RJB

Well this is fine and all for him to say because he does not work here!! I am a lowly contract worker so who do you think this is going to affect the most... hmmm...ME! Make the biggest cuts at the top and leave the small fish alone. As a contract worker we are hardly paid anything to begin with. I work from paycheck to paycheck literally, I am not joking! When overtime becomes available it is like feeding time in the shark tank because that money is more vaulable than anything. It is hard enough to get a raise out of your contract house, again I should know! You could hold a gun to their head and they would say 'go ahead and pull the trigger'. Well enough of that. As for York's brilliant idea of getting rid of Saab and Hummer, get rid of Saab and keep Hummer. Hummer is actually making some money where as Saab is bleeding from everywhere. Thats my 2 cents.

Yes sell Saab but keep Hummer. Saab is a money pit.

Awesome simply awesome!!!! I have been a critic of retro redos in the past but this car is more of a modern theme. They didn't just say lets make this a rebodied car they went ahead and put some thought into it! I say this because the Challenger concept that just came out is too much like the original. Way to go GM...build it!! They nailed it. For all the skeptics on the interior... its a show car for gods sake! But the styling cues going back to the 60s Camaros are spectacular.

Horrible! Whats up with the cowcatcher frontend anyway?! So it is basically a baby Liberty. Why Jeep why?!!!!

The 330i is nice as usual, the IS350 is a little too expensive but a nice car but lacks a little emotion as all Japanese cars seem to do, the Mercedes well I think it already has been said. The CTS is nice as it is, has a lot of catching up to do! They better price it right, they better move the mark on the styling, and of course the reliability better be second to none! I'm speaking of course about the next-gen CTS.

They are going from "Trail Rated" to Soccer Mom Rated!

Yes ditch the steering wheel! But overall I give it a thumbs up. Is the 4 door going to be premiered at the Detroit show?

Nice but...I'm getting really tired of the whole retro thing. Yes I'm going to rant. What are these companies paying these designers for anymore? Lack of imagination? What happened to original designs and not falling back on what was? Move forward not backwards!

I saw a white H3x on my way home from work yesterday. Ho hum...nothing special. It had everything on it that the picture above has. So it was proabaly a ton more money than a regular H3. Sorry, I'm not going for that!

I hope I'm not out the door. I have less than 10yrs at GM. But I work in a department that cannot afford to lose anybody. We are way understaffed on my offshift that I work on. But you never know they may just move some guys from days to the offshifts and say... see ya!

Buying public. There are far too many on the road for them to be in the hands of the press or GM employees. I have not seen any at the dealers but that doesn't mean as soon as they come in they are off the lot. I usually look for a small sticker on the driver side which is stuck on the inside of the windshield, that indicates it is property of GM. So far I have not seen these stickers. So who is driving all of these? Does anyone have some input, elighten me.

Get rid of the waffle vents. Although you could probably make waffles while you drive. That may come in handy if the kids are hungry and you don't want to stop for food on a long distance trip.

6-speed autos across the board. Shut the critics up before they start complaining too much. Tahoes are already in the hands of the public in Michigan. I'm seeing more and more everyday.

I would have to agree also. This particular vehicle looks more capable than either of these concepts shown. I just hope Jeep does not go softer and softer. Aren't they soft enough? First the Liberty now the Commander where are they going?

Ah yes that image is from CAR magazine, to which I subscribe to to. They are usually very spot on.

Holy Rolls Royce Phantom ripoff Batman!!!! They took that car and made it worse!

I have done serious offroading in an H3 and I can say its more than capable. GM did not sluff off because its a lower priced vehicle than the H1 or H2. As for the H2 I liked it for about 5mins when it came out. I spent 12hrs in my friends H2 on trip from Canada and I hated every minute of it. One of the most uncomfortable vehicles I've been in. I had a topic posted a while ago about an offroading event that I had went to and the H3s did just as well if not better than the H2s!! Drop the awd I have always said this about the Hummers! It would increase their gas mileage, this is what I would like to see!

Bitchin' Camaro by The Dead Milkman!!!!!

