GMI Rumor: Aura To Get A Revised Interior?

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by DuSpinnst

You are fast becoming a person who I am going to ignore.

You don't understand car electronic systems. We've tried to explain them to you, obviously you just are too dense to get it.

Shut up about it already for god's sake, you sound like a 3 year old.

DuSpinnst's ignore list? Now I bet he's scared!!

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by boblutzfan

This is my point - if it can be done in the aftermarket - then GM should offer it as a factory option. There is absolutely no excuse if GM really wants to be the best in the business.

The DIC is part of the G6 head unit and was in the last generation Malibu - but not the next one. I do believe that GM altered the wiring between the last generation Malibu/G6 and the Aura/2008 Malibu. The same was done on the Theta. Originally the Theta Nox/Torrent and EPI G6/Malibu all used the horrid head unit that also integrated with the DIC. This was ditched in the Theta to make way for the navigation option and was ditched for the Aura and 2008 Malibu.

I do not accept the wiring issue as the reason GM doesn't offer navigation on the Aura and Malibu - clearly it can be worked around. I think this is corporate BS at its worse and sadly many people on this site accept it without question even though the aftermarket has a work around that does not affect the other electrical functions.

Open your eyes folks.

THAT'S IT I'VE F'IN HAD IT WITH YOU!

Moving the DIC is easy.

That just takes updating where the signal goes.

Updating the CAN communication involves changing EVERY SINGLE MODULE THAT USES THAT CAN. This is 10-15 DIFFERENT MODULES FROM DIFFERNET SUPPLIERS.

Theta for some reason was updated, probably because it shares parts with the Suzuki (or because they already had it done for the new VUE and they realized they could "back port" the modules to Theta I).

Regardless the CURRENT technology in Epsilon doesn't allow it, AND there isn't enough money to update it.

Everytime you say Aftermarket Nav you look like an idiot.

I can't stress the word IDIOT enough. God are you a baby. And after I finish reading this thread I am going to add you to ignore because frankly I am sick of you bitching and moaning like this. Someone needs to put a cork in your mouth.

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Bravada

Try again, as I somehow missed the explaining - what needs to be changed in order to have an Epsilon fitted with navi, why were they able to do that on the Grand Prix (which isn't probably the vehicle with the largest development budget in the GM stable) and why was the guy able to do that - I mean, how is one different from the other?

Dude, they are two completely different cars!
You don't have to be an engineer to know that.

[DuSpinnst]

Originally Posted by Bravada

Neither him nor I do, but I would honestly like to hear how it is - if some guy can fit nav in his car, why can't GM do that? I am asking in all seriousness now!

I've explained it in detail at least 4 or 5 times.

I am not going thru it again, frankly I am sick of explaining it as people obviously don't seem to give a crap about the real reason.

[ChevroletRevived]

I'm really liking this design though, in particular the vent placement and how it goes in with the center stack controls right there. Very nice...

[Bravada]

Can somebody ask DuSpinnst on my behalf (as I am almost sure I made it to his ignore list):

1. Why cannot GM just fit a unit working on an "aftermarket" basis (like many automakers apparently do) but feels the need to upgrade the CAN to fit the nav?

2. Why does it seem so natural that they updated the Theta and not the Epsilon? Or isn't it that they care about the SUVs (big margins) but not the sedans (small margins)?

Originally Posted by eaton53

Dude, they are two completely different cars!
You don't have to be an engineer to know that.

Yeah, and?

I have asked - if they did it to the GP, which is a relatively low-priority car which I would assign a meagre development budget, why can't they do this to the Epsilon? The W-body is also an older platform that the Epsilon, so my gut feeling is that it wasn't any easier to update...

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by eaton53

The Aura is already better than a Camry. IMO, the problem is not gizmos, it's a lack of pricing flexibility.

So when the Malibu gets here, we'll see if sales increase. Chevy will have a vastly improved product and hands not tied by MSRP pricing.

I'm just asking......many people have said that the "Saturn experience" is their primary competitive advantage. One of the primary components to that is their no haggle pricing. Are you saying they should price the MSRP lower or they should go to the old way of selling? Flexibility suggests the old smokey room approach when I read your post. I'm really not trying to be argumentative......I too would prefer a better driving car. I drive a 2003 Corvette for goodness sake......nobody has written home to tell mom how great the interior is on those cars! But damn I love driving it! I want GM to sell as many toaster cars as they can so they'll have money to build the cars I want to drive like a CTS or a Corvette. I can honestly say that Toyota really doesn't build anything that I find compelling. I saw some guy driving down the highway in one of those Lexus convertibles (I don't know the name and don't care to waste my time looking it up) this morning and my first two thoughts were 1) that's a fine, fancy pants interior and 2) I feel sorry for the guy driving his wife's car.

[mgescuro]

Originally Posted by ChevroletRevived

So you're saying GM doesn't really want to lead this segment? That's ridiculous if you're serious. They want to lead every classt!

The nature of GM's business strategy necessitate a bunch of cars that fill in niches. By having that many cars to cover niches, no single vehicle can ever lead a class. EVER.

Cars like Corvette and XLR and CTS, where there are no other cars in its adjacent class within GM have the ability to be class leaders -- should GM warrant.

