enzl

It's an anonymous post on a GM-specific board, not a violation of somebody's civil right, sheesh. In any case, I thought the critiques silly because the vehicle is supposed to be polarizing---most people are supposed to dislike it---that's the idea! My comments were a general statement, not a personal attack, but take it as you like. I assumed nothing about anyone here, other than the fact that the place has become a vast wasteland of boredom, which, even with as much as you post, is merely only somewhat your fault specifically. : )

...and the HHR SS sells at $24k+? (and looks much better than the base models) The Cube is a $16k vehicle that makes a statement...which is rare, even if you don't like what its' design 'says'.

Federal Regs regarding TARP funds will reduce both GM's & Cerberus' stake in GMAC. I believe both will have their shares narrowed to 30% or less of the 'bank' that GMAC has become. GM cannot own more than a certain smaller % of GMAC for the time being.

Perhaps Margs Or, they've stuffed it in their 'mattress' (i.e. Reserves) awaiting the day that the economy allows Cerberus to continue their role as Master of the Universe. (See the rest of the TARP boondoggle for their inspiration) Until then, expect GM's 'house' financing to be a mixture of half-measures and tight credit decision-making. (I wouldn't lend people money on GM or Chrysler cars either, so I can't blame them)

No fleet sales to lean on this month for the products mentioned. The difference between GM and the rest of the industry is more GMAC impotence than anything else.

As of yesterday, MSM outlets were still reporting that Saturn, Saab & Hummer's fate have not been decided within GM's walls. What are they waiting for? January sales #'s? Painful as it sounds, GM would probably be better off simply shuttering all 3 within a short timeframe. The Gov't will just have to foot some part of the bill for this---it is simply a better use of money than giving it straight to GM to have its' black hole suck it in. Would it really hurt GM to make it look like someone there has a clue? Just the appearance of leadership might help.....tough times, tough choices demand a leader that will stand up and say something....

Sorry. I stand corrected. Both of your critiques are just misinformed, then. This is an anti-design type of design, not a Ferrari. Here's a vehicle that shows its maker is trying---it's not looking for elevation into the Louvre. (and, BTW, there are other people on this thread, so not every part of my post was directed at you or BV...perhaps a little less sensitivity is in order, huh? This site has become almost as humorless as it is dull.)

The Aztek!.....that was good for a belly laugh this morning. The Aztek was merely EVERYTHING wrong with GM's creative teams at the time of development. The Cube will do just fine, regardless of your hopes.

I stand by my statement: They'll sell (at or near MSRP)....whether you like them or approve of the design is immaterial. I personally don't, but the important things are sales and intro'ing consumers to your brand early. They are distinct, each have unique selling points and they are 'statement' cars for under $19k. You know what guys? More follower crap ain't going to cut it. And, newsflash---nobody's designing cars specifically for you. GM wouldn't like to be moving Aveos at sticker? Or Cobalts? Or Astras? Maybe a stand-out vehicle in that class might do it, huh? Stuck in a sorry, futureless past, GM continues its downward spiral with fanboys cheering all the way. And that's the problem, guys.

Why start to have a logical explanation now? The geniuses in management & the board are waiting for Chapter 7 so they can make tell-all book deals! Delay CTS coupe, develop unnecessary CUV that's 10 years late to market. Yep, that's the ticket!

If the 1st gen xB is any guide, they'll sell every one. Glad the above posters aren't involved with Det3 product planning (actually, maybe you are <_< ) This, the Kia Soul & Hinda Insight only serve as painful reminders of the lack of vision or balls at our beloved General.

Your first sentence is true, but reads like the old 'If the queen had balls, she'd be king'... GM has to deal with reality. Not the 'reality' they've sheepishly clung to as their marketshare plunged, but the fact that the auto market will not hit 15 mill for a few years, if that. The reality that cheap/easy financing pulled forward a ton of GM purchases---the same people now coming to the dealerships and finding out that their year-old Tahoes have taken a $20k hit--not to mention the $5 in negative equity they rolled into their last purchase. I don't believe that Pontiac or Saturn are really pulling in a 'premium' customer either v. Chevy---so I'm not sure whats to be gained by marketing these brands separately. Chevy sells plenty of $40k+ product already, although these are trucks. It's really a Sophie's Choice--which sacrifice is made to spare the whole. Unfortunately, Ponitac, Saturn, Saab are simply the most likely, although every GM brand is defensible on certain levels.

They're not guesses. It's information that is well known internally at GM. It's also not hard to figure out, given that a simple compliance cost for the Astra was north of $100million, development of Aura was minimum $250-500million and neither has made a dime for GM to this point---add in the Sky (sales loser) and marketing costs for awful "Rethink" campaign and you've pretty much found a $Billion or so... It's not a guess when you know. An example of a guess would be exactly what date GM will file Cap 11.