Prius Follies, Take Two The Wall Street Journal By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. (Commentary) December 14, 2005 Since we're still on the subject of fuel mileage – or at least still responding to email after a column two weeks ago on the Toyota Prius – let's spill a few more gallons of petroleum-based ink. The Prius is a nifty gadget and comes with lots of extras. But Toyota markets the vehicle on its fuel efficiency, and fans tout its fuel efficiency. And our point was to debunk the idea that saving gasoline is a virtue independent of economics, such that it makes sense, say, to spend a buck to reduce gas use by 50 cents. Edmunds.com, the auto shopper site, guided us to Honda's Civic and Toyota's Corolla as conventional alternatives to the hybrid Prius. This was the source of our claim that the Prius retails for $9,500 more than comparable vehicles. In its own research, Edmunds concluded a Prius owner would have to drive 66,500 miles per year or gasoline would have to jump to $10 for the purchase to pay off. But don't take our word for it. Kazuo Okamoto, Toyota's research chief, recently told the Financial Times that, in terms of fuel efficiency, "the purchase of a hybrid car is not justified." Now, as an economic matter, overpaying for the privilege of saving gasoline is simply a subsidy to other gasoline consumers. Also as a regulatory matter: Thanks to the special genius of our corporate fuel economy rules, Prius buyers directly underwrite Toyota's ability to sell more SUVs and pickups in the U.S. market without paying the fines that Mercedes, BMW and Volvo long ago accepted as a cost of doing business in the U.S. But doesn't saving oil have benefits beyond the dollars saved – for instance, postponing the doom of civilization? No: If Prius owners consume less, there's less demand, prices will be lower and somebody else will step up to consume more than they would at the otherwise higher price. That's the price mechanism at work. Oil is a fantastically useful commodity. Humans can be relied upon to consume all the oil they'd be willing to consume at a given price. But wouldn't using less oil make us less dependent on Mideast imports? Just the opposite: In the nature of things, the cheapest oil is consumed first, and Mideast oil is the cheapest. Drive a Hummer if you want to reduce America's reliance on Arab oil. Indeed, if we could all just pull together and drive gasoline prices high enough, we'd be able to satisfy all our fuel needs next door from Canadian oil sands. Let it also be noted our primary political interest in the Middle East over the past 50 years has been Israel, which has no oil. Even Saddam would have been delighted to sell us all the oil we wanted if we had been prepared to acquiesce in his extracurricular depredations. Our attempt to reform Iraqi society is costing us many multiples of the real value of Iraqi oil exports to the world market. To wit, let's not underestimate the degree to which our overseas entanglements are despite our interest in oil, rather than because of it. Not that Toyota is to blame for the mystification of energy economics, which is a hardy perennial without which the nation's pundits could hardly make their gardens bloom on a semi-weekly schedule year after year. Take a bit of fluff from a group called 40mpg.org, a subsidiary of the Civil Society Institute. It recently put out a list of 89 vehicles made by major global automakers that rate 40 miles per gallon or better. These cars include the Ford Fiesta, Volkswagen Lupo and Toyota Yaris, none of which is available in the U.S. Only two vehicles sold in the U.S. get 50 mpg or better, compared to 39 such cars overseas. The group underlined its polemical point with a poll purporting to show that 88 percent of Americans believe "U.S. consumers should be able to get the best of the more fuel-efficient vehicles that already are available in other countries." Try not to be bowled over by the paradox: In the hyper-competitive U.S. car market, manufacturers are withholding fuel-efficient cars that Americans would be eager to buy. All this really proves is the pollster's facility for getting large majorities to affirm views at odds with their own behavior. Such fuel scrimpers sell in Europe because gas retails $5 a gallon, thanks to petrol taxes that feed the welfare state and keep the autobahns clear of poor people. Americans make an equally sensible decision, in dollars and cents, when they skip over fuel efficiency in favor of features more important to them, such as size, comfort and horsepower. Several Prius partisans emailed to say they purchased their cars not to save money but to save the earth, or at least make a statement about doing so. That's a perfectly good reason to buy a car (as is wanting to meet girls). However, we doubt their Hollywood coreligionists would be so keen on solidarity if it meant driving around town in a Ford Fiesta. In any case, fuel economy plays an ambiguous role in the fight against air pollution. Our considerable progress against the traditional pollutants has come by specifying allowable emissions per mile driven, not per gallon consumed. Meanwhile, CAFE rules raise the cost of a car while reducing the cost of operating it. Being rational even when they don't meant to be, consumers respond by getting more use of out their cars – driving 15,000 miles per year, up from 10,000 since the rules were adopted. (And automakers have met this demand by greatly improving vehicle reliability.) That leaves carbon dioxide, aka greenhouse gas, to support the increasingly rickety rationale for treating fuel efficiency as a socially desirable end in itself. Here, we can only suggest Prius fans might do the planet more good by convincing the American public of the merits of nuclear energy, the closest thing to a genuinely "green solution" to energy challenges in the real world.

