enzl

The Camry came out in 1983 as a compact, in 1992 it was redesigned to a midsize car. I think it was 1996 when it passed the Taurus in sales. The Malibu isn't exactly new, it has been out since 1997, and was around in the 1960s as you pointed out.

Chevy is losing sales. For people that have a lease that expires in November, if they narrow it down to Malibu and Accord they are going to buy an Accord because the Malibu isn't on the lot. Poor planning on GM's part.

Toyota has a more efficient production system than the other auto makers and multiple factories to build the Camry in, there is never a shortage of Camry's on dealer lots and it has been #1 or #2 selling car for 11 years. This is where GM killing a brand could help, it frees up factory space to build the cars people actually want (and opens up R&D and marketing dollars for cars like the Malibu/CTS) and they cna build less cars like the G6, Grand Prix, G5, Torrent for Enterprise, Avis and Alamo.

I agree that there should have been more 'bu's on the ground when the ad campaign kicked off, but I'll defend GM on two grounds...

First, the quality of the Malibu appears to be excellent---the upgrade in materials & Toyondas cost cutting have drawn the perceived quality to about even.

Second, if the 'Bu doesn't cannabalize the Impala too badly, Chevy should, Net-net, get some incremental sales...whether it's enough to offset lost sales elsewhere is a different story, and hopefully, these sales will be retail rather than the previous gen's rental queen status.

has there been anything exciting in that catagory other than the initial release of the LX cars in say... the past 30 years?

Probably not.

Just goes to show you the potential of a game changing idea....mini-LX's based on the C-class, with Airflite & traditional Dodge cues would have been amazing...instead we get the Avenger/Sebring disasters....

ya know, if this list is true, then GM bumped off the Chrysler 300 and the Infiniti G35.

Here's the 2007 list.

2007 BMW 3-series

2007 Chevrolet Corvette

2007 Chrysler 300

2007 Honda Accord

2007 Honda Fit

2007 Infiniti G35 sedan

2007 Mazda MX-5

2007 Mazdaspeed 3

2007 Porsche Boxster and Cayman

2007 Volkswagen GTI

Which really makes me think that C&D is using categories... since Malibu would be the replacement for 300 and CTS would be the replacement for G35.

Interesting...good eye.

If so, I can't argue to strenuously against the 'bu...but I just can't get that excited about it either. We've got a loaded LTZ in our showroom that looks great, but it just doesn't seem to be generating a tremendous amount of interest...the 4 cylinders we got in are all long gone....

LXes are old news... and that interior.....

Altima doesn't bring anything new to the table that wasn't there in the previous version..... 'cept maybe it's ability to catch fire from a stray cigarette butt.

The LX's are old news, but they're still a great value and a solid ride...they've even avoided much of the bugs of the current crop of new Chryslers. I would argue they're infinitely more significant than another FWD buggy in the mid-class sedan arena.

The Altima is an enthusiasts FWD bland-mobile...but it's got a much in=mproved interior, which was the most serious error in the last gen.

I'm not really arguing for either, just throwing them out there if restricted to sedans in a certain price range...again, I don't believe that C&D has 'categories' per se.

Compared to what else out there? The Accord is already on the list and the Camry is getting knocked regularly now.

There isn't about a dozen products out there that are more interesting?

If we're restricting ourselves to family sedans, then there's the Altima and the LX's....I'm not sure, but I don't believe that C&D has a categorized list, so the choices are many...

Who frickin' cares why or why not the Malibu should be on there. The fact is when was the last time 3 cars from GM made their list anyway people?!!!! This is great news and everyone wants to argue the most petty little details about everything else. I don't get it.

I guess they've finally given up on 'Media Bias' as a talking point...they're just feeling out some new material.

Great news for GM. I personally don't see how the 'bu makes the list, but it's a sign of substantial progress, nonetheless.

