G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Thread Starter
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,298
From: Detroit, MI USA
G6 -- LA times PART 2........
The G6 will be followed this summer by the introduction of a 3.9-liter, 240hp, 245lb-ft GTP model with Displacement-on-Demand, along with four-cylinder (likely the 170hp, 170lb-ft 2.4-liter Ecotec) that will expand the car's fleet sales, and coupé variants of all three. A convertible – which may well be the only folding hardtop in the segment - will follow in the first quarter of 2006.
These are solid products with a promising outlook, and yet the media has jumped to write the play's review having seen little more than the opening scene.
In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their cars, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.
One does begin to get the impression that there is more here than simply incorrect facts. As noted earlier, the mistake came upon months of somewhat disingenuous reporting. We tend to lend credence to the idea of a perception gap, and have spent a good deal of time explaining both its legitimate background, and its less-than-sincere evolution.
The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda's Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.
Again, let's look at the facts. In September 2004, Pontiac launched the G6 midsize sedan in two variants: G6, and G6 GT, both promising 20 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the highway from a 200hp @ 5,400rpm, 220lb-ft @ 3,800 rpm, 3.5-liter engine. Accord's estimated mileage figures are 21/30 mpg, and Camry's, 20/29 mpg, by comparison (and both require 91 octane to the G6's 87). We’ll save the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam argument for another time, although it is certainly true that the LA Times' characterization of pushrods as outdated is historically inaccurate.
With its chrome-tipped exhausts; 16" standard and 17" aluminum wheels (G6 GT); drive-by-wire throttle, and of course that rather stunning, optional panoramic roof, this was a break from the Grand Am. Could the wheels be larger still? The LA Times certainly thought so but, again, even a cursory understanding of vehicle dynamics would have suggested that larger wheels hurt the ride of a car, leaving less of the springs for the body to bounce upon. Certainly, Honda will not match even the G6 GT's 225/50 R17, offering 205/60 R16 tires. This is, after all, the mainstreamer class!
We are among those who take issue with GM's electric steering (more direct than Camcord, particularly in the G6 GT, but communication is one-way and falls short of Accord in this regard), so we're glad that the upcoming GTP will revert to a hydraulic system. We're also not convinced of the merits of a front MacPherson strut set-up. The G6 mitigates concerns somewhat by mounting the struts on a hydroformed subframe to reduce harshness, but one must consider that a MacPherson roll center tends to migrate, with the possibility of violent handling at the limit. We'll see how Pontiac addresses this in a minute, but we'd add that it is still more prone to migration in a 3,000+ lb car (the G6 weighs 3,380 lbs.)
That said, there is no truth to the idea that the G6 is heavy. The Accord LX V6 runs 3,349 lbs. Toyota's Camry weighs 3,340 lbs.
We're utterly unconvinced of the Camry's all-around MacPherson set-up. MacPhersons are cheap, but saddling a 3,000+ lb. car with them at both ends and shooting for a soft ride forces some ill-advised compromises. Try a 24mm front stabilizer, versus a 17mm rear stabilizer; both figures are high given the softly-sprung emphasis on ride, and it bears remembering that stabilizers create roll, rather than resisting it, on straight yet uneven pavement.
Honda's double-wishbone all-around suspension is hard to beat for its ride/handling compromise, and Accord runs 25mm/13mm stabilizers on its V6 line. We would wager that the Accord's rear springs are stiffer than the ride might suggest for this class, generating cornering forces at the rear without needing to be bolstered by resistance and allowing for a modicum of neutrality before inevitable understeer. Double-wishbone configurations allow for more precise control of camber, too, so Honda has less need to protect its rear tires from excessive deflection.
A four-link independent suspension sits at the G6's rear, a system which commendably manages a 19mm (20mm on the GT) rear stabilizer without being too harsh. Up front sits a 21mm (22mm on the GT) stabilizer. This is the smallest difference between stabilizers among these three cars, and represents an elegant solution to the MacPherson enigma: set the front stabilizer stiff enough to prevent the roll center from migrating, yet keep the rear stabilizer close behind; one does not want to push the front tires to counter such lateral force that the car has trouble gaining traction out of corners. GM has obvious confidence in the stiffness of the Epsilon platform, and the set-up works well.
