enzl

Which makes two more good reasons why this product is a waste of time, money and effort from a company that can ill afford it. Modern, high profit CUV's like the Lambdas make a hell of alot more sense than this application?

How about AWD in a CUV as well? Ford's been doing it for years with the Escape.

You realize that Chrysler doing all the work on the Nissan truck is a good thing for them, right? Nor have you seen either Nissan's cars being built for Chrysler, nor the Titan replacement? How would you possibly know who did what then? 2nd-you realize if GM gets any part of Chrylser, MI loses even more jobs, right? I'd say that's her concern--and probably should be yours if Chrysler is to survive in any way shape or form.

Which furthers the argument I'm attempting to make: Cerberus' desperate situation makes it more likely that they are putting the squeeze on GM! They can get money---but not at the rate they once could--just because they are publicly pronouncing that they can't get it means nothing---it's PR. Remember, unlike GM, Cerberus isn't a public company and has no real restrictions on what they say vs. reality. If Mr. Feinberg, Former Secretary of the Treasury Snow and 100's of the 'smartest guy in the room' types can't borrow money (albeit not at the rates they would like) than none of us can. Note that they haven't mentioned Gov't bailout money---$ that GMAC is sure to get as a large mortgage holder--hell--they're talking about giving moneys on Auto loan's too---Cerberus wants out of Chrysler so bad that they are leveraging their catbird seat with GM to do it. Noone's buying ChryCo otherwise. Nobody. Anything of use would be auctioned off at the Chap7 firesale--why buy now?

Firstly, in your frantic effort to disprove my admittedly speculative POV, you go right to retail funding---which I could care less about, nor is it the crux of my argument---every lender has tightened standards---but GMAC has always been a willing co-conspiritor with GM regarding the financing of their product and rolling 100%+ financed vehicles--now that avenue has not only been cut off, its been nearly reversed as GM is paying dealers to use outside finance sources. The real 'evidence' of GMAC's squeeze is moreso in the floorplan arena (where their rates have gone from merely expensive to downright uncompetitive) and the fact that GM is 'considering' acquiring Chrylser at all. If Cerberus hasn't given them an ultimatum, then what rational business argument is there for GM to touch that turkey? GM doesn't want the blood on their hands in Michigan, they don't want to give their competition a free ride to higher sales when ChryCo gets killed and they certainly have proven (over and over) that they still have too many brands, dealers and employees---why would they want more now when things are so bleak? Trust me, Cerberus has got GM by the short and curlies and will not let go...if GMAC goes Chap 11, kiss GM goodbye is my guess---that simply won;t work for GM and these money men have nothing invested but Other People's Money.

I'm not defending either GMAC or GM....but I can tell you that it seems awful suspect that GM has any interest in Chrysler. They are having enough trouble with the brands, dealers & lineup they've got---why compound it with more of the same? There's simply no biz reason to do it. Chrysler's demise would put GM in a position to capture their lost sales---GM being blamed for Chrysler's demise might not play too well in the heartland--GM's last bastion of strength. Additionally, they'd be doing all of their competition a favor, since all players would have a shot at the Chryco customer base. GMAC dropping floorplan-ed dealers, killing leasing and requiring 700 scores doesn't look like a slow squeeze to you?

Bingo. You get the gold star. Without getting into any specifics from personal knowledge, I'm sure your suspicion has some merit.

As I've stated elsewhere, there's no reason for GM to do this...which means someone else (Cerberus, ahem) is MAKING them do it. A 3way deal that sells a division (Jeep) on the way out the door might ease the burden---but this is a Mafia-style hit, not a biz decision.

Quote me on this: The ONLY reason GM 'buys' Chrysler is because Cerberus has them by the throat via its 51% stake in GMAC. Even if GM's management is as bad as I've said it is, they're simply not this stupid. It's gotta be a shakedown---GMAC is simply too enmeshed in the cash flow systems of GM to let things get completely out of hand

I know we don't want to hear this, but this is clearly the last act of a desperate situation. There is simply NO legitimate biz reason for GM to take on Chrysler or vice-versa. As many of us (ahem) have been saying for years, the simple biz math at all 3 domestics has been highly negative for years--this economic downturn, while somewhat sudden and severe, is an exaggerated version of business cycles that are part of the US/Global economy. If the Dom 3 couldn't make money in the last few years with 15-16 million US sales, the odds of them doing it at 75% of that market is what? All of that 'good enough' effort has is now seeing it's final effect: a handful of cars selling, the sad tatters of a cratered SUV/Pickup market and a slew of dealers (700+ by some estimates, a majority dom branded) gone by 2009...this is the exclamation point on the fact that most Americans have moved on--the Big 3 mean little to them. Whether all of the above HAD to happen is my issue with the leadership in place at GM--this wasn't the only outcome possible---a failure at the helm has made this possible, sadly.

Just what GM needs: More brands. More dealers. More red ink. Great move by Cerberus, terrible move by GM. They kicked Nissan/Renault to the curb for this move? It's got to be a ploy by Cerberus to get Ghosn to step up and buy Chrysler, as there's absolutely no business reason in the world for GM to do this.

The problem with 'shared' dealerships is that, inevitably, the dealership experience generally trends towards the largest volume seller, which is a mass market brand--thus, your Caddy customers get a Chevy experience. IMO, those who have come to expect amenities and great service tend to be disappointed---thus, GM's candystore version of a dealership is a double-edged sword---lower costs by sharing storefronts but, I believe, long term brand damage to Buick & Cadillac as their Acura to Lexus aspirations and targeting get lost in the real estate savings.