I would expect that to be the case, however DCX had the entire development cycle to get vehicles like the Sebring and Avenger right. The only family sedan I can think of where less apparent effort was put into it was the last generation Galant.

I couldn't agree more, hence my view that something was irretrevably broken and the LX's were more the exception than the rule, thus there's no point in continuing. In a sense, the Private equity group will do what needs to get done to create a viable dance partner for someone. Peugeot/Citroen appears to be the logical fit---take their expertise as 1st World carmakers of small-medium FWD machinery and combine that with the LX platform, as well as the trucks and you've got yourself a global footprint, a dealer group to sell French cars here and a nearly full product line-up for a modest investment and some % of the newco.

The smart makes as much sense as any other 2 seater on the market. I believe the Sebring & Avenger were despoiled by the Mitsu/DCX break-up more than anything. Star-crossed product that should have been a SWB LX or old C-chassis once Mitsu sh!t the bed and the success of the LX's made the wait bearable...instead, we got more rental queens.

Or by, ya know, making cars that didn't suck.

These rich-man, poor-man mergers/acquisitions have all had huge integration issues. BMW-Rover followed a similar arc.

The process was broken over there. I'm extremely sorry that the Chrysler situation played out as it did, but my gut tells me that Chrysler's salvation resides in right-sizing & a partnership with one of the 2 French Companies. Not the worst outcome. Definitely not ideal, either.

enzl= >>"As usual, the lack of imagination here is astounding.

Just because YOU can't see the use doesn't make the car USELESS. "<<

I missed where anyone here said the car was "USELESS", tho I did catch mentions of 'dangerous', 'impractical' and 'not much more economical that what's already available'.

Or didn't YOU see those comments?

>>"They want to sell 30k or so, to city dwellers, where parking and innercity commutes are concerns, not locking horns with a Semi on the Interstate..."<<

Yeah- there are no buses, airport limos or careening Crown Vic & sienna taxis in the city. And if you think people -maybe who didn't have a car before because they're cavalier & continental city dwellers- are somehow going to self-restrict their freedom by NOT going out onto the highway with their new wheels, you're delusional.

>>"They'll sell everyone they import..."<<

Yeah- the 2-seat market is mongo huge.

>>"...when GM shows the patience and intestinal fortitude that MB has shown for the smart 4 2 (Fiero, ahem)(Electric cars, ahem), then I'll be impressed."<<

Will you really? Why can I almost read your post condemming those who might support a GM program that lost millions (billions?) annually for like 10 years, because they are so greatly unwashed & so astoundingly unimaginative?

Every initial post was negative...take a look.

I proposed a counterpoint. That's all. (See above for further details.)

Where was MB's cajones and intestinal fortitude with Chrysler?

Step 1: Share some old Mercedes bits with Chrysler and Dodge.

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: Profit!

Where was that double standard again?

That said I think MB will sell every one of those 30,000 SMARTs but they'll all be concentrated in urban areas. I'm betting the car sharing companies will gobble them up too.

I was only refering to smart...but there's a part of me that believes that only way MB was going to save itself was by jettisoning Chrysler. I don't like it, I don't necessarily approve of it from a business perspective, but they made a choice...they didn't wait for the failure of the pairing to be complete. When GM's writing off $37billion (coincidentally, about what MB is rumored to lose in the sale), its an accounting issue.

They need to sell more 4 2's worldwide. Now they will. And you can pick on my choice of language, but ask yourself this: Could Saturn be better off if they had one, Civic-sized competitor, that kicked ass & sold @ a 300k/yr. pace....instead of preventing a couple of Buick sedans, the Zeta's & the Kappa program from proliferating to the other divisions?

Keywords: Abject failure.

'nuf said.

smart, the division, yes.

the 4 2. Absolutely not.

If 'abject failure' are the keywords you took from my scree, then fine...but I'll assume you understood my drift. MB has unloaded Mitsu & Chrysler in the same timeframe, but kept smart. Somebody was up late researching the psycho-graphics for the brand--just like the reason GM is trying to resusitate Saturn, if you need a GM parallel. Only MB has refused to starve other moneymakers to get there...