A class-leading, 112.3-inch wheelbase (shared with the Malibu MAXX) permits GM to stiffen the springs yet still retain a reasonably compliant ride. Agility is still the key here, however, as evidenced by a 0.6mm front-to-rear track difference in favor of a wider rear track (Accord's is a mere 0.1mm; Camry actually has a 0.4mm wider front track!)
Predictably, given all of the above, G6 turn-in is best of these three cars, at the expense of the Accord's ride; understeer, when it comes, is predictable, and the car is easily throttle-steerable. A cursory read of the better reviews will find the G6 regularly beating Camcord slalom speeds.
The lines are certainly distinctive; wedge-like, where Camcords have grown more bulbous; and clean, having lost the plastic cladding of the past. They also constrain headroom (the LA Times having correctly noted this point). Although we welcome the fresh design, we do think that Pontiac may have missed an opportunity here: looking at the car, with its swept-back windshield and high rear deck, we see an opening for the advertising of drag force figures.
As we've bemoaned several times, no one publishes CdA (coefficient-of-drag multiplied by frontal area) figures anymore. Accord's coefficient-of-drag is 0.30; Camry's, 0.28. For a company which once made Wide-Track a hit due to the obvious connection between the inherent virtue of the product and the advertising which played on it, why wouldn't Pontiac again use the design’s distinctiveness as an inherent advantage? Lower drag forces mean better performance; better NVH figures at speed, and better efficiency – all valuable aspects of a Pontiac renaissance. Besides, one would imagine that a company which has been decidedly misrepresented in some regards might privately thrill in forcing the media to understand the inadequacy of comparing coefficient-of-drag figures across vehicles with different frontal areas.
A cursory glance suggests that the G6's aerodynamics might well be worth touting, but a run in GM's wind tunnel costs $25,000 – so, Pontiac, the ball is in your court!
These are solid products with a promising outlook, and yet the media has jumped to write the play's review having seen little more than the opening scene.
In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their cars, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.
One does begin to get the impression that there is more here than simply incorrect facts. As noted earlier, the mistake came upon months of somewhat disingenuous reporting. We tend to lend credence to the idea of a perception gap, and have spent a good deal of time explaining both its legitimate background, and its less-than-sincere evolution.
The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda's Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.
Again, let's look at the facts. In September 2004, Pontiac launched the G6 midsize sedan in two variants: G6, and G6 GT, both promising 20 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the highway from a 200hp @ 5,400rpm, 220lb-ft @ 3,800 rpm, 3.5-liter engine. Accord's estimated mileage figures are 21/30 mpg, and Camry's, 20/29 mpg, by comparison (and both require 91 octane to the G6's 87). We’ll save the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam argument for another time, although it is certainly true that the LA Times' characterization of pushrods as outdated is historically inaccurate.
With its chrome-tipped exhausts; 16" standard and 17" aluminum wheels (G6 GT); drive-by-wire throttle, and of course that rather stunning, optional panoramic roof, this was a break from the Grand Am. Could the wheels be larger still? The LA Times certainly thought so but, again, even a cursory understanding of vehicle dynamics would have suggested that larger wheels hurt the ride of a car, leaving less of the springs for the body to bounce upon. Certainly, Honda will not match even the G6 GT's 225/50 R17, offering 205/60 R16 tires. This is, after all, the mainstreamer class!
We are among those who take issue with GM's electric steering (more direct than Camcord, particularly in the G6 GT, but communication is one-way and falls short of Accord in this regard), so we're glad that the upcoming GTP will revert to a hydraulic system. We're also not convinced of the merits of a front MacPherson strut set-up. The G6 mitigates concerns somewhat by mounting the struts on a hydroformed subframe to reduce harshness, but one must consider that a MacPherson roll center tends to migrate, with the possibility of violent handling at the limit. We'll see how Pontiac addresses this in a minute, but we'd add that it is still more prone to migration in a 3,000+ lb car (the G6 weighs 3,380 lbs.)
That said, there is no truth to the idea that the G6 is heavy. The Accord LX V6 runs 3,349 lbs. Toyota's Camry weighs 3,340 lbs.
We're utterly unconvinced of the Camry's all-around MacPherson set-up. MacPhersons are cheap, but saddling a 3,000+ lb. car with them at both ends and shooting for a soft ride forces some ill-advised compromises. Try a 24mm front stabilizer, versus a 17mm rear stabilizer; both figures are high given the softly-sprung emphasis on ride, and it bears remembering that stabilizers create roll, rather than resisting it, on straight yet uneven pavement.
