Lordstown filled with product) & flat out not being competitive with the Civic or 3 (thus desperately needing an extensive MCE)---all indicate that the 250k+ Cobalts Chevy wishes to sell are more important than the HHR's. Whether people on the board are interested in the product or not (and I bet not one of you puts your $ into the HHR SS) is immaterial. The HHR has little future (other than as another also-ran, dead end product), while the Corolla & Civic prove my point: You can sell lots of small sedans, if they're perceived as reliable, quality, reasonably priced product---both will sell over 300k this year---why isn't a Chevy competitor? I currently have an HHR in my driveway. I don't relish the negative things I have to say---it just represents all kinds of bad things about the old product development and approval system at GM. You guys better be praying that GM doesn't revert back to form with its new offerings.