As usual, the lack of imagination here is astounding.

This is clearly a car of limited use & purpose--with good MPG in a time of $4.00 gas come next memorial day. They want to sell 30k or so, to city dwellers, where parking and innercity commutes are concerns, not locking horns with a Semi on the Interstate...

They'll sell everyone they import--then you'll see diesels, stop-start and other improvements that keep interest in these things relatively strong.

Just because YOU can't see the use doesn't make the car USELESS. There are many obvious points missed by the great unwashed here, but I'm constantly flumoxed by the double standard. ...GM introduces the Solstice, a car that is less useful, less efficient &, other than it'll appearance, has no unique separation from any other product, and GM's a genius for OVER-producing it.

The smart, although an abject business failure, has been refined and MB finally shows some cajones to intro this unique product into this marketplace, and everyone here is now an industry expert--when GM shows the patience and intestinal fortitude that MB has shown for the smart 4 2 (Fiero, ahem)(Electric cars, ahem), then I'll be impressed. Until then, we are again exposing the ugly double standard for anything not immediately understood within the confines of GM's field of vision.

November's sales have tailed off in many places, apparently.

Consumer confidence is in the toilet and the house rich are no longer able to use their home as an ATM, so what could anyone expect?

I believe what you guys are witnessing is the smaller dealers having their hands forced in a mediocre market....the big guys can survive selling 10% less, the little guys are being squeezed even further...they end up with sales 20-33% down because the effects of this slowdown will fall disproportiionately to those with less momentum.

Everyone has forcasted increased sales...yet it sounds like the true numbers for next year will be down at least another 500,000 units in the US market...someone has to lose. These dealers you have heard are probably sitting on 3/4 months worth of inventory, when they anticipated turning it in 2 or less.

Is there any car anywhere that is perfect, no excuses? If not, why must Cadillac meet that criteria?

I'm ready with my list for anyone who says "3-series", "5-series", or "S-class".

More correctly, the BTS needs to be much closer to perfection than the sorry BLS 9-3rebadge it is today.

Europeans are fairly savvy---and probably ready to accept Caddy as a strong niche presence in their markets, so long as the product is good & different. The BLS isn't really good, nor is is different in a demonstrable way.

Perfection isn't the goal, desireability is and a great (not perfect) Caddy B-car (styling, features and the availability of competitve diesels) would do just fine internationally.

I"m just not sure how they can recover with their lineup. There is just nothing compelling left. The LX platform is arguably their best but that's now dated. Even the Taurus/Sable offers a more compelling package now with a nicer interior, AWD option, and class leading fuel economy.... you know it's bad when you're ceding the high ground to the Taurus. The Sebring, Avenger, Dakota, and Aspen are a bigger flop than a Will Ferrell direct to DVD movie. With gas parked in the $3.00 range, most likely for good, Jeeps other than the Wrangler are going to be in trouble. The Ram will be released right in time to go up against a new F-150 and the still fresh GMT-900s and unless Dodge has some magic fairy dust, I highly doubt the interior will be up to the competition's standards.

So what's left.... Caliber, PT Cruiser, Wrangler, and the Mini-vans...

If you were Cerberus, would you really want to hang your hat on those?

I wouldn't...and I'm assuming a bunch of smart guys looked objectively at the Chrysler line-up, retail sales, et al and said, let's buy the darn thing...

That being said, what did they see that they liked and felt would be the pillar of strength to build upon? My guess is the LX's, the minivans, the Jeep division (despite a few recent missteps), the Ram trucks and the Financial Services side of things.

What other conclusion could one reach, other than Cerberus never planned on the continuation of Chrysler's failed product strategy--and based on the outlay needed to restore the 'world-class' descriptive to the line-up, knew that a vicious slashing of models and volume was in order.