Honda's double-wishbone all-around suspension is hard to beat for its ride/handling compromise, and Accord runs 25mm/13mm stabilizers on its V6 line. We would wager that the Accord's rear springs are stiffer than the ride might suggest for this class, generating cornering forces at the rear without needing to be bolstered by resistance and allowing for a modicum of neutrality before inevitable understeer. Double-wishbone configurations allow for more precise control of camber, too, so Honda has less need to protect its rear tires from excessive deflection.
A four-link independent suspension sits at the G6's rear, a system which commendably manages a 19mm (20mm on the GT) rear stabilizer without being too harsh. Up front sits a 21mm (22mm on the GT) stabilizer. This is the smallest difference between stabilizers among these three cars, and represents an elegant solution to the MacPherson enigma: set the front stabilizer stiff enough to prevent the roll center from migrating, yet keep the rear stabilizer close behind; one does not want to push the front tires to counter such lateral force that the car has trouble gaining traction out of corners. GM has obvious confidence in the stiffness of the Epsilon platform, and the set-up works well.
A class-leading, 112.3-inch wheelbase (shared with the Malibu MAXX) permits GM to stiffen the springs yet still retain a reasonably compliant ride. Agility is still the key here, however, as evidenced by a 0.6mm front-to-rear track difference in favor of a wider rear track (Accord's is a mere 0.1mm; Camry actually has a 0.4mm wider front track!)
Predictably, given all of the above, G6 turn-in is best of these three cars, at the expense of the Accord's ride; understeer, when it comes, is predictable, and the car is easily throttle-steerable. A cursory read of the better reviews will find the G6 regularly beating Camcord slalom speeds.
The lines are certainly distinctive; wedge-like, where Camcords have grown more bulbous; and clean, having lost the plastic cladding of the past. They also constrain headroom (the LA Times having correctly noted this point). Although we welcome the fresh design, we do think that Pontiac may have missed an opportunity here: looking at the car, with its swept-back windshield and high rear deck, we see an opening for the advertising of drag force figures.
As we've bemoaned several times, no one publishes CdA (coefficient-of-drag multiplied by frontal area) figures anymore. Accord's coefficient-of-drag is 0.30; Camry's, 0.28. For a company which once made Wide-Track a hit due to the obvious connection between the inherent virtue of the product and the advertising which played on it, why wouldn't Pontiac again use the design’s distinctiveness as an inherent advantage? Lower drag forces mean better performance; better NVH figures at speed, and better efficiency – all valuable aspects of a Pontiac renaissance. Besides, one would imagine that a company which has been decidedly misrepresented in some regards might privately thrill in forcing the media to understand the inadequacy of comparing coefficient-of-drag figures across vehicles with different frontal areas.
A cursory glance suggests that the G6's aerodynamics might well be worth touting, but a run in GM's wind tunnel costs $25,000 – so, Pontiac, the ball is in your court!
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda's Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.
I looked at the Ridgeline at the NY autoshow, Interior is terrible for a 2006 model. The trunk is kind of neat, but is just asking for a lawsuit after some kid sufficates in it, it also looks like it will be useless in the winter once you get snow and ice in the bed. It will also be hard to keep clean (if you use the bed for truck stuff). Over all if this truck was GM badged the press would be tearing it a new one.
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by Fbodfather
The G6 will be followed this summer by the introduction of a 3.9-liter, 240hp, 245lb-ft GTP model with Displacement-on-Demand, along with four-cylinder (likely the 170hp, 170lb-ft 2.4-liter Ecotec) that will expand the car's fleet sales, and coupé variants of all three. A convertible – which may well be the only folding hardtop in the segment - will follow in the first quarter of 2006.
These are solid products with a promising outlook, and yet the media has jumped to write the play's review having seen little more than the opening scene.
In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their cars, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.
One does begin to get the impression that there is more here than simply incorrect facts. As noted earlier, the mistake came upon months of somewhat disingenuous reporting. We tend to lend credence to the idea of a perception gap, and have spent a good deal of time explaining both its legitimate background, and its less-than-sincere evolution.
The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda's Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.
Again, let's look at the facts. In September 2004, Pontiac launched the G6 midsize sedan in two variants: G6, and G6 GT, both promising 20 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the highway from a 200hp @ 5,400rpm, 220lb-ft @ 3,800 rpm, 3.5-liter engine. Accord's estimated mileage figures are 21/30 mpg, and Camry's, 20/29 mpg, by comparison (and both require 91 octane to the G6's 87). We’ll save the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam argument for another time, although it is certainly true that the LA Times' characterization of pushrods as outdated is historically inaccurate.
