It'd be nice to see Buick...

Target the safety angle for GM.

Make it safety with luxury, performance and quality...

How to do such a thing... hmmm...

Well, for starters, how about AWD across the board? While the LeCrosse mentioned in a previous thread with the V8 will be nifty, it's kind of old hat when a Chevrolet has been powered by the same motor for a couple of years, and a Pontiac has it too...

This gets a little bit into GM's brand overlap problem though...

Lemme give an example:

A full-book Impala SS stickers for $30,420.
A zero-options Cadillac CTS stickers for $29,990.

Where do I fit a Buick and a Pontiac in between those two? They're roughly equivalent in size, a case can be made that the Cadillac has a raft full of features that the Chevrolet does not have, but the Chevrolet has several tangible advantages:

1) The V8 solidly out-powers the 2.8 liter V6 in the Cadillac.

2) The seats in the Chevrolet are genuine dead cow... the Cadillac is using something they refuse to call vinyl in the base CTS's... but it ain't leather... it just looks like leather and is synthetic (Nauga?)... I call that vinyl, but I'm behind the times or something...

Where in the world do I cram in a Buick and a Pontiac in between those two??? HOW do I cram a Buick and a Pontiac in between those two??? How do I differentiate them??? How do I reserve the Cadillac as my "Gold Standard" with a more expensive, higher content Buick flitting about the market???

Even if I figure out a way to give every Buick AWD, there's no way in the world I can do it for a price anywhere near the Impala SS, which means that the discrepancy in pricing between it and the Cadillac will become even more pronounced than the discrepancy in pricing between the Chevrolet and the Cadillac.


Shutting off the Buick and Pontiac and Saturn lines is probably nearly impossible given the mess GM went through eliminating Olds, but I'm at a loss here...

I can't figure out any way to market a Buick or Pontiac in between Cadillac and Chevrolet, and Saturn is COMPLETELY useless.

Anything Saturn can do, Chevrolet can or should do better.

I scratcheth my head and ponder on...

I can't figure out any way to market a Buick or Pontiac in between Cadillac and Chevrolet, and Saturn is COMPLETELY useless.

Very simple.

Pontiac - Build cars that target Nissan and Mazda demographics
Buick - Get rid of it in the states, Leave it as a Chinese brand
Saturn - Becomes Opel of US, which it now seems to be with it's all new line of cars and SUV's coming out soon.

I keep clinging with hope to that Automotive News article that stated Pontiac may be all RWD vehicles in a few years :cool:

Very simple.

Pontiac - Build cars that target Nissan and Mazda demographics
Buick - Get rid of it in the states, Leave it as a Chinese brand
Saturn - Becomes Opel of US, which it now seems to be with it's all new line of cars and SUV's coming out soon.

Buick = FWD lux and large cars. A little over lap is ok since they will help make Pontiac/Buick/GMC a full brand. Just don't make any Buicks rebadges.

Buick:
LWB sedan version of RWD chassis and FWD/AWD EPII, and Enclave

Pontiac:

Coupes and sedans SWB: RWD, EPII, and Solstice.

GMC:

Chevy truck rebadges w/ chrome and more lux.

Saturn/Opel...make it an import fighter... stop trying to make Impalas and malibu's look like imports, use saturns to get the import sales.

Pontiac...performance, things that are optional on chevy are standard here. They need an awd car though. I wish their was a way to keep the powertrains different between the two.

Buick --luxury compared to pontiac/chevy, fully loaded... but not the price of cadillac.
I dont think to many people are cross shopping a fully loaded v8 Impala vs. a no optioned CTS.....
Now a low optioned CTS vs. a v8 lacrosse...i could see. I see people who are shopping for cadillac as deciding between that and lexus, mercedes, lincoln....are

Also....chevy recognize itself truly as the volume brand and quit complaining everytime a different brand gets something to differentiate itself. If buick/pontiac would get an awd version on a similiar platform...chevy would want it too.

I dont think to many people are cross shopping a fully loaded v8 Impala vs. a no optioned CTS.....


Actually, that's exactly what I am cross-shopping right now :yes: , though I'd say the CTS is more of a "mid-optioned" version rather than a no-option version.

Saturn/Opel...make it an import fighter... stop trying to make Impalas and malibu's look like imports, use saturns to get the import sales.

I disagree. Chevrolet, by it's sheer volume, offers higher value than Saturn ever could.


I dont think to many people are cross shopping a fully loaded v8 Impala vs. a no optioned CTS.....

I would.


Also....chevy recognize itself truly as the volume brand and quit complaining everytime a different brand gets something to differentiate itself. If buick/pontiac would get an awd version on a similiar platform...chevy would want it too.

Chevrolet drives the business cases at GM (along with Cadillac). NO Buick or Pontiac exists without Chevrolet... except for MAYBE Solstice and G6... MAYBE...

Velite?
Only if there's a Camaro and/or a RWD sedan for Chevrolet?

New GTO?
See above.

I disagree. Chevrolet, by it's sheer volume, offers higher value than Saturn ever could.



I would.



Chevrolet drives the business cases at GM (along with Cadillac). NO Buick or Pontiac exists without Chevrolet... except for MAYBE Solstice and G6... MAYBE...

Velite?
Only if there's a Camaro and/or a RWD sedan for Chevrolet?

New GTO?
See above.

I dont think chevy should be making cars that look like camrys, altimas and accords...i think nissan and toyotas should be making cars that look like impalas.

I agree...chevy drives the business case. But you dont think chevy guys wanted the redline in place of saturn?
If the Grand prix gets a new hot item or engine...you dont think chevy will want that too?
If impala, grand prix, and lacrosse have exactly the same options, powertrains..etc... then their truly is no reason to have anything but chevy besides giving the buyer a name brand choice. Known as badge engineering.

I dont think chevy should be making cars that look like camrys, altimas and accords...i think nissan and toyotas should be making cars that look like impalas.

I like your thoughts there.


I agree...chevy drives the business case. But you dont think chevy guys wanted the redline in place of saturn?

Sky Redline? Probably not. Looks like they're going to get a turbocharged HHR SS sometimes soon...

They've already got the Cobalt SS, a new Camaro coming, the Monte Carlo SS, Impala SS and Corvette.

Methinks they have the performance angle covered, apart from the fact that the Camaro isn't here yet and the Monte Carlo and Impala SS's are underpowered relative to the DCX 300 series cars AND wrong-wheel drive.

That being said, I think a 300hp FWD car for $30,000 is a good idea, it's just not the correct platform for a performance car.

A 350hp AWD car is a BETTER idea, but the market just isn't there yet.

Impalas are not languishing on lots. They're selling very well and will crush the DCX cars in the market from a volume standpoint.


If the Grand prix gets a new hot item or engine...you dont think chevy will want that too?

Welp, look at the engine choices right now...

The V8 in the Grand Prix and the "Super" LeCrosse exists because Chevrolet pioneered it for them. The 3.8 is dying, and the 3.9 and 3.5 are BOTH carried by Chevrolet from a volume standpoint.

The LSx series motors (of which the 5.3 liter is one) exist because of TRUCKS... They just happen to power cars very nicely also...

Trucks at GM = Chevrolet (with a couple of GMC's tossed in... which are really just Chevrolets anyway).



If impala, grand prix, and lacrosse have exactly the same options, powertrains..etc... then their truly is no reason to have anything but chevy besides giving the buyer a name brand choice. Known as badge engineering.

My exact point. All Buick and Pontiac are doing is badge engineering - apart from G6 and Solstice.

That's why I'm struggling. I can't figure out anything a Grand Prix does for me that an Impala can't do on one end or a CTS can't do (better) on the other.

The prices bear that out too.

If I'm looking for value or some measure of raw performance - odds say there's a Chevrolet that'll meet my needs. Impala is a great example.

If I'm looking for luxury, why would I ever buy a Buick or Pontiac when I can get into a CTS for just a hair more money and get a flat-out better car?

Basically, GM has a Toyota-Lexus relationship going with Chevrolet and Cadillac, but then has two other marketing divisions lumped in there too - and that muddies everything up.

I know this is anathema to Buick, Pontiac and Olds fans, but is this honestly the most efficient way to take on Toyota?

I honestly don't think so, but I'll temper that with the idea that killing off a division is very expensive in terms of PR, and in real dollars.

That's why I'm struggling. I can't figure out anything a Grand Prix does for me that an Impala can't do on one end or a CTS can't do (better) on the other.

I thought I read somewhere the Grand Prix had larger front than rear tires and less torque steer than Impalla or something like that?

Very simple.

Pontiac - Build cars that target Nissan and Mazda demographics
Buick - Get rid of it in the states, Leave it as a Chinese brand
Saturn - Becomes Opel of US, which it now seems to be with it's all new line of cars and SUV's coming out soon.
I agree with the notion that GM needs to define Pontiac and many of its other brands by what exactly they want to compete with. Along those lines:

Saab - Acura, Volvo, Audi, high-end Honda (FWD, AWD performance brands)

Saturn - VW, Honda

Pontiac - Nissan, Mazda, Dodge

Buick - High-end Toyota, Lexus


In such fashion, GM could use its "nich brands" as scalpels and truly turn their brands into a leverage in the market place rather than a liability.

Saturn is becoming Opel-USA with an Aura and Sky thrown in.

Pontiac at the moment seems like it's going to become Holden-USA, again with a version of Kappa & Espilon with a version of the US made big coupes thrown in.

Buick apparently is banking their existence on 2 big FWD sedans, a crossover, and selling Pontiacs in their showroom.

So in a way, Chevrolet & Cadillac (which are eventially going to be sold all over the planet) are GM's (North America) only real divisions. :think:

Target the safety angle for GM.

Make it safety with luxury, performance and quality...

How to do such a thing... hmmm...

{SNIP}


I can't figure out any way to market a Buick or Pontiac in between Cadillac and Chevrolet, and Saturn is COMPLETELY useless.

Anything Saturn can do, Chevrolet can or should do better.

I scratcheth my head and ponder on...

The safety angle won't be enough to keep Buick relevant, IMO. I view that as a "must have" for any brand, including economy brands. Maybe I'm missing a key safety feature that hasn't made its way down into the $25K range that would allow some distinction, but I don't think so - heck, a bazillion airbags and stability control are already present on "bargain" vehicles like the Hyundai Azera, and higher-end safety features such as night vision, lane departure, and stop-n-go distance-following cruise really should be rolled out on the Caddy range first (to properly compete with the Euro brands).

