turbo200

my overall point ties into the base CTS with its unattractive wheels and the base CTS coupe we saw unveiled in the recovery plan a week ago. i'm talking about the way GM assumes it customers don't give a lick about good design, sophistication, or knowing a well designed car from a poorly designed car. i'm talking about them giving us effort in the base models.....so that the overall line will be more appealing. the rebates commercials are on nonstop now, wouldn't hurt to try a different strategy.

though your point is well taken, the situation with renegotiating contracts, the bond swaps, etc should leave GM in a position to be really profitable. if they make it.

GM would get much further with consumers if cosmetic choices they made, in accessorizing all thier trim levels, were actually good choices. some of thier cars are not bad looking, like the cobalt, but some really bad choices for wheels some plain effects treatments on that car make it look so much less visually stimulating and desirable. rather than slapping $5000 on the hood and spending millions per month on advertising the aformentioned stupid sums of discounts, they could spend some of that money and just accessorize the heck out of the inteirors and exteriors of thier current loser cars. make some cool packages for impala and cobalt, spend some development money here and now since the current cars are lacking so much across the board and you're freezing up so much future development anyways. but hey who i am, i'm only helping to fund your institution. this car is good looking, but i wish this package for the car was the base package. i wish the uplevel V package was even more race inspired without sacrificing the substance power and sophistication that visually an M package for the 6-series combines. there are tons of examles within GMs portfolio of this.

you may not like how dismissive he was towards the corvette 'legacy' or its chevrolet relation....but there is an underlying point that is a good one. the corvette at this moment is wasteful expenditure. it really depends on how much the car costs, in maintenence at the plant and payment to those workers, in marketing costs, and in man hours to build. all that taken into consideration though, the logical argument is it only produces 30k units sales in a good year, and that is simply not enough product or where GM needs to focus in on. the only full proof, reasonable dripped-in-logic argument GM would have against that, that is if they still have any sense of logic within themselves, is that it's all profit at this point and killing it would achieve nothing for the bottom line. the fact that none of you could come with a cogent argument against this guy, all you did was call him biased and ignorant instead of addressing his point, well it shows you have no defense against his argument, just as GM would if they were pressed. this is a low volume halo car, when GM is being funded by taxpayer dollars, there is no room for games like this one. [again, all that said, it could be that GM really doesn't spend any money overall since the vette could generate enough income to cover its own marketing/mfg costs, I don't know].

would it be so wrong delaying the introduction or new development of the program for a few years? either continuing with the current version, revising it somehow extensively yet cheaply, or simply discontinuing the line for a few years....corvette is a landmark product for GM, but with other companies, take Honda for example, they get thier mainstream product critically and public approved first, earn massive profits, then work on supercars or halo projects like S2000 or NSX [first one's lingered for over 6 years, second one is on indefinite hold]. i completely agree the corvette is an important line, however, i would prefer GM had the sufficient development money to take the line where it needs to go, to be true porsche competitors in performance and style/quality. it wouldn't take much to get the current vette there, but i'd personally rather see them take the right amount of time to make it well produced and progressive, not simply matching existing quality, but trumping competitors in engineering and design for years to come when it debuts.

it's one thing implying the CTS is seeing major sales gains over the competition [not that you are], and quite another to assume because they are in the same class there is some cross shopping and the CTS is winning some of those comparisons. of course i would assume the CTS is taking some of those buyers, the question is how much. the deville used to sell close to 100k units/year and was the best selling luxury sedan......my assumption/thoughts are CTS has supplanted that car and many traditional caddy buyers go there now, since they priced at similar levels. as for being harsh. in my post above i'm being realistic, the CTS has major competition and simply trying to be the CTS of the coupe world may and will not be enough. the specialized nature of luxury cars is even stronger and more important in the coupe world. there is even more of a performance image amongst the A5, 3er coupe, etc. simply look at the car in my sig, that will certainly be cross shopped as buyers in the luxury world are a different breed and in many cases not looking for practicality.

while your point is not lost, i feel your handling of the situation was just this side of overbearing. harley expressed an extreme political opinion, in the past we would have had a few uninformed trade retorts, some ignorant catcalls, and then it would have all died down. besides some confusion no one was hurt. i generally and unwaveringly feel the moderation is self-sustained here and that we are able to keep polite and respectful tones, which works better than the almost opressive tone some of the modding has taken, which i admit i've only noticed in spontaneous bursts....no doubt due more to gentlemanly behavior by most of my fellow posters.