What issues if I may inquire? Which models, years etc. ?

I can only comment on the 9-3's I've driven or seen on our lot, but regardles of year, they tend to have one of 3 issues that make them a no-no in my book.

1. Constant e-bugs that light-up the dash engine lights and boil down to expensive and time consuming fixes including emissions, engine control computers or simply faulty sensors.

2. The interior plastics are Fisher-Price---my '86 900 had a much nicer atmosphere and higher quality switchgear---checkout the flimsy gymnastic dash cupholder for one example

3. Squeaks, rattles and unknown noises eminate from all corners of the vehicles---a tight, safe unibody inhabited by subpar parts and built by depressed Swedish-aquivit addicts does not a good car make.

Not every one is bad, but most are not good.

Chrysler is now Terry Schivo. Still blinking and twitching but otherwise gone.

I wouldn't go that far....perhaps they're more like a transplant patient on a waiting list for an organ.

There's no recovery from the current situation, just the hope of a transplant from the right donor, before its too late---Cerberus has plenty of profits to write off their Chrysler 'experiment' against. And they're not afraid to cut their losses, as they have no shareholders to answer to, nor any board of directors, nor a real regulatory agency--plus they'll have political cover from their 'friends' in Washington as well---the Head of Cerberus is a Huge republican donor and Snow is the former Treasury Secretary---nobody can touch these guys and all the PR work getting Chrysler sold was just a dog and pony show.

Daimler didn't pump the money into Chrysler Group because it didn't want to. It didn't want Chrysler to be able to compete at the level of Mercedes, and it always shortchanged the new vehicles that were launched, with the exceptions of the Pacifica and LX cars. The German Ego is what screwed up Chrysler. Chrysler Group was always forced to play 2nd fiddle. And when Daimler saw that cheaping out didn't result in earth-shatter sales (holy &#036;h&#33; what a surprise!!11), they dumped it.

Yes money would need to be investing in new platforms and product to make the company successful again, but what the hell does one think needs to be done in order to be competitive and profitable? You have to spend money to earn money. Create no-excuse, world class products that don't cheap out, make them on good, flexible architectures, and the profits will come. It worked for the Japanese, it's starting to work at GM, this is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Also, if the new LY platform is designed to be flexible, it can be used to underpin a variety of new vehicles including a midsize RWD car for Chrysler (and even Dodge, so long as they are very different in design, performance, and so on), and create 1-2 highly flexible FWD platforms for the front drivers, including cars, CUVs, and minivans (sort of like the Caliber platform now, but better), and have 1-2 flexible BOF architectures for the rest.

Daimler stared into the abyss...and passed. They were horrible caretakers of these brands, no doubt...but you underestimate and misunderstand the Cerberus model if you believe that the Three-Headed Dog from Hades is going to put $10-15 Billion into new, world class platforms....first, there's little expertise internally to do all of the work, second, Cerberus just ponied up the $billions to pay-off the Union, and third, and most importantly---they don't have to. Your wish list versus their pocketbooks=their call.

Your proposal for a modest line-up is unbelievably expensive, somewhat naive and will never happen. You heard it from me, first.

Check out what Cerberus and other Private Equity firms have done in other arenas. Or, just look at Delphi for an example of what is left when a company allowed to sink into the mire. Unfortunately, your best hope is a White Knight, after the Cerberus knife has already been applied to the company. That's what they do, period.

It's up on edmunds now as well.

Once again, this is an extremely stupid move. With all of the product cutting they are doing now, Chrysler as a company is in as good of a position as it will ever be to define/redefine its brands. With all but the 300, T&C, and Sebring left after the current cuts, Chrysler has little baggage to take with it should it move upmarket. It is positioned to introduce a range of new products that will take the brand back into the entry luxury/luxury segment where it belongs. The results of moving it upmarket with the right products would be obvious: A return to prestigious brand image, a real brand identity, an end to product overlap and badge engineering, and most importantly for Cerberus, bigger profits.

