lanky9172

I don't understand why some of you think this is such an ugly car. I saw it at an auto show and thought the details were beautiful, but then again, I'm also 6'5" so it's more in proportion to me. But I don't see any ugly features; it seems to have borrowed classic details. I can't understand this ugly argument unless some are equating large with ugly, which really doesn't make sense. If someone who feels this is ugly would talk about the features and details that make the car ugly, maybe then I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from. peace and chicken grease, -VAD-

This is what pisses me off...although hypothetical in nature (I mean we don't really know if there is a convertible scheduled...do we?) I don't see why it would take us another 3 years to produce a vert on the Camaro. It angers me that the Camaro isn't out now! I mean, wasn't it touted as being the most production ready concept in the history of the automobile? Toyota states they can go from concept to production in about a year or less...why the f does it still takes us like two or more years ESPECIALLY when the Camaro was supposedly ready to go? We need to get our butts in gear and beat Japan Inc. or we are gonna be in serious trouble...GM, bring this stuff out NOW...don't wait until 2010 to bring out the new vert AND Impala!

I'm sure people could pick Hummer's up for a reasonable price if the dealers don't want to keep them on their lots. I myself wouldn't mind having one as a secondary transport as long as my daily 'muter was something like a Mazda 3

Im 24 and I thought they were both light years from Breakthrough! Crest def made an impresssion on me, I was rather taken back by it like "wow, that just raised my luxury mindedness of Cadillac when comparing it to a fine jewel" so I think that Crest did well in establishing the Cadillac product as a whole where Heart did some of the same, but showcased the XLR so people's immediate association is with that particular car and not just the World of Cadillac.

I can't get into the new 2007 info part of the site...anyone have a user name and pass?

what's up with ball joints dying? Dodge has that prob too per another thread...odd...do any GM models have issues with ball joint failure?

and so it goes to show that trying to play the stock market is trying to bet on when Keith Richards is going to croak from all the fun stuff he has inhaled over the years...I am happy that GM stock is going up, thrilled actually, and that Toyota's is sinking, but trying to play the market based on one stock is not the best idea. I would have liked to have bought GM stock back in the Spring when I was thinking it would be best...but as I said, trying to play the market with one stock is like buying a house site unseen; you really don't know what you are going to end up with. No crystal balls here...

I kinda feel like the moment you introduce lyrics or any kind of vocal track into a song you immediately date it. If you take something that doesn't have lyrics and go with pure music, the music then forms the backdrop for the product. You notice the product against the "cool sound" whereas with lyrics you are either thinking, "I love this song!" or in my case with the Zep song "eek, this does not fit with the taught, high tech image that Art and Science just established". "Breakthrough" I think might have worked better if it had been aligned with something that presented the futuristic qualities of Cadillac and not the "old rocker" stigma. Don't get me wrong, I understand everyone has their musical preference; I mean I would have loved to have seen an STS pulling around some twisties in the Fall with U2's October playing in the background, BUT I know that wouldn't fit with the image. When thinking about that concept, that the music should be the background to the product, one would think that Jazz, a movie type score, or something techno-esque would have presented itself better to the CTS and Co. than something which immediately makes you recall the '60's. Just me own opinion

I'm glad that someone else caught the similar headlight cluster I think it might be better looking in person, but I agree with all of you that it seems rather bland and the hood strakes or streaks or whatever, either way it slid out of some hole, do look unecessary...but, as always, thats my prerogative (yes I did spell that right even if I mispelled other things in this comment )...my personal opinion if you will

It's not an ugly car, as far as the rear goes, you can say it's similar to many other designs out there so I cannot personally agree with that. The overhang isn't that bad...it could be worse although it is no 3 series overhang (non-existant)...overall though I personally like the design.

I don't really understand how GM can have the best selling spot in many countries (like Buick in China and Chevy in Russia not to mention, from what I believe, Chevy in India does really well too) and still be threatened by Toyota. I mean the Chinese are still pretty distrustful, dissatisfied, and angered towards the Japs and that is a HUGE market. Can someone enlighten me as to how we are worried about Toyota trumping us around the world? It just doesn't make sense to me...

I love coupes, but I think that the Chevy division might be trying to get a car in every person's garage (not a bad idea, but when you fill your niche, like the Subaru Baja, sales stop). If the Chevelle was ONLY a two seater and the Monte stayed FWD (I know many out there would not like that) then they might be able to swing them both with a Camaro and still have decent sales. A bigger question I have is whether they WILL equip the likes of the 'Pala with AWD when it switches to rear wheel. If they want to retain sales I would think that is a must. Indiana winters aren't the most pleasant let alone those in Buffalo and other spots where you guys are from.