With its chrome-tipped exhausts; 16" standard and 17" aluminum wheels (G6 GT); drive-by-wire throttle, and of course that rather stunning, optional panoramic roof, this was a break from the Grand Am. Could the wheels be larger still? The LA Times certainly thought so but, again, even a cursory understanding of vehicle dynamics would have suggested that larger wheels hurt the ride of a car, leaving less of the springs for the body to bounce upon. Certainly, Honda will not match even the G6 GT's 225/50 R17, offering 205/60 R16 tires. This is, after all, the mainstreamer class!
We are among those who take issue with GM's electric steering (more direct than Camcord, particularly in the G6 GT, but communication is one-way and falls short of Accord in this regard), so we're glad that the upcoming GTP will revert to a hydraulic system. We're also not convinced of the merits of a front MacPherson strut set-up. The G6 mitigates concerns somewhat by mounting the struts on a hydroformed subframe to reduce harshness, but one must consider that a MacPherson roll center tends to migrate, with the possibility of violent handling at the limit. We'll see how Pontiac addresses this in a minute, but we'd add that it is still more prone to migration in a 3,000+ lb car (the G6 weighs 3,380 lbs.)
That said, there is no truth to the idea that the G6 is heavy. The Accord LX V6 runs 3,349 lbs. Toyota's Camry weighs 3,340 lbs.
We're utterly unconvinced of the Camry's all-around MacPherson set-up. MacPhersons are cheap, but saddling a 3,000+ lb. car with them at both ends and shooting for a soft ride forces some ill-advised compromises. Try a 24mm front stabilizer, versus a 17mm rear stabilizer; both figures are high given the softly-sprung emphasis on ride, and it bears remembering that stabilizers create roll, rather than resisting it, on straight yet uneven pavement.
Honda's double-wishbone all-around suspension is hard to beat for its ride/handling compromise, and Accord runs 25mm/13mm stabilizers on its V6 line. We would wager that the Accord's rear springs are stiffer than the ride might suggest for this class, generating cornering forces at the rear without needing to be bolstered by resistance and allowing for a modicum of neutrality before inevitable understeer. Double-wishbone configurations allow for more precise control of camber, too, so Honda has less need to protect its rear tires from excessive deflection.
A four-link independent suspension sits at the G6's rear, a system which commendably manages a 19mm (20mm on the GT) rear stabilizer without being too harsh. Up front sits a 21mm (22mm on the GT) stabilizer. This is the smallest difference between stabilizers among these three cars, and represents an elegant solution to the MacPherson enigma: set the front stabilizer stiff enough to prevent the roll center from migrating, yet keep the rear stabilizer close behind; one does not want to push the front tires to counter such lateral force that the car has trouble gaining traction out of corners. GM has obvious confidence in the stiffness of the Epsilon platform, and the set-up works well.
A class-leading, 112.3-inch wheelbase (shared with the Malibu MAXX) permits GM to stiffen the springs yet still retain a reasonably compliant ride. Agility is still the key here, however, as evidenced by a 0.6mm front-to-rear track difference in favor of a wider rear track (Accord's is a mere 0.1mm; Camry actually has a 0.4mm wider front track!)
Predictably, given all of the above, G6 turn-in is best of these three cars, at the expense of the Accord's ride; understeer, when it comes, is predictable, and the car is easily throttle-steerable. A cursory read of the better reviews will find the G6 regularly beating Camcord slalom speeds.
The lines are certainly distinctive; wedge-like, where Camcords have grown more bulbous; and clean, having lost the plastic cladding of the past. They also constrain headroom (the LA Times having correctly noted this point). Although we welcome the fresh design, we do think that Pontiac may have missed an opportunity here: looking at the car, with its swept-back windshield and high rear deck, we see an opening for the advertising of drag force figures.
As we've bemoaned several times, no one publishes CdA (coefficient-of-drag multiplied by frontal area) figures anymore. Accord's coefficient-of-drag is 0.30; Camry's, 0.28. For a company which once made Wide-Track a hit due to the obvious connection between the inherent virtue of the product and the advertising which played on it, why wouldn't Pontiac again use the design’s distinctiveness as an inherent advantage? Lower drag forces mean better performance; better NVH figures at speed, and better efficiency – all valuable aspects of a Pontiac renaissance. Besides, one would imagine that a company which has been decidedly misrepresented in some regards might privately thrill in forcing the media to understand the inadequacy of comparing coefficient-of-drag figures across vehicles with different frontal areas.
