An approx 70/30 balance favoring cars as opposed to the 30/70 plan that was favoring trucks for a long time... good news for car fans.

http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...._code=04791802

 

On the subject of SUVs:

http://www.detnews.com/2003/autosins...e01-145588.htm

 

Thats good because up until now its seemed to everyone that GM has been neglecting the car market and that needs to stop. They really turned the SUV/light truck market around in the late 90's when they decided to throw billions of dollars in development cash at it. They may have come a little latet to the party but now they have to broadest most capable lineup of SUV's and trucks out there. The Car lines and especially us Camaro lovers I think will like the results of this new found spending, come a few years down the road.

Makes one wonder however, Why can't GM just spend 50/50 on Cars and trucks in North America. I wonder if because of this money-switch that GM will have to catch up again in 3-4 years on the truck side??

 

I might say that even with 70% of the investment budge, the truck market still isn't full exploited by GM. For instance, the Colorado/Canyon based Nissan Xtera competitor is still a long way from production. Trucks cost vastly less than cars to engineer, and off far greater profit margins. We should also take into account that the passenger car market is stagnant, and is actually decreasing. GM is still over-represented in terms of mainstream models, so more variation isn't needed. Does Pontiac really need three similarly styled and sized V6 sedans? Is there great enough market differentiation to justify both the new 2004 Malibu and the current FWD Impala?

It strikes me that domestic sedans must be cheap to buy and produce above all else. These are not high-profit or high demand vehicles, and most of GM's division don't have the brand credibility for premium pricing. In terms of passenger cars, GM should continue to develope it growing efficiencies, not pursue a massive program of market reorientation.

Right now, GM's first priority should be renewing its loathsome minivan range. Moreover, the current-minivan derived crossover SUVs, the Rendevous and Aztec, shouldn't be allowed to linger on the market without a complete redesign. Even with the new 3.6 HFV6, the Rendevous is a clumsy product. They'd better start chasing the Honda Pilot and Nissan Murano before consumers see what a joke this Buick really is.

 

Sure. The Malibu is the midsize product in the mix with the Accord and Camry, while Impala takes up the large sedan segment.

Apparently a lot of people disagree with you, as Rendevous sells quite well for GM. I've been in the Rendevous...they ride nice, have feature-packed interiors and are decently priced. Perhaps another case of not being too familiar with the products you criticise redzed?

 

Maybe the problem is that I'm too familiar with some GM products. You'd have to be crazy to think that any car with the ECOTEC engine could compete against a 4-cylinder Camary or Toyota. Maybe 5-years ago, but both Toyota and Honda have moved upward and onward in displacement, power and refinement. Cross the Malibu off the "bland, but buyable" list.

In addition, the Impala is not a full-sized car. It's just a W-body with a slightly oversized and ill-fitting body. It doesn't compete with the Avalon and LeSabre, but admittedly it's a cheaper car. It feel that way too. If anything, the Impala competes head to head with the Taurus in size. It's more expensive than the Ford sedan, but there again, it's slightly better. With the awkwardly sized Taurus going away, maybe its time for GM to "deep-six" the last "big on the outside/small-on-the-inside" midsized sedan.

I also have to object to any reference that suggests the Rendevous is a positive light. It's based on GM's shoddy, flimsy minivan platform. Worse yet, its pricing is horrible for in the U.S., even for a soft and gutless slug. Unless a buyer is just as numb as the handling of the Rendevous, they'd be better served by shopping at a Honda store. Given another 18 months, the Rendevous will be dead in the water. A high-end 3.6 liter model won't be the solution for the Rendevous.

 

Give me examples how to this is true?

I have a 2002 Monte Carlo SS (8000 miles), and the fiance has a 2001 Monte Carlo SS (58000 miles). Both are W-Bodies. Neither have any sort of 'ill-fitting bodies" parts.

My soon to be brother-in-law has a 2002 Impala... again, no 'ill-fitting' anything.

Imapla and Monte Carlo have been praised for their quality level even by those who are unhappy with it's performace.

Try backing up your statements sometimes, because you are quickly becoming one of the more frequent B.S. spewers on this board.

 

Hold on, if you wouldn't keep shifting your arguments around to continue your criticisms of GM I might be able to answer you. You asked if both Malibu and Impala are justified in GM's lineup. The fact that Malibu is on Epsilon and Impala is a W-body should be the obvious answer. They ARE competing for two different classes of buyers. Now you jump to powertrain competence. I'll admit that the Ecotec in stock form has never impressed. It is an engine with a lot of potential but the problem is I don't see "young" Malibu buyers interested in modifying their motors. Then again, have you ever seen a Camry hot-rodder? Buyers in this market aren't looking for a stout performer, they're looking for reliability in a well-executed, affordable package. Whether or not the new Malibu can be described as that I am not sure, since I have no experience with the car!

Again, you keep slamming Rendevous but apparently people do not agree with you. The sales numbers are solid. But I guess if it makes you sleep better at night, keep on bashing. I highly doubt it will affect their sales.

 

By "ill-fitting" body, I think he means that the body is too large for the platform its based on, not that it is put together poorly. If you look at the Monte Carlo, it does seem like the wheelbase is a bit short for the car.

 

I suppose that is a matter of opinion, and not one of fact.

I've never had a problem with it, and I've never heard anyone comment on it as an issue....

Either way, he was actually talking about Impala, not MC.. I just threw my MC in there, because I have actual, real-life experience with the car...

 

That's the point I was trying to make. Both the Impala and Monte Carlo are longer than the other W-body cars. For instance, the overall length of a Regal is in proportion to its overall length. However, Chevrolet went too far in trying to extract the big-car-look from a midsized platform. Of course they made the same mistake with the previous Lumina/MC duo.

 

W-Body Dimensions:

Model / Wheelbase / Length /Width

Regal /109.0 /196.2 /72.7
Century /109.0 /194.6 /72.7
Grand Prix /110.5 /198.3 /71.6
Monte Carlo /110.5 /197.9 /72.7
Impala /110.5 /200.0 /73.0


All pretty much with spitting distance of each other, eh? Grand Prix is actually a half inch longer than Monte Carlo and only an inch and a half shorter than Impala.

GP, Impala, and MC even have a slighter longer wheelsbase than the Buick's wich are slightly shorter.

Again, a total moot point, and knocking the cars for it just

 

Gee, I wonder why I picked the Regal as an example. The oldest surviving W-body permutation is the least offensive and best packaged. That alone speaks volumes about the state of design at General Motors.

 

Um.... couldn't the same be said about both the 3rd and 4th gen F-bodies??

You can also add in that in the rear section, th 4th gen also looks too wide for the chassis it's built on too.

 

So, Regal is fine, while Monte Carlo is unacceptable to you?

All this because Monte Carlo is 1.7 INCHES longer, while riding on a 1.5 inch longer wheelbase to boot, which negates any effect a whopping 1.7 inches could have to begin with?


Again... 1.7 INCHES ?!?!?! That's less than the length of a woman's pinky finger!


Gimme a break!

What a totally ridiculous arguement to make. lol.