But having Aura/Malibu/G6 as "class leaders?" No way. They're not differentiated enough. They are serving the same purpose. They'll just fill in the niches GM's identified for them and be on their way.

[nsap]

Originally Posted by Bravada

Can somebody ask DuSpinnst on my behalf (as I am almost sure I made it to his ignore list):

1. Why cannot GM just fit a unit working on an "aftermarket" basis (like many automakers apparently do) but feels the need to upgrade the CAN to fit the nav?

2. Why does it seem so natural that they updated the Theta and not the Epsilon? Or isn't it that they care about the SUVs (big margins) but not the sedans (small margins)?

1. That would likely require a new, unique head unit. Why would GM want to lineup a new supplier and design a new headunit for a two (maybe three) cars?

2. My guess is that with the Theta's, Suzuki was demanding Nav, so the XL-7 was engineered with it from the get-go...so they swapped the wiring over to the Equinox/Torrent during their MCE. This likely cut down on costs as well. They didn't have to have two seperate electronic systems in manufacturing, and they use the same head units.

[ChevroletRevived]

Originally Posted by nsap

1. That would likely require a new, unique head unit. Why would GM want to lineup a new supplier and design a new headunit for a two (maybe three) cars?

2. My guess is that with the Theta's, Suzuki was demanding Nav, so the XL-7 was engineered with it from the get-go...so they swapped the wiring over to the Equinox/Torrent during their MCE. This likely cut down on costs as well. They didn't have to have two seperate electronic systems in manufacturing, and they use the same head units.

Bingo!

[plane]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=6

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=5

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=7

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=9

[eaton53]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

I'm just asking......many people have said that the "Saturn experience" is their primary competitive advantage. One of the primary components to that is their no haggle pricing. Are you saying they should price the MSRP lower or they should go to the old way of selling? Flexibility suggests the old smokey room approach when I read your post. I'm really not trying to be argumentative......I too would prefer a better driving car. I drive a 2003 Corvette for goodness sake......nobody has written home to tell mom how great the interior is on those cars! But damn I love driving it! I want GM to sell as many toaster cars as they can so they'll have money to build the cars I want to drive like a CTS or a Corvette. I can honestly say that Toyota really doesn't build anything that I find compelling. I saw some guy driving down the highway in one of those Lexus convertibles (I don't know the name and don't care to waste my time looking it up) this morning and my first two thoughts were 1) that's a fine, fancy pants interior and 2) I feel sorry for the guy driving his wife's car.

IMO, the "Saturn Experience" is for people that only set foot in dealerships because the alternative is walking. Most people like to get a deal, although I know plenty of people who'd be better off just taking the Saturn deal so they don't get screwed over.

So, I believe Saturn is doomed to niche status with this system. However, I do believe they could help themselves somewhat with a "price on the window is the price you pay" system that doesn't tie the dealer's hands. I believe that is the system Scion uses.... you pay posted prices, not MSRP.

[boblutzfan]

Originally Posted by Bravada

Neither him nor I do, but I would honestly like to hear how it is - if some guy can fit nav in his car, why can't GM do that? I am asking in all seriousness now!

This is all I am saying...if it can be done in the after market - why would GM let some other company earn the cash and profits there to be had when they could do it as well.

Folks - the market says that a slice of the consumers want this product - navigation that is. GM is ignorant for not giving it to them. If you think that is me being a baby...then I guess the techies driving the competition because they wanted a nav unit are babies too. Babies with money. GM is stupid for not providing this as an option for them.

[Bravada]

1. That would likely require a new, unique head unit. Why would GM want to lineup a new supplier and design a new headunit for a two (maybe three) cars?

Given that the conservatively estimated nav order ratio is 1-2%, you have just said GM sells some 100-300 Auras... Oh, and how many Grand Prixes with nav do you think Avis orders?

BTW, being unfamiliar with technical terms in English - does "head unit" here mean some part of the electric system or just the stuff in the dash? If you mean the dash, it would only do the Aura good if the dash was rehashed. Actually, before the Malibu arrived, it had a bespoke dash - so they could've designed it to accomodate the nav from day one (the non-nav versions could've had a display too, rather than the cheapskate LEDs accross the console).

2. My guess is that with the Theta's, Suzuki was demanding Nav, so the XL-7 was engineered with it from the get-go...so they swapped the wiring over to the Equinox/Torrent during their MCE. This likely cut down on costs as well. They didn't have to have two seperate electronic systems in manufacturing, and they use the same head units.

By the same token, GM could've established the Aura needs nav, designed a new wiring, which would go in the Aura and new Malibu and replace the one in the G6 during the next update (which I hope will come soon, as the car was reported to be destined to last until 2013 by the UAW).

[63GrandSport001]

GM would be smart to spend the money to get a Nav into the Aura...........

Running a car company isnt always about getting the biggest return on your investment.

Toyota builds a little less then half of the vehicles that it sells in the US in America, if they were all about biggest return on their investment (which they are moving towards) they would make 0% of the vehicles they sell here over here (the number of vehicles they are building in America compared to selling in America is shrinking).

For all we know we might not get the new platform for the Aura till 2010+ and having a Nav would make it more competitive.