the 300 is a disappointment. the shape is no longer exciting or fresh, even bentley has moved on. the styling is not good either. the interiors only look like mild improvements. the GC is remotely interesting against a sea of new croosovers/utes. the least you can say is it's good looking.

good point. the CTS will need better transmission options, including an SMG style trans, better interior materials, a balanced and exciting exterior design, perfect handling/steering, and powerful engine options to compete with those cars and possibly hope to steal from those really well engineered examples. this is the big leagues fellas. they will also need an extensive options list. from the appearance of this angle, the CTS coupe is already a loser. don't kid yourselves. the rest of the car will show us if it's a winner or a waste of taxpayers money as a poster rightfully dictated above. how so? do you have facts such as sales figures that show an appreciable drop in sales of 3 and E and similar appreciable gains in CTS? do you have buyer retention figures? do you have survey stats from the automakers showing conquest figures?

aura never met sales estimates. first and second year of production were in regular, sounder economic times, can't blame the crisis. malibu has beaten the last generation's sales by a lot. however overall volume is half of what camry does and more than 150k off from altima and accord.

it just looks awful from this angle. i don't believe that's how i will feel once i've seen the whole car, from better perspectives, and hopefully with better detailing and mroe upscale wheels. this has to be a base model. the wheels while nicely decent designs are dwarfed by the slab of metal at the rear. the black background of the grille is completly out of place, and the xm antenna is crude. i'm sure i will like this more, even a little bit, once i see the full car. i don't like it in this angle and with gm's typically substandard photography. this angle makes the rear look unfinished.

that's sort of what I was thinking. 30 billion is a rather devastating figure, moreso than any financial institution on which our very well being lies upon. the whole bankruptcy financing card may be their idea of an ace up thier sleeve....it'll cost more to let us go bankrupt than to help us. i just don't see that flying over very well. I thought they've have to ask for more money, but when you put the figure together and it's 30 billion...., it just sounds like a lot of money. i don't think this will fly with the various groups of our govt.

I still know a good looking car when I see it man. my taste is evolving, but even if we disagree in this I think you can have faith I have my reasons. these interiors may look bland or not special in person and in pictures, but the devil is in the details. I guess I'm just enthusiastic when it comes to mercedes in general, I think they have struck a fine balance between agression, luxury, and conservative enduring character.....looking at exterior expression. so i'm thinking of the overall package when i critique the interior and how it fits with the car. if you get a chance to visit a MB dealer, anytime that you can even after dark if you're afraid of aproaching someone, try to sit in a C-class, or better yet at a show. i guess i'm bowled over by them for a few reasons. 1 is the quality, it's really great imo, smells wonderful everything fits and feels just great. 2 in person the individual design of all the pieces is really great and germanic in nature...how I like it, there's no fuss and every piece just looks technically superior and designed with extroadinarily subdued character, how i like it again. 3 the overall design may not be impressive or flashy like a CTS or even called artful, but it's stout imposing clean .....there aren't a lot of great lines and it doesn't say warm or inviting like say a lexus but it's technical and superior looking. it may not be a definition of art, but it's sort of snobbish and mature and demure, and i like it.

the transverse V8 AWD Epsilon car mentioned here sounds like a rumored possible DTS replacement for Cadillac. it will be a regretful day for luxury at Cadillac if that car becomes reality.

i don't get everyone's dislike of mb's latest interior design philosophy. i see technical, robust, commanding, impressive. it's not ghetto fabulous bling like some other mfgs...it's imposing stark brute and very minimalist with a high level of quality and impressive luxury quotient. as with all MB design, the AMG version will really light this one up, can't wait to see it. this is thier mainstream luxury offering, the midline E-class. the C may sell in higher numbers, but the E is their profit central, and sells to a more affluent and mature buyer base. they need to keep excitement and frill to a minimum while staying on the forefront of luxurious design.

there is no way in hell GM would survive without his support right now. given his propensity for carefully constructed thought and integrity I await with optomism

chrysler may not have access to other lines aside from fiat, whatever that means, according to the wording here, but i would bet 10000 dollars alfa will be here very very soon. this deal happened for that very reason, for the very issue of fiat's expansion. and yes, i am looking forward to italian design along with that sparklingly reputable italian reliability.

