ShadowDog

"Concept" <-- hardly ever practical. It's a dead-sexy design. Hardly a copy / knockoff of anything since that long-nose, bubble-top greenhouse has been around since the old Jag E-Type. They're just working with an already heavily-used design element. No big deal. The suede elements in the interior seem so tacky to me.

I'll be really nice to it when I say that it could use some massaging... deep-tissue, bone altering massaging. Lovely interior, I agree there. If it is looking to go up against the X6, that can't be too hard. The BMW is far from appealing to me. Oh hell, I'll just admit I think it's just nasty.

Wow... that's a lot of chrome. I don't have much to say other than people will buy it and they will be happy.

If it's a knockoff, Kia actually made it better. Quite attractive. I like the extra angles in the roofline and the rear quarter over the bubble-top Civic. The rear treatment is quite tasteful in my eyes. In fact, I'm more impressed with the Forte Koup altogether over the Civic, Cobalt or Focus styling-wise. The standard features list, performance offerings and warranty coverage kicks major ass value-wise.

Well, if Mrs. Slow is in the middle lane and each lane beside is going faster, following her is just being a victim of circumstance. You pick your moments to pass. If people don't let you into their lane, they're just as bad as Mrs. Slow. Common courtesy starts by turning on a signal light and waiting for the person with consideration for others to let you in. As much as a slow driver can cause problems, IMHO, it tends to be an impatient driver to cause the accident with their lapse in judgment due to anger or frustration. On Calgary's Deerfoot Trail, the general consensus is that if you aren't doing 20 km/h over the posted 100 km/h limit, your ass is gonna get run over no matter which lane you're in. The logical road rules state that slower traffic should stay right to be at the comfortable speed with merging traffic; however, that is neither mandated by law or required. That stretch has its own problems anyway as it is not uncommon for daily traffic to go 125-130 km/h regularly. People with aging or lesser-powered vehicles have a difficult time keeping pace or merging as a result when that area is a main artery for 120 km/h semi-trucks. Since there have been over 10,000 accidents in under 5-years, there is a great deal of scrutiny due to heavier congestion on that road. There are a number of suggestions for this stretch of road. Read this one fellow's reply to them and tell me if he isn't simply part of the problem: So, by not changing anything and simply saying 'educate' people... what are you trying to educate them with? To just... speed up? Yeah, this guy is even more of a problem than the slow driver he's annoyed with.

I think vanity plates in general are pointless; but, in this case, I fail to see how anyone would make the connection between tofu and animal rights. Well, fight the good fight lady, the world will thank you for it. What ever.

It's not quite as cut-and-dry as it appears. It's not like the dragon's den or the coliseum where the thumbs go up or down on a decision at first glance.

I understand your point; however, mine was based on the idea that I tend to read a lot of replies here on why a brand should not get axed simply because of its history and the customers whom appreciate that history. As I see it, the only successful automobile companies are the ones with forward thinking and less clinging to historical values. What appears to be the problem is that so many customers whom are fans of a particular brand have this... need, for lack of a better word, to have a connection to a car company or brand purely based on its history. This customer-base shrinks rapidly over time. To cater to them almost exclusively is to design for failure. I don't suggest GMs brands all fall victim to this kind of thinking, but I do think Buick does. To me, it is considered a plethora of brands when badge-engineering fills voids in Pontiac that they require to sustain themselves. To me, having Pontiac and Buick alongside Chevy is like having a whole separate car company to support unnecessarily. Clearly understood... at current operations levels, which GM must drastically alter to fit an operational business model that lower volume can sustain. GM knows in simply cannot provide itself any increase in market share with the current level of brand-engineering. It can only hope for a turnaround... how many decades can one hope for something like this? No... change it all. It may not be classy, nor popular; however, in the short term, without dramatic changes that are sure to cause a storm in the eyes of consumers GM will fail. Don't mistake me for wishing to add to their doom. I want GM around and I want them to succeed. I'm merely willing to accept what can truly work, despite the thoughts and opinions to the contrary. They are disagreeable, but I'll accept that. I can get behind this, to a point. You see, I don't believe GM has anywhere near the time it would take to do, essentially, the same thing it's always been doing. What you say above does not have any significant role for altering the current state GM is in. I read that above as a measure to 'stay the course', for which the only thing left to change are model offerings or dropping badge-engineering in favor of each division putting more focus on a more narrow demographic. That will take a great deal of time to do. Any way either of us, or anyone else here chooses to look at it, GMs changes will draw unpopular votes.

