GM Inside News Forum - General Car Lounge

Best-looking cars of the last decade - autonet.ca

ne_one — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:22:46 GMT

According to the staff at autonet.ca:

BMW X6
Ford Mustang
Infiniti FX
Jaguar XF-R
Lexus IS
Mitsubishi Lancer
Nissan GT-R
Pontiac Solstice
Porsche Cayman
Volkswagen Passat CC

Commentary and gallery:
http://www.autonet.ca/autos/search/g...-11809531.html

Biggest automotive flops - autonet.ca

ne_one — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:19:51 GMT

According to the staff at autonet.ca:

Jaguar X-Type
Pontiac Aztek
Volkswagen Phaeton
Lincoln Blackwood
DeLorean DMC-12
Saturn
Cadillac Catera
Suzuki X-90
Nissan Quest
Edsel

Commentary and gallery:
http://www.autonet.ca/autos/search/g...-11451431.html

REPORT: Ghosn still thinks Renault-Nissan should have partnered with GM in 2006

St�phane Dumas — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:12:17 GMT

I hope it's not a repost :o I spotted it on Autoblog
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/20/r...ave-partnered/

Quote:

With all the trials and tribulations General Motors has endured during the past year, we almost forgot that the Detroit, MI-based automaker nearly got itself tied up with Renault-Nissan. Back in 2006, the two companies discussed joining forces to become a singular global automotive juggernaut, but in the end, GM felt it was in its best interests to go it alone and face the quickly disintegrating global automotive market by themselves.

While GM's situation ultimately improved via bankruptcy and a $50 billion helping hand from the U.S. government, Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn still thinks the partnership would have been "without a doubt" in everyone's best interests. Ghosn reportedly made the comments during a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, adding that "there was a possibility to create something that would be extremely competitive."

Ghosn then went on to say that he wasn't happy the two companies didn't end up working together after GM nearly collapsed because "when you see the disaster and the waste of energy and skills and talent, nobody can be happy." The charismatic CEO also said that Renault-Nissan was very concerned about GM's precarious position earlier in the year due to the fact that his company uses many of the same suppliers. If GM had gone down, it would have probably taken more than a few suppliers with it, and Ghosn says that as a result, Nissan wouldn't have been able to make a single vehicle in North America.

While we can definitely understand why Ghosn would have preferred that the marriage of his company to GM was consecrated, we still don't see how it would have helped The General in the long run. GM still would have been in a very uncompetitive cash situation, and Renault-Nissan doesn't have much in the way of technology or platforms that the General doesn't already the equivalents to.

Cobo Undergoes $3M Renovation

civilzues — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:39:17 GMT

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21672609/detail.html

Quote:

Cobo Undergoes $3M Renovation
Renovations Breathe New Life In Cobo Center
November 20, 2009

DETROIT -- Detroit's Cobo Convention Center was once crumbling, but now millions of dollars in renovations are breathing new life into the building.

It all comes just weeks after a regional authority assumed operational control of the venue, which is nearly a month away from hosting the North American International Auto Show.

So far, there have been more than $3 million in electrical upgrades and repairs to the roof and loading dock. "The responses that we've had from show management have been very positive," said Tom Tuskey, Director of Cobo Center.

Renovations still have a long way to go. An estimated $288 million is expected to go into Cobo.

An expansion will likely happen sometime next year.

Dealer Website: "We're here to stay"

4x4x4doors — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:47:38 GMT

Had an email from a dealer I contacted when I was searching for the Colorado to visit their website for some promotion or other (Red tag maybe?).

Went to their website and saw the banner said "We're here to stay".

I clicked on the link to read: "We are extremely pleased to announce that we have been identified by General Motoers as "Key Dealers", and have been selected by General Motors to be part of "The New GM" structure."

http://www.williamschev.com/MiscPage_3

Brand Identity

eddiegraves — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:50:34 GMT

Hello GMI! I was just joined this wonderful site yesterday. It's really good. I started this thread after having a conversation with one of my Anti GM employees. We were taking about how GM went bad. One thing we both agreed on was Brand identity. To much is corporate. I think the badge engineering thing has been beaten to death so I'll spare you my thoughts. It's just GM brands got too generic. Each brand should have focused on a specific type of customer. The parent company should have been kept as quite as possible. Advertising should have been custom tailored to that brands image and customer base. Not every brand needed to be full line. Consolidated dealerships and advertising was a mistake. I look out at the import dominated N.A landscape and see the brands that covered down when GM fell off. I see it like this

Toyota the new Chevy
Infiniti the new Pontiac
Lexus the new Buick
Scion the new Saturn
Land Rover the new GMC
Benz the new Caddy
VW the new Olds

Do any of you guys see that connection? Just some thoughts me and my co workers exchanged.