Oh I know, but it's still a problem that GM has to face...our social issues are something that GM has to stear around...but how do we do that? How can we be the number one company in the world if our society that we employ acts and thinks like this? Although I am starting to agree with many of you on here that it is better to be second fiddle and making profit than number one with a knife in your back, the social mentality is still a problem that I see... And I also agree with the fact that if someone worked at GM for 30+ years they should get some help with 401K and things like that...but I still hate victimization and I am very inndependent so the whole "you owe me" mentality still bothers me a bit, I am sure you guys understand.

Now Norway, I somewhat agree and somewhat disagree. I think that it is in our best interest and nature as human beings to look out for one another, but the moment you say someone owes you is where I start getting nervous. My dad died when I was very young and he didn't plan ahead at all. To make a story short, I have had to work for everything I have today. It was hard, but there was not and is no moment where I say someone owes me something, like the state should take care of me, whether it be doctor bills or whatever, because my dad died. Personally, I think losing a father is more of a justification for communal socialism than simply "I work here". That, I personally feel, is part of the bigger problem I spoke about early. GM faces more than just design problems and corporate restructuring, it faces the "you owe me because I grace your factory with my presence...or simply because I exist" mentality. We need to impress into our cultural a sense of personal responsibility. No one should go to McDonald's and order three Big Macs and then complain about how they have to have a quad-bipass. Just my opinion, I am not trying to anger anyone.

please let's not turn this into a union vs. non-union arguement. I was simply stating that just from one, anecdotal experience, I was sad to see someone who had been an employee of GM (which had taken care of them for a long time) blame all their trouble on an already troubled company when it had a lot to do with shooting themselves in the foot, not the other way around. My point was that it is going to take more than a redesign in product and a turn around in business practices to keep the General as General of the automotive world. The issue of staying on top is greater and more complex than just simply selling cars.

Good morning everyone, long time reader, first time poster. I agree that a big problem with GM staying on top is the union especially when the union has members who act like the following: a fraternity brother of mine's dad retired from GM and is complaining about them cutting pensions and health benefits. This guy is obese though, probably 60-80 lbs. overweight and is on oxygen. I don't know if he is on oxy because of the work he was doing in the factory or what, but regardless, he could breathe a lot easier if he lost the set of tires around his middle. So he has health problems and is pissed his health care is being cut. Understandable except for the fact that within the past two years he has bought a new Trailblazer EXT, a brand new Hitachi Plasma (the model with the rotating remote controlled stand which is EXPENSIVE!), a new Onkyo sound system, an XBOX 360 (a retiree? Yup, NOT his kid), a new high end HP computer, etc...real responsible spending there and all he can do is bash GM for cutting the benefits of retirees. How sick is this? If GM is going to stay on top, it needs to change more than just its business, but people's modes of thinking and lifestyle too...

Dude, how can you say that??? I am a young guy in the finance biz and I know (because I have already had to deal with this) that union workers are some of the richest people in the country! But you wouldn't know that by looking at them...why? They don't save, they don't plan, and they just don't...where does the money go? Who the heck knows...but I agree with one of the earlier statements...no one cried for others in the work force when they were fired after being with a company for years. Again, as stated earlier, there is no RIGHT to a job or job security. There is no RIGHT to ANYTHING but what is outlined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. People's lives are at stake here is what you said...if they are living at the bottom of the food chain NOW with some of the BEST PAY and the BEST BENEFITS in the land and can't survive, then wouldn't you say that's just survival of the fittest? Social Darwinism, gotta love it. But I'm sure Josh you will think with your heart instead of your head. Not a bad thing to do, but this is reality, NOT the "Feel Good Club".

I should have kept reading the article, but after the first sentence I was done...the concept I feel is BAD. We all know that the government is having problems in the social security field and with health care sky rocketing, insurance companies, including the government, are paying less and less against the consumer to offset said expenses. With that in mind, any trade that would put MORE expenditures like this on the government's plate is BAD in my opinion. I feel this way only because I'm in the financial services field, and do A LOT of insurance, and it does not look good. Sorry Obama, you can keep your ideas and stop that smiling...it isn't going to sugar coat the deal for me :P