Oh yeah, Malcolm Bricklin - that man is King Midas in reverse! The only "success" he had was Subaru and that make only became successful after he left.
"Another thing is, if you got married and had kids, both of you would HAVE to work just to pay for the daycare, which is $$$$$."
True. My friend's kids' daycare cost more per month than the rent on the fairly nice apartment I was living in at the time. Funny how childcare workers are paid so poorly despite the costs of daycare service.
Well, that depends on whether one likes tail fins or not. I think that the late 50's styling went over the top trying to incorporate the idea of the space age or jet age. I think that car styling was far more sensible before and after the late 50's. As far as the Chrysler fins go, I like the 300 G best. I think that the 59 Cadillac Eldorado convertible is a nice looking finned car while the 57 or 58 versions are not so good.
I would like GM to make a nice wagon, probably a Buick to make it affordable. The SRX is really an SUV built on a car platform and is not quite what I call affordable.
$1500 a month for two kids last year. I almost cried when my daughter entered public kindergarten this year. It would have been like winning the lottery except for my wife immediately went to a 75% work schedule.
What are you smokin' Joe, and are you gonna share some? Because otherwise, your credibility is zip when you make irrational statements like that one. GM makes some decent cars and trucks (mostly trucks), but GM is anything BUT intuitive! They're so busy playing cover my butt, they don't have time to be intuitive! They have no idea what the public wants, which is why they lose market share every single day. They keep putting cars out they want the public to want, telling the public what they should want. Again, they're not bad cars, a little crude, but not bad and they run good generally, but they're old fashioned technologically and crude. They sound like a John Deere running, and styling - well, they've yet to make an interior I can stand.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to pick a fight. I just don't see how you can say they're "intuitive"...... Not that.
Shoot, it wasn't that long ago that GM did make a nice wagon. I would've liked a 1996 Buick Roadmaster Estate. Trouble is, wagons aren't "cool" anymore. Even Toyota and Honda failed in this segment due to that fact. Anybody remember the Camry and Accord wagons? Funny because SUVs pretty much are wagons on steroids.
No one, well hardly anyone, will buy something called a station wagon. Volume is way too low. However the crossovers are coming out which take their place. The Pacifica is one.
Maybe if they called them "estate cars" like they do in the UK. It sounds classy. I'd definately not call it a "depot hack" and most certainly not a "break." How about a "Kombi?" Didn't Mercedes call their station wagons by that term? Fintail?
The Pacifica is a crossover while the Dodge Magnum is a wagon. The EPA lists both as SUV's. THe Pacifica burns more fuel than the Magnum, although the 3.8 engine is about the same as the Magnum's 5.7.
how the Magnum gets classified as an SUV! :confuse:
I like the way the top of the Magnum's liftgate is actually hinged a foot or two into the roof, instead of right at the edge, so that it opens out of the way and makes access to the rear easier.
are starting to become cool again, mainly because things have come full-circle. Wagons became uncool once minivans were all the rage. Then minivans became uncool once SUVs were the in-thing. And now it's these crossover things, which are kind of a jack-of-all-trades minivan, wagon, and SUV all rolled into one. Vehicles like the Pacifica and Equionox. Even tradtional minivans are starting to lose some of their "van-ness", with longer noses and roll-down windows in the rear side doors.
Well, there is no large wagon class, so... But the Pacifica is 66 inches tall, which I think makes it an SUV. The Audi Allroad was the first so called crossover vehicle.
different wagon classes. They're broken down into...
small: <130 cubic feet interior volume mid-size: 130-159 large: 160 or more.
Now that's total interior volume, not cargo volume. A Magnum has something like 72 cubic feet of cargo space, and when you add for the front seat passenger area, I'm sure it comes out to somewhere in the midsize range. It's about the size of a Taurus inside, or old-school wagons like the old Fairmont, Volare, downsized Malibu, etc.
There are two reasons that it gets classified as an SUV, though.
1) It has a flat load surface behind the front seat. Now, just about every wagon out there can boast this feature, so you'd think that every wagon out there could be an SUV. However, there's a catch...
2) There's a criterion called approach/departure angle that a vehicle must meet to be classified as a truck/SUV. I'm not sure the exact measurement, but the vehicle must be able to go up a ramp of certain steepness without scraping the front or the rear overhang. This is where the Magnum (and the Subaru Legacy wagon) get their SUV credentials. In the case of the Magnum, it has such a long wheelbase (120 inches) but a relatively short overall length (196" or so), so there just isn't much overhang. Therefore, it's just not likely to scrape. Also, the rump of the car tapers upward so it would be less likely to scrape. However, with the longer wheelbase, I wonder if that means that, once you get to the top of the ramp and it levels off, that you'd be more likely to scrape the midsection of the car and get hung up?
keep the Solictice. The GXP version looks exciting, based on edmunds report.
The G6 needs to be a little more luxurious like a Acura TL and hope the new GXP gets a needed bump in power to compete with the TL.
The G-8 needs to be a M3 handler with new M3 power. It needs to be a car of more than just basics to compete with the Lexus IS or Bimmer 3. It needs creature features and a solid fit and finish to be a choice for most consumers.
The next GTO needs to be exactly like the G-8. Only in coupe version form. It works for BMW, and "IT" could work for Pontiac if the car is marketed properly and has the creds to back it up. Perhaps a convertible would spice things up too ?