Video: Cops kill two teens while speeding

2001civic — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:54:30 GMT

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/v...q4waops50GDfYO

Size matters?

t-rex — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:17:17 GMT

A discussion in another thread prompted me to think more deeply into the issues that surround the "size" classifications of vehicles. While ostensibly, it's the final decision of the invidual whether a car is "fullsize" or "midsize" or whatnot, I realized that considering the never-ending fragmentation of the car market, that the traditional "size" categories we've been using in this country are woefully outdated.

Some examples...

Is the Chevy Impala really a "fullsize" car, simply because it's bigger than a Malibu? The Impala's considerably smaller than the Lucerne, and it rides the W-platform, which was clearly designed as a midsizer. Why is the Toyota Avalon considered "fullsize"? It's little more than a Camry with a few inches added to the back seat. The cabin's not perceptibly wider. Shouldn't moving up a size category require some sort of increase in cabin width? And I don't care what the EPA says, the Honda Accord IS NOT A FULLSIZE CAR. Not by even the remotest sense of the term.

As I noted in the example in that particular thread, part of why I feel the Ford Fusion has taken so long to catch on to buyers, is that while it dimensionally falls clear into the Camry-size category (an issue I'll discuss shortly), it looks and feels like a slightly smaller product... sort of where the "midsize" Saab 9-3 or Toyota Avensis (if it were sold here at least) would sit. The G8 was considered a "midsize" car, despite being considerably bigger than a Camry, and almost Lucerne-sized. Starting to get the picture?

This confusion in the mid-size segment began as the market began to fragment in the 1980s. As Detroit began downsizing from its 1970s proportions, offering more efficient roomy interiors in smaller overall packages, size perceptions begin to go askew. GM's "midsize" cars were the A-cars, which had not an inch more interior room than the (admittedly very roomy) "compact" X-cars, but rather were a step-up from compacts by virtue of their added body length, and bigger trunks. Yet they clearly had the same interior room of the G-body cars (if not more) and certainly felt roomier because of the flatter floor and more generous glazing. Nobody ever considered a Cutlass Ciera a "compact" car... it was clearly a midsizer.

Ford threw a monkey in the wrench with the Taurus, which when development began in earnest around 1980 was sized by what at the time was perceived to be the "standard-size" or "fullsize" car of the mid-1980s. At the time, "compact" would be Escort, "midsize' Tempo, and "fullsize" Taurus, etc. Yet the Taurus fell somewhere between GM's A- and H-body cars in perceived size.

The issue became crazier as, and to everyone's surprise, the public kept buying the "old" midsizers like the Cutlass Supreme and Regal, the size category that the Taurus now fell into, since the traditional fullsize car kinda stuck around. This prompted GM to cook up the W platform. Once the W's arrived, the A-cars seemed a bit too small, but they were still selling like hotcakes (at least the Century and Ciera were) and clearly weren't compacts.

So we had sort of a "lower" and "upper" midsize category. But to further exacerbate the insanity, the Japanese kept making their respective cars larger with every fourth-or-fifth-year redesign. By 1992, the Mazda 626 was clearly larger than a "compact" car like the Escort or Cavalier, but wasn' nearly as large as a "midsize" Taurus. Then of course the Accord got bigger, and Toyota introduced its "wide body" Camry, which alone cemented yet another sub-segment of the midsize category. Ford's Contour was considered a flop, but it really wasn't, as it was more "lower-midsized" and outsold almost all the cars that were the same size, such as the Nissan Altima and Mazda 626. It didn't sell in Taurus numbers because its size segment wasn't as popular overall as the Taurus's was.

So fast forward to today. The Saab 9-3 is a "midsize" car, yet it's smaller than the Malibu and Camry, both midsizers, and the Impala and new Taurus, while being called "fullsize" are clearly more at the upper end of the "midsize" segment than a true fullsizer like the Lucerne or Chrysler's LX cars. In short, I believe we have three distinct sub-segments of the "midsize" category, and frankly, I believe it's getting a bit too confusing for many of us.

