zete

It aggravates me as it looks like they cheaped out. It's like the idiocy inside my CTS, with no reading lamps in the back and no light in the globebox. Sure, you can go on about how it's a little thing, but it's those little things that aggravate me to no end. I'm still going to look at the Enclave, but if they screw up a little thing like the tail lights by going cheap there, where else did they cheap out?

What? No LED tail lights? That's just stupid.

Regardless of what some may want, FWD is still a necessity. Up here in the Great White North a FWD car easily outdoes a RWD car when we get 20 cm of the white stuff and the roads haven't been adequately plowed. No matter the tires, no matter the driver, 20+ cm of snow will undo a RWD car pretty quickly. It's the major reason why my next car will have AWD. The CTS is fun, but about twice a year it's a royal pain. Not that I want it to be FWD, but it should have had an AWD option for those of us living with real winters.

So, does this mean that all the cars are now profitable? Simple deduction. Each car has the same, or at least very similar, fixed employee costs per vehicle. Therefore, if the lowest cost cars are profitable the higher cars must be, too. Right?

He's talking about the abiotic theory of oil creation. And, many of the wells supposedly "dry" aren't really dry. In fact, until recently, many wells were capped when only about 30% of the oil was extracted. New technologies will allow us to get at at least another 50 - 75% of what remains. That means all those capped wells can be opened up again. And don't forget about the tar sands in Alberta and the Green River Formation in the US. The former supposedly has 2.5 trillion barrels, the latter 1.2 trillion. You read that right, trillion. It's just not easy to get at, but at least both are in "friendly countries" ;-). The recent discoveries of 10 - 15B barrels in the Gulf of Mexico at 7+kms down are what's fueling a lot of wonderment with the scientists. There just shouldn't be oil at that depth based on the "dead flora/fauna" method of oil production. The scientist who came up with the abiotic theory is Thomas Gold, though some contend it's a Russian idea and there is some evidence to back that up, too. And the best explanation of why oil pricing is where it is was given by a famous Texas oilman who said we've extracted the $10/barrel oil, the $15/barrel oil, the $25/barrel oil and the $45/barrel oil. We're now looking at $60/barrel oil. He figures it'll continue to go up unless technology can ease the cost of recovery.

Maybe it's an age thing. I prefer a nice growl, too. But I'm still young. As to the reviews, aren't Lexus and Buick owners both fairly old on average? Aren't many of them therefore hearing impaired? So why, then, is quiet tuning such a big deal? I'm being facetious for those that are humour impaired.

The track time might explain why the Solstice won the SCCA, too. The driver says it's just easier to drive and there's less rowing to do on the course. They were both impressed, what with the Solstice being cheaper, faster, and easier to drive. I'd love to see their reaction to the Turbo Sky and Solstice. And, I agree with them, with a car like this GM can make inroads into Japan. The commentators admit that the Solstice is well built and except for some teething pains will be a great car. I think it shocked them how good it is compared to the incumbent. Of interest, a couple of weeks ago someone parked a new Miata at the course I was playing. A guy saw it and parked his new Sky next to it, and then went off to play a round. People flocked to stare at the Sky making comments on how much better it looked than the old Miata. I didn't have the heart to tell them it was a new Miata (MX-5). Unless you're in the know it's hard to tell the difference between the last version and this one, unless you have the old model and the new side-by-each. The Sky simply looked brilliant. The most common comment was that folks couldn't believe it was a Saturn.

I like the Heart one. It makes me think a bit about some of those M series ads of a few years ago, though.

When I bought my first new car in 1984 I was amazed that the car came nearly empty. Every car I bought after that -- regardless of dealer -- it was full. This is just plain petty, and stupid. It's the little things that irk customers and this one would be up there. Just up the price of the stupid car by another $30 and cover your cost if you're going to be this anal about it. Idiots.

Missed that, thanks! Too much to read too little time, I suppose. No mention of other Zeta cars, just the Camaro.

It's official, GM announced the return of the Camaro. You can read the aritcle for more details. The summary is a $740M investment and the Camaro "rolls off the line in 2008". That'd be a year early, no?

When I finally buy either the Acadia or Enclave next year it'll count as fleet as I'll buy it through my company. I know everyone I work with will, in the next couple of years, buy a car from one of the Big 3 and it'll all be considered fleet. We buy loads of trucks and sedans for sales and our fleet and the Big 3 extend the fleet pricing to all employees. I'm looking forward to getting a nice chunk off and I would be stupid not to take it. So, yes, not all fleet is bad. I'm a senior manager in a huge multinational so though it'll be a fleet sale it won't look like one :-).

I'd swear if you look at that first pick you can see the portholes. The tape bubbles and the general shape seems to imply an oblong portal ala the concept. You can just make out the outline. Or maybe I'm just trying too hard. It'll be close between the Enclave and Acadia but we'll be getting one next year. Kids have grown this'll be perfect, esp. with AWD. And both look awesome. It'll probably come down to price but I can't see going wrong with either vehicle.