Drop the boring Torrent and Grand Prix ASAP.
A large performance car like the Bonneville with AWD might be a hot car. It would have to be more Audi or Volvo like. It would give folks in inclement climates a car, but then again the excution would have to be right !
Pontiac needs no SUV's or Vans. It just ruins the image. Pontiac should represent driving like BMW, but have the luxury of a Acura or Lexus in my opinion.
All the sources I know, have said that's the styling for the next CTS. Well if it gets the "high quality/ fit and finish" treatment, it will make for a interesting CTS and a BMW M5 killer CTS-V :P A 515 horsepower CTS-V with refinement, how is that not a improvement :confuse:
It's ok not to like Cadillacs. It might take me a little to warm up to the new styling. It will probably look alot better in person
I would like GM to simply improve on some basics in the CTS, like adding telescopic steering column. Reduce the price. Is it a BMW killer, I doubt that if priced the same. I saw the CTS-V race car, and it is pretty cool. Not too many people buying Cadillacs which really need 500HP cars. I usually drive faster in my PT Cruiser than the average Caddy driver. They gave up on offering the stick shift on all but the V8 models. I would imagine the CTS as a near BMW handling and near fun to drive car, which at the right price is a good buy. CTS has a unique look and is good in many ways. Don't think they have achieved best in class yet, so why the $35K price or more? If it is HP, I could by a Chrysler 300C for less money. You can get a BMW with all service for free for four years for the same price as a CTS. If there is a selling point I am missing, it must be well hidden. If the car sold under $30K, and had the 3.6 V6 it would be a better value.
Thanks for the post Rock. Looks like 'ol Miller woke a sleeping giant.
Also checked out a couple other articles, talking about Ford revising retirement benfits, and other beneifts for current worker. As well as articles of Collins & Aikman closing another plant, Dana closing three.
We're (auto industry OEMs and suppliers) taking a hit.
I'm not sure what line of work your in ? I hope your job is secure or can't be outsourced. My family is so upset because they truely bust there butt for GM/Delphi. I am not so much against the Japanese cars with a high american content. GM/Ford/Chrysler can compete against them. The auto parts buiz is a cluster. So much of the parts are being made in foreign country's it's sickening. The ones that remain wanna pay $9.00-13 an hour with minimal benefits. My mom is making $12 an hour at auto parts supplier Gentex Corp. She gets a very small match on her 401, and pays a butt load of money for insurance. She has a 80/20 plan with a $5K deductible. So as you can tell the doctor bills get pricey fast. Luckily my Step Dad got a new job with good insurance. He made $22 an hour and my mom avg. $16-17 at Rowe Int'l (Juke Box). Both got laid off my mom being first about 3 yrs. ago. My Step dad lost his job a yr or so ago.
HIGH-DEFINITION The All-New 2007 Cadillac Escalade . Chromed from top to bottom . Factory-installed 22 inch rims . 6.2L 403 hp. Vortec V8 . 6-speed transmission with Driver Shift Control . Bose 5.1 Digital Surround Sound System . Power liftgate; remote start . DVD navigation with VOICE RECOGNITION . DVD Rear-Seat Entertainment with 8"- wide screen . Heated and cooled front seats; heated steering wheel . Head curtain side air bags for all three rows
And if you know anything else about this vehicle, their are plenty of other "state of the art features" left out !
HIGH-DEFINITION The All-New 2007 Cadillac Escalade . Chromed from top to bottom . Factory-installed 22 inch rims . 6.2L 403 hp. Vortec V8 . 6-speed transmission with Driver Shift Control . Bose 5.1 Digital Surround Sound System . Power liftgate; remote start . DVD navigation with VOICE RECOGNITION . DVD Rear-Seat Entertainment with 8"- wide screen . Heated and cooled front seats; heated steering wheel . Head curtain side air bags for all three rows
And if you know anything else about this vehicle, their are plenty of other "state of the art features" left out !
Yeah, the price. It will be a cold day in hell before I spend $60k on a spruced up Tahoe that I could wait 2 years and get it for 1/2 that amount used.
In fairness, it looks to be a sweet truck, but I don't need to combine a luxury vehicle with an SUV. After a day on the lake boating all day, the last thing I want is my sun lotion, sweat covered self along with my kids and their friends climbing all over a 60k vehicle.
It irritates me to no end that GM will only offer the 6 speed auto and 6.0+ engines in the expensive line 1/2 ton SUVs. Why can't I get the option of more power w/o having to poney up another 10-20k for a Denali or Escalade. I guess GM is trying to get me to buy an Armada. Even with all it's faults, at least I can get lots of torque with a 5 speed auto in any trim line.
Well in all fairness pal, I hope you don't scare yourself to death when you shut the doors on the Armada. Dude I was amazed at how flimsy and platicky the body is. The Tahoe is going to have a standard 350 hp. 5.3 Vortec V-8 which as it looks will be the most standard hp. in the large SUV segment. If you want more, you can always buy a inexpensive programmer and/or chip. Also a hybrid is due out too for the 5.3 and the base 6.0 is going to have like 360-370 hp.
I'd personally wait for the next full size Silverado/Sierra with a Duramax. From what I've gathered pal is 780 lbs of old fashion diesel torque and 400-450 hp.
