buyacargetacheck

GM has to get some momentum on the revenue side somehow. They must invest in all their vehicle lines so that they can get each one on a 4 or 5 year lifecycle (just to keep up with Toyota). Who knows how that happens while the brand identity distraction problem remains? GM doesn't seem to.

Put it in neutral, and take a few minutes to get some understanding (and humor) about Tom Friedman from financial expert Bill Bonner... http://dailyreckoning.com/Issues/2005/DRUS120905.html The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: Bill often mentions that he makes a point to read Thomas Friedman’s NY Times column - not because agrees with the imperial columnist’s musings...but because he finds that that Friedman’s “hollow thoughts” always seem to brighten his day in their absurdity... SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Bill Bonner The force of a correction is equal and opposite to the deception and delusion that preceded it. Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush, and all the great nabobs of positivism assure us that there is nothing to fear. Our favorite imperial columnist, Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times, explained, “the next big thing almost always comes out of America . . . [because] . . . America allows you to explore your own mind.” Friedman believes the world would be a better place if America were more aggressive about “empowering women” and “building democracies.” He also thinks that technical innovations give America a permanent advantage. Americans are always innovating, always figuring things out. Heck, we even invented outsourcing, says Friedman: “This is America’s real edge. Sure Bangalore has a lot of engineering schools, but the local government is rife with corruption; half the city has no sidewalks; there are constant electricity blackouts; the rivers are choked with pollution; the public school system is dysfunctional; beggars dart in and out of the traffic...and so forth. Among the things Mr. Friedman seems to lack is a feeling for verb tenses. He goes to Bangalore and notices that it is backward. His conclusion is that it will always be so. “Is” is forever in Friedman’s mind. “Will be” has no place. It is as if he looked at the stock market in 1982. “Stocks are cheap,” he might have said. “Stocks elsewhere are expensive,” he might have added, without it ever occurring to him that they might change places. And yet, why else would anyone outsource work from Baltimore to Bangalore unless Bangalore was relatively, though not necessarily permanently, cheaper? Let us imagine that Bangalore had no electricity blackouts or pollution or beggars. Let us imagine that it was like Beverly Hills or Boca Raton. We might just as well imagine that stocks were expensive in 1982. Of course, if they had been, there never would have been the bull market of 1982 to 2000. It is only because they were cheap in the past that they had the potential to be expensive in the future. And it is only because Bangalore is a Third World hellhole that it is cheap enough to take work away from overpaid Americans 10,000 miles away. Thomas Friedman: So Gloriously Naive and Clumsy Whether it will, neither Friedman nor we can know. We always try to get our day off on the right foot by reading Friedman’s column before breakfast. There is something so gloriously naïve and clumsy in the man’s pensée, it never fails to brighten our mornings. It refreshes our faith in our fellow men; they are not evil, just mindless. We have never met the man, but we imagine Friedman as a high school teacher, warping young minds with drippy thoughts. But to say his ideas are sophomoric or juvenile merely libels young people, most of whom have far more cleverly nuanced opinions than the columnist. You might criticize the man by saying his work is without merit, but too that would be flattery. His work has negative merit. Every column subtracts from the sum of human knowledge in the way a broken pipe drains the town’s water tower. Not that Mr. Friedman’s ideas are uniquely bad. Many people have similarly puerile, insipid notions in their heads. But Friedman expresses his hollow thoughts with such heavy-handed earnestness, it often makes us laugh. He seems completely unaware that he is a simpleton. That, of course, is a charm; he is so dense you can laugh at him without hurting his feelings. Friedman writes regularly and voluminously. But thinking must be painful to him; he shows no evidence of it. Instead, he just writes down whatever humbug appeals to him at the moment, as unquestioningly as a mule goes for water. One of the things Friedman worries about is that America will “go dark.” As near as we can tell, he means that the many changes wrought after 9/11 are changing the character of the nation, so that “our DNA as a nation...has become badly deformed or mutated.” In classic Friedman style, he proposes something that any 12-year-old would recognize