I think it's possible to make an argument for Chevy, Caddy, and one other brand (either something on the low end, or something to slot into the ever-so-narrow gap between the Bowtie and the wreath). Beyond that, the only thing keeping the rest of the brands alive is the market-share argument. Now, it's possible to give each of the "lesser brands" some sort of niche identity - "safety", "AWD", "hybrid", "diesel", etc. - but I think that this sort of this has a limited shelf life.

Very simple.

Pontiac - Build cars that target Nissan and Mazda demographics
Buick - Get rid of it in the states, Leave it as a Chinese brand
Saturn - Becomes Opel of US, which it now seems to be with it's all new line of cars and SUV's coming out soon.


Exactly.

The thing is I see a case for Pontiac as the sporty division, but I don't see one for Saab or Buick?


That's why I'm struggling. I can't figure out anything a Grand Prix does for me that an Impala can't do on one end or a CTS can't do (better) on the other.

I know this is anathema to Buick, Pontiac and Olds fans, but is this honestly the most efficient way to take on Toyota?
.

Little stuff like manual transmission, HUD, automanual, racing seats, tuned suspension make all the difference in giving a seperate identity. Hell, the Impala/Malibu look like dull Toyota-inspired cars, but the Grand Prix is the only W-body I'd give a serious look at if I were in the market for a sedan.

I think there is a healthy market for Pontiac as the sporty division of GM.

I dont think to many people are cross shopping a fully loaded v8 Impala vs. a no optioned CTS.....


:lol: GUILTY! The only options our CTS had was the A5 (which gave you the 3.6...darn), and the white diamond paint.

The fundamental problem is that GM sells its cars too cheap. If the CTS started at $40K rather than $30, there would be room for something 3-Series-ish (at Cadillac or Saab or Saturn or wherever), and a spot for a large sedan above Impala. They need to stop aiming so low.

The fundamental problem is that GM sells its cars too cheap. If the CTS started at $40K rather than $30, there would be room for something 3-Series-ish (at Cadillac or Saab or Saturn or wherever), and a spot for a large sedan above Impala. They need to stop aiming so low.
Well, the CTS is a smashing success in its current price range. Move it up ten grand and I'm not so sure. Most likely, we'd end up seeing rebates on it worth about $5,000

The fundamental problem is that GM sells its cars too cheap. If the CTS started at $40K rather than $30, there would be room for something 3-Series-ish (at Cadillac or Saab or Saturn or wherever), and a spot for a large sedan above Impala. They need to stop aiming so low.

Welp...

That could be the first time I've ever seen a company criticized for offering an outstanding value...

That could be the first time I've ever seen a company criticized for offering an outstanding value...

Check the profit statements and investor reports.

Cheaper package -> Less Desirable -> Lower Sales -> More Incentives -> Losing Money

In almost every segement where GM is being beaten, the competitors come in at a higher base price point, a higher "desire level", and use less incentives to move vehicles. (Impala vs Camry, CTS vs 3-Series, etc.)

The "best value" strategy is doublely dumb when your structural costs are the highest in the industry. GM needs to focus more on higher-end, higher-profit vehicles just to pay for their operations. They simply can't continue to sell on price/incentives and stay alive.

Check the profit statements and investor reports.

Cheaper package -> Less Desirable -> Lower Sales -> More Incentives -> Losing Money

In almost every segement where GM is being beaten, the competitors come in at a higher base price point, a higher "desire level", and use less incentives to move vehicles. (Impala vs Camry, CTS vs 3-Series, etc.)

The "best value" strategy is doublely dumb when your structural costs are the highest in the industry. GM needs to focus more on higher-end, higher-profit vehicles just to pay for their operations. They simply can't continue to sell on price/incentives and stay alive.

I believe Cadillac outsells every other luxury make in North America... so precisely how is Cadillac being beaten again?

Random objections are not an argument.

the best route that i can think of for gm luxury is this:
cadillac is sporty luxury - firmer rides, rwd/awd, v series, firmer seats
buick is the plush luxury - softer ride, doesnt matter what wd, nice soft seats that are almost pillowy (is that even a word???)

2 completely different luxury brands made by the same company.

Random objections are not an argument.

Answereth the question.

Seems to me Cadillac is doing just fine with CTS's. The issue was, still is, and continues to be that there's no room for anything between CTS and Impala - and therefore no real market for Buick in particular.

Answereth the question.

Already answered in my previous posts. You're free to read them again.

Already answered in my previous posts. You're free to read them again.

There was no answer, no rebuttal to the point that Cadillac is doing just fine without your astute marketing insight.

Furthermore, you have no idea whatsoever if Cadillac is or is not profitable (they and Chevrolet are basically carrying GM on their backs right now).

The problem is not Cadillac or Chevrolet.

It's Buick, Pontiac and Saturn.

And the idea that Cadillac somehow needs to sell less cars (which is the natural result of increasing prices - Economics 101) in the hope that Buick will sell disproportionately more than they currently do is little short of silly.

Finally, plants reach peak efficiency from a production standpoint when they are fully capacitized and can distribute burden over the largest number of vehicles practicable - selling less CTS's at a higher margin would see any benefit eaten up quickly by the fact that the fixed production costs AND legacy costs for benefits will increase on a per vehicle basis.

Value is GM's bread and butter, and eventually will win the day.

More car for less money.


Somewhat unrelated question:

Ever spent any time in a plant?

Target the safety angle for GM.

Make it safety with luxury, performance and quality...


One-word answer: Volvo

Multi-word answer: You're essentially talking about marketing. In marketing you have to have a unique message, something to set you apart from everyone else. Let's face it, Volvo's got the whole 'premium safe car' thing locked up, and rightly so, after decades of pounding home the message. Anyone else will always be second place to them in this category. Second best is not what you want to be known for.

If Buick tries to play the safety angle, all they're going to do is get people thinking about Volvos. They need to come up with some unique angle, kinda like Subaru did with AWD. I know they've tried "premium American automobiles" (whatever that is) and now having quiet interiors, but those things really don't make a company stand out, and they don't resonate with the car buying public.

There are plenty of Grand Prix buyers who will not buy a LaCrosse or Impala in it's place.

I agree with pushing Cadillacs price up. Theres no room or profit to differentiate any of the models in between.

Value doesen't equal a low price. Keep increasing the useful features, the refinement and performance of Cadillac and raise the price accordingly. Nothing wrong with spending a lot of money on a lot more product.

Put another car beneath CTS that could really and truly fight the IS and 3 series, at a lower price and you're good.

Put another car beneath CTS that could really and truly fight the IS and 3 series, at a lower price and you're good.
That's what I'd really like to see. It's too bad that when Cadillac wanted to give buyers something 'more' when comparing to a 3-series, they went for more size. Bigger is not always better. I'd far rather have seen Caddy provide more power, better handling, better packaging, or even a few more features and keep the size down. That's the purpose of a sports sedan IMO.

Of course, even the 3-series isn't sized like a 3-series anymore :(

I tried posting here earlier, but where it went????
Anyways, I own 2 Buicks, and I think Buick has a good position between Pontiac and Cadillac, at least that's how I see it.
To me, Saturn has always been GM's version of Honda, but I see a lot of SAAB working into their look...boring to me.
Chevy's always been more of a entry class, to me, with fully optioned models coming close to a base/mid Buick.
Cadillac, the domestic, "I've arrived" cars...I know they went "cheap" for a while, but have been climbing back up the status ladder.
Pontiac, sportier/classier, I'd love to see them compete with Mazda and Nissan, but not as a copycat, but an American Styled, performance oriented line...
I saw a white Impala SS/V8, dual exhaust, version...Looked pretty Bad @ss!!Sounded good too, he was really driving it!...here in Pigeon Forge, on vacation...
I love the wife's 2003 Rendezvous, it functions flawlessly, just some appearance issues, like: chrome blistering and peeling(not clear-cote)from brake dust, I guess...also some clear wearing off the black trim on the pillars and the dark gray-rear bumper. I would love to see a more modern looking HUD than the "green" DOS looking display...it looks more at home on an '80's Pontiac.

Oh yeah, the 3.4L is too low on torque for this vehicle, it must downshift WAYYYY too much to accelerate, and it hangs in lower gears WAYYY past peak power...I'd love to have a 3800 in this baby, maybe the 3.5L fares better..???

The problem is not Cadillac or Chevrolet.

It's Buick, Pontiac and Saturn.

Finally, plants reach peak efficiency from a production standpoint when they are fully capacitized and can distribute burden over the largest number of vehicles practicable - selling less CTS's at a higher margin would see any benefit eaten up quickly by the fact that the fixed production costs AND legacy costs for benefits will increase on a per vehicle basis.

Value is GM's bread and butter, and eventually will win the day.

More car for less money.

This entire post is GM Thinking Extreme -- Sell at a loss and make it up on volume :P -- basically the textbook for losing $10 Billion a year.

GM could afford "value" when they had a 30% marketshare ... and there's no way that's happening again any time soon. Right now they've got undesirable cars that sell poorly at low profit per unit. With their structural costs, that's the fastlane to bankruptcy. GM must get desirability and ASPs up if they're planning on surviving.

I even agree that Buick and Pontiac would ideally just go away. But realistically, that's not going to happen. Badge Engineering is alive and well ... the key is doing it right, and that means creating some breathing room between Chevy and Cadillac.

And the idea that Cadillac somehow needs to sell less cars (which is the natural result of increasing prices - Economics 101)

Guess you didn't do so hot in Reading 101. I said they should bring in a luxury car under the CTS, not sell less cars. And it doesn't matter if they sell it through Cadillac or another one of their largely useless divisions -- to a large degree Caddy is succeeding at the expense of Buick and even Pontiac.


Somewhat unrelated question:

Ever spent any time in a plant?
I guess I haven't inhaled enough paint fumes :rolleyes:

There are plenty of Grand Prix buyers who will not buy a LaCrosse or Impala in it's place.

Well, it looks like you're a Grand Prix Guy, but realistically I think the current Grand Prix position could be covered with the right Impala and a sport package.

I think the right large sport sedan (like say the rumored RWD G8) could start at $27K instead of $21 for the GP, and would give Pontiac a lot more brand-identity than the current model.

Of course, even the 3-series isn't sized like a 3-series anymore :(
The 2 series seems much closer to the E36 3 series coupes to me.
http://test.phark.net/m2.gif

This entire post is GM Thinking Extreme -- Sell at a loss and make it up on volume :P -- basically the textbook for losing $10 Billion a year.

Their problems are based around fixed costs.

Either you make more cars or the fixed cost allotment per vehicle goes up.

