Don't light horizontal backlights.
The big problem with the Solstice's styling is the Bugs Bunny nose. I just can't get past it.
I really like the Sky's styling. Probably because it pretends to be a Vauxhall VX220, and that's goodness.
But I wouldn't buy either. Too big, too heavy and not very intelligent design - have you looked in the trunk of one? Sure, you don't buy a sports car for the trunk space, but it looks as if the engineers weren't even trying to do a good design.
ReverendDexter wrote: The issue that I see is that people aren't buying new cars in the first place, and when they are, they're not buying American. American manufacturers need to figure out why this is, and remedy it, or they deserve to go bankrupt.
They're not American companies any more, they're publicly traded companies owned by shareholders. This makes them WORLD companies, just like Kia, Toyota and any other public company.
If they can't succeed in business they will go under. Look how well British Leyland worked out.
Shawn
mtn wrote:Moparman wrote: The Bird is much better looking than the Cougar.I agree... But the Cougar is still way cool. At least to me.
See what I mean? To this day, each has their supporters. The previous generation was the same sheetmetal with different badges and trim, you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart from a distance.
1980 Cougar:
1980 Thunderbird:
Ah, the 1980 Thunderbird. By far, the nicest Ford Fairmont that money could buy. It is quite the reminder of how radical the next Thunderbird and Taurus were for their time.
The Solstice and Sky are a quantum leap forward for the General in the sporty convertible market but as usual it's too little too late. Mazda reignited that whole part of the market in 1989 with the Miata, it only took GM what? 18 years? to respond to the message. I am reminded of a story I read when I was a kid about the snake who was so long, he'd bite his own tail when he went to bed and the next morning the pain would finally reach his head and wake him up.
Heck, at least GM tried. Ford and Chrysler never did respond. I know, I know: the Mustang is available as a 'vert but it's way big and is more of a boulevard cruiser, Chrysler's attempt was the PT Cruiser convertible, again a boulevard cruiser rather than a real sporty car.
Who here doesn't think they could have done some parts bin engineering and built a really cool sporty car? Instead, Ford plowed zillions into the Ford GT, a cool car but pretty limited marketability. What if, instead, Ford had dropped that coin on a RWD Zetec powered roadster?
Chrysler pumped a ton of R&D dollars into the Challenger just to have it hit the market at completely the wrong time. What if they had built a RWD car powered by the 2.4 DOHC turbo motor instead?
aaaaand GM says they lose 10k on every quantum leap solstice/sky they sell, which is why they have already killed development of the next generation due in 2010-2011
There are no plans to redo the Solstice / Sky platform.
I was just at the internal broadcast where fritz henderson said we would focus on 4 core brands. (chev, GMC , Buick, cadillac)
I know what that means for Satrun , saab , and hummer, Pontiac is still up in the air. Some reports say it will be niche market with 2 -3 hi-perf vehicles , some say it's gone. cost permitting it would be nice to see them use this brand as a gateway/ Showcase for the international cars. (Hi perf astra, Monaro / commodore, ect)
fingers crossed... The next 18 mos. is going to be exciting.
JM GMAC-GMPP national Marketing Manager (Canada) Not part of the problem!
00VW TDI 89 Si $2008 Challenge Effort 86 fiero GT Northstar 32V V8 5spd 79 Caddy 66 corvair turbo blow through , WRX intercooler , T04E..ect 56 Isetta.
Moparman wrote: GM has too much internal competition. Does Chevy, Pontiac and Buick each need to have a mid-sized sedan, an SUV, etc? Of course not. They are just cannibalizing each others' sales, supporting unnecessary dealers, unnecessary parts (sharing a platform, but no body panels is VERY inefficient) and personnel. There is no need for Chevrolet trucks and GMC trucks. One or the other. Cadillac should exist as a premiun brand and offer anything and everything its well-heeled clientele demand. Chevrolet should build entry level cars, affordable family cars, affordable performance cars and the iconic Corvette. Pontiac can offer more refined performance-oriented sedans. Buick needs to become extinct. Saturn, why? As for the ideas of making one division an "import" division is that cars built outside of North America do not count towards CAFE numbers. This was to appease the UAW by discouraging more overseas manufacturing. Ford should ditch Mercury, quite possibly the most irrelavent brand in Detroit. Chrysler: Sadly there is no reason for Chrysler to exist. Jeep is the only valuable brand. Yes Dodge makes a good truck, but the sector is already well served. Dodge was once the domestic small car leader, but poor management (squandered the success of the "cab-forward" days) and the Daimler scourge left Chrysler a barren woman. Chrysler (the marque) has no luxury identity and may be the second most irrelavent brand after Mercury (although Buick can fit in here as well).
I couldn't agree more, and I couldn't have said it better myself!
Strizzo wrote: aaaaand GM says they lose 10k on every quantum leap solstice/sky they sell, which is why they have already killed development of the next generation due in 2010-2011
Mazda and Honda will be happy to hear that.