as preposterous: another national commission! “America urgently needs a national commission to look at all the little changes that were made in response to 9/11,”three he writes. If a nation had DNA and if it could be mutated, we still are left with the enormous wonder: What difference would a national commission make? Wouldn’t the members have the national DNA? Or should we pack the commission with people from other countries to get an objective opinion - a U.N. panel and a few illiterate tribesman—and achieve cultural diversity? Thomas Friedman: Jaw-Dropping Simplicity But this is what is so jaw-dropping about Friedman’s ideas: Even mules and teenagers have more complex views. His work is a long series of “we should do this” and “they should do that.” Never for a moment does he stop to wonder why people actually do what they do. Nor has the thought crossed his mind that other people might have their own ideas about they should do and no particular reason to think Mr. Friedman’s ideas are any better. There is no trace of modesty in his writing—no skepticism, no cynicism, no irony, no suspicion lurking in the corner of his brain that he might be a jackass. Of course, there is nothing false about him either; he is not capable of either false modesty or falsetto principles. With Friedman, it is all alarmingly real. Nor is there any hesitation or bewilderment in his opinions; that would require circumspection, a quality he completely lacks. Friedman fears he may not approve of all the post-9/11 changes. But so what? Why would the entire world “go dark” just because America stoops to empire? The idea is nothing more than a silly imperial conceit. America is not the light of the world. Friedman can stop worrying. The sun shone before the United States existed. It will shine long after she exists no more. But, without realizing it, imperial conceits are what Mr. Friedman offers, one after another. He knows what is best for everyone, all the time. But even at his specialty, Friedman is second-rate. It is not that his proposals are much dumber than anyone else’s, but he offers them in a dumber way. He sets them up like a TV newscaster, unaware that they mean anything, not knowing whether to smile or weep, out of any context other than the desire to make himself look good. He does not seem to notice that his own DNA has mutated along with the nation’s institutions . . . and that he does nothing more than amplify the vanities and prejudices that pass for the evening’s news. Is there trouble in Palestine? Well, the Palestinians should have done what we told them. Have peace and democracy come to Iraq? If so, it is thanks to the brave efforts of our own troops. Is the price of oil going up? Well, of course it is; the United States has not yet taken up the comprehensive energy policy he proposed for it. Friedman’s world is so neat. So simple. There must be nothing but right angles. And no problem that doesn’t have a commission waiting to solve it. It must be unfathomable to such a man that the world could work in ways that surpass his understanding. In our experience, any man who understands even his own thoughts must have few of them. And those he has must be simpleminded. But we enjoy Friedman’s insipid commentaries. The man is too clumsy to hide or disguise the awkward imbecility of his own line of thinking. The silliness of it is right out in the open, where we can laugh at it. His whole oeuvre can be reduced to the proposition that Arabs ought to shape up and start acting more like New Yorkers. If they don’t want to do it on their own, we can give them some help. He says we can send “caring” and “nurturing” troops to “build democracies” in these places and “protect the rights of women.” But he doesn’t understand how armies, empires, politics, or markets really work. American troops can give help, but it is the kind of help that Scipio gave Carthageor Sherman gave Atlanta. Armies are a blunt instrument, not a precision tool. Friedman urged the Bush administration to attack Iraq. But the man has a solution for every problem he causes. “So how do we get the Sunni Arab village to de-legitimize [we love these big words - every one of them hides a whole dictionary of lies, fibs, prevarications, malentendus, misapprehensions, miscalculations, guesswork, hallucination, conceit, and mendacity] suicide bombers?” Simple. Propaganda! “The Bush team needs to be forcefully demanding that Saudi Arabia and other key Arab allies use their news media, government, and religious systems to denounce and de-legitimize the despicable murder of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq.” That ought to do it. What is wrong with the Bush team? Why didn’t they think of that? “Forcefully demand” that the Arab states do more propaganda. Yes, problem solved. By the way, your authors have no position on foreign policy. We only notice that the people who do have them are idiots. Regards, Bill Bonner The Daily Reckoning