In GM's case, labor and healthcare and pensions behave like fixed costs because of the commitments that have been made to retirees and employees (Jobs Bank anyone???). These fixed costs HAVE TO be paid

Here's the math:

GM has fixed costs of $1,000,000 - again, these costs HAVE TO be paid.

If GM sells 1000 cars, then $1000 is added to the price of the car to cover fixed costs.

If GM sells 500 cars, then $2000 is added to the price of every car to cover fixed costs.

Toyota, on the other hand, doesn't have these fixed costs, so their business conditions are different and they are not under the same pressure. They can afford to lay back and sell fewer cars simply because of the difference in fixed costs.

GM can't.

What you call "Sell at a loss and make it up on volume" is actually "cover the fixed costs or we're in huge trouble".

Wagoner's approach so far is the most effective way to reduce this burden - buyouts relieve the fixed cost issue (somewhat), and keep cranking out cars.

No matter how smart outsiders claim to be (dubious at best...), their solutions center around glib comments like "sell them for more" or "have a more desireable product", the mere mention of which belies their ignorance.

Making FEWER cars forces GM into an untenable position much faster than making more of them - which is precisely why they went into incentives to move the iron.

BTW - your assumption that Cadillacs and Chevrolets lose money is false.



GM could afford "value" when they had a 30% marketshare ... and there's no way that's happening again any time soon. Right now they've got undesirable cars that sell poorly at low profit per unit.

Sweeping generalization.

GM has two divisions in North America (GMC basically IS Chevrolet) that are making a killing, and three that are crippled (plus two that don't make a difference either way - Saab and Hummer - because they're too small). Those three divisions have no real identity and a limited place in the market.

Your solution to raise prices on the CTS and slot in a BLS (or whatever) in North America merely exacerbates the problem.

A lower cost, lower value Cadillac provides no solution. It makes the purchase decision even worse for Buick and Pontiac ('Why buy a Buick when you can get a Cadillac??').

BLS makes sense in Europe for two reasons - open capacity in Russelsheim and the European fascination with small cars. Lansing and Cadillac don't have either of these issues. The SRX and STS take up the capacity left over in the plant from CTS - and does it at a higher price point and margin than BLS would, AND Cadillac's forumla is winning right now in North America - they're #1 for a REASON.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/12/09/luxury-cars-sales-cx_dl_1212feat_ls.html



With their structural costs, that's the fastlane to bankruptcy. GM must get desirability and ASPs up if they're planning on surviving.

This belies a COMPLETE lack of understanding of fixed costs. The fast way to bankruptcy is a lack of cash flow to pay those fixed costs... cash flow = MOVE THE IRON, and lots of it.



I even agree that Buick and Pontiac would ideally just go away. But realistically, that's not going to happen. Badge Engineering is alive and well ... the key is doing it right, and that means creating some breathing room between Chevy and Cadillac.

Guess you didn't do so hot in Reading 101. I said they should bring in a luxury car under the CTS, not sell less cars. And it doesn't matter if they sell it through Cadillac or another one of their largely useless divisions -- to a large degree Caddy is succeeding at the expense of Buick and even Pontiac.


Again, how in the world does a BLS - or any other vehicle slotted in underneath a CTS (which will have to go up in price radically to make room for it) - create breathing room between Cadillac and Chevrolet????

Furthermore, raise CTS $10,000 and STS has to go up $10,000 to get out it's way, and DTS has to go up too - DTS's start right at about $42,000.


The fundamental problem is that GM sells its cars too cheap. If the CTS started at $40K rather than $30, there would be room for something 3-Series-ish (at Cadillac or Saab or Saturn or wherever), and a spot for a large sedan above Impala. They need to stop aiming so low.

Rasing CTS's price $10,000, and every other car in Cadillac's line-up along with it and slotting in a lower-margin car underneath makes ZERO sense.




I guess I haven't inhaled enough paint fumes :rolleyes:

Don't knock it until you try it - it might help your pitiable understanding of manufacturing economics.

BTW, Flo...

Here's your introduction to fixed costs based on healthcare:

"GM, once described by a Wall Street analyst as a hospital that makes cars on the side, is the largest private buyer of health care in the United States, covering 1.1 million people, 530,000 of whom are age 60 or older. Last year, as it lost $10.6 billion, GM spent $5.3 billion on health care, with $1.9 billion of that spent on prescription drugs."

GM sold 9.18 million vehicles in 2005, meaning that for every vehicle built, $577 was spent on healthcare ALONE. Not labor AND healthcare, JUST healthcare.

Now, let's say GM sells only 9,000,000 vehicles in 2006, and healthcare stays the same (it'll go up, btw...).

That raises the cost per vehicle - every vehicle - by over $11. Nobody did anything different either... except make 180,000 less cars & trucks.

That's just healthcare... labor at GM truly behaves like a fixed cost also... then you've got tooling and capital amoritization... leases for real estate... decrease in economies of scale for raw materials... etc.. etc... etc...

Their problems are based around fixed costs.

Either you make more cars or the fixed cost allotment per vehicle goes up

Yup, that's the plan. The only problem is that it does not work. Theory runs head-on into reality. Here's the correct math:

GM has fixed costs of $1,000,000

GM plans to sell 1000 cars at 1500 markup - $1000 covers the fixed cost, $500 profit

But! Sales are only on track for 500 cars -- a $250,000 loss!

So they discount the cars by $500 in order to meet the 1000 car target and break even ... except then they miss the target and lose money anyway.

That's the reality of GM.

Toyota models sell better than GM's competition, even though they are more expensive. That's primarily because they "aim high" and their vehicles have more content and a much greater desirablity factor, and consumers are therefore willing pay much more for them than equivilant GMs and buy them in greater numbers! There's nothing about this plan that's exclusive to Toyota/Honda -- If GM matched their content/desirablity level, I strongly believe their sales would go UP, not down.

Now, let me ask you what's your plan? How does GM increase sales to make the manufacturing economics work without increasing the cars content and therefore price?

They can lean on the unions and cut fixed costs all they want, but effecitvely this just gives them more room to rebate their undesirable cars and aim even lower. Sorry, that's the recipe for swirling down the drain, which is exactly what is happening.

Rasing CTS's price $10,000, and every other car in Cadillac's line-up along with it and slotting in a lower-margin car underneath makes ZERO sense.

It's a debatable plan, but it's more realistic than "Shut Down Buick".

GM sold 9.18 million vehicles in 2005, meaning that for every vehicle built, $577 was spent on healthcare ALONE. Not labor AND healthcare, JUST healthcare.

OK, let's magically make that $577 go away. Does that sell any more Impalas? No.

Of course GM's strucutral costs are a huge problem for them -- but the fundemental problem is the product and how it's positioned and priced.

Now, those fixed costs aren't going to magically go away -- GM is always going to have high structural costs, so the onus on them is to build a business that can support it. Giving away vehicles with huge discounts has been proven not to work. You tell me what will work. Pretending everything is hunky-dory with GM's manufacturing economics is just plain delusional

Of course GM's strucutral costs are a huge problem for them -- but the fundemental problem is the product and how it's positioned and priced.


Im with you.

His point in this thread seems to be, "It would be nice if it this was better but if we change it, then it will be different." :confused:

Toyota models sell better than GM's competition, even though they are more expensive. That's primarily because they "aim high" and their vehicles have more content and a much greater desirablity factor, and consumers are therefore willing pay much more for them than equivilant GMs and buy them in greater numbers!

So - are these theoretical vehicles "equivalent", or do they "have more content"? Please pick one or the other, and then restate your argument.

Simple economics does indeed dictate that merely increasing the price of a product without offering more features will result in decreased demand, and it is indeed reality that GM cannot afford to run its plants at reduced capacity.

OK, let's magically make that $577 go away. Does that sell any more Impalas? No.
But if that $577 is invested into new and better product then the next generation can have more/better features and sell better. Look at the big/long term picture.

But if that $577 is invested into new and better product then the next generation can have more/better features and sell better. Look at the big/long term picture.

That doesen't help the original thread problem at all. A better Buick is still less of a value then a better Chevy and less desirable then a better Caddy.

Simple economics does indeed dictate that merely increasing the price of a product without offering more features will result in decreased demand, and it is indeed reality that GM cannot afford to run its plants at reduced capacity.

The economics of consumer products isn't that simple. Marketing and perception play a much bigger role than a pure price/feature analysis. As an example, I offer you the midsized family car market.

But that ignores my argument that they should be adding more features. The knocks on GM's products (cheap dashboards, 4 gear transmissions, old engines, etc) are all the direct result of the "value pricing" strategy.

So - are these theoretical vehicles "equivalent", or do they "have more content"? Please pick one or the other, and then restate your argument.

Accepted -- Sub the word "competing" for "equivalent".

But if that $577 is invested into new and better product then the next generation can have more/better features and sell better. Look at the big/long term picture.

That might be true, but short of Chapter 11 or FDR coming back from the dead to socialize medicine, those costs ain't entirely going away. So GM has to figure out a marketing strategy that will get back that $577 (and more) on the sales side.

I think Buick should simply concentrate on beating Lexus in every department at every price point. I mean cars that are noticably superior to the consumer. Attractive cars with quiet ride, fine interior appointments, and quality components.

But if that $577 is invested into new and better product then the next generation can have more/better features and sell better. Look at the big/long term picture.

Not sure I follow you on this one. This is like saying you are going to take the money from the family's health insurence money and purchase an exercise machine. It's not going to do anything to help if someone in the family falls down the stairs and breaks an arm.

That $577 is a fixed cost, and is going to go up in the event the economy sours and less cars are sold, steel prices go up and there's less profit per car, or if oil continues upwards, and everything from the cost of materials to the cost of running machinary to the cost of delivery all jump.... not to mention the change in buying habits towards smaller, cheaper, and generally far less profitable vehicles.

Bottom line is you aren't going to gamble money designated your fixed costs.... especially if over 1 million people are dependent on it. You are going to use existing savings along with a chunk of your income as investment.

I think the vehicles could support an increased price by increasing the quality of interior materials slightly...I mean, stopping the generous use of cheap PLASTIC!..add more real wood and light metals.
Also, Buick could compete with Lexus by offering more optioned base, excuse me, "standard" models. People do a lot of "Standard vs standard" model comparisons.
Buicks already a step above Pontiac or Chevy in build and fit.

The economics of consumer products isn't that simple. Marketing and perception play a much bigger role than a pure price/feature analysis. As an example, I offer you the midsized family car market.

But that ignores my argument that they should be adding more features. The knocks on GM's products (cheap dashboards, 4 gear transmissions, old engines, etc) are all the direct result of the "value pricing" strategy.