Well, I can clearly see it's pointless to share an opinion here on the subject; however, two things stand out among all of this: 1) Nostalgia isn't part of the business dictionary. Change or die. In the case for GM, produce significant change or die. 2) All of the discussion that revolves around a declaration that GM will die if not for a plethora of brands to continue does not answer the question: "Why not?" GM has product for all markets with their three core marketable brands. ...since everyone has a different idea of what their core marketable brands are, I'll point out they are: Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick. Why can they not survive with that? You can still produce the 'almighty' performance products through Chevrolet without watering down exclusivity with typical badge engineering. You can still develop product on shared platforms between three divisions that includes trucks and SUVs for their necessary markets. You can still conduct volume sales to provide necessary production flow. You can still save money by having less 'me-too' development between a mix of unnecessary brands. Okay, I'll still share my opinion. Somehow I don't know how Buick even fits in here.

My experience as a Foods Manager through a Canadian retail chain tells me two things: - Organics in the Canadian industry requires a certification process that includes soil sampling. They don't just allow certification for organic farms willy-nilly just because you don't use chemical fertilizers or pest control sprays. Maybe the certification process in the States sucks, or the info on contaminated soil before the farm came along is just wrong; either way, that's not exactly a manner in which any business would conduct itself in a market of such scrutiny. - Consumer confidence depends upon information and the lack of MIS-information. It's not that consumers are stupid, but that the material and information they are presented with by the media does a great job of creating distrust in the food industry. No consumer ever came up to me with stories or conspiracy theories. Concerned consumers came to me with questions as to whether or not the foods we were selling were part of a problem or recall they heard on the news. Sure, there are those with poor judgment, assuming that if a recall has been issued on honeydew melons then we shouldn't have ours on display because all honeydew melons are bad... as if all honeydew in the world comes from the same farm or something. I have plenty of examples of odd behavior by consumers. The theory that all private label products are national name brand products in disguise is not entirely accurate. Certainly, national name brand producers supply some companies with private label versions for a cheaper retail price; however, not all are of the same quality standards the national name brand company uses for their own products. Most products end up with altered ingredient formulations chosen by the private label company for their retails. Even home-companies that own various labels don't share the same product quality: Example: Kraft Foods owning Nabob and Maxwell House brands. Maxwell house is significantly cheaper, but the taste is quite different. It's not as though the same ground coffee bean goes into each tin so there is more profit from the so-called "premium" brand. On the other hand, my mother once worked in a cannery where the same flow of beans would be packaged into two sets of cans. She said there would be a loud speaker announcement for so many cases of this label, then so many cases of that label afterward. Same bean from the same packer, but with different labels for different prices. That was in the 60's though. Organic farms will continue to gain steam. Governments would like to think they can regulate local producers to ensure proper standards are maintained; however, local producers tend to develop on small-scale farms. These farms tend to have a lot of locals observing the farmer practices. Bad news travels fast. A government regulation to prevent bad producers from developing sub-standard product would take significantly longer to implement against a farmer than word-of-mouth from local buyers. Regulating mass-production farms selling on a national level would be more prudent to satisfy the simplest standards. I don't worry about road-side fruit stands or the grandmother with a big-ass garden or greenhouse. I'd rather buy fruits and veggies from them over the supermarket any day of the week for one reason only: Vine-ripened before picked.

I read it as an opinion that, although obviously cannot be agreed with here, many other people share. While I don't agree with is opinion, what I don't understand is whether this guy is a car hater overall or not. I ask because it usually takes someone with an interest in cars to to actually write about them. But I did laugh at this:

Funny, I think the production Terrain looks much better than any of those concepts. Heck, the Terradyne looks like pieces of sheet steel welded together to make armor for post-apocalyptic society.

LOL I thought there was a wasp in the room.

Imagine if GM put a huge focus like this on developing a high performance SUV? They'd be crucified. Aside from that, those botched front bumper covers don't really do much for the dated total styling package. Despite being a great driver's car, depending upon how many people actually USE the car as such and not just a status-symbol show piece, current BMW styling does nothing for me.

My thoughts as well. It's certainly far less generic. I'm thinking purely from the perspective of what a typical GMC would look like. That said, it will sell.