Moparman wrote: Second, GM has too much internal competition. Does Chevy, Pontiac and Buick each need to have a mid-sized sedan, an SUV, etc? Of course not. They are just cannibalizing each others' sales, supporting unnecessary dealers, unnecessary parts (sharing a platform, but no body panels is VERY inefficient) and personnel. There is no need for Chevrolet trucks and GMC trucks. One or the other. Cadillac should exist as a premiun brand and offer anything and everything its well-heeled clientele demand. Chevrolet should build entry level cars, affordable family cars, affordable performance cars and the iconic Corvette. Pontiac can offer more refined performance-oriented sedans. Buick needs to become extinct. Saturn, why? As for the ideas of making one division an "import" division is that cars built outside of North America do not count towards CAFE numbers. This was to appease the UAW by discouraging more overseas manufacturing. Ford should ditch Mercury, quite possibly the most irrelavent brand in Detroit. Chrysler: Sadly there is no reason for Chrysler to exist. Jeep is the only valuable brand. Yes Dodge makes a good truck, but the sector is already well served. Dodge was once the domestic small car leader, but poor management (squandered the success of the "cab-forward" days) and the Daimler scourge left Chrysler a barren woman. Chrysler (the marque) has no luxury identity and may be the second most irrelavent brand after Mercury (although Buick can fit in here as well).
I agree with almost everything you say (except I think Caddy needs the Escalade, but not the EXT version). I also think Cadillac should increase their prices (and quality), and sell fewer cars. Every brand now has to have a vehicle in nearly every segment, which creates a mess (I think a lot of the mess Wall Street is in is due to every company trying to do everything, instead of doing one thing very well, but that's another topic).
But, the dealerships have the D3 by the balls. Pontiac-GMC dealers need the vehicles to compete with Chevy, or else they'll whine to corporate and threaten with lawsuits (Mercury dealers have been doing this a lot recently). GM has way too many dealerships right now, all of which have about 90 days worth of cars that GM really owns. That much inventory is expensive to carry, and in times of slow sales, the factories still build cars to sit on dealers' lots.
I still think factories should sell cars direct to the public at straight MSRP (or discounted) and bypass crooked dealers altogether.
P71 wrote: I still think factories should sell cars direct to the public at straight MSRP (or discounted) and bypass crooked dealers altogether.
That's just the kind of radical shift that could happen if the market were allowed to correct. Instead, we'll bail them out to support an antiquated system...
Jensenman wrote: Chrysler pumped a ton of R&D dollars into the Challenger just to have it hit the market at completely the wrong time. What if they had built a RWD car powered by the 2.4 DOHC turbo motor instead?
didn't Chrysler have several small RWD "sports" consepts, copperhead, razor, any others? But what did we get? a 2 ton challenger :(
neon4891 wrote: didn't Chrysler have several small RWD "sports" consepts, copperhead, razor, any others? But what did we get? a 2 ton challenger :(
yeah, I liked the razor concept, and what about the hornet? that looked cool to me. I'd take either of those over a caliber
On the news the other day, they were reporting on the failure of local dealers, and the dealers were interviewed. It really felt like a paid advertisement. Come help out the POOR car dealers they need your help. Boo Hoo, i'll wait till your tanking and go get me a twofer on some truck or another. but anyway I really want an F body, or a miata so anyone out there that needs a laptop and wants to trade let me know.... Pause for recognition of randomness
DILYSI Dave wrote: Car dealers begging for pitty is funny. Is there a more reviled segment of society?
Real Estate agents. The only other sector of retail America that refuses to acknowledge that the consumer just might be able to do research on their own and might have a clue about the product they are trying to buy.
neon4891 wrote:Jensenman wrote: Chrysler pumped a ton of R&D dollars into the Challenger just to have it hit the market at completely the wrong time. What if they had built a RWD car powered by the 2.4 DOHC turbo motor instead?didn't Chrysler have several small RWD "sports" consepts, copperhead, razor, any others? But what did we get? a 2 ton challenger :(
The "Razor" went FWD and we know it as the Neon SRT-4. If they had offered that car as it was in the concept (turbo 4 cylinder, 5-speed, RWD, crank windows, no radio, no A/C, MSRP < $14k) I would've pre-ordered one.
oldopelguy wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: Car dealers begging for pitty is funny. Is there a more reviled segment of society?Real Estate agents. The only other sector of retail America that refuses to acknowledge that the consumer just might be able to do research on their own and might have a clue about the product they are trying to buy.
Don't forget lawyers.
ReverendDexter wrote: The "Razor" went FWD and we know it as the Neon SRT-4. If they had offered that car as it was in the concept (turbo 4 cylinder, 5-speed, RWD, crank windows, no radio, no A/C, MSRP < $14k) I would've pre-ordered one.
Rev, I think you're in the 1% that would buy a car with no radio or A/C. That's a car that really doesn't have much of a market here in the U.S.
Most people refer to a car without a radio or A/C as a motorcycle. I had one and used my iPod to replace the radio. There were days where I would've run over my own legs for A/C.
DILYSI Dave wrote:P71 wrote: I still think factories should sell cars direct to the public at straight MSRP (or discounted) and bypass crooked dealers altogether.That's just the kind of radical shift that could happen if the market were allowed to correct. Instead, we'll bail them out to support an antiquated system...
Direct to customer sales could be done easily on the interwebs. Thats got the wheels turning.
You'll need to log in to post.