Ah - so we're now not talking about just raising the price, we're readjusting the position in the market via the addition of features. Which, er, is exactly what GM is already doing by reducing its fleet sales, which correspondingly has increased the average transaction price at the cost of reduced production. How it will play out in the longer term is yet to be determined, of course; an accurate assessment of this strategy may require several years of commitment to it.

Until GM can reduce its fixed costs and the lack of flexibility that they bring, it's still a necessity to keep its plants as close to 100% capacity as possible. Any additional cost incurred by downtime will quickly eat away at the additional profit gained via a different marketing strategy. It's not an enviable position to be in, and I hope that GM can figure out a way to fix it. I fear that the current cost-cutting plan simply reduces the size of the company down to the point where it's properly sized for the current 25-26% market share, and hasn't yet addressed the sort of cuts and realignment that might be necessary for a longer-term market share in the 20-22% range.

Ah - so we're now not talking about just raising the price, we're readjusting the position in the market via the addition of features. Which, er, is exactly what GM is already doing by reducing its fleet sales, which correspondingly has increased the average transaction price at the cost of reduced production. How it will play out in the longer term is yet to be determined, of course; an accurate assessment of this strategy may require several years of commitment to it.

Until GM can reduce its fixed costs and the lack of flexibility that they bring, it's still a necessity to keep its plants as close to 100% capacity as possible. Any additional cost incurred by downtime will quickly eat away at the additional profit gained via a different marketing strategy. It's not an enviable position to be in, and I hope that GM can figure out a way to fix it. I fear that the current cost-cutting plan simply reduces the size of the company down to the point where it's properly sized for the current 25-26% market share, and hasn't yet addressed the sort of cuts and realignment that might be necessary for a longer-term market share in the 20-22% range.

DING! DING! DING!

WINNAR!

OK, let's magically make that $577 go away. Does that sell any more Impalas? No.

You CAN'T make it go away, magically or otherwise.

You can only minimize two ways:

1) Sell more cars and thereby spread that cost over more vehicles.

2) Offer buyouts to your employees to limit the harm they cause.

Now, let's say GM is successful in lowering that cost by $100 per vehicle... what are they going to do with it?

First, they have to return to profitability, so some chunk of it is going there.

What are they going to do with the rest?

Add content to the vehicle and invest in new programs.




Of course GM's strucutral costs are a huge problem for them -- but the fundemental problem is the product and how it's positioned and priced.

This is only partially true - Chevrolet and Cadillac DO NOT have problems here.

Chevrolet ALONE outsells Toyota, Scion and Lexus COMBINED in North America.

Cadillac is the #1 luxury brand in North America.

Where's the problem?

Buick, Pontiac and Saturn.



Giving away vehicles with huge discounts has been proven not to work.

Who is giving away Cadillacs or Chevrolets??? We snapped on an HHR so quickly because they offered 0% financing, the first tangible incentive offered on the vehicle since it launched...

Here's the facts, by segment, of where Chevrolet is positioned:

Compact Entry:
Aveo - #1 in sales.

Compact Premium:
Cobalt - #3 in sales.
HHR - #10 in sales.

Midsize Entry:
Malibu - #2 in sales.

Midsize Premium:
Impala - #3 in sales.
Monte Carlo - #21 in sales.

Sports Premium:
Corvette - #1 in sales.

Midsize Pickup:
Colorado - #3 in sales.

Fullsize pickup:
Silverado - #2 in sales.

SUV - Entry:
Equinox - #5 in sales.

SUV - Midsize:
Trailblazer - #2 in sales.

SUV - Fullsize:
Tahoe - #1 in sales.
Suburban - #3 in sales.

Van - Midsize:
Uplander - #6 in sales.

Van - Fullsize:
Express - #2 in sales.


You can see the successes for yourself. Chevrolet is dominating trucks, Impala, Aveo and Malibu are all very successful in super-tough segments, Corvette OWNS it's segment (it's small, but important).


ALL DATA TAKEN FROM JD POWERS NORTH AMERICAN VEHICLE SALES REPORT THROUGH MAY 31st, 2006.

You tell me what will work.

OK, let's look at the results above and point to what GM has to do where it matters most - Chevrolet.

1) Four segments dominate car sales - Compact Entry (Chevy is #1), Compact Premium (Chevy is #2 with HHR and Cobalt combined), Midsize Entry (Chevy is #1) and Midsize Premium (Chevy is #3).


2) For Compact Entry and Midsize Entry Chevrolet is doing fine - it doesn't get any better than #1. The way to stay that way is to restyle and re-engineer the cars on a 4-5 year cycle and continue beating the competition in the value department.

Concentrate on better fuel economy - a huge selling point in this segment.



3) For Compact Premium, Cobalt is doing fairly well but needs some improvement. This is a VERY tough segment populated with formidible competitors (Civic, Focus, Corolla). The way to win here is to offer even more content at a lower price and improve fuel economy.

HHR is a home-run. Why? It's basically a Cobalt that you get to charge a significant premium for because of great styling and features. You can do that from time to time, but you can't do it ALL THE TIME. You still have to have great bread and butter cars. Appliances will ALWAYS outsell toys.



4) For midsize premium, Impala is very succesful, but it CAN BE a world-beater... Camry needs to be tackled head on, and Impala can do it.

Firstly, realize that calling an Impala a midsize is a misnomer - it's really a large car.

Second, Impala solidly "out-values" Camry. It has higher content and is just a flat-out better car for the money. To win there, Chevrolet has to change perception more than they need to change the car:

Get into a "Warranty War" with Camry. Whatever Camry has, Impala beats by 1 year and 12,000 miles. If Toyota raises theirs, Chevrolet immediatly responds. ADVERTISE IT.

Start a "Fuel Economy War" with Camry. Beat every V6 motor they sell, no matter what, in fuel economy AND power. The 5 and 6 speed transmissions are critical here. Tout E85 as much as possible for Impala. This is a tough job - Impala is a physically larger car - but it can be done. Consider fast-tracking an hybrid with E85 compatibility - think of the hay that can be made there!!!! ADVERTISE IT!!!

Get into a "Feature War" with Camry. Advertise them head-to-head, feature-for-feature, and beat them across the board. ADVERTISE IT!!!

Win the "Quality War" with Camry. GM has the best plants in North America for quality. Beat the Camry at it's own game AND ADVERTISE IT!!!

Win the "Styling War" with Camry. Given how truly awful Japanese stylists are, this one is going to be cake. ADVERTISE IT!!!

All the while, keeping winning the "Price War" with Camry - something Impala already does with ease. ADVERTISE IT!!!

DO NOT convert Impala to RWD. DO NOT make Impala smaller. DO NOT decontent Impala and sell to fleets if at all possible.

DO NOT turn to radical styling to sell Impalas - Camry and Impala buyers DON'T WANT cutting edge styling. The want a nice-looking, comfortable, high-value, efficient, inoffensive appliance.

Restyle and reengineer Impala EVERY FOUR YEARS, without fail.

Finally, BUILD THE EVER-LOVING SH!T OUT IMPALAS. Allot more of Oshawa to building Impalas so that it can take up the slack from poor LeCrosse and Grand Prix sales by building even more Impalas. DO NOT let Oshawa slow down at all, EVER - if Monte Carlo or Grand Prix or LeCrosse aren't selling, BUILD MORE IMPALAS. A minimum of two shifts running full-out, ALL DAY, EVERY DAY. Drive the prices down through volume to increase the value equation even more in Impala's favor.

Now, let's talk about the problem children:

1) Chevrolet Uplander - Horrible restyling, just terrible. The Uplander breaks Rule #1 of appliances - it looks weird. "Boring" is what sells. GM's minivans have always been terrific from a features and quality standpoint - but the styling has many times been awful. Institute a crash restyling program and follow much of the pattern shown above with Impala regarding features and content.

Thank you for killing the 3.4 liter dead. NOT because it is OHV motor but because the reliability record of said motor is not very good.

Needs 5 or 6 speed automatic - simply for the sake of fuel economy. I think one is coming, on the way, or already here.



2) Chevrolet Colorado - The jury is in. The I5 was a bad idea. The truck is not doing well and is a weak point in Chevrolet's truck line-up.

I kind of like the Colorado... but not enough other people do.

This isn't personal, but the fact is that the truck isn't selling well enough.



3) Chevrolet Equinox - The single weakest point in Chevrolet's truck line-up relative to the rest of the market. This is a tough segment, but the fact is that Equinox is not doing what it needs to do here.

Why?

I don't know. Equinox seems like a nice enough vehicle. It's got neat features... gets relatively good fuel economy... This one is somewhat puzzling...



4) Chevrolet Trailblazer - Here we go with a CLASSIC GM mistake. The damned thing hasn't been truly restyled in AGES - and isn't going to be. The entire segment has taken a hit because of fuel economy, but the fact is that the Trailblazer is a far, far better vehicle than the segment leader - but the styling IS OLD HAT NOW.

It's #2 in segment, but the segment is dropping like a rock and it SHOULD BE #1. The restyled Explorer is a turd and ripe for being overtaken.



5) Chevrolet Monte Carlo - With the advent of the new Camaro soon, kill it and build more Impalas. It no longer makes much sense to build it... apart from NASCAR... but the sales are poor even with it being the Chevrolet NASCAR vehicle.

The Hyundai Azera outsells the Monte Carlo, and I have no goddamned idea what a Hyundai Azera is... and I work in the automobile industry... that oughta tell ya something about the sales of the Monte Carlo... cars I have never heard of outsell it. :(

The final point?

Treat Chevrolet like what it should be - a car company UNTO ITSELF.

Get Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab the hell out of Chevrolet's way.

GMC IS out of Chevrolet's way, mostly because it IS Chevrolet.

Here's a wholly radical, and risky, idea, but it should be considered:
The ONLY division that gets to trump anything Chevrolet wants or skew a business case is Cadillac - not because they're bigger or more profitable, but simply because they carry the upper-crust image of GM on their shoulders.

I guess it is possibly to get the other brands out of the way, but not soon... It would take years to re-position the other brands and give them the cars that would meet these goals...

I could see buick being an AWD division, pontiac rwd, saturn is basically going with a good direction right now, and saab... who the hell knows... saab should only have 3-4 vehicles. 9-3, 9-5, 9-5 wagon, and I guess an SUV...

Not sure I follow you on this one. This is like saying you are going to take the money from the family's health insurence money and purchase an exercise machine. It's not going to do anything to help if someone in the family falls down the stairs and breaks an arm.
I thought we were talking about the increased profit from reducing fixed costs and re-investing them into new models. I guess that is what you get for skimming a thread.

