evok

Maybe renting an Impala and buying an Accord.

And that total volume in "Gotta Have" sales is app. 300k in a 17mil US market.

I wrote about something I said/thought/wrote 18+years ago and stated I was wrong. If as you state I will be wrong again. That would make me correct which is not possible.

HUH - How can I be wrong when I did not say anything?

"Gotta Have" = sales. Suffice it to say - Toyota is "Gotta Have" Just look at the sales and see who is up and who is down. Don't confuse your opinion with the data. Many people would say the same thing about GM's designs. And will also add, Toyota found religion and their new product including the 07 Camry are not washing machines anymore.

Nope it is a gamble plain and simple!

Level playing field? Zero % and GMS for all. It goes both ways.

Yea - David E. Davis Jr. said the same thing 18 years ago. I think I did to. We were both wrong.

No his definition is valid, accurate and to the point.

CARBIZ: What he said. Actually I think GM is about 18% retail. As for your other post, well it speaks for itself. I might come back to it later if I have the time but really, it speaks for itself about what you know about the business and your ability to grasp what enzl, The O.C. and myself have been saying.

There is no slant. Nothing positive has happened as far as the average person is concered. Hint: Toyota has a market value of over $222,000,000,000. GM is 12,000,000,000. GM has been on a death spiral in the US for 30 years. What do you do, pat them on the back and say "good job" on another round of mediocre product. The truth is, many of us have been waiting for GM to turn around for as many years. But in actuality we are always let down. If there is a slant that is it. And 18 years ago, there was hope they would do just that. 18 years later we still are hoping. It is more like less than 1 in 5. The rags were only ever good for one thing, spy photos. And with the internet and CD/PB around, the rags are a waste of money. Well, I will not take that one any further.

Or could it be that for the most part Detroit is not building what the Average American wants to drive? GM has lost about 15 points of market share since that article was written. Your post sounds like something FOG would write. Well I will leave it at that...

Look at the big picture my friend. A couple models do not make a trend as The O.C.'s post illustrates from 18 years AGO.

ASIM was a waste of money. If interested see my thoughts here. http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthr...0334#post610334

I would not count on that one.

I am guessing but I would not be so sure. It does not fit in the CTS.

Think the obvious! No!! A No!

" For all the changes, for all the new product, for all the Lutzs and Wagoners......What really has been accomplished in the last 18 years????" To the end user, meaning the customer - absolutely NOTHING positive!

Typical monkey see (GM)...monkey do (Ford). If people on this board think GM's product planning folks are bad, all of Ford's should be fired yesterday, IMO. I have heard rumours for a while about this but I still have nothing concrete. We also know deep down this was coming from Ford. But since Fields is new I will cut him some slack.

There are growing pins with the platform last I heard. We shall see what actually comes of it.

It might take an extra 1-2 years + as they cadence the programs into place but like DCX, these vehicles should be very profitable as GM can run a large bandwidth on price. And yes, this rethink threw everything off. The original zeta vehicle would have been here a year from today. But I like their strategy of main stream rwd as opposed to the original set of niche vehicles. But like you said, why was this not done from the get go. That is what bothers me the most. The good news is, in theory they might have it right this time. They might not have beat Chrysler but they sure might beat everyone else. And Bill Ford and Mark Fields - why no 4 - door Mustang derived product yet?

The "w" MS2000 vehicles are going to be replaced with rwd as will the rest of the the fullsized vehicles. The Lambda derived platform formerly know as Chi will not spawn the fullsized replacements as was a strong possibility a couple years ago. This whole issue is a lot more complex and calls for a rebalancing of GMs fullsize vehicle strategy in which the Camaro is just a part of. The original zeta vehicles for NA prior to the axe falling were just niche vehicles. Today if rwd goes forward, rwd will be a complete line up of volume oriented programs. As a result, Oshawa 1 and 2 will be consolodated and GM is going to have to increase output (tooling capacity) of rwd powertrains. Also the Chevy portfolio will have to accomodate the volume decrease in the Impala because of the switch to rwd and price premium compared to the current vehicle. These means that the Malibu plan would have to be tweaked for its new position in the portfolio as the theoretical volume leader. What has taken place at GM in the last year has been a significant strategy shift from the prior plan. Not only has it taken time to develop the plan but it will take time to develop the product. That time is irrelevent even if the program shares parts with the OZ zeta, shares a complete platform, the existence of available plant space, etc.

Unless Lutz's your ass puppet, that quote came directly from Uncle Bob in the press.

Don't feel bad, years ago I was on the protoype build floor when the GMX380s were being built up. I had to take a double take and verify that the vehicles were not true mules. Mules meaning P-90 bodys on an EPS platform. I just shook my head and said this company will never learn! And sure enough they might not have been mule builds but what GM did build for production were certainly mules as far as the public was concerned.

In all fairness and building on what Hudson said above, when we do share info, we try to present the best available info at the time. Nothing is ever certain especially at GM these days. I would like to think we all try to be pragmatic in what we say about future programs.