Dodge can be properly aligned as the sporty mainstream brand, with no need to have its products to be watered down to give Chrysler a light edge, since Chrysler would compete further upmarket.

Jeep should be the niche seller of BOF SUVs, the Wrangler and other products that belong with the brand.

By doing this you have the ability to create 3 distinct brands, that compete in 3 different areas of the market, and none of them will be held back by the other. Why is that so difficult of a concept?

They simply do not have the money to develop all of the product needed to maintain the current line-up. If Mercedes, with fairly deep pockets and existing RWD & FWD tech already on the shelf, deemed Chrysler to expensive to fix, how can one expect a Private Equity firm to pony up the expense.

Keep in mind that MB sold to avoid the costs of 3 things: 1. Workers 2. Dealers & 3. Product Development

It would take $billions to revamp the fetid product at your local CJD dealership---and, whats worse, you would need to develop disparate platforms for the variety--BOF trucks for Dodge & Jeep, Unibody RWD to replace the LX's and FWD that was flexible enough to underpin Hornets & Minivans---it ain't going to happen. Cerberus will pin down the dealers just like they did the UAW---"you don't like us, start speaking Mandarin, buddy."---the dealers will capitulate & sell out quicker than you can say Lead Paint Legos.

Just wait until next year. This is merely the tip of the private equity nghtmare that will either place Chrysler with the Chinese or, if lucky, the French (Peugeot or Nissan/Renault).

No, but what this does prove is that GM has borrowed a page from BMW's PR machine - build a car that the 'enthusiasts' like and it will get all kinds of accolades - but does that still make it a Cadillac? Does it make the CTS even a good car? No. Just one that the car rags like.

Frankly, it saddens me. Don't get me wrong: I'm thrilled for GM that they have built a car for the magazines, but I am not a big fan of 0-60 times being the measure of luxury. So now Cadillac has out BMW'd BMW. Can they out-luxury Lexus now, or is that up to Buick?

The CTS is a very good looking car. More importantly, it is a 'balanced' design, IMO. There are no 'bad' angles to look at this vehicle. Why are the magazines dictating to the people what they should 'desire' in a luxury car?

That is my beef with the media: not a bias against GM in particular, but against 'pedestrian' vehicles in general. If it doesn't do 0-60 in 6 seconds or less, do a G on the skid pad, then it's crap. Bull&#036;h&#33;, I say.

Are you saying that you don't like the CTS overall? Or that you feel its skewing away from being a 'true' Cadillac?

I definitely feel that it's skewing away from the 'traditional' Caddy customer...but is that a bad thing? If you look at most vehicles today, they all seem to be moving towards the European idea of luxury and performance---which I don't necessarily see as negative, but I could understand those who do feel that way.

If the CTS represents a paradigm shift regarding the way cars are developed at GM, I say its high time. But looking closer, I also see marginal products like the Aveo refresh and the Cobalt's lack of a true MCE as evidence that there may be a two-tier system at work at the Tubes, where Bob L.' s pets get the $ and everything else goes to Zarella's School of Rehashed Thinking. I hope not, but in a $3.25/gallon sales environment, some fiddling at the bottom end would make sense---nothing crazy...How about a diesel in their small cars? (beat Honda to the punch in the US market)---Or bringing over the neat Meriva? Or something other than a frightful 09 Aveo or a neat new color for the G5....

Can we finally put to rest that the media hates GM? I think this award proves something else....but if you guys will stop with the incessant "media bias" chants, I won't go there.

Forget it...each and every paragraph of all written material covering US vehicles are scoured each day, hoping to uncover the 'bias' that has to be to blame for current or past Domestic blunders. You see, GM didn't build sh!t product, it sprung forth under the watchful eyes of MT, C&D, CR or TTAC, (depending upon the time-frame), to the great surprise of GM management (cue music from Star Wars when the Emperor appears).