The only way i'de be for Impala staying FWD is if they still bring back the big RWD sedan...caprice or whatever they choose to name it.

I dont think the malibu is going to cut it. They can lengthen the car and try to move it into impalas segment, but atleast to me, I dont think its going to work.

I fear that the current cost-cutting plan simply reduces the size of the company down to the point where it's properly sized for the current 25-26% market share, and hasn't yet addressed the sort of cuts and realignment that might be necessary for a longer-term market share in the 20-22% range.
I suspect you're correct about that, as we're long past the point when significant portions of the population just walk in to the Chevy dealer out of tradition. Going forward, niche/targetted marketing is going to become even more important in auto sales than it already is, and that spells enormous difficultly if your economic fundementals demand a consistantly high sales volume.

If there's any positives in the current GM strategy, it's the investment in the brands folks here love to hate -- Saab, Saturn, and Hummer*. By reinforcing the image of these brands, they much more strongly postioned for the post-massmarket era.

(* While I'm dubious about the long-term popularity of Hummer, you can't argue with the brand strength. If anything the brand is TOO strong, to the point where it might repell more customers than it can attract.)

Impala, Aveo and Malibu are all very successful in super-tough segments
Honestly, I'm not convinced GM makes any money off Malibu or Aveo. They seem like plant-fillers to me.

Second, Impala solidly "out-values" Camry. It has higher content and is just a flat-out better car ...
I was amazed
... for the money.
Then it turned into another GM "Best Value" argument, which has proven not to work well in the real world. For people who can afford a Camry, the Impala just doesn't cut it.

War War War

I toally agree 100% that Impala should target Camry dead-center. This is war, and GM has to win. I'm just not convinced the current Impala is the car to do it with -- personally I don't believe it measures up to Camry. Maybe that's a "perception issue" .... but a common one.


Get Buick, Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer and Saab the hell out of Chevrolet's way.
This runs counter to your early argument of Volume, Volume, Volume. Because, let's face it, GM has largely been able to keep those plants running by dumping rebadges into Pontiac/Buick. And as seen with Cobolt, if they miss the mark, just make a Pontiac. The challenge is making absolutely sure they can not miss the mark.

DING! DING! DING!

WINNAR!

Yeah - it's amazing what knowledge one can pick up by, you know, actually working in the industry.

Yeah - it's amazing what knowledge one can pick up by, you know, actually working in the industry.

Must be the paint fumes, bro.

How does Impala "solidy" out-value Camry?

I'm not saying it's a bad value, but if it "solidy out values" Camry then you should be able to present me with some side by side pricing comparisons.

I just went on carpoint.com and priced the top model Impala and the top model Camry and equipped them as evenly as I could which basically meant I left stability control (VSC), navigation and the keyless start off the Camry

The Camry came to 29,100 w/ destination. The Impala came to 30,730 w/ destination.

I mean is it the V8 that gives it the "solid" extra value? How many people see a "solid" extra value in their 4-door family sedan because it does 14.3 in the 1/4-mile instead of 14.9? Is that worth an extra 1600 bucks?

Maybe peopel would rather have a 6-speed auto instead of a 4-speed? Or the extra average 3 mpg advantage the V6 Camry gives over the SS? How about 5yr/60k powertrain coverage instead of 3yr/36k? How about actual automatic climate control instead of the old school manually controlled switches. How about air that blows on the back passengers too? How about cup holders in the back?

Gear heads understandably put a lot of focus on the performance side of things but gear heads don't buy most Impalas and Camrys... families do. And I'll tell you I bet among the differences I mentioned above, the V8's extra performance doesn't make a solid value case for the Impala in the light of the other differences I mentioned - especially gas milage and price differential.

Again, I'm not saying the Impala is a bad value or a bad car but I fail to see how you can make such a blanket statement that the Impala is solidly/obviously the better value when it my side by side comparisons, short of an pretty small acceleration advantage, the Impala actually offers slightly fewer features for slightly more money.

Again, I'm not saying the Impala is a bad value or a bad car but I fail to see how you can make such a blanket statement that the Impala is solidly/obviously the better value when it my side by side comparisons, short of an pretty small acceleration advantage, the Impala actually offers slightly fewer features for slightly more money.

It's only slighty more money per list prices -- in practice with incentives and fleet sales, you can bet the Impala's ASP is well below the Toyota's.

It's only slighty more money per list prices -- in practice with incentives and fleet sales, you can bet the Impala's ASP is well below the Toyota's.

True, there's a 2000 dollar rebate out right now. Which if applied makes the comparison I made above, 370 bucks in the Impala's favor.

Regardless - I'm not seeing how Impala is such an 'obvious' value compared to Camry...:shrug:

How does Impala "solidy" out-value Camry?

I'm not saying it's a bad value, but if it "solidy out values" Camry then you should be able to present me with some side by side pricing comparisons.

I just went on carpoint.com and priced the top model Impala and the top model Camry and equipped them as evenly as I could which basically meant I left stability control (VSC), navigation and the keyless start off the Camry

The Camry came to 29,100 w/ destination. The Impala came to 30,730 w/ destination.

I mean is it the V8 that gives it the "solid" extra value? How many people see a "solid" extra value in their 4-door family sedan because it does 14.3 in the 1/4-mile instead of 14.9? Is that worth an extra 1600 bucks?

Maybe peopel would rather have a 6-speed auto instead of a 4-speed? Or the extra average 3 mpg advantage the V6 Camry gives over the SS? How about 5yr/60k powertrain coverage instead of 3yr/36k? How about actual automatic climate control instead of the old school manually controlled switches. How about air that blows on the back passengers too? How about cup holders in the back?

Gear heads understandably put a lot of focus on the performance side of things but gear heads don't buy most Impalas and Camrys... families do. And I'll tell you I bet among the differences I mentioned above, the V8's extra performance doesn't make a solid value case for the Impala in the light of the other differences I mentioned - especially gas milage and price differential.

Again, I'm not saying the Impala is a bad value or a bad car but I fail to see how you can make such a blanket statement that the Impala is solidly/obviously the better value when it my side by side comparisons, short of an pretty small acceleration advantage, the Impala actually offers slightly fewer features for slightly more money.
I think the 3.9 DOD would be a better comparison price and level wise than V8 SS model.

Camry vs. Impala... here we go:

First, let's start with the base cars.

Camry - ~$21,080
Impala - ~$22,000

Engine:
Camry - 2.4 liter DOHC 4-cylinder (VVT), 158hp/161lb. ft.
Impala - 3.5 liter OHV 6-cylinder (VVT + E85), 211hp/214 lb. ft.

Transmission:
Camry - 5spd automatic
Impala - 4 spd automatic

Economy:
Camry - 24/33
Impala - 21/31

Equipment the Impala has, that the Camry does not:
Driver Information Center (not available on this Camry)
RKE (not available on this Camry)
Onstar (Optional on Impala (free at first), not available on Camry)
XM Radio (Optional on Impala, not available on Camry)
Power Driver's Seat (not available on this Camry)
Remote Vehicle Starter (Optional on Impala, $30 - not available on this Camry)
Engine Block Heater (Optional on Impala, $50 - not available on this Camry)
40/20/40 Split Bench Seat (Optional on Impala, $150 - not available on this Camry)


Equipment the Camry has that the Impala does not:
ABS ($600 Option on Impala)
Telescoping Steering Wheel (not available on Impala)
Overhead Maplights and Storage Bin
Driver's Knee Airbag (not available on Impala)
Rear Cupholders (not available on this Impala)

To level the cars out, charge the Impala $600 for ABS and you get:
Camry - ~$21,080
Impala - ~$22,600


To examine it reasonably, actual transaction prices should be taken into account, but I'm comfortable with the idea that the V6 (plus FIFTY horsepower), the content differences and the physically larger car are worth approximately $1600 more.

There are two significant issues on the Impala's side - it needs a 6-speed automatic BADLY and ABS SHOULD BE STANDARD. The knee airbags on the Camry are most likely due to a crash-testing issue with the knee bolsters. Since GM tends to keep knee bolsters completely away from a driver/passenger, I'm comfortable with the Impala not having them.

The Camry's 4-cylinder is little short of a turd, and the car is honestly a loss leader of which very few are built. Impala LS's like this are available all over the place.

I believe the $$$ difference evaporates completely when actual transaction prices are taken into account.

For the top-line cars, a case can be made that the Impala SS is just a world of difference away from ANY Camry, so we could compare fully optioned LTZ Impala vs. a top-line Camry.

Which is what I will do next...

The base Camry (CE) is $18,270. Which model are you getting to get 21,080? Probably the LE (next step up) + dest?

FWIW, the Camry doesn't have 40/20/40, it has 40/60 except on the XLE which is 40/20/40, and XM is optional on the Camry too, but is a DIO.

RKE = remote keyless entry? It's standard on the LE.:)

And interesting comparison. Again, it doesn't look like Impala is a bad value per se, but I don't see the 'solid' value factor.

The base Camry (CE) is $18,270. Which model are you getting to get 21,080? Probably the LE (next step up) + dest? .

Nope, can't build your own CE... the attached information being taken right off Toyota's website (Build Your Own) for a 2007 Camry LE 4-cylinder 5 speed automatic.


FWIW, the Camry doesn't have 40/20/40, it has 40/60 except on the XLE which is 40/20/40, and XM is optional on the Camry too, but is a DIO.

Correct.

DIO's don't count.

I can have a GM dealer put a supercharger on a Cavalier, the amount of stuff a dealer can put on any car is just downright silly and there's no real way to keep track of it all.


RKE = remote keyless entry? It's standard on the LE.:)

Correct.



And interesting comparison. Again, it doesn't look like Impala is a bad value per se, but I don't see the 'solid' value factor.

Of course you don't... you think a $21,000 mid-size car with a 158hp 4-cylinder is reasonable... as opposed to... well... laughable.

My MOTORCYCLE out-powers this car.

PS -
I imagine that a reasonable case can be made that the correct car to compare to a CE level Camry is actually a Malibu and not an Impala - again, the Impala is a considerably larger car - with the Impala slotting in against the higher-content Camrys.

An LT Malibu carries the 3.5 liter V6 as an option (2LT) and slots in at an equivalent price point with it, so you're not stuck with the Ecotec.

