PurdueGuy

The media and culture both seem to be turning negative against anything that isn't a compact or midsize car. Problem is, people still need people haulers. Some friends of mine have 4 kids. One of their vehicles simply has to seat 6 comfortably. Heck, they have a Tahoe now, but their kids are getting old enough that they're considering their next vehicle being a Suburban, simply so the 3rd row has full leg room. A small car doesn't make sense for everyone. On the flip side, there are plenty of people running around in vehicles that are bigger than they need. Gas prices are convincing them to downsize, and that hurts sales of ANY people-hauler size vehicle.

Sounds like the Cruze may be slotted in a slightly higher price point than the Cobalt, and they're going to try to squeeze every penny from the Cobalt before they redo/drop it? I'm also wondering if the Insignia costs more to make than the Aura, and they're delaying giving it to Saturn because it would just further the sticker shock going on at Saturn...

about 36mpg, zippy driving, city & highway mix, '99 Saturn SC2 manual trans.

I find it funny that people think that Saturn should already be "moved upscale" by now. It's been... two years since the new products first started coming out? If GM could move a brand upscale in less than two years, it would have no trouble dominating the majority of the market, me thinks.

Then why (IIRC) is the sales record for Saturn from 1994 or 1995? Can someone find the sales numbers for each year? Maybe number of dealerships, too, since that has probably changed some (not sure if there would be more or less now).

To change the Saturn game plan again/already so drastically would be a mistake, IMO. The customers are having to readjust their minds to what Saturn is, doing that again may hurt them worse. I do hope the NG Astra will have a lower entry price, and we already know there should be a sedan at least, in addition to the 3 & 5 doors. Personally, I think GM needs to dump some more marketing $$s on Saturn, focus on future product being quality and not too expensive, and stick to the plan. More/better Astra options + the Corsa should really help Saturn, as would a lower entry price point on the Astra.

That's what I'm saying, I think that huge, ugly shield grill would fit in the grill shape on this vehicle. lol

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/b...25-da72c9f8770d

exactly what I was thinking, other than the grill, it looks like it could be an Acura, including the grill shape.

eh, just stick with the debadging.

Voted for "doesn't bother me", though I do think they're kinda dumb for not sticking with the Cobalt name. I'm closer to indifferent than hatred.

wonder what kind of patents briggs & straton has on their gas caps... lol

I'm hoping that this is really a move to increase the all-electric range beyond what was originally promised, personally. GM needs to have some good "surprises" like that to offset the loss of interest from how long it'll take to get the car out.

GM definitely needs to have worthy volume goods there ready to sell. Hopefully the 1.4 is the right goods and delivers killer mpgs while proving reliable and reasonable to maintain and repair.

Probably, I see no need to have AWD killing my fuel economy.

Nooooooo! Renaming a car after just a MCE is silly.

+1 for 400 mile range is enough. The only downside is that since 40 of that is electric, then on a longer trip you have a 400 mile range to the first fill up, then 360 mile range to each sequential fill up. Still not a big deal at all. This may be helping the electric range, as the owner will be less likely to haul around a bunch of extra gas for extra range they don't need.

How is the name "Cobalt" juvenile? Particularly, how is it more so than a word purposely misspelled to try to be cool? Frankly, that kind of thing is what strikes me as juvenile...

+1 for "shoulda kept the Cobalt name"

well, it does have the bugs bunny teeth grill... lol

From your quote, they didn't say that. In fact, what that sentence says is basically that the Volt is a PR vehicle, which we know. The core of that sentence is "GM is counting on the Volt to break its costly association". That's image. GM can't live on image alone, but it can't live without image either. Besides that, calling for GM to drop the Volt is foolish - they've gone all in, they can't fold this hand. If they waiver and either don't make the Volt, or make it poorly, GM will still be getting ripped on for it 30+ years from now. It's easy to go back & say "woulda, coulda, shoulda", but this is what they're doing, and it may work. There are people talking about the Volt, looking forward to the Volt, etc. The main negative comments I hear about the Volt *outside of this forum* is cost and "why didn't they make it sooner?" Looking at what people are paying for Prius', the cost issue may not be as bad as it seems, especially with a big tax rebate, and dropping the Volt sure doesn't help the "why didn't they do it sooner." Yes, it is a PR vehicle. GM NEEDS a PR vehicle. They also need small cars, and guess what's coming in the pipeline...

It is certainly true that a foreign car built here is better (for American jobs) than one that is not, but it's a faaar cry from being as good (for American jobs) as a car from an American company built here. Blue collar jobs aren't the only ones that need protection, and consideration for where the $$s go for engineering and management is worth consideration as well. Of course, more and more GM engineering dollars are going to Europe and Korea... People want an easy answer - "it's evil to buy (fill in blank), it's good to buy (fill in blank)", but reality isn't so simple, and I'm not sure that this article is reflecting reality, either.

I liked the idea of an american-built small sporty fuel efficient car from a manufacturer that was doing new things in management-employee relations and lean manufacturing.

a) ethanol does need to come from more diverse feedstocks b) it's a free market, don't dictate what we do with corn. It's not the US' job to make cheap corn for the world while farmers have a hard time paying their bills.

Here's the problem - he's talking about a car that when pushed to its fullest takes 15 seconds to get to 60. Normal people in everyday driving don't/won't push their car as hard as it will go, but more like half to 2/3 of what it will do tops. That means a car that can do 0-60 in 15 seconds will be doing it in 25-30. You've long made comments about how much (or rather, little) hp people need. You still don't seem to get that sales are based on what people want, and many people don't want a car that can't get out of its own way if pushed, let alone at a leisurely engine load.