I think the rear would be better if the light assembly angled slightly down, creating a fin effect with the character line scooting from the fin all the way through the door handles or, at worst, through the upper crease below the windows to the front of the car. That would give it an aggressive, forward thrusting, lunging effect. The way it looks now makes the back and front not work together properly. Plus, the pics from 60 Minutes seemed to imply a fin-like rear light and I would assume a downward slope not the upward slope on this chop.

The armrest looks stitched, I think you can actually make out the stitching. So maybe the dash is, too. If the picture was of a higher resolution we could probably see if it was stitched near the passenger window, but there's too much glare. Overall it looks very similar. In fact, the colors look exactly like the concept. This puppy with that new Dual Mode Hybrid would be a sweet crossover.

Awesome! The nav system picture shows my home town, Ottawa! My office is just off of Booth St. That was a rather nice surprise to see. I just have to get one now :-).

Man. Now what do I do? I like this one and I like the Buick. Both have nice interiors, and this one has color. Finally! I can only guess it'll be priced between the Outlook and the Enclave.

There's all this talk of "sales" but the real issue is profits. The fire sale via the employee pricing last year resulted in poor profit margins. If we're looking at June 2006 and we're getting 413,473 cars and trucks with little to no incentives then we're looking at more profit than June 2005. That's the numbers I want to see. I really don't care if GM sells 1,000,000 cars in June if they lose money on each one. I'd rather they sell 400,000 and make $1,000 per vehicle! And that's the only measure that matters and we won't know that number until the quarter is up and GM issues their quarterly report. The goal is to be a profitable automaker. And as soon as GM is profitable quarter over quarter suddenly the news will switch from "plummeting sales" to "rising profits" irrespective of the actual number of cars sold. That's what Wagoner is up to. He knows that to save GM it isn't about sales but about profitability. What's amazing is that they sold 413,473 cars and trucks with little to no incentives as compared to 2004! That's yet another figure I'd like to see: average incentive per sale in 2004 vs. 2005 vs. 2006. I think it would be a startling number, especially considering the give away in 2005.

There are a few problems with the author's arguments. Other than the sexist attitude that few women woudl be interested in a muscular car, the fact is that there's a huge pent up demand for a GM pony car. This is from folks I know who want a pony car but won't buy a Ford -- me being one of them. There are also a lot of boomers who want to relive their youth but can't afford to buy a 67 Camaro at Barrett-Jackson for hundreds of thousands of dollars. What they do want is something cool, fast, that can handle and looks American. The Camaro does that. The GTO, which was hampered in a number of stylistic ways and insulted with the price gouging did reasonably well. Imagine a true rendition of a GTO and I'm sure the sales would have been better, especially if dealers can keep their greed in check. As for women, well, I know a great number of them that lust after Corvettes. When shown the concept Camaro they drooled over that, especially if it comes in a convertible hard top. Women today aren't the women of the 60s. They have affluence and many boomer women know that what was considered 'correct' back then -- i.e., a secretary special Mustang -- isn't what they truly desire. They want a V8. They want the power. They want the looks. Insurance will remain a stickler, but let's face it, it's only a concern for those under 25. Those under 22 are usually in school and those working probably haven't saved enough up for a Z28 or SS Camaro, so the entry-level V6s will do just fine -- and have lower insurance to boot. Today GM is trying to appeal to a wide swath of car lovers of both sexes, not just a bunch of teens from the 60s as they were way back then. Tastes are more sophisticated and so a more sophisticated car is required. The fact the Camaro will come with IRS is an indication of that. The care taken by Lutz to evolve the car is another indicator. It's not just a retro 67 Camaro but a nice progression to a modern interpretation. And I can't emphasize enough just how much of a pent up demand there is amongst my friends for a Camaro. The Ford lovers are ecstatic with the new Mustang and the GM fans despondent. That will change soon enough. In my family I won't be surprised if it's my wife, and not me, who decides to get the Camaro first. And I won't stand in her way, either. Of course, she's hoping for a hardtop convertible ;-).

Well, that's way nicer than my 2004 CTS inside. I wonder if we can extraplote from this to the Enclave and then to what the next gen Caddys will have as interiors. And the Outlook has grown on my quickly. I like it, too. The Aura should do well against a Camry. It's distinctive enough and more balanced than the Camry to the eyes.

Hey! Paddle shifters! Nice interior.

Why would someone, like myself, who owns a 2004 CTS be offended? I can hardly wait to trade mine in. The only thing that might stop me is if it doesn't have an AWD option. This is as much a step UP from the current CTS as the CTS was from the Catera. And if that shot was the interior. Finally! An interior worthy of the car. I love the tail lights. Very modern/retro.

Cool, thanks.

I agree that the note simply states that the footnote is deleted. No worries. BTW, 91z4me, that's a great pic of the next gen Camaro as your sig. Is it something you came up with.

Hey, he had no problem putting it to us Canadians with a softwood lumber tax/tariff, even though it's illegal and was tossed by every court on both sides of the border. It's just Europeans and Asians he won't stand up to, just us Canucks.