Correct.
But you said that RKE wasn't available on the Camry LE. It's standard. Wait... is Pacer... w-w-w-wa-rong again? Is this like twice in the past couple weeks? What is this, a record or something???:p

DIO's don't count.
Sat radio is probably one of the most common DIOs available with any manufacturer. In the end, to me, XM is still an option. The factory pre-wires the cars to where literally all it takes is a dealer tech or the owner of the vehicle about 5 minutes to plug it in and activate it. I did it on my Audi by buying a used XM tuner for 180 bucks compared to 400 from the dealer.. it was downright silly how plug-and play it was. To call it an "installation" would be, to me, like telling sombody you "installed" gasoline in your car.:D

Of course you don't... you think a $21,000 mid-size car with a 158hp 4-cylinder is reasonable... as opposed to... well... laughable.
If you cared about power you probably wouldn't be considering the 4-cylinder, now would ya?
You might consider it equally crazy that the base engine in a 30k+ dollar 3-series, IS250, C230, A4, or CTS only make 50ish ponies more, and they're supposed to be 'sporty' vehicles? Or would you say that's a silly statement - they all have significantly more powerful motors available for those who want the extra power?
Because that's what I'd say.:)

so we could compare fully optioned LTZ Impala vs. a top-line Camry.

Which is what I will do next...
You gonna do it or should I?

2007 Impala LTZ 1LZ (options added to make even comparison: 1LZ package which includes Bose w/6-disc, auto-diming rearview mirror, homelink, and dual power heated seats), plus sunroof. Options left off not available on Camry: engine block heater: $50
$28,720 w/ destination

2007 Toyota Camry XLE V6 (options added to make even comparison: JBL Premium 440-watt stereo w/ 6-disc). Options left off, not available on Impala: Navigation system, Smart Key System, Vehicle Stability Control.
$29,100 w/ destination

Advantage Impala:
$380 cheaper MSRP as configured
17" wheels (Camry SE has 17", XLE only 16")
XM Radio
Onstar available (first year free)
Remote start
(note: DIC no longer an advantage for impala - XLE Camry has one)
(note: 40/20/40 no longer an advantage for impala - XLE Camry has as well)


Advantage Camry:

Power: 268hp Camry vs 233hp Impala
Fuel economy: 2MPG better fuel economy: 22/31 compared to 20/29 in Impala
6-speed automatic compared to 4-speed in Impala
Knee airbags
Powertrain warranty is 5yrs/60k miles, impala is 3yr 36k.
Telescoping steering wheel
MP3 playback on CD player
(rear cup holders no longer an advantage for Camry)
dual-zone automatic climate control
Climate vents for rear passengers
Cimate control features negative ion generation
Bluetooth
retractable rear sunshade
Auto-up w/pinch protection on driver's window
Rear reading lights
Dimmable vanity mirrors

This is fun

But you said that RKE wasn't available on the Camry LE. It's standard. Wait... is Pacer... w-w-w-wa-rong again? Is this like twice in the past couple weeks? What is this, a record or something???:p


Sat radio is probably one of the most common DIOs available with any manufacturer. In the end, to me, XM is still an option. The factory pre-wires the cars to where literally all it takes is a dealer tech or the owner of the vehicle about 5 minutes to plug it in and activate it. I did it on my Audi by buying a used XM tuner for 180 bucks compared to 400 from the dealer.. it was downright silly how plug-and play it was. To call it an "installation" would be, to me, like telling sombody you "installed" gasoline in your car.:D


If you cared about power you probably wouldn't be considering the 4-cylinder, now would ya?
You might consider it equally crazy that the base engine in a 30k+ dollar 3-series, IS250, C230, A4, or CTS only make 50ish ponies more, and they're supposed to be 'sporty' vehicles? Or would you say that's a silly statement - they all have significantly more powerful motors available for those who want the extra power?
Because that's what I'd say.:)


You gonna do it or should I?

I'm working, I'll get to it...

Regarding the 2000 dollar rebate that's currently available on Impala:

Consider that there is roughly a 6.2% markup between Impala's invoice price and its MSRP, whereas the Camry has a 12.7% markup between its invoice and MSRP. Thus, assuming you can negotiate either vehicle down to invoice price, the Camry discussed in the comparison has an invoice price roughly ~1400 BELOW the Impala's invoice price. Meaning in the end that 2000 dollar rebate is going to put you at a 600 dollar advantage after it's all said and done.

Again, this is making the assumption that you can negotiate both down to invoice - I know it's possible to do on the Camry but likely quite a bit more difficult than it is on the Impala.

Again, this is making the assumption that you can negotiate both down to invoice - I know it's possible to do on the Camry but likely quite a bit more difficult than it is on the Impala.

Is your assumption that it is likely quite a bit more difficult to negotiate an Impala down to invoice because it helps your argument, or because of some other reason?

Is your assumption that it is likely quite a bit more difficult to negotiate an Impala down to invoice because it helps your argument, or because of some other reason?

Nope, but now my assumption is that your reading comprehension kinda sucks and it's making you look like an ass in this case.

I said:
I know it's possible to do on the Camry but likely quite a bit more difficult than it is on the Impala.
This means I think it's realistically more difficult/PITA to negotiate the Camry.:)

Now if I had said:
I know it's possible to do on the Camry but it's likely quite a bit more difficult on the Impala.
Then that would have the opposite meaning, and would serve to say that the Impala is more difficult to negotiate down.

See?:)

Hmmm, glad to hear when I misread you it makes me look like an ass. ;)

It was just a simple question. :shrug:

Nope, but now my assumption is that your reading comprehension kinda sucks and it's making you look like an ass in this case.

I said:
I know it's possible to do on the Camry but likely quite a bit more difficult than it is on the Impala.
This means I think it's realistically more difficult/PITA to negotiate the Camry.:)

Now if I had said:
I know it's possible to do on the Camry but it's likely quite a bit more difficult on the Impala.
Then that would have the opposite meaning, and would serve to say that the Impala is more difficult to negotiate down.

See?:)

Hmmm, glad to hear when I misread you it makes me look like an ass. ;)

It was just a simple question. :shrug:

It was a loaded question - a question meant to 'imply' that I was making an (obviously false) assumption, simply to suit my arguement. That's the whole 'ass' part. Then again maybe you just 'happened' to be 'innocently' asking that question with no implications at all.:shrug: In that case, I apologize. But I still have reservations to believe that was the case here.

Anyhow... you seem to have kinda skipped over the discussion and hand and focused on a statement I didn't even make. Back to the real meat of it.:D

It was a loaded question - a question meant to 'imply' that I was making an (obviously false) assumption, simply to suit my arguement. That's the whole 'ass' part. Then again maybe you just 'happened' to be 'innocently' asking that question with no implications at all.:shrug: In that case, I apologize. But I still have reservations to believe that was the case here.



Subtle. :tired:

Sort of like how you left the SRX interior thread after misreading JakeRobb's post, eh? ;)

Hmmm... this thread got kinda quiet in regard to the Impala vs Camry discussion and now, imagine this, it's heading in the 'make personal attacks on Threxx' direction.:lol:

Subtle. :tired:

Sort of like how you left the SRX interior thread after misreading JakeRobb's post, eh? ;)

I didn't misread it, he didn't clarify what he was getting at in the least. No sane person would have read what he first wrote and been completely sure that he meant what he wrote later in clarification. Even you were confused by the meaning and intentions of his initial comments, as you admitted, but then later decided to delete your post... I guess so you could make this comment and not come across as a hypocrite?:lol:

Oh and lastly, I never made smart-ass comments toward jakerobb based on any potential misunderstanding of what he wrote, either. In fact that only REASON we were discussing what he wrote at ALL is you felt compelled to claim I 'implied' something about the SRX that I clearly never even came close to.

2007 Impala LTZ 1LZ (options added to make even comparison: 1LZ package which includes Bose w/6-disc, auto-diming rearview mirror, homelink, and dual power heated seats), plus sunroof. Options left off not available on Camry: engine block heater: $50
$28,720 w/ destination

2007 Toyota Camry XLE V6 (options added to make even comparison: JBL Premium 440-watt stereo w/ 6-disc). Options left off, not available on Impala: Navigation system, Smart Key System, Vehicle Stability Control.
$29,100 w/ destination

Advantage Impala:
$380 cheaper MSRP as configured
17" wheels (Camry SE has 17", XLE only 16")
XM Radio
Onstar available (first year free)
Remote start
(note: DIC no longer an advantage for impala - XLE Camry has one)
(note: 40/20/40 no longer an advantage for impala - XLE Camry has as well)


Advantage Camry:

Power: 268hp Camry vs 233hp Impala
Fuel economy: 2MPG better fuel economy: 22/31 compared to 20/29 in Impala
6-speed automatic compared to 4-speed in Impala
Knee airbags
Powertrain warranty is 5yrs/60k miles, impala is 3yr 36k.
Telescoping steering wheel
MP3 playback on CD player
(rear cup holders no longer an advantage for Camry)
dual-zone automatic climate control
Climate vents for rear passengers
Cimate control features negative ion generation
Bluetooth
retractable rear sunshade
Auto-up w/pinch protection on driver's window
Rear reading lights
Dimmable vanity mirrors

1) "An in-dash six-disc CD and MP3 player is available in all Impala models except LS. It also includes an auxiliary input jack. This stereo system also has the capability to simultaneously store and display a mix of up to 36 AM, FM and XM Satellite Radio stations — without having to select among bands and frequency. Just keep in mind that XM is available only in the 48 contiguous United States. Service fees apply. Visit gm.xmradio.com for more details."

It's MP3 capable.

2) XM or Sirius is $500 extra on the Camry, at least according to the dealer brochure, standard on the LTZ.

3) Impala LTZ's climate controls are dual-zone but not automatic.


Cursory look, will be back for more...

1) "An in-dash six-disc CD and MP3 player is available in all Impala models except LS. It also includes an auxiliary input jack. This stereo system also has the capability to simultaneously store and display a mix of up to 36 AM, FM and XM Satellite Radio stations — without having to select among bands and frequency. Just keep in mind that XM is available only in the 48 contiguous United States. Service fees apply. Visit gm.xmradio.com for more details."

It's MP3 capable.
Ah OK... I looked everywhere on the optional/standard feature list on chevrolet.com and didn't see mention of MP3 capability - I might have missed it or it might have mentioned it elsewhere.

2) XM or Sirius is $500 extra on the Camry, at least according to the dealer brochure, standard on the LTZ.
It's not a factory option, it's a DIO. You said that doesn't count? That's why I just left it as 'advantage Impala'

3) Impala LTZ's climate controls are dual-zone but not automatic.
Yes, my honest intention was to bold 'automatic' to make it obvious that the difference was the 'automatic' part, not the dual zone. I guess I could have just said 'automatic'.


Cursory look, will be back for more...
Thanks for the overview - I'm still interested in your honest opinion in terms of value after reading over the differences I gave and your corrections. Is it as drastic of a 'solid' or 'obvious' value in the Impala vs the Camry when dealing with the premium models?