But if you want a SUV, I'd wouldn't look further than a Tahoe or Yukon. The Escalade/Yukon Denali is for us luxury folks that want bling, decent performance, with all season capability.
Are you guys out there on the coasts still paying $3!!! Something wrong there. It was under $2 here for a couple weeks. Then I read an article about a week ago in the NY Times I believe, that said gas would go up for the Holidays. guess what. Gas went up the next day!! It's about $2.12 here.
I thougt the gas mileage was supposed to be closer to 19 combined? Where did you get 12?
350HP from the new DOD 5.3 sounds high. This is what I got off the New Car Test Drive website "The 5.3-liter V8 gains 25 horsepower, to 320, and five pound-feet of torque, to 340".
While that's a nice gain it's still 45ft-lbs of torque short of Nissan's 5.6L and short of Fords 5.4 365ft-lbs of torque, I still fail to see where pushrods are better, but I guess GM knows something all other automakers don't. HP doesn't mean a whole lot when towing. I know most people don't tow with their SUVs, so the HP is nice for everyday driving.
I really should not comment until I drive one in person, but I will any way. Since I tow my boat a lot, my main priority is torque. A diesel would be great, but I need the interior space of an SUV and GM has failed to see a need for a diesel SUV. I've heard rumors Ford may still come up with a smaller diesel for the Expedition, but with all the problems with the Powerstroke, I would tread lightly if they actually do offer a diesel.
While the new HP & torque gains for the 5.3 look nice I'm concerned that it will be offset by tall gearing. I hate how my Suburban is geared, even with the 3.73 rear end. There are so many times when I'm towing where the 5.3 is left flat footed because of gearing.
Ex. around 65mph I run about 2700 in 3rd gear (not recommended and virtually imposible to tow in o/d, even on flat land it generally won't engage). When going up a hill, I don't have enough power to maintain speed, generally requiring a downshift resulting in over 4500rpm to maintain speed or slow down to under 50 so I don't have to spin the engine over 4000rpm for extended periods. Not to mention, the tow/haul mode increases hydraulic presure thus the shifts are extremely firm. Since the tow/haul mode also holds gears longer you have to basically floor it for a kick down then have a really hard shift back to 3rd.
These are the reason why a 5 or 6 speed would really aid towing. If I had a gear between 2nd and 3rd, I could easily pull up moderate grades @3-3500rpm instead of over 4000rpm with the current setup. I really want the 6 speed auto and it doesn't look like it will be offered initially in the tahoe/suburban.
You are right about the Armada. Considering how much I liked my 01 Nissan Pathfinder, I was severely disapointed in the Armada's build quality. It's obvious where Goshen achieved cost cuts. While the interior quality was no worse than my current Suburban, it certainly concerned me enough not to buy one.
I absolutely loved how it drove. By far the best v8/transmission combo available in a 1/2 ton SUV (new GM v8s/6speed should close the gap). But the fact that a 5000+lb SUV can have a 0-60 time around 7 seconds is truely amazing, considering my Suburban probably can't manage a 9 second 0-60 time.
Gas on the left coast here is around $2.40 per gallon. By next year peak season for gas expense, it should easily be in the $3 to $3.50 range again. Now I would gladly take under $2 a gallon gas, and look forward to owning a V8 again some day. Last V8 I owned was my '65 Stang back in early '70's. Currently own a PT, and it averages around 22-24MPG - my worse average MPG in years, but that's OK, fun little car.
Now back on subject. No current styling won't save GM. The current Mitsubishi styling is pretty cool, using the new Eclipse and the Galant as examples. It won't save the diamond company in USA. Dealerships are closing. The cars may be OK, but I personally would not buy one where I live due to lack of dealer support, and fear of the company pulling out of USA. And I may add I live here in California, which is Japan and German car heaven for sales. Now I do see some new GM cars, but dealers still want to stock trucks and SUVs. When the SUV craze crashed, I wonder what these dealers are thinking? I did see a pretty good transition into cars at Cadillac. Less Escalade ( Denali ) SUV dressed up monsters and more autos now. The STS looks like a stretched and more rounded CTS, which I guess is OK, but for $50K? By far the most new style for '06 comes in the form of a Solstice, yet I have yet to see one. The G6 and other new GM cars are OK, but nothing really strong and compelling. At least the CTS grabs the eye. Better style may help GM, though like Mitsubishi, I think people are thinking the back of their minds that GM may be exiting in some fashion, be it dealerships, or car lines and models going away.
Pontiac needs no SUV's or Vans. It just ruins the image. Pontiac should represent driving like BMW, but have the luxury of a Acura or Lexus in my opinion.
Agree with you on this 100 percent. As a former multi Pontiac owner of years ago, I have been somewhat saddened by what could have been. Pontiac's claim to performance ended approximately in 1971. There was a brief resurgence and much enthusiasm from car magazines in about 1984 when a front driver Pontiac STE was introduced. Think that Pontiac only offered it for a couple of years. Don't know anything about the quality/reliability of that STE. They tried again in 80s with Fiero and when they finally got the design/redesign right, they killed it.
GM lack of leadership and innovation for last 3+ decades caused this. The type of Americans who bought Pontiac performance many years ago, when foreign cars were token amount, are around today and would buy Pontiac and GM if they were equal to or exceeded BMW 3, Acura TL, Infiniti G35, Audi 4. I am one of these. Unfortunately, there is nothing close from Pontiac except now for Solstice.