One of the great American pastimes is to blame others for your situation. We make sure that tradition is strongly honored here...this is a place where Hyundai's dramatic turnaround in perception is ignored, while the Citation is still blamed for GM's current woes, or gas prices, or the housing market...it's like the 2.8's management are our children--with the same child-like ability to prognosticate future economic or geopolitical events AND a directive that we must defend their actions, regardless of consequence or stupidity.

BTW, the CTS is great---which only makes the rest of their mostly inferior line-up that much more infuriating...Like the child who gets A's in the classes she likes, but F's in others....

The MKS is a stopgap product...a way to fill the Chicago plant's volume & a way to put a car out that ducks, in essence, much of the competition. It's a large car, FWD/AWD, when most of the competition in this space are going RWD with smaller vehicles.

Will it have the enthusiasts salivating-No. But it might just capture a piece of the market that Lincoln was giving away, regardless. To me, Acura, Infiniti & Buick have all had sedans in this space, selling decent volumes. Infiniti replaced the I35 with nothing, Acura moved the RL too far upmarket and Buick has the Lucerne covering ground that was once held by 2 sedans, so it may not be a bad strategic move.

We've got a F-L/M showroom, so I'm sure we'll get a good idea about this one rather quickly.

Anyone surprised by the possibility of shrinking then selling off Chrysler hasn't been reading the Cerberus playbook.

This is what private equity does, in almost any endeavor...you really didn't think they were going to pony-up the $10+Billion needed to redesign and re-engineer the entire line-up, did you?

The cash intensive, low margin, risky nature of the auto industry is the opposite of what these guys are about...Chrysler's future as a full-line company is not bright-their best hope is Nissan coming in as a partner or buyer, unfortunately.

LOL...

As usual, you completely missed the point.

It's not that the media is 'killing GM'. It's that the media is STILL giving Toyota a free ride.

The truck was driven for one day during a manufacturer sponsored event and is automatically the best at everything now? Yeah right, talk about credibility issues.

It's One review!

We'll see what some of the more respected journals say, then see if Toyota got a free pass.

And, as usual, you missed my point: Stop with the excuses. Just create, maarket & sell good cars and the rest takes care of itself---you've obviously missed the slew of good press GM has received recently and the lack of real scrutiny of their true financial situation....

All I want is fairness in the reviews. There is no need for mention of any of those product in a review of a current product. I doubt there would be much debate between you and I on the remaining trouble spots. I like the W-body but I know it needs to go. I think the Lacross and new Aveo5 have been beaten with an ugly stick. I think GM made a mistake not giving the Cobalt an MCE for MY2007, I think GM is making a mistake not continuing with the the SRX. I think all the pushrod V6s could be replaced with the turbo 4, HF2.8 and HF3.6 with various goodies like DI or turbo grafted on as needed.

I'm not a kool-aid drinker. I slam GM where they deserve it and defend them when they get slammed inappropriately. Bringing up the 8-6-4, unless directly discussing AFM, is inappropriate.

You're not wrong...and perhaps I'm unfairly lumping you in with others, but there is an element at C&G that sees GM's problems as external--"Import humpers won't give us a chance""We forgave the Japanese for Pearl Harbor..." & of course, Media Bias.

I feel strongly that as soon as an excuse is made, you're losing the larger war, because an admission that something is broken always predates an attempt to fix it. The product machinery seems to be fixed, but GM's difficulties are not behind it---and many of the same element here at C&G are declaring victory.

The truth is that the recent sales success is fleet driven, the books are still not in order, the future profits are no longer anticipated and, quite frankly, without trucks, GM cannot fund the completion of a product renaissance that is really in its infancy---a generation of product isn't enough to turn it around, we need 2-3 just to get back in the game. Lots of dealers are going under--small sales losses, perhaps, but they add up and highlight the fragility of a distribution network that GM needs to work to be healthy.