Here's a fact: whether millions or billions, why continue to produce product that loses money? Saturn is a great idea, executed poorly. If you bleed, you address the bleeding. 'A few million here, a few million there'.... all of the sudden, you're talking real $, no? The changes to Saturn have wrought good product, yet GM doesn't know how to sell them. Saturnistas are looking for s-series successors, not 2 seat roadsters and $40k CUVs. The absence of pure, incontrovertible evidence doesn't mean the underlying premise isn't true. You're asking me to commit industrial espionage to justify my post? You'l just have to accept that some people here know more than you do. I've been knee deep in this business for years and I have an extremely sensitive job within the business. Suffice it to say, my employer is public, has Billions in revenue & I have sat in meetings where highly sensitive info is discussed, including Big 3 plans. I've also had off-the-record conversations with Nissan, GM, Chrysler & Toyota people that I simply won't discuss here. Suffice it to say, I actually do know what I'm talking about...my job isn't worth disclosing info my contacts have given me. You'll just have to live with the fact that Saturn, along with many other GM efforts, is doomed. For excellent, business reasons that should have compelled action years ago.

GM has made it clear (and I put links to the first googled links I found) that they aren't making money with Saturn. I never made that up. But a quick assessment of the shortfall in volume will tell you that the number IS billions. 1. How much does the Solstice/Sky plant have in capacity? 40k/yr. How many of these are being sold yearly? This plant, already underutilized, is running at a tenth of what a modern plant needs to make money (200k/yr.) if they missed sales estimated on these models by 50%, and half of those are Saturn Skys, what is the right number? How much is the cost of keeping a factory open to sell 25% of whats needed to make money in the first place? 2. The Astra sells for thousands less here than in Europe. GM is --ahem--selling 1k/mo---what is that losing them? 3. The Aura was supposed to sell at 100k/yr. It's never reached more than half that figure. What is GM losing there? 4. The Outlook was projected at 40k/yr. It's also at half that number. Loss? You are right in one respect, GM refuses to break out its divisional losses---it treats all as one, basically. But GM has admitted to losses, so what's the difference? What needs to happen for GM to realize that Saturn, Hummer, Saab and, probably, Pontiac will never recoup future investment? They're zombies, dead, walking corpses, chickens without heads, etc...someone needs to man up, admit it and move on. Spend billions closing these dealers and removing capacity or join these brands on the bottom of the ocean. There's simply no other choice.

you make valid points, no doubt. I'm just shocked at the patience of those with authority within GM. What more could the current management do to show they're not the guys to rescue GM? I'll even concede the point that if things were at the turnaround point, I'd keep them. Where is the tipping point? Chap. 11? Chap 7? Hostile takeover by a kid with a lemonade stand? Perhaps my emotions get the best of me, but I swear that if GM shows up to Congress with a 'shrink to win' plan that hasn't worked for the last 8 years, I'm going to burn my own Chevy dealership down! (jk)

You are entitled to believe what you'd like...but GMC could have offered these vehicles, at pricing similar to its Denali series, without the investment of GM and its dealers on big, empty 'quonset hut' dealerships and a new brand when GM couldn't afford to feed its own brood. The 9-5 is in its' 10+ year of production, the DTS is merely a warmed over DeVille from the 90's, and the list goes on. Rather have a Camaro or H3? Wow, that's a tough choice! You see, GM knew a day of reckoning was coming...distractions like Hummer, with its short-term profits and complete exposure to gas pricing (and war sentiment GLOBALLY) are just the thing that led GM to the precipice. You act like these decisions were mere blips, minor issues that are to be solved---they're actually part of a big picture negligence/ADD/Stupidity that GM has shown a propensity for years. You see a big truck with great margins---I see the product that could generate good margins (DTS @ 60k+, Saab 9-5 @ 40K+, Camaro, Buick RWDs) thrown out to produce trucks of limited utility and myopic PR. Where are Hummer's margins now? What will dealers cost to buy out? Blame the media or the boogeyman if you wish---this is just another in a long series of stupid moves by GM that have them begging like a dog for scraps...that's certainly something we should be proud of as fans.

I stand by my statement that Saturn has cost Billions. Now, then, whatever. I have no agenda. What is yours that YOU feel the need to defend a brand that defines 'useless'? Even at close to breakeven economically, there's a little something called 'opportunity cost.' You may want look up that term before attacking my opinion or my regurgitation of info that's been out in the public domain for years.

Hummer is a dumb brand for posers and rap stars, happy? Jeep has a storied, rich history. Hummer is one more bad call by GM. It took extremely valuable development dollars away from brands with a future. (And, BTW, Nissan's SUV sales are in the crapper--they're just not wholly dependent upon them for profitability. Apples, meet Oranges.

