ehaase

The insiders here have already told us that a long wheelbase version of Epsilon will replace the W body. I would guess no more than 5 or 6 more years for the W body.

As someone stated on another thread, eliminating BPG would reduce GM sales by 1 million per year. You can't assume that all, or even a majority, of those buyers would just buy Cadillacs or Chevrolets. GMC is very profitable, and I believe I have read that Buick makes money also.

$700 million won't begin to solve GM's problems, but I never saw the purpose of this investment to begin with.

At this time, the insiders have said that they have only heard of RWD sedans for Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Buick, so why continue the speculation?

This topic is irrelevant now that GM is selling its interest in Subaru (Fuji Heavy).

How much worse will things have to get before GM seeks Chapter 11 protection? To my uneducated mind, Ford and GM are just about where the legacy airlines were two or three years ago.

One analyst said that full size SUV sales will probably end up at 25 percent of the current level (can't remember where I read this). This makes sense.

Pay attention to the insiders here as well as to Automotive News. Motor Trend is not an accurate source of information.

I checked out the Chevrolet Impala boards at Edmunds and read several posts by individuals who recently tested or purchased Impala LTZ's with the 3.9, saying it was fantastic, comfortable car. The 3.5 would be enough for a cheapskate like me, but people who try the 3.9 seem to like it.

The 210 hp 2.8 also only gets 18/27, which is pathetic. I like both the 3.5 HV and 3.6 HF. But I think that both the 2.8 HF and 3.9 HV are disappointing.

The 3.9 is disappointing, but the 3.5 is a very reasonable, efficient engine, in my opinion, for value priced Impalas and Malibus. I'm probably the only person here who is not upset that the 3.5 will be used in the Saturn Aura (according to recent reports). Obviously, the 3.5 would be uncompetitive for upscale Buicks and Cadillacs.

Considering the automakers are required by law to have average fuel economy of 27.5 mpg (and I think that Congress will increase this substantially within the next few years) or face substantial penalties, the EPA figures are extremely important. Anyway, most of the writers for auto magazines drive like bats out of hell and get far worse gas mileage than most drivers would.

Yes, there is. The 3.5 is far more fuel efficient than any of the HF V-6's. The 3.5 in the Malibu gets 22/32, while both the 2.8 and 3.6 in the CTS get 18/27. That is totally unacceptable, when the Lexus ES330 gets 21/29.

The road test I read (can't remember where) showed the Impala with the 3.5 doing 0 to 60 in 8.4 seconds, while the Impala with the 3.9 did 0 to 60 in 7.8 seconds. Not much of a difference, in my opinion. Maybe the rest of you disagree.

The 3.9 is barely faster than the 3.5 and is barely more fuel efficient than the 5.3. The engine does not impress me.

The problem is that people prefer big cars, but won't be able to afford them. Wealthy investor Jim Rogers said on Fox's Cavuto on Business, that oil will be $200/barrel within 10 years because of increasing demand from China. That means $10/gallon gasoline.

38 mpg and a roomy interior are very appleaing in these days of $3/gallon gas, with no relief in sight. I don't think that an Aveo gets 38 mpg.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/26/GM-SUVs-d..._0926flint.html

Seems pretty close to my ideas, except for the station wagon and some of the names. I hope Bel Air is just the project name and not the name of the car. Bel Air brings back memories of stripped down big Chevy sedans of the 1960's, with vinyl interiors, inline sixes, and three on the tree transmissions. Also I really don't want to see the G8 name used.

Chevrolet Caprice - sedan and coupe - $25,000 to $32,500 - will replace Impala LTZ and SS and all Monte Carlos - volume 125,000. I always liked the Chevrolet Lagunas from the mid 1970's - maybe use the Laguna name for the coupe. (Lower end Impala LS and LT would go to lwb Epsilon II and priced $22,500 to $27,500) Pontiac Grand Prix/GTO - sedan and coupe - $25,000 to $35,000 (no more alphanumerics for Pontiac) - volume 100,000 Buick Riviera - sedan, coupe, and convertible - $30,000 to $45,000 - volume 75,000 - replace Lucerne (LaCrosse goes to lwb Epsilon II) The Chevrolet and Pontiac models would use the fuel efficient 3.5L OHV V6 for the base models, 5.3L V8 for premium models, and 6.0L V8 for performance models. The Buick would use a 300 hp direct injection 3.6L HF V6 as standard, with 325 hp Northstar on premium models. The Chevrolet and Pontiac coupes would be about 195 inches long, the sedans would be about 200 inches long, and the wheelbase would be about 116 inches. The Buicks would be about 205 inches long, with a 120 inch wheelbase.

Because GM supposedly wants to move Buick upscale to compete against Lexus (an idea I am skeptical about anyway); because the LeSabre has not gained power since the 1996 model got the 205 hp 3800; because most of those millions of LeSabre buyers satisfied with the 3800 are in their 70's; and because the comparably priced Avalon has 280 hp. However, if I were in the market for a sedan in the low $30,000 range, a Northstar powered Lucerne CXS would be very appealing.

You would be surprised.

I dislike how GM constantly changes names when it updates a model, while Toyota and Honda keep using the same names, even if the old model was flawed.

I would be a GM owner if it still produced the B body Caprice or Roadmaster.

Not going to happen - http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...238&#entry11238