i do agree. but even then, I don't see ion as a turning point in any general direction. yes, they lost a lot of sales with that generation, that was simply because the competition was too strong. certainly sales were lost in that generation, and it was viewed as subpar. but the important move was where they'd go next from there. the consumer is inattentive and tough to train at times. they don't care if you do something bad, they just ignore it, and if you do something good, you are often rewarded. saturn was barely coming to at that point. ion was one forgettable mistake, all they had to do was refine that theme, but continue on with a philosophy of simple inexpensive cars. i truly don't see a turning point for saturn until this new design theme happened. it was too fast, too big of a change. saturn was already largely irrelevant, aside from the fact that ion and vue were decently reliable and immensely affordable. this was thier secret, those cars were cheap, and people knew the dealership experience would be, well, nice. the complete deviation from any line or facias that had any semblance of what saturn used to be, and forgetting thier original specialty was just simple cheap cars, nothing special, hurt the brand definitely. completely ignoring any design connection, completely disregarding the familiar saturn face amidst multiple relaunches at competing brands, new and evolved design themes, was a big mistake. saturn was still a babe, new and uncharted territory. bringing a 5 door hatch with a less desirable shape and attractive themes than its closest competitor in a limited market, asking more money, and giving it a smaller engine and less overall space, were mistakes. calling this the replacement to your only big selling model line was an even more cataclysmic mistake. finally, that GM ran out of money, time,and good fortune is the real culprit here. that or GM's inability to greenlight good design, give the proper attention to good engineering, or to keep commitments to product launches or brand building. GM, it seems, is in a perpetual spiral. i said a long time ago good design could save it. i'm just not sure they understand what that means.

exactly. outside of astra, saturn did a commendable job with refining style on already produced GM vehicles with little to no other improvements. aura was released with newer equipment, the new DOHC powertrain, and a slightly higher qualtiy interior, that's all folks. GM literally did what it has done in all cases, catch up with competition that is on its way towards a new design already, but never leapfrog the competition and think far ahead in terms of design or engineering. GMNA is getting too predictable in this sense. they are perpetually designing cars that in many major ways only match the current competition that may already be 2 or 3 years old. this is not a way to build consumer repoire.

this, as tney've described it, is a one-off for the movie and has no bearing on the future corvette. the only good thing about this concept is that it's a classid reimaged. it's pretty bad in the context of today's supercars and would likely be an automatic failure in that realm, in terms of design. the surface elements are actually pretty cool, but every detail screams made for a movie show-off. themes like the grille, headlamps, and taillamps are exaggeratively cartoonish and aggressive. i'm guessing this'll be a decepticon. i like the notion of revisiting some themes off the classic stingray, but i've seen better ideas put together for Motor Trend.

this would be why the 3-series and accord consistently place at the top or near the top of the comparison tests, more often than not at the top of the pinaccle, even years into thier design cycles. must be the publishing world trying to keep everyone on the cusp of the new and exciting world of ideas.

the idea moltar should have submitted is that people have moved from other vehicles to pickups thanks to thier usefulness, and with the advent of crew cabs and extended cabs, more passenger-friendly attributes. oh and a big duh! to you that the advent of crew cabs and extended cabs has shown people use pickups as ______Wait for it_______passenger-carrying vehicles, otherwise known as cars, and not work trucks. this means expectations have changed, and the interior is a huge part of the consideration of buyers. witness the original titan being released only in crew and extended cab for one year when it was on the market. i don't even know that the non-crew cab version even exists anymore.

something is wrong at BMW. First the Z4 looks terrible in pictures. the X6 is a disaster. the 7 has had a remake that is one half detail remake and the other half regression to older much more conservative themes. then Bangle quit. this thing. I don't understand. I thought they understand shapes. the flow, the beauty, proportions. this is weird. the thing is, hatches are the future. as we get slowly conditioned through the release of more attractive crossovers, it will become a marketing mantra that consumers will be introduced to hatches like the crossovers have. design will be the key differentiation between future and past, hatches will become sexier and more inventive. as people increasingly desire practicality from all cars. but this has no sexiness. maybe real life will save the Z4 and this car. it didn't save the X6 though.

if you don't find the matrix infinitely more appealing than that bulldog of a Pontiac, with its craptacularly bland and empty sides, pregnant midsection, weird rear end style.......i don't know, maybe you're just biased against plain looking style. the matrix is plain, doesn't have any kind of character in the headlights, but it's overall very attractive.

in a few years: cadillac may consist of an epsilon 2 large sedan 4 year old Sigma 2 CTS perhaps not going to continue on sigma no alpha in production Lambda large crossover theta small crossover pontiac: matrix's uglier goofier stupider sibling fantastic g8 several generations behind in design/performance G6 what else? GM is giving enthusiasts a lot of reason to get excited over company's portfolios that care about style, performance, and image.