Me being completely honest, just looking at feature for feature, spec for spec, and ignoring the badge on the front, my feelings on potential long term reliability, ignoring predicted depreciation values (which can make a BIG difference between the 'front end' price of any two vehicles), and ignoring interior and exterior looks... in other words just looking at it from a check-list type fashion, to me the Camry XLE looks like the bit better value compared to the LTZ, though that's not to say the LTZ seems like a bad buy, at all. The SS Impala on the other hand, well, it's hard to argue with performance... if performance was tops on my list of qualifications in my next 4-door family Sedan than the SS Impala would probably be the better value to me. Even if it is 'only' 5 or 6 tenths faster in the 1/4-mile, I'm sure the acceleration output is quite a bit more gratifying being that, well, it's a V8.

Hmmm... this thread got kinda quiet in regard to the Impala vs Camry discussion and now, imagine this, it's heading in the 'make personal attacks on Threxx' direction.:lol:

http://www.ls1lt1.com/forum/images/smilies/violen.gif


I didn't misread it, he didn't clarify what he was getting at in the least. No sane person would have read what he first wrote and been completely sure that he meant what he wrote later in clarification. Even you were confused by the meaning and intentions of his initial comments, as you admitted, but then later decided to delete your post... I guess so you could make this comment and not come across as a hypocrite?:lol:

Sorry... I didn't delete anything in the other thread, except one that said something to the effect of "Thanks for clearing that up... I didn't have any trouble understanding your post"... but I deleted it just to let it all drop until you started firing away at someone in this thread for doing exactly what you did in the other. So, please don't resort to fabricating statements about supposed deleted posts. Thank you.

Oh and lastly, I never made smart-ass comments toward jakerobb based on any potential misunderstanding of what he wrote, either. In fact that only REASON we were discussing what he wrote at ALL is you felt compelled to claim I 'implied' something about the SRX that I clearly never even came close to.

You did. You're wrong. Deal with it for once in your life.

You did. You're wrong. Deal with it for once in your life.

You've still yet to point out exactly where I applied the 'tactile feel, noise, etc' statement toward the SRX specifically - or even 'implied it'. And I've asked for you to point said statement out several times now. And you seem to be impressively incapable of doing that one simple thing for me despite how many times you've crapped on me for it.

Show me where I implied those statements toward the SRX and then I'll "deal with it".:)

Until then, kindly buzz off. You're taking this thread even further off course.

You've still yet to point out exactly where I applied the 'tactile feel, noise, etc' statement toward the SRX specifically - or even 'implied it'. And I've asked for you to point said statement out several times now. And you seem to be impressively incapable of doing that one simple thing for me despite how many times you've crapped on me for it.

Show me where I implied those statements toward the SRX and then I'll "deal with it".:)



You already quoted it yourself in the other thread, how many times does it need to be done? :confused:

I also defined the word "imply" for you, but you still seem to not understand the term.

Until then, kindly buzz off. You're taking this thread even further off course.

:rolleyes: Get over yourself. Really.

It seems you don't understand that I'm asking for you to explain what in my wording came even remotely close to 'implying' I was talking about the SRX.

That entire statement was directed toward JakeRobb and him asking about benchmarking Caddy, in general, against Lexus, in general. The words or even implied reference to "SRX" was not even mentioned once in the portion of JakeRobb's post that discussed the viability of benchmarking Caddy to Lexus, or in my reply to his post on the topic.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3974230&postcount=18

Continue to hang by my nuts all you want... I'm done with this thread detour.

It seems you don't understand that I'm asking for you to explain what in my wording came even remotely close to 'implying' I was talking about the SRX.

That entire statement was directed toward JakeRobb and him asking about benchmarking Caddy, in general, against Lexus, in general. The words or even implied reference to "SRX" was not even mentioned once in JakeRobb's post, or in my reply to his post. Not even once.

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3974230&postcount=18

Threxx, it's not too hard to understand when you talk about Cadillac's lacking interiors compared to Lexus', in a thread about the new SRX interior and even express expectations that the leather wrapped dash would not hold up over time.

You ask for me to give you specifics on your implications. That's been done. Read until you comprehend. Of course, the real issue is that you couldn't find anything specifically that you didn't like about it to begin with after giving the "eh" and "I dunno" comments, until you were painted into a corner and came up with the steering wheel.

If you don't like the way it looks, say so, but don't imply that it's going to be bad, based on think syou can't yet know, just because you say so.


Continue to hang by my nuts all you want... I'm done with this thread detour.

:rolleyes: Impressive.

Whats more impressive is now that everyone in the lounge has got tired of trying to argue with him whenever he says what amounts to little more than "I don't know how well this will stack up to competition from toyota", and says it with good reason, everyone in this section has picked up the battle. Nice.

Whats more impressive is now that everyone in the lounge has got tired of trying to argue with him whenever he says what amounts to little more than "I don't know how well this will stack up to competition from toyota", and says it with good reason, everyone in this section has picked up the battle. Nice.

Yup...

People in this section have been doing it for years - in fact it's typically people from this section spilling over into the lounge that do so in there. But we know that's rare since AN/FVD people tend to like to stick together in this one area (and the 5th gen section, now, too)

The rules of the future vehicle section for Threxx and only Threxx are:

-All of Threxx's opinions are subject to being picked apart word by word. Sometimes even word by (insert implied word here) by word. Threxx must be willing and fully capable of objectively explaining every one of his opinions, even though opinions often times can't be objectified... this is no excuse for Threxx.

-When Threxx praises a GM product, everyone will ignore the praise, and pretend like it was never spoken so that they can continue to act like Threxx is truely anti-GM no matter what GM does right or wrong.

-Threxx must be completely objective and show absolutely no bias or else not only will his opinion be flamed, but he will be flamed for having a non GM-biased opinion on a primarily GM-biased forum.

-In the event that Threxx makes a good point or asks a valid question that hasn't been asked before, it is the responsibility of one of the primary members to completely ignore said point or question and instead focus on one potentially inconsistant detail of Threxx's post and make some form of sarcastic, loaded, or 'aside' commentary about it in an attempt to bait Threxx and completely derail any actual valuable discussion that was occurring in the thread.

-Always read into what Threxx is saying. Threxx is the enemy and everything he says has a hidden agenda to slam GM. For example: if he makes positive commentary with a couple of suggested points of improvement, you must act as though he stated those points of improvement were the bane of the vehicle itself. Taking Threxx's words out of context and out of proportion is necessary to unveil his secret message that Toyota pays him to convey.

-When Threxx argues incessantly, it's because he's cocky and arrogant and never wants to admit he's wrong. this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's forced to carry on one long continous arguement with about 10 or so people in a single thread.

-The forum would be better off without Threxx because disscenting opinions never accomplish anything. If everybody just agreed discussions would be infinitely more fruitful and accurate in nature.

Here be the Threxx laws. Unspoken until now, but agreed to none the less.


.... or at leats that's what it feels like.

:o :o :o :o :o

Soooooo.... anyhow. Now with my analysis and Pacer's brief correction of my analysis (with possibly more tweaks to come), anyone have any thoughts?

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3979415&postcount=78
:)

I wasn't going to... but I can't resist. :shrug:





The rules of the future vehicle section for Threxx and only Threxx are:

-All of Threxx's opinions are subject to being picked apart word by word. Sometimes even word by (insert implied word here) by word. Threxx must be willing and fully capable of objectively explaining every one of his opinions, even though opinions often times can't be objectified... this is no excuse for Threxx.

... and you do the same to everyone else. Go figure.

-When Threxx praises a GM product, everyone will ignore the praise, and pretend like it was never spoken so that they can continue to act like Threxx is truely anti-GM no matter what GM does right or wrong.

And when people agree with you (which I have on several occasion, btw), you do the exact same thing.... Go figure.

-Threxx must be completely objective and show absolutely no bias or else not only will his opinion be flamed, but he will be flamed for having a non GM-biased opinion on a primarily GM-biased forum.

And you say the exact same thing about all us GM nut huggers, or GM kool-aid drinkers, circle jerkers, nut swingers, or whatever else you want to call it. Even though most of us have laid out critisism on GM many times in the past... Go figure.

-In the event that Threxx makes a good point or asks a valid question that hasn't been asked before, it is the responsibility of one of the primary members to completely ignore said point or question and instead focus on one potentially inconsistant detail of Threxx's post and make some form of sarcastic, loaded, or 'aside' commentary about it in an attempt to bait Threxx and completely derail any actual valuable discussion that was occurring in the thread.

The same thing you do to virtually everyone else... Go figure.

-Always read into what Threxx is saying. Threxx is the enemy and everything he says has a hidden agenda to slam GM. For example: if he makes positive commentary with a couple of suggested points of improvement, you must act as though he stated those points of improvement were the bane of the vehicle itself. Taking Threxx's words out of context and out of proportion is necessary to unveil his secret message that Toyota pays him to convey.

And if someone disagrees with your suggestion or opinion, they are automatically a mindless GM fanboy. See how all this works both ways??? ....Go figure.

-When Threxx argues incessantly, it's because he's cocky and arrogant and never wants to admit he's wrong. this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's forced to carry on one long continous arguement with about 10 or so people in a single thread.

Ever wonder why so many people argue against you all the time when you are so confident you are absolutely correct? :think: Go figure.

-The forum would be better off without Threxx because disscenting opinions never accomplish anything. If everybody just agreed discussions would be infinitely more fruitful and accurate in nature.

Nope... Z284ever and I have disagreed many, many times over... I wouldn't want him to go anywhere!

Here be the Threxx laws. Unspoken until now, but agreed to none the less.


And you wonder where the arrogance comments come from. :lol: Go. Figure.

.... or at leats that's what it feels like.

:o :o :o :o :o

To you, apparently.... :)

I wasn't going to... but I can't resist. :shrug:

Wasn't going to what? Pull the "everything you said, right back at you" arguement that has been tried and true since somewhere around preschool years. I could have predicted that was going to happen. Go. Figure.;)

While you're figuring - figure how difficult it might be to maintain composure when you're among such a minority of thought on a given forum? Most people would have given up ages ago and just stuck to friendlier forums. I don't know what it says about me - either stupid and stubborn, or brave and true. Either way, I typically have fun and learn a lot in doing it.

What is more plausible Threxx...that everybody here has joined in a mass conspiracy to discredit and abuse you by taking everything you say out of context and generally ganging up on you...

or...

That the reactions you get from the overwhelming majority of people here are somehow a reflection of what you dish out?