A cursory glance suggests that the G6's aerodynamics might well be worth touting, but a run in GM's wind tunnel costs $25,000 – so, Pontiac, the ball is in your court!
These are solid products with a promising outlook, and yet the media has jumped to write the play's review having seen little more than the opening scene.
In confirming our facts with Pontiac yesterday, it was pointed out to us that 91.8% of G6 owners reported being satisfied, or very satisfied, with their cars, in independently conducted surveys that place the midsize segment average at 86.5%.
One does begin to get the impression that there is more here than simply incorrect facts. As noted earlier, the mistake came upon months of somewhat disingenuous reporting. We tend to lend credence to the idea of a perception gap, and have spent a good deal of time explaining both its legitimate background, and its less-than-sincere evolution.
The LA Times has often provided a case study in how the perception gap propagates. We are unsure, for instance, how it is possible to test Honda's Ridgeline while making no comment of its interior whatsoever (even as the quality of the interior plastics is blatantly not up to Honda standards), while throwing around every analogy possible to cite GM for decidedly less evident offenses in everything from the Pontiac G6 to the Cadillac XLR.
Again, let's look at the facts. In September 2004, Pontiac launched the G6 midsize sedan in two variants: G6, and G6 GT, both promising 20 mpg in town and 30 mpg on the highway from a 200hp @ 5,400rpm, 220lb-ft @ 3,800 rpm, 3.5-liter engine. Accord's estimated mileage figures are 21/30 mpg, and Camry's, 20/29 mpg, by comparison (and both require 91 octane to the G6's 87). We’ll save the pushrod-versus-dual-overhead-cam argument for another time, although it is certainly true that the LA Times' characterization of pushrods as outdated is historically inaccurate.
With its chrome-tipped exhausts; 16" standard and 17" aluminum wheels (G6 GT); drive-by-wire throttle, and of course that rather stunning, optional panoramic roof, this was a break from the Grand Am. Could the wheels be larger still? The LA Times certainly thought so but, again, even a cursory understanding of vehicle dynamics would have suggested that larger wheels hurt the ride of a car, leaving less of the springs for the body to bounce upon. Certainly, Honda will not match even the G6 GT's 225/50 R17, offering 205/60 R16 tires. This is, after all, the mainstreamer class!
We are among those who take issue with GM's electric steering (more direct than Camcord, particularly in the G6 GT, but communication is one-way and falls short of Accord in this regard), so we're glad that the upcoming GTP will revert to a hydraulic system. We're also not convinced of the merits of a front MacPherson strut set-up. The G6 mitigates concerns somewhat by mounting the struts on a hydroformed subframe to reduce harshness, but one must consider that a MacPherson roll center tends to migrate, with the possibility of violent handling at the limit. We'll see how Pontiac addresses this in a minute, but we'd add that it is still more prone to migration in a 3,000+ lb car (the G6 weighs 3,380 lbs.)
That said, there is no truth to the idea that the G6 is heavy. The Accord LX V6 runs 3,349 lbs. Toyota's Camry weighs 3,340 lbs.
We're utterly unconvinced of the Camry's all-around MacPherson set-up. MacPhersons are cheap, but saddling a 3,000+ lb. car with them at both ends and shooting for a soft ride forces some ill-advised compromises. Try a 24mm front stabilizer, versus a 17mm rear stabilizer; both figures are high given the softly-sprung emphasis on ride, and it bears remembering that stabilizers create roll, rather than resisting it, on straight yet uneven pavement.
Honda's double-wishbone all-around suspension is hard to beat for its ride/handling compromise, and Accord runs 25mm/13mm stabilizers on its V6 line. We would wager that the Accord's rear springs are stiffer than the ride might suggest for this class, generating cornering forces at the rear without needing to be bolstered by resistance and allowing for a modicum of neutrality before inevitable understeer. Double-wishbone configurations allow for more precise control of camber, too, so Honda has less need to protect its rear tires from excessive deflection.