Just dump the names, and label the GM cars as GM and Cadillacs as Cadillac by GM. GMC would be the truck division. Make half the cars RWD. Make a new inline 6, at say 250HP, one good i4 ( they say the current 4 in Cobalt is good - I don't know), and a couple V8 engines. Too many different engines. Oh yeah, I guess you need say the 3.6 V6 for FWD cars. Saturn could be the GMi, or General Motors Import division. They would get Opels, Holdens, and perhaps make a couple of their own cars for the youth market. Could also morph into a Saturn Sports and sell all the sporty GMs in USA. Drop the awkward looking ION, and the VUE.
Just dump the names, and label the GM cars as GM and Cadillacs as Cadillac by GM. GMC would be the truck division
Can't see dumping Chevrolet name. Are not one-half of GM sales in US the Chevrolet brand? Also, Pontiac name/word still sounds exciting in spite of its vehicles - Solstice excluded. Say Pontiac aloud and also Buick and one can see that Buick sounds stodgy and Pontiac has presence. Any voice/diction coaches out there? Buick brand would be ok to drop, but not Chevrolet. Lacrosse and Lucerne would remain but could be high-end Chevrolets, just like Avalon for Toyota. Pontiac brand should be dropped unless GM actually builds Pontiac cars (not suvs) that are exciting as in the past long ago.
Note that AT&T, which is just a small part of its former giant size, was bought by SBC, its one-time child. Name brand of AT&T is considered so important that SBC is renaming itself "at&t", lower case.
...let's be fair, there is some skill involved in assembling a car or a car part. You do need to be trained. So it's not at "mopping the floor" level. It's just unfortunate for these people that globilization and an out-of-control health care industry are killing their value. Imagine if your employer wanted to axe half your salary. I feel for them, but I don't think the corporation is the villian for trying to get cost-equity with their competitors.
They may well be villians, however, with the way they are throwing gobs of cash at executives that did a fairly good job of running the company into the ground in the first place.
Clearly you are not happy with the choice that you made for towing what you tow. This is not really GM's fault as there are other engine/transmission combinations. I am not sure what was available at the time you bought what you have, and at present the GM SUVs do not offer more than 4 speed automatics. To get the optimum towing vehicle from GM, one must get a heavy duty truck with the diesel engine and 6 speed Alison transmission. Even with a crew cab this may not be the cabin that you want.
I agree that these people develop some skills, but those skills are pretty much worthless if they are not transferrable.
If my employer wanted to half my salary, I could be in a new position making at least my current salary within a week. This is because I have transferrable skills that are not easily replaced.
Not sure where you are going with the "transferrable" - auto workers skills are indeed transferrable to other auto plants. The key here is when you said "not easily replaced". This is vastly different from whether a skill is "transferrable" or not. Let's face it, flipping a burger at McDonalds is trandferrable to Burger King.
"Not easily replaced" is a notion that's starting to vary in our globalized world. A lot of college educated computer programmers thought for the longest time that they would not be easily replaced, until some Indian and Russion programmers came along for a quarter of the price.
Hey, it is General Motors, as in Parts is Parts. Chevrolet, or Chevy only has one car which is close to it's former self - the Corvette. The rest is mostly just in name. I guess if it turns on people, GM could save the name, and have Chevrolet and Cadillac by GM, and trucks by GMC. Saturn is no longer making new models in plastic, but they do have some nice showrooms, so why not make them the import and sport car division for the young and young at heart. As for Pontiac being hip, or sporty, that may be a faded memory, or should I say faded glory. They mix vans, suvs, four door basic sedans, economy cars, and who knows what into the mix as Pontiacs, so no one identifies the division as sporty these days. - Loren
But not whole heartedly, they will use the 3.9L in the equinox in a year or so.
The enige by then will probably have some improvement, but currently the most you get out of it is 242 hp. the Rav 4 wil have 268hp. Lets not forget the equinox is priced lower than the rav 4 and i do not think it will touch 30K as long as GM wants to stay in business.
Also, the GM pushrods mey be going to 3 valve heads (more power and smoother operation are more than welcome.) Here it is: GM to invest in power
Your are partially correct, but remember, we are only talking about 4500-5000lbs. A weight some midsize SUVs can handle. Since I was using a Nissan Pathfinder to tow my current boat before I had the Suburban, I just assumed going with a full size SUV with a higher tow rating would net a big gain in towing performance. It is better, but actual pulling power isn't, mainly due to the gear ratio spacing. Mainly between 2nd & 3rd, which isn't a big issue when not towing.
Everything is a compromise. I won't compromise on interior space to get a PU. A 3/4ton would probably be ideal for the extra capacity, but you do give up ride and end up with horrible fuel milage with the 6.0L or 8.1L. I would just like to see GM use the 6 speed auto across the board at least as an option. Hopefull that will come after the intial model year...
Smaller engines really need more gears than larger engines do. However, I think that the 6 speed automatic requires a robust computer system to operate and the 6.2 engine has the computer system while the older engines do not. The alison 6 speed would be a sensible alternate choice though and I would think that it does not require a super computer to manage it.
Looking at the EPA MPG differences in the suburban's engines, I do not see that the 6 liter engine is that much worse than the 5.3. The bigger engine might actually do better than the smaller engine while towing, or perhaps no worse. So much depends on how hard you flog it.