The irony from my perspective is that GM refused to post my message about Friedman on its "fastlaneblog," despite being supportive of GM and not using foul language.

I wish they would build more cars with velour seats. The cloth in most cars (the Chrysler 300 for example) is just a step up from canvas.

Hopefully GM is smart enough to build only one plant with flexible manufacturing. Keep the production utilization at or over 100% so that demand just slightly outpaces supply. They won't have to discount anything. Like money $$$$ in the bank.

Great idea. Chevrolet will sell as many in a day as Saturn can all year.

Ninety-Eight Regency, How's that "new" Olds 98 holding up that you bought a few years back to replace the one you wrecked (if I recall)??? Any problems with it? How many miles/yr do you drive?

2 Zeta cars, no trucks, no crossovers (GMC has that covered): Electra 4-door and Riviera 2-door. Both come standard with V-8s, 4 year/50,000 mile warranties, 4 year free maintenance, penetration pricing under a Lexus ES350 and free loaner cars. The ES350 won't stand a chance. Limited edition "Super Ultra" versions come with Corvette engines. Maybe a Zeta Caballero sport wagon with a slightly higher roof and three rows of seats for Buick customers who want a traditional family vehicle that has presence. 2 or 3 Zetas all with powerful engines, powerful styling and superb service translates into 40,000 profitable Electra sales, 5,000 profitable Riviera sales and maybe 10,000 profitable Caballero sales. How's that for polishing Buick's image?

Not sure what figures she's using. According to Edmunds, a $23,000 TMV Impala LT 3.9 has a very similar True Cost to Own calculation as a $22,000 TMV Camry LE V-6: $47,911 (Camry) versus $47,994 (Impala) over 5 years. Sure, the Impala will cost $2,169 more in depreciation and $159 more in repairs (but less than the $4,600 Maynard quotes - she must have been comparing the Impala V-8 to the manual 4 cyl Camry again???). But the Camry will cost $2,829 more for insurance and $905 more in maintenance! Check it out: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/toyota/cam...p=91335&vdp=off http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/chevrolet/...p=91335&vdp=off Bottom line, the NY Times once again proves what ignoramuses they are. Buy what you like and forget the "experts."

Funny, I wonder how many manual Camrys are sold compared to V-8 Impalas? Almost no one wants a manual, especially in a family car. Also, I love when the press reports what's "available" on a car (like manual Camrys). But when you visit the dealer the option is a phantom.

Nobody puts out more steaming piles of gold-plated written dung than Tom Friedman. He's either the most clueless journalist in the world or a complete charlatan. Perhaps both. If you have the patience, read this as an example of how Tom Friedman invents his own reality: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06102005.html

Good. GTO, Solstice and new Zeta Grand Prix. Done. Now, do the same for Buick: The return of the Riviera and the Electra both Zeta-based with standard V-8 power priced around 30-35K. Leave the Lambda to GMC and replace the Enclave with a Zeta-based bitchin sports wagon a la Magnum but with irresistable looks. Caballero maybe?

This is pretty close to what the 350Z should have looked like. Just slightly rework the sides and add scooped out headlights/new nose and there you have it - the new 240Z that could have been.

I like reading this guy, but he definitely has a problem with the domestics. Unless you really need to save/get a thrill out of saving $30 per month in gas or you need a hatchback (with no folding split rear seat), I don't see why one would choose a Yaris over a Cobalt LS coupe for about the same money. I've never driven either, but I have the sense that the Cobalt is a tad quieter and more comfortable. Plus you get longer roadside assistance with Cobalt. The Toyota dealers will not give the Yaris away like Chevy dealers will the Cobalt since the Yaris is made in Japan and units are likely constrained. I just don't see it from this angle. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/content/1...66087/index.php

A real enthusiast to me is the dedicated mechanical engineer who understands the real world driving situations of 99% of buyers and who engineers suspensions accordingly. Not all enthusiasts like cars such as the crude and obnoxious SRT-4. In other words, an enthusiast can also appreciate the fuel-economy wonders of small-car engineering or the beauty of low NVH and traditional ride of a Buick that doesn't leave you feeling worn out after a few hours of driving (while protecting your wallet at the same time). Product enthusiasts like those found at the car buff mags are the bane of the industry not the life line. The true enthusiasts are quietly doing their jobs at GM, Ford, Toyota, etc. churning out mainstream cars.

They should make that split rear seat standard. Besides cost what other downsides are there to that feature?

Posters here crack me up. How many of you who complain about the handling of the SS or the Impala in general have families? This car in all its trims is all about hauling your family around with power, comfort and economy. The Passat? Get real. And get your checkbook out for the many after-warranty repairs and special German parts. Don't forget that even the base engines in many European cars require premium fuel. I worshiped C&D's opinion when I was 12. Now well into my 30s I understand that they understand very little about real world car ownership. Who gives a $h! about "feel" and how many Gs you can do around a skidpad??? Not most buyers. Bedard, Csere and especially Yates are a bunch of coddled shills. Check out John McElroy's piece about Tyranny of the Enthusiasts for an eloquent elaboration: http://wardsauto.com/commentary/tyranny_of_enthusiasts/