A four-link independent suspension sits at the G6's rear, a system which commendably manages a 19mm (20mm on the GT) rear stabilizer without being too harsh. Up front sits a 21mm (22mm on the GT) stabilizer. This is the smallest difference between stabilizers among these three cars, and represents an elegant solution to the MacPherson enigma: set the front stabilizer stiff enough to prevent the roll center from migrating, yet keep the rear stabilizer close behind; one does not want to push the front tires to counter such lateral force that the car has trouble gaining traction out of corners. GM has obvious confidence in the stiffness of the Epsilon platform, and the set-up works well.
A class-leading, 112.3-inch wheelbase (shared with the Malibu MAXX) permits GM to stiffen the springs yet still retain a reasonably compliant ride. Agility is still the key here, however, as evidenced by a 0.6mm front-to-rear track difference in favor of a wider rear track (Accord's is a mere 0.1mm; Camry actually has a 0.4mm wider front track!)
Predictably, given all of the above, G6 turn-in is best of these three cars, at the expense of the Accord's ride; understeer, when it comes, is predictable, and the car is easily throttle-steerable. A cursory read of the better reviews will find the G6 regularly beating Camcord slalom speeds.
The lines are certainly distinctive; wedge-like, where Camcords have grown more bulbous; and clean, having lost the plastic cladding of the past. They also constrain headroom (the LA Times having correctly noted this point). Although we welcome the fresh design, we do think that Pontiac may have missed an opportunity here: looking at the car, with its swept-back windshield and high rear deck, we see an opening for the advertising of drag force figures.
As we've bemoaned several times, no one publishes CdA (coefficient-of-drag multiplied by frontal area) figures anymore. Accord's coefficient-of-drag is 0.30; Camry's, 0.28. For a company which once made Wide-Track a hit due to the obvious connection between the inherent virtue of the product and the advertising which played on it, why wouldn't Pontiac again use the design’s distinctiveness as an inherent advantage? Lower drag forces mean better performance; better NVH figures at speed, and better efficiency – all valuable aspects of a Pontiac renaissance. Besides, one would imagine that a company which has been decidedly misrepresented in some regards might privately thrill in forcing the media to understand the inadequacy of comparing coefficient-of-drag figures across vehicles with different frontal areas.
A cursory glance suggests that the G6's aerodynamics might well be worth touting, but a run in GM's wind tunnel costs $25,000 – so, Pontiac, the ball is in your court!
You also defended the Mercury Montego in another thread?:?
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by redzed
What happened to, "I can't comment for any division other than Chevrolet?"
You also defended the Mercury Montego in another thread?:?
You also defended the Mercury Montego in another thread?:?
Go to www.automobear.com
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by redzed
What happened to, "I can't comment for any division other than Chevrolet?"
You also defended the Mercury Montego in another thread?:?
You also defended the Mercury Montego in another thread?:?
Just a pet peeve of mine, to have to scroll through the whole post again to get a two sentence reply.....
Banned
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,954
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by 1fastdog
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,712
From: Ontario
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Jerry Flint has weighed in against the Times
http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/14/cz_jf_0414flint.html
http://www.forbes.com/2005/04/14/cz_jf_0414flint.html
NEW YORK - Dumping on another reporter isn't easy. We're supposed to stick together through thick or thin. But I'm going to dump on a column written about General Motors by Dan Neil of the Los Angeles Times.
Neil won a Pulitzer Prize last year, and anyone who wins this award is a hero. Then again, my former and late father-in-law won the Pulitzer for the Detroit Free Press, and I argued with him when I thought that he was wrong.
I take no backseat to anyone in criticizing General Motors' (nyse: GM - news - people ) managers. But Dan, your attack was mean-spirited and off-base.
GM answered by pulling its ads from the L.A. Times, which wasn't a smart move either.
You see, GM pulled its ads once before, in 1954, over a spy story--sketches of upcoming GM cars--by John Williams of The Wall Street Journal. Until then, most people had never heard of the Journal or thought it was some stock market tip sheet. But suddenly the Journal became a lighthouse of journalistic integrity. People began to realize it was one heck of a newspaper.
GM made the Journal.
GM said Neil's column had errors. Fine. The company should have asked to have Neil's space in the newspaper to write its own column in response. That might have gotten GM some sympathy. Right now, General Motors doesn't need this distraction, either. Detroit cars already have a below-par market share in the big California market.