So I contend that maybe it's time the industry, the media, and car fandom in general adopt some sort of graduating system of size classes, so we can more directly compare competing cars, and, if anything, for more clear reference purposes.

So let's take just sedans and hatchbacks for now, and see what global size categories exist.

At the bottom are the tiny Japanese Kei cars. It's the only class of car on Earth proscribed by legislation to be a certain size. So unlike some classes, which have grown over the decades, Kei cars are still itty-bitty.

There are two distinct sizes below what we in America call the "subcompact". Even the European A- and B-class designations are today useless, because there's a whole size between them. So this "subcompact" segment is now divided into three sizes. At the bottom end are the Ford Ka, Fiat 500, and Hyundai i10. At the upper end are the Corsa, Fiesta, Yaris. And in between are the likes of the Suzuki Swift, Proton Savvy, and the Brazilian VW Gol. It's foolhardy to simply lump all these into a catch-all category when they're clearly not the same size, nor attract the same customer.

The only universally-consistent class is what we know as "compact". And even that's starting to get fuzzy as the Cruze will ride a wheelbase 1 inch longer than a 1980s GM A-body car, and Renault's upcoming Fluence will ride a long, sausage-like wheelbase. Nevertheless, the class is clearly understood around the world, and we all know that Corollas, Golf, Astras, Cruzes, and Civics fall into it, with only a few oddball products that don't quite fit... such as the Fiat Linea, which just barely squeaks in to the bottom end of the segment.

Up from that... is the three-tiered "midsize" segment. Saab 9-3, Toyota Avensis, etc. on the bottom, Toyota Avalon, Chevy Impala, and Holden Commodore at the top, with the Fusion, Camry, Malibu, etc. in between. A graduated scheme would also prevent the upcoming Buick Regal and current LaCrosse from being lumped into the same size category, when one is clearly larger than the other, and they chase different customers.

Then we'd have two segments of fullsize car, at least in theory. This is America's domain, and typified by the Buick Lucerne, and the big Ozzie Holden Statesman, which is probably more "American" in character than most American cars! Above that is the theoretical "yacht" category... where something like the big Caddy Fleetwood would sit if it were still in production.

We all have different opinions over what constitues a "large" car or a "small" car. To me, the Fiat 500 is small, but a Cruze isn't. A Camry is "large", and a Park Avenue "huge". But somebody else (OLDSCHOOLGMFAN!) won't see it the same way. Yet he and I both agree that the Taurus and the Lucerne AREN'T in the same size category.

So I submit a proposal that we consider instituting some sort of new sizing scheme, internationally, to more accurately define product placement. I'm thinking, there's nine categories of sedans I mentioned, so why not simply use "Class-1" through "Class-9"? Crossovers, pickups... we'll cross that bridge later!

So what do you all think? Am I being too particular? Or have things simply become so fragmented that our old sizing scheme is obsolete?

What's your input?

Dimpled car gets better gas mileage, Myth Busters proof

doh — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:27 GMT

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/22/m...-dimpling-mpg/

The Mythbusters must be closet car fans, because the hour-long show on the Discovery Channel seems to be producing more and more experiments involving automobiles than ever before. Their latest again involves fuel efficiency, this time testing if a dirty car is more fuel efficient than a clean one because of the golf ball-like dimpling effect of the dirt. Turns out dirt doesn't make a difference, but Adam and Jamie went one step further to test if covering a car in actual golf ball-like dimples would improve its fuel efficiency. According to cable's most crack scientists, yes, it will.

The show's team completely covered a last-gen Ford Taurus with modelers clay and figured out that it would achieve about 26 mpg at a constant 65 mph. They then went about adding over 1,000 dimples to the car's exterior. To keep the experiment consistent, all 1,082 dimples removed from the clay exterior were put in a box and set in the back seat so that the car would weigh exactly the same as before dimpling. The theory is that, like a golf ball, the dimples would reduce the car's drag through the air, thus allowing it to travel the same distance at the same speed using less fuel. The result? Over 29 mpg.