In the auto/heavy truck industry, Tier 1 / 2 supplier as well as aftermarket. Been getting hit lately due to the auto industry sagging as a whole. Can tell you more and more we're getting molds and parts manufactured in China, am closing one plant after the New Year. But the good thing is the company is global, understands what global means, and knows that it takes more than putting a plant in a cheap labor market to be considered global.
Fortunately I've been able to keep myself updated with education, and parlaying my passion for manufacturing/cars/design. I didn't want to pigeon-hold myself into one thing, only to have that thing wash up and I end up *ss out. I took advantage of situations presented to me, jump at opportunities and was able to advance myself.
Because of my career path, I can place my hat into many fields. And I think that's what a lot of people need to do, but unfortunately they don't. Like many stated here, and I agree with them, they need to find out what programs their companies offer in terms of training / positions / programs and take advantage. I must admit, in my first "real" job in industry our president and crew had the GM Wagoner/Lutz mentality, as long as they made it ($$), kcuf the rest. And they were like Delphi Miller as well, just pay the people like crap despite the fact that most were skilled in their craft. Fortunately I was able to move to a better company. Then left there and again, am in a very, very, very good company that recognizes the person's talents, what they bring to the table, and look at the employees as an investment to make the company better.
Looking at the EPA MPG differences in the suburban's engines, I do not see that the 6 liter engine is that much worse than the 5.3. The bigger engine might actually do better than the smaller engine while towing, or perhaps no worse. So much depends on how hard you flog it.
Around the boat ramp, I've talked with several guys towing with GMC Denali XLs powered by the 6.0L. Most had moved on from the 5.3L Suburban for the same reasons I've complained about. They all liked the additional power of the 6.0L, but they do get worse fuel economy towing or nontowing. I can get 11-12 towing, they guys using a 6.0L towing similar sized boats reported getting 9-10.
While it doesn't sound like much, it's still over a 10% differance. While that's a price I'd be willing to pay, I can understand why they don't throw a 6.0L or 8.1L in everything.
A lot depends on how you drive it. With the extra power they probably cruise at or above the speed limit I had a rental Suburban when my Seville needed a solenoid replaced in the transmission. I don't know which engine it had, either the 4.8 or 5.3 I would guess. It had adequate power to move itself around, but I would not want to tow anything. SUV's do not get good fuel economy anyway. My brother has a Honda CR-V(?). It uses more fuel than my Seville.
"Now back on subject. No current styling won't save GM. The current Mitsubishi styling is pretty cool, using the new Eclipse and the Galant as examples. It won't save the diamond company in USA. Dealerships are closing. The cars may be OK, but I personally would not buy one where I live due to lack of dealer support, and fear of the company pulling out of USA. And I may add I live here in California, which is Japan and German car heaven for sales."
The Eclipse is selling ok but the Galant is selling horribly. Today I just saw 3,450 factory rebate on the Galant in the newspaper. I see some 04 Galants in NJ but to me the car is way too overstyled and the interior is cheap. The 1999-2003 Galant sold alot of copies even the 0/0/0 financing by Mitsu helped spur the 99-03 Galant sales. To me the car(04 Galant)got what it deserved: slow sales. Usually when a manufacturer puts a car onto the market it gets what it deserves in terms of sales.
"The Impala is a good product, and I wish it the best in the marketplace. Personally, I think Toyota may lose some sales with their new 2007 Camry, as they are targeting a younger demographic, similar to what Honda did with the 2006 Civic. It works for the Civic, but perhaps not with the Camry."
I have seen pictures and I am 26 years old and the new Camry appeals to the same old demographic as the current model does even though it looks a little more agressive. The front end of the 07 Camry looks alright but the back emd looks plain and Toyota should put the new Camry back in the styling oven to make the back end look sportier in my opinion . 1992-1994 was the closest Toyota got to taking a styling chance with the Camry even though I prefer the cleaner lines of the 95 mid-cycle refresh which lasted up until the 1996 model year until a new Camry bodystyle appeared for the 97 model year.
BTW, Toyota just put the next generation Corolla back in the styling oven after the product was finished.
Comments
Good luck, Bricklen just announced he gave up that enterprize.
True. My friend's kids' daycare cost more per month than the rent on the fairly nice apartment I was living in at the time. Funny how childcare workers are paid so poorly despite the costs of daycare service.
What are you smokin' Joe, and are you gonna share some? Because otherwise, your credibility is zip when you make irrational statements like that one. GM makes some decent cars and trucks (mostly trucks), but GM is anything BUT intuitive! They're so busy playing cover my butt, they don't have time to be intuitive! They have no idea what the public wants, which is why they lose market share every single day. They keep putting cars out they want the public to want, telling the public what they should want. Again, they're not bad cars, a little crude, but not bad and they run good generally, but they're old fashioned technologically and crude. They sound like a John Deere running, and styling - well, they've yet to make an interior I can stand.
I'm sorry, and I don't mean to pick a fight. I just don't see how you can say they're "intuitive"...... Not that.
Rocky
I like the way the top of the Magnum's liftgate is actually hinged a foot or two into the roof, instead of right at the edge, so that it opens out of the way and makes access to the rear easier.