100% correct. Which only highlights the hole GM has dug for itself. Toyota made a wise play in the hybrid field--the innovation has now become the world best marketing tool. Why do you think GM is sustaining the pace for the Volt. Like any team, they've stolen the best plays from others. The result is in the execution of this plan. You can't hammer Toyota for their foresight and , let's face it, bold gamble. Whoever runs GM will earn their millions, but that, in a nutshell, is the obstacle that must be overcome.

GM admits that Saturn basically hasn't been profitable---I'm fairly certain its been disclosed by a number of GM flacks. The volume planning for the new product: Sky, Outlook, Vue, Aura and Astra have all missed volume targets by a wide margin. All have been marketplace misses---there's your billions right there---and that's just recent history! And any factory will do...Spring Hill being converted to produce the Traverse ruined an opportunity to package Saturn and its USP in a sale to another automaker. GM desperately needs changes at the top. RW and all of his cronies should be out. Lutz should be limited to product decisions and Nothing Else. (And he will have to fly coach from now on.) Saturn & Profits: "The question of Saturn's profitability nags. The brand refuses to reveal its financial status, but it is believed it has never been profitable or only marginally so, at best, in some years. GM’s investments in Saturn – from getting it established to feeding it with new models of late – has been massive. And GM’s investment in Saturn is far from over. As it introduces new and freshened vehicles, it must immediately prepare for replacements of those to keep Saturn’s line constantly fresh. When and how much GM will receive as a return on its investment is unknown."[/i] http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/02/saturn...nst-toyota.html From Wards Auto in '02: Record Sales Don’t Deliver Saturn Profitability Brian Corbett WardsAuto.com, Sep 24, 2002 12:00 PM AUSTIN, TX – Even with the new Ion small car being introduced in October and predictions for a record sales total in 2002, General Motors Corp.’s Saturn unit remains unprofitable. From Edmunds: Time's Up! Saturn Has Everything It Needs To Turn a Profit By Frank S. Washington Email Date posted: 09-18-2006 STORY TOOLS Digg this storyDigg this! del.icio.usdel.icio.us Time's up! In its 16-year existence, there's not a shred of evidence anywhere that would suggest that General Motors' Saturn division has ever turned a profit. There were excuses galore: no product, ho-hum styling, internal friction, pricing too close to Chevrolet, and on it went. But a brutal market has done in every excuse that Saturn had for not making money. Now it's time for the division to add to GM's bottom line. So, I haven't exactly made the profitability issue up....

Huh? Lemme get this straight? GM is teetering on the edge--has accepted $billions from our pockets and SWORE they were going to come up with a plan to right the ship. So, they're going to save a brand they've NEVER made money on and have wasted $billions in the past few years on...smart stuff. Why not do the same for Hummer, Saab & Pontiac, too...oops, too late, that's what they are rumored to do with those as well--Narrow the portfolio. Where's the profound change promised? Why wasn't Fiat approached? Saturn dealers would be perfect for Fiat, Alfa & Lancia distribution---without Chrysler's immence baggage. I'm sure if Fiat would take 35% of a loser with crazy liabilities and a tarnished reputation, they would have gladly taken 100% of Saturn, with a dead GM factory thrown in for free, right? Idiots--all of 'em.

With all due respect, what 'image' would you expect from a brand that sells reproductions of War machines (during an immensely unpopular war) that get crap gas mileage in a time of crazy prices? Your description of brand 'image' only reveals your prejudices and ignorance. GM has been so tone deaf in its marketing, advertising and PR for years--allowing the MSM set the talking points, rather than doing something about the problem. The reason people hold GM responsible for far past sins is that GM has been so completely unsuccessful in crafting an effective gameplan, which mirrored their frank inability to develop product to silence their critics. They've sat in Detroit, with a siege mentality, blaming everyone else (which continues today) and wishing for a change that never was going to come without deep soul-searching

Saab is a really sore point for me, if only because it exemplifies the corporate ADD afflicting GM for years. How hard would it have been to have been to 'Outback' the entire line-up? SUV's are really just a macho expression of the hatchback---a design Saab favored for years when independent. That being said, Saab is in no man's land--not enough money to euthanize, nor enough to truly develop, market and support the brand as an entry-lux product. Sale is truly the only hope. I disagree about Caddy, however. The CTS is a great product, the Escalade a money-machine and the rest of the line-up needs help---I believe the SRX will be a success, despite the fact that I like the old one. Many of my yuppie, SUV-lovin' friends have abandoned their BOF vehicle and have gone to highline CUV's and cars---the RX, while not my cup of tea, has proven to be an enduring success--one that Toyota probably makes $10k/unit on....if Caddy needs that to develop CTS derivatives and the Converj, I say "go for it."

Note: I believe it could be built on the Challenger LX platform...I think both are 116"... They always should have replaced the Cloud cars with RWD, last gen C-class bones---Daimler really screwed Chryco.