Technically, you're correct about 70's Caddy's--but you and I both know that there were no significant real differences. No unibody construction, no engine advancements, no trickledown to give---other than electric doodads---what did Caddy do then that really matters today? Where was the art of car building advanced? It's not that the Germans were so great, its that GM stood still. Rested on questionable laurels and let its marketplace dominance slip. We're both grading on a curve here--as others have said, the 70's were not the pinnacle of car designing and building--but almost all that ills GM today can be traced to this period.

Other than frosting, what really separated a 70's Caddy and its tech and the similarly sized Chevy, Buick or Olds? BOF, carbs and compromised FI systems? Power trunklids? Tufted leather and nice plood? The German cars of the time brought SOHC/DOHC, unibody construction, safety advances and, most importantly, they set a trend in what defined & constituted lux products that continue today....where are the BOF land-barges with solid rear axles gone? ---they're called pick-ups, nowadays. The current CTS-V will be a classic--and current CTS is a real competitor to the German/Japanese entry lux onslaught. The 70's Caddy was an evolutionary deadend. That's simply fact, whether mag writers liked them or not. The 240Z is more than just rare--it's representative of a new way of thinking for the Japanese at the time---creating a better mousetrap that continues today with their lux forays and hybrid frontrunning.

M-B's were spartan, under-equipped & slow (mostly) in the 60's, but they were built like vaults---the 70's Caddy's were fancy Chevy's & other proletarian underpinnings with lots of frosting...only the Seville and the last US 'vert could arguably make any car-guys cut, IMO. The CTS, assuming it stands the test of time, has every possible chance, but the CTS-V is the lone product that is an absolute home-run, a 'Standard of the World' product that roars out of the box. Either way, that's a skimpy resume to present as a 'premium' automaker. Think of all the great product that BMW, MB, and Audi have intro'ed in that timeframe---even Infiniti's original Q or Lexus' segment defining RX can lay claim to setting a trend or just being a major bad-ass product. If the current CTS and the first Seville is what Caddy is bringing to this party, they're simply underdressed.

The near instantaneous loss of $2.5B in yearly sales is good for GM? I think not. Heard may have been scum, but he was moving a hell of alot of metal for them...

Fair enough. I was making a 70's reference--and there's simply nothing Caddy intro'ed after '67 that will have the impact that the Z had in its' day---and little to suggest collectors will flock to a mostly misbegotten collection of mediocrity--The original Seville? The 'last' American 'vert (Eldo)? are the only 'maybes' in the whole rotten bunch. One of GM's gravest errors, IMO, was allowing Caddy to slide into punchline territory. Instead of having wonderful, leading edge tech to trickle-down they merely followed their worst instincts and pimped a bunch of crap with shiny wrappers. The current CTS-V might break the string--but that's a hell of a long time to be mired in almost complete awfulness.

The problem lies in EPA testing, in that the gas engine in the Volt may not need to fire up once to get thru the test. In the real world, they'll obviously be times this occurs, but others it can't. I think the article is just inartfully worded.

No to thread-jack, but Saturn's problem is that they have ignored their traditional base--and the limited penetration of stores yields limited market presence that compounds the terrible job GM has done getting the word out about Saturn's new (and pretty strong) line-up. Despite this, the reason that GM clings to Saturn is the psycho-graphics (sp?)---more people will consider a Saturn (vs. Pontiac or Buick or Chevy) and these people are, generally, import oriented. Whether or not this will convert into real sales is another issue, however, if one takes a strong S-series sales year and adds that # to the current sales minus Astra---you've got sales of 350k-500k---which I'm assuming is GM's target or hope at some point in time.

The old 'bu is referred to as a 'Classic', IIRC...I'd like to see those figures you're quoting. As far as gross numbers, of course if you're selling 500,000 Camries/yr., a small percentage would be a large number...as you well know, GM would kill to have a singular car selling anywhere near Camry/Accord/Civic/Corolla #'s. Why on earth would Chevy report them together when it has such a dramatic effect on residuals, et al...? And if it is true, does that mean that reported sales figures also include the old one? That would dramatically alter the 'success' of the new 'bu, wouldn't it? Quick math means that a little less than 1/3 of 'bu sales aren't even new bus...

I really don't want to go through this "I see alot of them, therefore they're selling BS..." Real data is produced every monthly by GM---it's called a monthly sales report...they are reporting a sales rate of 4-6k/mo., far below GM's initial projections of 100k/yr (that's 8k+/mo.) They are at least 25-33% below what they had hoped---that's a big fail--it's not a reflection of the product, but a botched model mix and marketing campaign. Period. Regardless of your cub reporting...that's the reality. I wish I were making it up or twisting facts---GM is still floundering to market its GOOD product like the Aura & Astra.

That I 100% agree with....not sure that's the direction they're going, however.

You can't fill an entire 8 division line-up with Malibu rebadges, can you? (although they sound like they may try that route.) And how's that Aura working out? Or the Astra? Premium product (vs. previous line-up) that simply haven't come close to projected sales.... *Remember 2 things about the 'bu's success: 1. It's getting much higher transaction prices than its subpar predecessor, but not premium pricing vs. its natural competition (as GM 'plans' with Cruze) 2. 1 of 3 bu's are going to Fleet---a clip 4-6X its Honda and Toyota comparables.. I think diviersified Alpha is the answer...not more G3-type stuff, but hey, that's just me....

They, unfortunately, were selling $2.5 Billion/yr. worth of mostly GM product...that's what hurts GM, although I also heard that this group was not the most ethical bunch. I'd say its a mixed bag for GM, and a total disaster for the employees. My heart goes out to them.

While I agree that GM seems to be scaling back on 'enthusiast' product for the future, it seems logical that GM would be looking for ways to add perceived value to smaller products in order to get better transaction prices... ...as for the Volt--there's so much that is unknown about the product, from pricing to performance, that I'm not sure any conclusion can be drawn from the program at this stage.