But the Pacifica is 66 inches tall, which I think makes it an SUV. The Audi Allroad was the first so called crossover vehicle.
small: <130 cubic feet interior volume
mid-size: 130-159
large: 160 or more.
Now that's total interior volume, not cargo volume. A Magnum has something like 72 cubic feet of cargo space, and when you add for the front seat passenger area, I'm sure it comes out to somewhere in the midsize range. It's about the size of a Taurus inside, or old-school wagons like the old Fairmont, Volare, downsized Malibu, etc.
There are two reasons that it gets classified as an SUV, though.
1) It has a flat load surface behind the front seat. Now, just about every wagon out there can boast this feature, so you'd think that every wagon out there could be an SUV. However, there's a catch...
2) There's a criterion called approach/departure angle that a vehicle must meet to be classified as a truck/SUV. I'm not sure the exact measurement, but the vehicle must be able to go up a ramp of certain steepness without scraping the front or the rear overhang. This is where the Magnum (and the Subaru Legacy wagon) get their SUV credentials. In the case of the Magnum, it has such a long wheelbase (120 inches) but a relatively short overall length (196" or so), so there just isn't much overhang. Therefore, it's just not likely to scrape. Also, the rump of the car tapers upward so it would be less likely to scrape. However, with the longer wheelbase, I wonder if that means that, once you get to the top of the ramp and it levels off, that you'd be more likely to scrape the midsection of the car and get hung up?
My plan.
keep the Solictice. The GXP version looks exciting, based on edmunds report.
The G6 needs to be a little more luxurious like a Acura TL and hope the new GXP gets a needed bump in power to compete with the TL.
The G-8 needs to be a M3 handler with new M3 power. It needs to be a car of more than just basics to compete with the Lexus IS or Bimmer 3. It needs creature features and a solid fit and finish to be a choice for most consumers.
The next GTO needs to be exactly like the G-8. Only in coupe version form. It works for BMW, and "IT" could work for Pontiac if the car is marketed properly and has the creds to back it up. Perhaps a convertible would spice things up too ?
Drop the boring Torrent and Grand Prix ASAP.
A large performance car like the Bonneville with AWD might be a hot car. It would have to be more Audi or Volvo like. It would give folks in inclement climates a car, but then again the excution would have to be right !
Pontiac needs no SUV's or Vans. It just ruins the image. Pontiac should represent driving like BMW, but have the luxury of a Acura or Lexus in my opinion.
Rocky
http://spyphotos.autoblog.com/entry/1234000847064887/
Do ya'll like it ????
Rocky
Also, the current CTS-V is an undrivable twitch monster without the nannies. A 500hp version is not an improvement.
"high quality/ fit and finish" treatment, it will make for a interesting CTS and a BMW M5 killer CTS-V :P
A 515 horsepower CTS-V with refinement, how is that not a improvement :confuse:
It's ok not to like Cadillacs. It might take me a little to warm up to the new styling. It will probably look alot better in person
Rocky
Loren
Also checked out a couple other articles, talking about Ford revising retirement benfits, and other beneifts for current worker. As well as articles of Collins & Aikman closing another plant, Dana closing three.
We're (auto industry OEMs and suppliers) taking a hit.
Depressing :sick:
I'm not sure what line of work your in ? I hope your job is secure or can't be outsourced. My family is so upset because they truely bust there butt for GM/Delphi. I am not so much against the Japanese cars with a high american content. GM/Ford/Chrysler can compete against them. The auto parts buiz is a cluster. So much of the parts are being made in foreign country's it's sickening. The ones that remain wanna pay $9.00-13 an hour with minimal benefits. My mom is making $12 an hour at auto parts supplier Gentex Corp. She gets a very small match on her 401, and pays a butt load of money for insurance. She has a 80/20 plan with a $5K deductible. So as you can tell the doctor bills get pricey fast. Luckily my Step Dad got a new job with good insurance. He made $22 an hour and my mom avg. $16-17 at Rowe Int'l (Juke Box). Both got laid off my mom being first about 3 yrs. ago. My Step dad lost his job a yr or so ago.
Rocky
The All-New 2007 Cadillac Escalade
. Chromed from top to bottom
. Factory-installed 22 inch rims
. 6.2L 403 hp. Vortec V8
. 6-speed transmission with Driver Shift Control
. Bose 5.1 Digital Surround Sound System
. Power liftgate; remote start
. DVD navigation with VOICE RECOGNITION
. DVD Rear-Seat Entertainment with 8"- wide screen
. Heated and cooled front seats; heated steering wheel
. Head curtain side air bags for all three rows
And if you know anything else about this vehicle, their are plenty of other "state of the art features" left out !
If it can handle like a M3 or M5, then 500+ horsepower would be appropriate for a V-model.
Rocky
The All-New 2007 Cadillac Escalade
. Chromed from top to bottom
. Factory-installed 22 inch rims
. 6.2L 403 hp. Vortec V8
. 6-speed transmission with Driver Shift Control
. Bose 5.1 Digital Surround Sound System
. Power liftgate; remote start
. DVD navigation with VOICE RECOGNITION
. DVD Rear-Seat Entertainment with 8"- wide screen
. Heated and cooled front seats; heated steering wheel
. Head curtain side air bags for all three rows
And if you know anything else about this vehicle, their are plenty of other "state of the art features" left out !