Better late than never I guess. This has probably been read already but oh well. Dear Valued Hybrid Customer... The Wall Street Journal By Holman W. Jenkins Jr. Nov. 30, 3005 We at the Toyota Motor Corporation are writing to address certain misconceptions that have arisen about your Toyota Prius model, which we are proud to note is driven by many celebrities, including Prince Charles and HBO's Larry David. Our pioneering gasoline-electric hybrid, introduced in 1999, has become an object of adoration to the world's enlightened car buyers. Our competitors, including America's Big Three, are rushing out hybrid vehicles of their own. Unconfirmed media reports say that we at Toyota intend to double our hybrid output to 500,000 vehicles next year. Along with other members of the auto industry, we will be lobbying for tax breaks and HOV privileges for hybrid vehicles. However, any romance entering its seventh year tends to go stale. Some purchasers have begun to question the practical value of our Hybrid Synergy Drive technology. You may be aware that a survey by Consumer Reports found that our vehicles achieve considerably less mileage (some 26 percent less) than the sticker rating implies. This has led to some unflattering media stories. Let us assure you that the Prius remains one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year. And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology. We recognize that our customers have an "emotional" relationship with their vehicles. This transcends even the regrettable truth that driving a fuel-efficient car does not yield any substantial benefits for society if it doesn't save the owner money. Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse pollutants are released. Also, please note that the warranty and owner's manual say nothing about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an oversight. The Prius is an "oil-dependent" vehicle. It runs on gasoline, supplied by the same world market that fuels other vehicles. The Toyota Corporation regrets any misunderstanding our marketing may inadvertently have caused (or may cause in the future). We share your belief that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered. Further research by our economists suggests this will happen when the price of gasoline rises high enough to make alternative technologies cheaper than gasoline-powered cars. We at Toyota want you to know we recognize this effect and have taken steps to compensate with the rest of our vehicle lineup. Our 2006 Tundra pickup will be equipped with Toyota's new eight-cylinder engine, making it every bit as much of a gas guzzler as any American pickup. We are also redirecting our efforts to use our Hybrid Synergy Drive to increase power output rather than reduce gasoline consumption. Take our new hybrid SUV, which produces 38 more horsepower but gets the same mileage as our conventional version. A New York Times reviewer wrote, "One question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits?" We hope this corrects any misimpression caused by our latest slogan ("Commute with Nature"). Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers. You will share our pride in the latest figures from J.D. Power & Associates, which show that the Prius continues to move off a dealer's lot in just eight days, compared to 36 days for a Honda Civic hybrid. Clearly, our customers are willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of showing themselves behind the wheel of so conspicuously virtuous a vehicle. But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience. We want you to know that Toyota remains committed to advancing hybrid technology just as long as our customers are willing to make it worth our while. Our esteemed competitor, Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, was recently quoted saying, "There's such a buzz today that no CEO of a car manufacturer dares to say his real opinion of hybrid because he's accused of being retarded." Another esteemed competitor, GM, has suggested that hybrid technology is best deployed in city buses, where large fuel consumption and stop-and-go driving might actually make it economically sensible. These are just two examples of the short-sighted, stick-in-the-mud marketing instincts of our fellow automakers that are helping to make Toyota the largest car company in the world. Yours Truly, the Toyota Corporation.

I don't have a camera phone because of GM policy and I don't own a digital camera either(damn!). I have not seen this particular vehicle since I posted this topic. It probably has been fixed I'm sure.

Terrible interior. One of the worst I've seen from GM. I went to my sisters wedding a month ago and my dad rented a Grand Prix. They picked me up from the airport in it. Right when I got in(I sat in the front passenger seat) I was like this thing is hideous! My dad agreed with me and he retired from GM with 32 years in. It needs a whole revamp. You know how Pontiac is getting away from 'let's see how much plastic we can possibly put on the exterior of the car'. Well they need to get away from that in the interior as well. No wonder it was a rental car!!

Nothing like ruining Buicks new image campaign before its even established. Lets go straight to redneck! Every hillbilly on the block will have one of these somehow or another very soon! Can you say lift it and strap on a beer cooler!

I hope this hasn't been posted before. But if it has I will take the bashing instead I guess. :) http://communicator.gm.com/socrates/newsno...3367240085.html

It still should of had the 6-speed auto right off the bat. That way none of these critics would have something to compalin about. The awd would make a nice addition, as well as sat-nav, another thing that should have been incorporated. Its the little details like these that still bite GM in the butt. DOD should be a standard on the V8, the pricing I have to admit may steer a lot of people clear from buying this car. As for the styling the car looks great! The only color I don't like is that burgundy color. For some reason I always associate that color with an old person, the exact type of buyer Buick is trying to get away from.