Brent Dewar answers consumers' questions from Tell Fritz

91 s-10baja — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:38:54 GMT

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

101-Year-Old Man Buys a Camaro Transformers Edition

BrickTamland — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:41:04 GMT

I don't know if I will live to be 101, but if I do, I hope to be this spry and this spirited. It's something else to see a centenarian in a 400-horsepower car. Good for him. I hope it keeps him young.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

Tell Fritz Henderson: Some highlights from General Motors CEO

smsum2 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:54:22 GMT

I love the Tell Fritz blog so much I decided to do a short write up of it on my blog.

Some highlights:

No Buick Riviera planned
Cadillac's alpha-numeric nameplates were chosen so that they could be understood in every language (BS claim)
New CTS-V to be featured on Top Gear?
No Chevrolet SS sedan (e.g. Pontiac G8 rebage) planned
Cadillac XTS will not compete with the S-class, 7-Series or LS
No new midsized Chevy BOF SUV planned
No new compact pickup planned after 2012
No CNG vehicles planned for NA

Go check out my new post at my blog: AutoBird

Didn't Oldsmobile have a model called the Calais?

MyImpalaSS — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:36:23 GMT

Like in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I know that Holden makes a model with the same name. Any relation?

Let Me Get Something Straight Once And For All.

OLDSCHOOLGMFAN — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:17:22 GMT

I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with folks who like different kinds of cars/vehicles than I do. If your automotive tastes are small vehicles, manual trannys, high-revving motors, and the European and Japanese makes who specialize in those vehicle types, that's PLUM FINE with me.

What I DO HAVE A PROBLEM with is folks who think those are the ONLY types of vehicles that should exist/have any value AT ALL, and that ALL of the autobuilders, European, American, Korean, & Japanese, should ONLY build those kinds of vehicles! Also, when vehicle types that I like are insulted for no good reason at all. Here's my thinking. If you want to call big vehicles "boats", "land barges", and other mean crap, then DON'T cry when I insult small vehicles. If you want to call FWD vehicles "crapboxes" "fail machines", and other mean crap, then DON'T cry when I throw the same back at RWD vehicles!

Also, if we are discussing the direction a given autobuilder should take, then please realize that just because I agree or disagree doesn't make me some kind of quarrelsome troublemaker, or "troll". If I went into a Honda forum and said that Honda should concentrate on making bigger vehicles, I would FULLY expect to encounter resistance from Honda fans, since Honda's bread & butter and what they made their reputation on is small vehicles. I myself personally like the Odyssey, but I would NEVER say that Honda should make bigger vehicles like that big minivan it's priority or something they "have" to have more of!

I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, I just want to talk about cars and the auto industry. I have my own automotive tastes, and my own opinions about the auto industry, and if they are respected I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER respecting the automotive tastes and opinions of others that differ from mine.

Rant over.

Officially Official: Toyota launches European Land Cruiser [w/VIDEO]

GMusa — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:14:22 GMT

Officially Official: Toyota launches European Land Cruiser [w/VIDEO]

Back before SUVs became all the rage, for decades, Toyota built a bruiser of a truck called Land Cruiser. Like its counterparts from America and the UK, the Jeep CJ/Wrangler and the Land Rover Range Rover, the Land Cruiser has always delivered the biscuits for the world's hardcore off-roaders. Unwilling to give up its stranglehold as one of the world's best partners in inhospitable climates, Toyota has just launched the latest iteration of its standard Land Cruiser in Europe, and it is an altogether different (and somewhat smaller) creature than the V8 model we get here in North America.

While the Land Cruiser has gotten significantly more luxurious and upwardly mobile in recent generations, Toyota has retained its off-road capability, and that appears to remain the case here. Power for the Euro Cruiser comes from a 3.0-liter four-cylinder diesel that cranks out 171 horsepower and 302 pound-feet of torque. The body-on-frame Land Cruiser has 32- and 24-degree approach and departure angles, 8.5 inches of ground clearance and the ability to wade through 27.6 inches of water. Active roll management and active traction control allow the driver to get over and around the boulders while front and side view cameras allow the driver to see where they are. Unfortunately for the dedicated rock crawlers among us, we will likely never see this Land Cruiser on our continent � at least with a Toyota badge on it. If you're still interested, however, you can check out a video of the spanking new 'Yota getting dirty after the jump along with a full press release.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/18/o...-cruiser-w-vi/