Yeah, the price. It will be a cold day in hell before I spend $60k on a spruced up Tahoe that I could wait 2 years and get it for 1/2 that amount used.
In fairness, it looks to be a sweet truck, but I don't need to combine a luxury vehicle with an SUV. After a day on the lake boating all day, the last thing I want is my sun lotion, sweat covered self along with my kids and their friends climbing all over a 60k vehicle.
It irritates me to no end that GM will only offer the 6 speed auto and 6.0+ engines in the expensive line 1/2 ton SUVs. Why can't I get the option of more power w/o having to poney up another 10-20k for a Denali or Escalade. I guess GM is trying to get me to buy an Armada. Even with all it's faults, at least I can get lots of torque with a 5 speed auto in any trim line.
I'd personally wait for the next full size Silverado/Sierra with a Duramax. From what I've gathered pal is 780 lbs of old fashion diesel torque and 400-450 hp.
But if you want a SUV, I'd wouldn't look further than a Tahoe or Yukon. The Escalade/Yukon Denali is for us luxury folks that want bling, decent performance, with all season capability.
Rocky
I thougt the gas mileage was supposed to be closer to 19 combined? Where did you get 12?
350HP from the new DOD 5.3 sounds high. This is what I got off the New Car Test Drive website "The 5.3-liter V8 gains 25 horsepower, to 320, and five pound-feet of torque, to 340".
While that's a nice gain it's still 45ft-lbs of torque short of Nissan's 5.6L and short of Fords 5.4 365ft-lbs of torque, I still fail to see where pushrods are better, but I guess GM knows something all other automakers don't. HP doesn't mean a whole lot when towing. I know most people don't tow with their SUVs, so the HP is nice for everyday driving.
I really should not comment until I drive one in person, but I will any way. Since I tow my boat a lot, my main priority is torque. A diesel would be great, but I need the interior space of an SUV and GM has failed to see a need for a diesel SUV. I've heard rumors Ford may still come up with a smaller diesel for the Expedition, but with all the problems with the Powerstroke, I would tread lightly if they actually do offer a diesel.
While the new HP & torque gains for the 5.3 look nice I'm concerned that it will be offset by tall gearing. I hate how my Suburban is geared, even with the 3.73 rear end. There are so many times when I'm towing where the 5.3 is left flat footed because of gearing.
Ex. around 65mph I run about 2700 in 3rd gear (not recommended and virtually imposible to tow in o/d, even on flat land it generally won't engage). When going up a hill, I don't have enough power to maintain speed, generally requiring a downshift resulting in over 4500rpm to maintain speed or slow down to under 50 so I don't have to spin the engine over 4000rpm for extended periods. Not to mention, the tow/haul mode increases hydraulic presure thus the shifts are extremely firm. Since the tow/haul mode also holds gears longer you have to basically floor it for a kick down then have a really hard shift back to 3rd.
These are the reason why a 5 or 6 speed would really aid towing. If I had a gear between 2nd and 3rd, I could easily pull up moderate grades @3-3500rpm instead of over 4000rpm with the current setup. I really want the 6 speed auto and it doesn't look like it will be offered initially in the tahoe/suburban.
You are right about the Armada. Considering how much I liked my 01 Nissan Pathfinder, I was severely disapointed in the Armada's build quality. It's obvious where Goshen achieved cost cuts. While the interior quality was no worse than my current Suburban, it certainly concerned me enough not to buy one.
I absolutely loved how it drove. By far the best v8/transmission combo available in a 1/2 ton SUV (new GM v8s/6speed should close the gap). But the fact that a 5000+lb SUV can have a 0-60 time around 7 seconds is truely amazing, considering my Suburban probably can't manage a 9 second 0-60 time.
Now back on subject. No current styling won't save GM. The current Mitsubishi styling is pretty cool, using the new Eclipse and the Galant as examples. It won't save the diamond company in USA. Dealerships are closing. The cars may be OK, but I personally would not buy one where I live due to lack of dealer support, and fear of the company pulling out of USA. And I may add I live here in California, which is Japan and German car heaven for sales. Now I do see some new GM cars, but dealers still want to stock trucks and SUVs. When the SUV craze crashed, I wonder what these dealers are thinking? I did see a pretty good transition into cars at Cadillac. Less Escalade ( Denali ) SUV dressed up monsters and more autos now. The STS looks like a stretched and more rounded CTS, which I guess is OK, but for $50K? By far the most new style for '06 comes in the form of a Solstice, yet I have yet to see one. The G6 and other new GM cars are OK, but nothing really strong and compelling. At least the CTS grabs the eye. Better style may help GM, though like Mitsubishi, I think people are thinking the back of their minds that GM may be exiting in some fashion, be it dealerships, or car lines and models going away.
Loren
Agree with you on this 100 percent. As a former multi Pontiac owner of years ago, I have been somewhat saddened by what could have been. Pontiac's claim to performance ended approximately in 1971. There was a brief resurgence and much enthusiasm from car magazines in about 1984 when a front driver Pontiac STE was introduced. Think that Pontiac only offered it for a couple of years. Don't know anything about the quality/reliability of that STE. They tried again in 80s with Fiero and when they finally got the design/redesign right, they killed it.