Mr. Neil, I found a lot of disturbing things in your column. Your headline called the new Pontiac G6 car a sales flop. And your first paragraph ended with the words "Dump Lutz," referring to GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz. Then you sort of recant that comment later on, when you direct your venom toward Chief Executive Rick Wagoner. (Click here to read the full column.)
So what's wrong?
Wagoner recently took over North American operations. In doing so, he put his head on the line. If he turns GM around, he stays. If not, he goes. But he bought himself some time when he took over NAO. Mr. Neil, you can speculate on successors if he fails, but saying Wagoner should be fired is just showboating. I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.
What really cooks my engine oil is your knocking of Bob Lutz. Do you really think that Wall Street would be happy to see Lutz fired? Wake up. Lutz is the only one at the top of GM who knows anything about cars and trucks. You don't like the designs of some of the new cars. Well, Bob Lutz doesn't, either, but it's the best he's been able to get, given the time constraints, designs locked in before he came to GM, the company's policy of reusing ancient platforms and GM's bureaucracy.
Look what GM was designing before Lutz: vehicles like the Pontiac Aztek. I have talked some people on GM's design staff. No one listened to them until Lutz joined the company. He raised morale down the line. If Lutz goes, forget morale and forget about empowering the car guys. That's all over.
You don't like those old pushrod engines and four-speed automatics in new cars? Neither does Lutz. Dan, can't you figure it out? Former GM Chief Executive Officer Jack Smith let it be known that GM wasn't going to spend on stuff that he couldn't see. Well, he couldn't see pushrod engines and old transmissions under the hood. That's how GM saved money--by shortchanging the product. Lutz can't just snap his fingers to come up with billions of dollars needed to put 5 million modern automatic transmissions into production.
Mr. Neil, you are one of those guys who wants to kill Pontiac and Buick. That's 800,000 sales last year. Kill them and GM is done. Any fool can say, "Fire this guy, kill that car, shut that plant." But the art is in building cars and trucks for which people are willing to pay list price.
Some of your complaints are real: no hybrids, the cancellation of the Zeta rear-drive project, the old engines and design weakness. But I can't believe that you wrote, "Why, exactly, is GMC on this earth?" Holy mackerel: 683,084 GMC vehicles were built last year! Mostly profitable, too! The way GM makes money is to spread the cost of a new platform over a variety of nameplates. A great example is the T-800 architecture. With the T-800, GM built up to 1.8 million big pickups and sport utility vehicles a year for Chevrolet, GMC and Hummer.
You are right: Cars like the new Pontiac G6 aren't good enough to turn the tide. Yet even you grudgingly admit that the G6 is an "adequate" car. It is premature to call this new car a sales flop. Besides everything else, it was launched with just one body style and motor, but more choices are coming.
All of GM's new passenger cars are superior to the vehicles that they replaced. That walk of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. Lutz is behind these improvements. He can't do everything alone. He's building a team. If Lutz goes, it's over.
Personally, I don't like to see anyone making fun of someone's age. You called Lutz "the Great White-Haired Father" and referred to "the numinous white noggin of Lutz." You don't fool me. That was a knock because he's 73. Well, so am I, and he drives better than me, and I'll bet he's a better driver than you, too.
If you're going to knock GM, swell, join the gang. But don't be nasty. Hit hard but clean.
Neil won a Pulitzer Prize last year, and anyone who wins this award is a hero. Then again, my former and late father-in-law won the Pulitzer for the Detroit Free Press, and I argued with him when I thought that he was wrong.
I take no backseat to anyone in criticizing General Motors' (nyse: GM - news - people ) managers. But Dan, your attack was mean-spirited and off-base.
GM answered by pulling its ads from the L.A. Times, which wasn't a smart move either.
You see, GM pulled its ads once before, in 1954, over a spy story--sketches of upcoming GM cars--by John Williams of The Wall Street Journal. Until then, most people had never heard of the Journal or thought it was some stock market tip sheet. But suddenly the Journal became a lighthouse of journalistic integrity. People began to realize it was one heck of a newspaper.
GM made the Journal.
GM said Neil's column had errors. Fine. The company should have asked to have Neil's space in the newspaper to write its own column in response. That might have gotten GM some sympathy. Right now, General Motors doesn't need this distraction, either. Detroit cars already have a below-par market share in the big California market.
Mr. Neil, I found a lot of disturbing things in your column. Your headline called the new Pontiac G6 car a sales flop. And your first paragraph ended with the words "Dump Lutz," referring to GM Vice Chairman Robert A. Lutz. Then you sort of recant that comment later on, when you direct your venom toward Chief Executive Rick Wagoner. (Click here to read the full column.)