YAY! I was waiting for someone to finally say the word. The matter is mostly surrounding the legal rights gays and lesbians cannot be a part of without legislation that allows them these legal rights through marriage. Case in point: Gay Couple Files for Divorce Divorce is just another of those rights where you get the bad with the good. I don't view the issue of the fight for gay/lesbian rights to marriage and then subsequent divorce as a hypocritical campaign, but one that basically means the fight to have just as many rights to the same quality of life under the law we all can experience. IMO, opponents only focus on the matter from the religious point of view, like this guy: Oh, the fear mongering that society will eventually allow the constitutional right of man and farm animal in the bonds of marriage. Honestly, how stupid does that pastor think all of society really are?

http://cgi.ebay.com/VIRGIN-MARY-BABY-JESUS...p3286.m20.l1116 I'll let you know; that is, once someone is stupid enough to buy it.

The stupidity of it all is that it's O.K. if his image is found on a piece of toast or the wood grain of a piece of wood, but it's not O.K. if he's on the ass of a dog. Keep in mind this isn't a slam on religion. That, I will leave out of this.

Oddly enough, I haven't seen one; however, that may change with the winter season behind us. Perhaps a few cars were stored for the winter. Still, no G8s anywhere.

Actually, it's not so much were I'm at, but that the dealership is far more established, centralized and trusted. They have a larger service center and body shop. My area is the exact flip of yours in that the wealthier pull their fifth-wheelers with luxurious GMC trucks. Mostly seniors drive the Buicks and the families have more selection from the larger PBG lot than the Chevy/Cad. dealer. There's isn't as heavy a thought on the heritage and history with an American car company. About the only major influence for some may be whether they wish to buy a domestic vehicle over an import; however, even that appears balanced with the import consumers... at least based on what I see on the road.

If I may, I believe it's all implied in the Task Force's findings. If you didn't see it, the Task Force wasn't pleased with GM's overly optimistic plan that relies too heavily on their truck and SUV sales, which has brought GM the most money only up until this credit crisis. Banking on continued sales of these vehicles for their success is looking too far forward. GM doesn't have that kind of time. The second one appears to revolve around the fact that GMs green technology is behind that of its competitors and absolutely must be more established in order to capture that market. The third one appears to be a relation of the first two. Though I'm not especially convinced that GM hasn't applied a direct approach to the green market. Their flex-fuel, hybrid and now electric offerings have made great strides in the industry; however, they haven't been marketed for wide acceptance. I tend to think the Task Force is merely looking at GMs involvement in the green market as being "behind" the more socially accepted competitors, namely Toyota. I do not believe the Task Force is making any sort of prediction, but simply providing their input on the viability of GMs predictions, calling them far too optimistic as being based entirely on the notion that the market will improve. While the market may do just that, it isn't going to happen overnight. GM needs short term damage control to endure, which is why it has been widely reported that Wagoner and Co. were just moving too slowly.

I don't view this as being such a bad thing, but that things are so bad they would require a measure such as this.

Our local PBG dealer has been around longer than I have and is quite successful. So much so that the owners gained enough capital to start a Mazda dealership next door. Eventually, it was closed and reopened as a Toyota dealership that grew so fast the entire lot was given exclusively for trucks and used cars and they just finished a new facility beside it for the new cars and main building. All the while, PBG kept plugging along, unchanged. I spoke with a sales rep the other day. The Chev/Cad/Hummer dealer in the next town 20 minutes from them is a dead stick. The sales rep at PBG does more in one month himself than they do altogether. They will likely be merged or moved to join or replace the PBG dealership... depending upon the overall outcome within GM. PBG could not be better promoted out here, enjoying the majority of sales within the GM divisions. The local consumers the sales rep speaks with say they don't really prefer one over the other when it comes to the cars; however, they do prefer GMC over Chevy trucks.

In the words of the common folk: Giv'er.

LOL - I'm laughing only because that sounds funny. Truth be told, I suppose if that were the case, many consumers would be forced to re-evaluate their position on just what makes an automobile a good automobile. I would suspect many would simply begin to see that there really isn't all that much different between domestic and foreign and do just as you said; however, the passionate few would never submit. That's the key word here, "submit", simply because this kind of thinking is exactly what hardcore American purists have been waving their flags and shouting for their freedom from government against. That's quite the irony.