If you took the time that you spent typing out the "poor me I'm being persecuted" post and sat down to think about why you get the reactions you do, maybe you wouldn't have completely wasted five minutes of yours and everybody else's time.

Threxx... Threxx... Threxx's... Threxx... Threxx...
Threxx... Threxx... Threxx... Threxx... Threxx's... Threxx... Threxx... Threxx... Threxx's... Threxx... Threxx... Threxx...

Ummm....

Referring to yourself in the third person that often is almost as disturbing as referring to your nuts.

Can we just get this closed since it has turned into the Special Olympics?

Ummm....

Referring to yourself in the third person that often is almost as disturbing as referring to your nuts.

Just wait till he starts referring to his nuts in the third person! :lol:

Sorry couldn't resist.

Chris

Pacer, way to prove the point. I spent quite a bit of time doing the research on the camparison for you. Supposedly you didn't have enough time to discuss that matter, yet you've had time to continue the anti-Threxx discussion in more than one thread! Amazing.:)

PS - laws are almost never written in the first person. Guess you haven't noticed that before?

What is more plausible Threxx...that everybody here has joined in a mass conspiracy to discredit and abuse you by taking everything you say out of context and generally ganging up on you...

or...

That the reactions you get from the overwhelming majority of people here are somehow a reflection of what you dish out?

The reactions I get are a reflection of what I dish out. Devil's advocate lines of thought. I say things nobody else has said or will say. In a forum full of people so proud and defensive of GM that seems to gather a relatively unified reaction - and when one person sees the next reacting a certain way, they join in. Hence the term 'circle jerk'... it's human nature when everyone else is doing something - whether it's praising GM, or bashing those who don't - human nature tends to make the easier or obvious course of action to join in.

Pacer, way to prove the point. I spent quite a bit of time doing the research on the camparison for you. Supposedly you didn't have enough time to discuss that matter, yet you've had time to continue the anti-Threxx discussion in more than one thread! Amazing.:)


"Anti-Threxx"... there's another one.

Don't get all butthurt, Cupcake. If I was flaming you, you'd know it - I'm not.

Research takes time, and making witty responses comes easily to me. I'll get to it tonight.

Besides, who cares if the general population around here does or doesn't like you? There are people I've personally met here, and I care about their opinions of me... to a point.

My "E-personality" is just that - a much more strident representation of who I really am. If folks don't like it... meh... I ain't losing any sleep.


PS - laws are almost never written in the first person. Guess you haven't noticed that before?

I am unaware of any laws in this nation written specifically in reference to a particular person.

Equal protection clause.

My "E-personality" is just that - a much more strident representation of who I really am. If folks don't like it... meh... I ain't losing any sleep.

I'm not losing sleep over it either - I guess I just try too hard to clarify my intentions as they tend to be so easily dismissed and/or vilified due to their 'against the grain of the forum's population' nature. Oh well.

Maybe I should just start telling everyone I hate GM, and that I'm an *******. The first one is completely untrue and the second depends on my mood, but it'd keep discussion from automatically heading that direction in every other thread.:D

Then again I don't know how I'd explain my apparent hatred for GM when I've got a next-gen CTS and Vette in the driveway.:(:confused: :D

Then again I don't know how I'd explain my apparent hatred for GM when I've got a next-gen CTS and Vette in the driveway.:(:confused: :D

Passive-aggressive behavior?

I am unaware of any laws in this nation written specifically in reference to a particular person.

You can think of contracts as small-scale laws - laws applied on a person by person basis rather than applied to a group of people based on geography, or whatnot. Those will almost always (if well written), state the person's name, even if the person who's name is being stated, is the one writing the darn thing.:p

You can think of contracts as small-scale laws - laws applied on a person by person basis rather than applied to a group of people based on geography, or whatnot. Those will almost always (if well written), state the person's name, even if the person who's name is being stated, is the one writing the darn thing.:p

Let's not make this a COMPLETE thread hijack, but contracts and laws are two very significantly different things.

The reactions I get are a reflection of what I dish out. Devil's advocate lines of thought. I say things nobody else has said or will say. In a forum full of people so proud and defensive of GM that seems to gather a relatively unified reaction - and when one person sees the next reacting a certain way, they join in. Hence the term 'circle jerk'... it's human nature when everyone else is doing something - whether it's praising GM, or bashing those who don't - human nature tends to make the easier or obvious course of action to join in.Not to join in on the "anti-Threxx" stuff, so don't take offense, but I don't think you are the only person who will criticize GM in this forum. I see comments and criticism (sometimes constructive, sometimes just dumb or mean, and sometimes just wrong) in various threads by various posters fairly regularly. You are probably one of the more visible members to do it (or at least you do it more often than many others), but you are not the only one.

It kinda seems (at least to me) a little arrogant and/or overdramatic to act like you are the lone fish of reason in this pond, where ALL the other fish only walk the GM line and dare not criticize or speak out of turn about the mothership... Does that make sense?

:)

Yup...

People in this section have been doing it for years - in fact it's typically people from this section spilling over into the lounge that do so in there. But we know that's rare since AN/FVD people tend to like to stick together in this one area (and the 5th gen section, now, too)

The rules of the future vehicle section for Threxx and only Threxx are:

-All of Threxx's opinions are subject to being picked apart word by word. Sometimes even word by (insert implied word here) by word. Threxx must be willing and fully capable of objectively explaining every one of his opinions, even though opinions often times can't be objectified... this is no excuse for Threxx.

-When Threxx praises a GM product, everyone will ignore the praise, and pretend like it was never spoken so that they can continue to act like Threxx is truely anti-GM no matter what GM does right or wrong.

-Threxx must be completely objective and show absolutely no bias or else not only will his opinion be flamed, but he will be flamed for having a non GM-biased opinion on a primarily GM-biased forum.

-In the event that Threxx makes a good point or asks a valid question that hasn't been asked before, it is the responsibility of one of the primary members to completely ignore said point or question and instead focus on one potentially inconsistant detail of Threxx's post and make some form of sarcastic, loaded, or 'aside' commentary about it in an attempt to bait Threxx and completely derail any actual valuable discussion that was occurring in the thread.

-Always read into what Threxx is saying. Threxx is the enemy and everything he says has a hidden agenda to slam GM. For example: if he makes positive commentary with a couple of suggested points of improvement, you must act as though he stated those points of improvement were the bane of the vehicle itself. Taking Threxx's words out of context and out of proportion is necessary to unveil his secret message that Toyota pays him to convey.

-When Threxx argues incessantly, it's because he's cocky and arrogant and never wants to admit he's wrong. this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's forced to carry on one long continous arguement with about 10 or so people in a single thread.

-The forum would be better off without Threxx because disscenting opinions never accomplish anything. If everybody just agreed discussions would be infinitely more fruitful and accurate in nature.

Here be the Threxx laws. Unspoken until now, but agreed to none the less.


.... or at leats that's what it feels like.

:o :o :o :o :o


Here's a thought...Don't like it? ****ing leave.

More drama than Shakespeare, you belong in the lounge.

http://www.fps-source.com/modules/Forums/images/smiles/lurk.gif

Here's a thought...Don't like it? ****ing leave.

More drama than Shakespeare, you belong in the lounge.
How about on your show?

So, did we ever figure out which reader - Threxx or PacerX - is smarter than one half or the other of the 800,000 people that buy an Impala or Camry each year? I'm dying to know if either one has somehow exposed a deep flaw in our free-market system, but shockingly enough, I see two vehicles that are both similarly but not identically equipped, priced very competitively with each other and the rest of the segment, and that both sell in roughly equal numbers. Amazing how this "capitalism" thing works, eh?

It kinda seems (at least to me) a little arrogant and/or overdramatic to act like you are the lone fish of reason in this pond, where ALL the other fish only walk the GM line and dare not criticize or speak out of turn about the mothership... Does that make sense?

Sums things up nicely for me...thanks.

By the way, when judging the true "value" of Impala, you usually needed to figure in the discounts/rebates you got when purchasing an Impala, instead of comparing it to Camry MSRP to MSRP. Funny thing is, I believe (though not sure) Impala has needed less incentives on it lately to hold its sales volume.

So, did we ever figure out which reader - Threxx or PacerX - is smarter than one half or the other of the 800,000 people that buy an Impala or Camry each year? I'm dying to know if either one has somehow exposed a deep flaw in our free-market system, but shockingly enough, I see two vehicles that are both similarly but not identically equipped, priced very competitively with each other and the rest of the segment, and that both sell in roughly equal numbers. Amazing how this "capitalism" thing works, eh?
Whelp, I wasn't the one that flat-out stated that one 'solidy out-values' the other in the early stages of this thread....:p
In my comparisons I found them to be relatively comparable - with the differences coming down to general preferences and marketing - and part of the free market is marketing, which is the not so objective factor in the 'free market'.


By the way, when judging the true "value" of Impala, you usually needed to figure in the discounts/rebates you got when purchasing an Impala, instead of comparing it to Camry MSRP to MSRP. Funny thing is, I believe (though not sure) Impala has needed less incentives on it lately to hold its sales volume.

You might have noticed very early on I mentioned the current rebate on the Impala as well as the invoice to msrp disparity between the two vehicles (which is significantly different and makes up for most of the Impala's 2000 dollar, assuming you can get the Camry for at or near invoice and assuming the same about Impala).

So, did we ever figure out which reader - Threxx or PacerX - is smarter than one half or the other of the 800,000 people that buy an Impala or Camry each year? I'm dying to know if either one has somehow exposed a deep flaw in our free-market system, but shockingly enough, I see two vehicles that are both similarly but not identically equipped, priced very competitively with each other and the rest of the segment, and that both sell in roughly equal numbers. Amazing how this "capitalism" thing works, eh?

No but we have managed to derive that Threxx refers to his anatomy in the 3rd person, Pacer is a psychiatrist and is more than willing to help with this issue, and this is all going to help Buick fit in the marketplace, and that is how Capitalism works... ;)

j/k

Amazing how this "capitalism" thing works, eh?

You lose $10 Billion dollars, your bonds get rated as junk, and corporate raiders start buying your stock on the cheap planning to cut you to pieces. That's the other aspect of how capitalism works.

While debating over option packages and personalities might be fun, I think the original question was more interesting -- How does GM define their product line so they can make profit from North American operations even given the union-driven fixed costs.

The Impala sells well ... in fact the W Cars have always sold decently. But I'm not sure if they have done well enough to carry the company in the way that mainstream mass-market sedans have in the past.

Research takes time, and making witty responses comes easily to me. I'll get to it tonight.

Uh-huh