GM lack of leadership and innovation for last 3+ decades caused this. The type of Americans who bought Pontiac performance many years ago, when foreign cars were token amount, are around today and would buy Pontiac and GM if they were equal to or exceeded BMW 3, Acura TL, Infiniti G35, Audi 4. I am one of these. Unfortunately, there is nothing close from Pontiac except now for Solstice.
I don't know how they can expect a lot more pay than what they get doing unskilled/semi-skilled work.
Loren
Can't see dumping Chevrolet name. Are not one-half of GM sales in US the Chevrolet brand? Also, Pontiac name/word still sounds exciting in spite of its vehicles - Solstice excluded. Say Pontiac aloud and also Buick and one can see that Buick sounds stodgy and Pontiac has presence. Any voice/diction coaches out there? Buick brand would be ok to drop, but not Chevrolet. Lacrosse and Lucerne would remain but could be high-end Chevrolets, just like Avalon for Toyota. Pontiac brand should be dropped unless GM actually builds Pontiac cars (not suvs) that are exciting as in the past long ago.
Note that AT&T, which is just a small part of its former giant size, was bought by SBC, its one-time child. Name brand of AT&T is considered so important that SBC is renaming itself "at&t", lower case.
They may well be villians, however, with the way they are throwing gobs of cash at executives that did a fairly good job of running the company into the ground in the first place.
If my employer wanted to half my salary, I could be in a new position making at least my current salary within a week. This is because I have transferrable skills that are not easily replaced.
"Not easily replaced" is a notion that's starting to vary in our globalized world. A lot of college educated computer programmers thought for the longest time that they would not be easily replaced, until some Indian and Russion programmers came along for a quarter of the price.
The enige by then will probably have some improvement, but currently the most you get out of it is 242 hp. the Rav 4 wil have 268hp. Lets not forget the equinox is priced lower than the rav 4 and i do not think it will touch 30K as long as GM wants to stay in business.
Also, the GM pushrods mey be going to 3 valve heads (more power and smoother operation are more than welcome.) Here it is: GM to invest in power
Your are partially correct, but remember, we are only talking about 4500-5000lbs. A weight some midsize SUVs can handle. Since I was using a Nissan Pathfinder to tow my current boat before I had the Suburban, I just assumed going with a full size SUV with a higher tow rating would net a big gain in towing performance. It is better, but actual pulling power isn't, mainly due to the gear ratio spacing. Mainly between 2nd & 3rd, which isn't a big issue when not towing.
Everything is a compromise. I won't compromise on interior space to get a PU. A 3/4ton would probably be ideal for the extra capacity, but you do give up ride and end up with horrible fuel milage with the 6.0L or 8.1L. I would just like to see GM use the 6 speed auto across the board at least as an option. Hopefull that will come after the intial model year...
Looking at the EPA MPG differences in the suburban's engines, I do not see that the 6 liter engine is that much worse than the 5.3. The bigger engine might actually do better than the smaller engine while towing, or perhaps no worse. So much depends on how hard you flog it.
Fortunately I've been able to keep myself updated with education, and parlaying my passion for manufacturing/cars/design. I didn't want to pigeon-hold myself into one thing, only to have that thing wash up and I end up *ss out. I took advantage of situations presented to me, jump at opportunities and was able to advance myself.
Because of my career path, I can place my hat into many fields. And I think that's what a lot of people need to do, but unfortunately they don't. Like many stated here, and I agree with them, they need to find out what programs their companies offer in terms of training / positions / programs and take advantage. I must admit, in my first "real" job in industry our president and crew had the GM Wagoner/Lutz mentality, as long as they made it ($$), kcuf the rest. And they were like Delphi Miller as well, just pay the people like crap despite the fact that most were skilled in their craft. Fortunately I was able to move to a better company. Then left there and again, am in a very, very, very good company that recognizes the person's talents, what they bring to the table, and look at the employees as an investment to make the company better.
Around the boat ramp, I've talked with several guys towing with GMC Denali XLs powered by the 6.0L. Most had moved on from the 5.3L Suburban for the same reasons I've complained about. They all liked the additional power of the 6.0L, but they do get worse fuel economy towing or nontowing. I can get 11-12 towing, they guys using a 6.0L towing similar sized boats reported getting 9-10.
While it doesn't sound like much, it's still over a 10% differance. While that's a price I'd be willing to pay, I can understand why they don't throw a 6.0L or 8.1L in everything.
The Eclipse is selling ok but the Galant is selling horribly. Today I just saw 3,450 factory rebate on the Galant in the newspaper. I see some 04 Galants in NJ but to me the car is way too overstyled and the interior is cheap. The 1999-2003 Galant sold alot of copies even the 0/0/0 financing by Mitsu helped spur the 99-03 Galant sales. To me the car(04 Galant)got what it deserved: slow sales. Usually when a manufacturer puts a car onto the market it gets what it deserves in terms of sales.
I have seen pictures and I am 26 years old and the new Camry appeals to the same old demographic as the current model does even though it looks a little more agressive. The front end of the 07 Camry looks alright but the back emd looks plain and Toyota should put the new Camry back in the styling oven to make the back end look sportier in my opinion . 1992-1994 was the closest Toyota got to taking a styling chance with the Camry even though I prefer the cleaner lines of the 95 mid-cycle refresh which lasted up until the 1996 model year until a new Camry bodystyle appeared for the 97 model year.
BTW, Toyota just put the next generation Corolla back in the styling oven after the product was finished.