black02

During all 8 years of W, California had its own pollution standards, so this is not a "return to normal". Carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with regional air quality. So this is actually a new power that California is asking for.

Do you realize the standards being talked about have nothing to do with smog or air quality? They're essentially mileage standards, and the goal is to reduce global warming. It's essentially a second CAFE, though based on carbon output instead of gallons of fuel burned. I don't want to get into the discussion of whether tougher mileage/carbon emission standards are a good idea, but I do want to correct what the conversation is about.

Do you realize the standards being talked about have nothing to do with smog or air quality? They're essentially mileage standards, and the goal is to reduce global warming. It's essentially a second CAFE, though based on carbon output instead of gallons of fuel burned.

I think you're on to something here. The problems in the urban areas date way back. I remember even back in 1970, I read somewhere about the ratio of fullsize Chevys to VW Bugs in the U.S., and I noted that the ratio was far different in the greater SF Bay Area from what I'd read. You can see it in the attitude of Cadillac, where the smallest Caddy available weighs over 4000 pounds, once you load it up with options. Alpha will fix that particular problem, if it makes it to market. It's too bad it's taking so long, because once a small Caddy is available, it will be years before that fact penetrates to the consciousness of a majority of car buyers.

I see CARBIZ's point. Many of the qualities that the magazines use in a review are superficial? On the other hand, people buy cars for superficial reasons. Manual transmissions are essential for a good review of a sport sedan, but very few are sold. I hazard a guess that a manual CTS will sit on the dealer lot for months until the one stick-shift enthusiast comes in to buy one. Yet, the majority of the tests I've seen are of the manual version.

Is it just the auto industry or the whole region of SE Michigan in general?

I'd rather they work for UAW wages. Take the overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week.

I get the feeling he wasn't paying attention to the changes made over the last 18 months that already set up what he asks for.

I'd say they do. The Jetta/Rabbit are not a problem for GM. Minivans. The Japanese didn't have anything in the market. Right. The high cost of labor led GM to attempt to balance that by cost cutting. It didn't work. They're now trying top quality cars, but it's going to take a few years to turn over the product lines, and they're counting on more favorable UAW contracts to be cost competitive. I'm not anti-union. But I'm also not a union apologist. Prior to the 2007 contract, UAW costs were well above transplant costs, not due to salary, but due to benefits. In the long run, with two competent competitors, it's hard to overcome a labor cost disadvantage. Note that there are two ways to fix this. One is to increase Toyota's labor costs. The other is to reduce GM's labor costs. The UAW has failed to organize the Nissan, Toyota, Honda plants. So increasing Toyota's costs didn't work. I do not want to see blue collar jobs paying lower and lower wages. But that's a problem to fix in the future.

Makes sense. I can't see the Germans lending money that would just end up in Detroit.

GM's high labor costs led it to try making it up by cutting costs elsewhere. So I'd say that high labor costs led GM to not build a world class car. I'd say that the UAW shares the blame. Fortunately, they have agreed to changes that will help GM compete with Honda and Toyota. Unfortunately, the changes won't be fully implemented until 2011, and GM has to survive that long first.

It's your turn. Have Harper do it

Pembina? All of the Canadian auto industry is south of Pembina, as is Ottawa. There are a couple of bus manufacturers in Winnipeg....

His opinion piece was dumb. Don't declare bankruptcy, don't delay any products. Oh, and by the way, don't expect any government aid. Where's the money coming from to do all this?

Pretty grim. Around here, auto dealers have been closing left and right. We've lost a Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep store in the last few months.

What kind of Mercedes?

Sure. But it's never as easy as that. The small truck on the Solstice may not have been an easy thing to fix -- rather than using a backbone frame, maybe it would have required a unibody like the Miata, at which point, you spending a lot more money to develop and manufacture -- enough to kill the business case. I think it's safe to say that everything written in this thread has been thought of by those inside GM, though people continue to write as though these are all new ideas. Build great vehicles with no compromises at a profit? Great idea. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing it, and the hard part is what none of us (unless you're an employee of GM) have to worry about.

So the result the one time they did what what you suggest was a poorly engineered car, eh? And you want them to do that again?

Cutting brands costs money unless they can find a buyer. So if they do as you suggest, they'd have to cut R&D spending further. Maybe GM knows more about their business than you do. Just maybe.

What if you spend so much on R&D that you default, and have to go chapter 11? When the bottom falls out of your market, it's all about survival, and continuing the same R&D spend that you had prior may not be the best way to do that. To be sure, none of the options are palatable.

The Torana was GM's best looking concept this decade. I really like the front end and the low beltline, and I like the idea of a small performance RWD V6. I hope when and if the GM Alpha finally reaches production, it retains some of the style from the concept.

Step one is to stop the defections. If you owned a 6-year old Chevy Lumina in 2000, and you wanted to buy a decent RWD sports sedan, you might have taken a look at the Catera, but you'd probably end up buying a BMW or Mercedes. Now, if you're trading up your 2002 Malibu, GM has a good chance of getting your business with a CTS. So maybe you won't get the BMW owner, but if you get the Chevy or Ford owner, you're doing better than before.

So if you want to compare the GM 3.6 DOHC with a pushrod V6 of equal size, you'd have to speculate on something like 3/4 of the L76 or LS3. Maybe 4.5-4.6 litres, and 270-320hp. One of the GM concepts early this decade did have such an engine in it. I'm wondering how smooth such an engine would be, even with a 60 degree bank. Also, how tall would it be? You could certainly build it at 90 degrees, but then you need a balance shaft. There must be a good reason that there have been almost no passenger car V6s (and no modern ones) over 4.0 litres. Anyone know what it is?

It makes a lot of sense. Why have two platforms for two cars of the same layout and size? Put premium components into the premium car (better engine, more tech, lighter parts), and folks will be happy.

Most of these changes would require structural analysis and new crash tests, which is very expensive. That's the reason that the Camaro kept its hump even after there was no longer a cat underneath it. The time to put in the weight savings is before the product is crash tested. So maybe for 2012, when the next variant is ready (5 years after the 1st). That's in time for the meat of the CAFE improvements. I still think they'd be doing very well to get it down to 3700 with a turbo 4. That's probably enough, however, to keep it viable with CAFE. I know Mazda has been sweating the grams in their recent models. I'm thinking that kind of devotion to weight reduction will become widespread going forward. It does require more time and/or money invested up front. Engineering is not free (can you tell I'm an engineer? ).