So what's wrong?
Wagoner recently took over North American operations. In doing so, he put his head on the line. If he turns GM around, he stays. If not, he goes. But he bought himself some time when he took over NAO. Mr. Neil, you can speculate on successors if he fails, but saying Wagoner should be fired is just showboating. I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon.
What really cooks my engine oil is your knocking of Bob Lutz. Do you really think that Wall Street would be happy to see Lutz fired? Wake up. Lutz is the only one at the top of GM who knows anything about cars and trucks. You don't like the designs of some of the new cars. Well, Bob Lutz doesn't, either, but it's the best he's been able to get, given the time constraints, designs locked in before he came to GM, the company's policy of reusing ancient platforms and GM's bureaucracy.
Look what GM was designing before Lutz: vehicles like the Pontiac Aztek. I have talked some people on GM's design staff. No one listened to them until Lutz joined the company. He raised morale down the line. If Lutz goes, forget morale and forget about empowering the car guys. That's all over.
You don't like those old pushrod engines and four-speed automatics in new cars? Neither does Lutz. Dan, can't you figure it out? Former GM Chief Executive Officer Jack Smith let it be known that GM wasn't going to spend on stuff that he couldn't see. Well, he couldn't see pushrod engines and old transmissions under the hood. That's how GM saved money--by shortchanging the product. Lutz can't just snap his fingers to come up with billions of dollars needed to put 5 million modern automatic transmissions into production.
Mr. Neil, you are one of those guys who wants to kill Pontiac and Buick. That's 800,000 sales last year. Kill them and GM is done. Any fool can say, "Fire this guy, kill that car, shut that plant." But the art is in building cars and trucks for which people are willing to pay list price.
Some of your complaints are real: no hybrids, the cancellation of the Zeta rear-drive project, the old engines and design weakness. But I can't believe that you wrote, "Why, exactly, is GMC on this earth?" Holy mackerel: 683,084 GMC vehicles were built last year! Mostly profitable, too! The way GM makes money is to spread the cost of a new platform over a variety of nameplates. A great example is the T-800 architecture. With the T-800, GM built up to 1.8 million big pickups and sport utility vehicles a year for Chevrolet, GMC and Hummer.
You are right: Cars like the new Pontiac G6 aren't good enough to turn the tide. Yet even you grudgingly admit that the G6 is an "adequate" car. It is premature to call this new car a sales flop. Besides everything else, it was launched with just one body style and motor, but more choices are coming.
All of GM's new passenger cars are superior to the vehicles that they replaced. That walk of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. Lutz is behind these improvements. He can't do everything alone. He's building a team. If Lutz goes, it's over.
Personally, I don't like to see anyone making fun of someone's age. You called Lutz "the Great White-Haired Father" and referred to "the numinous white noggin of Lutz." You don't fool me. That was a knock because he's 73. Well, so am I, and he drives better than me, and I'll bet he's a better driver than you, too.
If you're going to knock GM, swell, join the gang. But don't be nasty. Hit hard but clean.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by R377
All I can say is AMEN!
While I can't agree with Flint seeing the pull of ad money as being ill advised and as any sort of mistake in the long run, I can say he's right on the money about Lutz.
Bob has it going on in my book.
Last edited by 1fastdog; Apr 14, 2005 at 07:00 PM.
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,026
From: Japan
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by 1fastdog
Thanks for the post!
All I can say is AMEN!
While I can't agree with Flint seeing the pull of ad money as being ill advised and as any sort of mistake in the long run, I can say he's right on the money about Lutz.
Bob has it going on in my book.
All I can say is AMEN!
While I can't agree with Flint seeing the pull of ad money as being ill advised and as any sort of mistake in the long run, I can say he's right on the money about Lutz.
Bob has it going on in my book.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: G6 -- LA times PART 2........
Originally Posted by 1fastdog
Thanks for the post!
All I can say is AMEN!
While I can't agree with Flint seeing the pull of ad money as being ill advised and as any sort of mistake in the long run, I can say he's right on the money about Lutz.
Bob has it going on in my book.
All I can say is AMEN!
While I can't agree with Flint seeing the pull of ad money as being ill advised and as any sort of mistake in the long run, I can say he's right on the money about Lutz.
Bob has it going on in my book.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM