One more thingy...

Car plants like to work at somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 cars a shift. On two shifts (normal) that's 700 cars a day and then somewhere in the neighborhood of 168,000 cars a year.

So let's say that I've got this here plant that I need to build 168,000 cars a year at to make it run at acceptable efficiency...

Now, that being the case, which vehicle lines could I put in there to get this 168,000 cars?

Hrumph... well, I've got the GTO...

That'll be worth maybe 30,000 cars in good years.

Then I have this Cadillac they're thinking about...

That'll be worth maybe another 30,000 cars in good years.

Uh oh... I just fell short by 108,000 cars if I want to keep this plant efficient.

That's a very interesting number, isn't it?

108,000...

 

Ahh yes, now I remember....Hamtramck.

That would be AWESOME to have three GM High Performance RWD vehicles built at the same plant just a half hour from my house....wonder if they could do tours?

 

Hamtramak?(sp?)

 

Would this GTO and this Cadillac and this other car look alike?

 

Just because they may all be on similar platforms doesn't necessarily mean they'd all have to look similar.

I'd have a hard time believing GM would screw up that bad.

 

Do the VW Golf, New Beetle, and Audi TT look alike?

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of Grand Prix/Regal/Intrigue. Or Trailblazer/Bravada/Envoy. We're talking about GM you know.

But if we use your analogy. I hope it goes:


Golf = Cadillac

New Beetle = GTO

Audi TT = Camaro

 

Wanna bet?!

 

I hope you are right!!

 

They could always go with the Holden name of Commodore

 

Good comparison.

BTW (another post) don't be so quick to discount the Lumina name. Impala wasn't a performance name till the 1994-6 SS came out and completely ruined everybody's perception. Now everyone complains the current one isn't like the 90s version, though it is historically correct.

 

So can we expect to hear grandma's complan that Chevy's new Lumina isn't true to it's heritage... a FWD grocery getter???

 

Think 60's 409,Does that ring a bell?Even if it was straightline performance it was still perf. right?

 

I beg to differ.

When I think of Impala, I think of the early 1960's 409's or the mid 1960's 427 SS's.

Are you now trying to tell me that Impala didn't become a performance name until the mid 1990's?

I guess I need to go back and reread my History of Chevrolet High Performance book and mark down all the errors then, huh?

BTW, my favorite Impalas ever are the 1958's.

 

guionM's point is that for every one 427 Impala SS that Chevy built, they built about 10,000 small block wheezers. Just because there were the rare performance versions (which everyone reminices about the most and then incorrectly applies to all Impalas) doesn't mean that's what the car was all about.

Large family transportation is what Impala is all about.