Lawsuits and buyouts may happen anyway because of or despite GM. For sure, GMC could stand alone. GM has already "lost hundreds of thousands of buyers," but this fact has been masked by insane rebates and historically higher rental car fleet sales. True, not all buyers would go right to Chevrolet but a good many would. Are you kidding? Every vehicle Saturn sells has an engineered duplicate at Chevrolet. Sure, the Ion and Cobalt don't look the same but they both have the same engineering underneath. And the Ion came first but the Cobalt sells far better. I know you know all this. Same product, same buyers. The only unique vehicle, the Outlook, would do better at Chevrolet (ditto for the Sky). All this talk about consolidation and phase-outs, however, ignores the fact that nobody on these boards or in the media or the analysts have any idea which brands are profitable and which are not. GM does not report this. So, maybe as long as the brands are profitable (even though sales are falling) maybe it doesn't matter if you have 3 brands or none. From an advertising standpoint, however, you could agree with someone like DeLorenzo and say that consolidation makes sense otherwise you'll never be able to get the message through for one brand let alone three.

I like the idea of raising the marketing efficiencies by combining the three. On the other hand, GMC has a straightforward image. And selling GMCs is like printing money - simple rebadges of Chevy trucks sold in another part of town. Pontiac and Buick could be replaced by equivalent Chevrolets - there's no reason why Chevrolet can't cover the middle market like Toyota does with the Avalon and upper trim Solaras and Camrys. Just call the Lucerne a Caprice and give Chevy the Enclave. Ideally, GM would be able to get rid of excess plants, and the Chevy-clone nameplates: Buick, Pontiac, Saturn. Then GM could clean up Chevy's dealer body and have them adopt Saturn's sales/service practices while extending Chevy's warranty to 100,000 miles across the board. Then, you'd have a lean, mean GM.

Getting back to Maryann Keller... Her prediction isn't that radical. Buick, Pontiac, and Saturn lack any kind of positive image. Yes, the quality is better and better products are on the way and the service is good yada yada yada. But when people plop down money and chain themselves to 5 or 6 years of payments they tend to think long and hard about what kind of image these purchases purvey. What will my friends and family think? Will this get me the girl? Etc. The answers to these personal questions all ultimately come from the gut. And psychologists and consumer behaviorists say that people often take the safe route by doing what their neighbors and peers do. We can talk all day long about how "evil" Toyota is or how great the new 2010 Zetas are going to be, but if buyers don't feel good the sale doesn't happen. GM has mismanaged the images of their brands for so long that it's possible there isn't enough time left to right the ship. This is ultimately where Keller is coming from. P.S. This image thing is probably in hyper-mode here in Los Angeles more than anywhere else. That's why you hardly ever see a new Buick or Pontiac, but Escalades and Tahoes with the bling are everywhere.

Yes, that will eventually be attempted. The best alternative fuel will prove to be human food for walking.

None of these "alternatives" alone will make up the difference in petroleum depletion. And, in fact, all of them require fossil fuel inputs to make them work. Natural gas is in decline in the US. We'll soon need to import Liquified Natural Gas which will be earmarked for all the power plants we've built in the last 20 years that run on the stuff. Not gonna be used for cars in a big way. Hydrogen is a pipe dream. An energy loser. Think about it. Oil is highly energy rich. The stuff comes out of the ground and is highly flammable. Corn isn't. Corn requires lots of top soil, lots of diesel for the tractors, lots of petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticide, factories to shuck the corn, petro-based chemicals to make the ethanol. The ethanol PR program GM is running isn't a real solution for anything other than to get people thinking that GM is a leader in alternative fuels. The future does not include driving around. It does mean doing less with less. We need to get used to a future with fewer cars, less college education, fewer "careers," less tv, less fast food. The sooner we accept this and understand that our "leaders" have no control over the situation (other than miltarizing and securitizing our lives) the better off we'll be. This car fetish we all have is ok for now. Just know it isn't long for the world.

Wishful thinking. Toyota is about to add 1-2% in market share alone from the new San Antonio Tundra factory coupled with added Camry production at Subaru's Indiana plant. There's more on tap too. Meanwhile, GM still has too much capacity for its natural demand. If Delphi doesn't strike this summer watch for more GM incentives by year's end. We all know the ending if Delphi does strike.

By the way, GM isn't the only automaker with their heads in the sand. Toyota is set to pump out big pickups and SUVs like rabbits. They're just a little better positioned because of the Corolla, Matrix, Prius, xA and Yaris, all fuel economy champs. Their factories can easily switch production if necessary.

Peak is real. Liberals versus conservatives isn't. There's only one team running things - the globalists.