Podcast: GMC Yukon and Yukon Denali

Unveiling a Yukon at a California car show when gas prices are as high as they are?

It had better be a HYBRID Yukon if you want to sell any.

Now, I know GM has the DoD technology in their new V8s, but Honda has HYBRID technology. That means they have 250 HP V6s with 38 MPG.

I know GM could make V8 Hybrids, but what would be even better is if you got that hydrogen/fuel cell technology going!

I got so happy to see that GM was catching up to the imports in terms of reliability and build quality, but they still have a tight hold on decent cars that get GREAT fuel economy.

The Cobalt is okay, but you really need to bring some of your other brands into the 21st century. A Pontiac with an OHV engine? Come on now, put a DOHC engine in there, give it all of the good technology I know you have developed, and beat the imports at fuel economy. You can do it if you really want to try.

As I said before, I applaud GM for finally getting DoD to work after it miserably failed 25 years ago when you tried to first implement it with Cadillac in '81. But you really need to get some hybrids out. Sure, they may be a stop gap, but they make car companies look a LOT better in the eyes of consumers, because you get better gas mileage and you seem more environmentally friendly...

It will be a disapointment to see Ford beat you out with their SUV Escape Hybrids just like they beat you with the new Mustang. Come on GM, you can do MUCH better than this.

It pays to go pro and GMC's savy marketing seems to have catapulted the brand to success almost overnight.

So lets get Pontiac into the professional league, rear wheel drive, bucket seats in back and a car to compete with Porsche's planned 4 door Panamera.

Fortune magazine estimates (Oct. 10,2005) that there are 1.6 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil sands in Alberta, 2 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale in the U.S.A.

That is 13 times the 264 billion barrels of oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. High gas prices are fueling big investments in these fields and the cost disadvantages are shrinking.

Snags in supply are bound to appear as 18 oil shortages of the past have shown, so lets be prepared with hybrid and hydrogen, but the days of the full size SUV are faaaaaar from over.

Speaking of great, untapped resources. The success of the HHR is phenomenal, is Buick going to sit on the biggest untapped field of automotive design in the world or is it going to start tapping the well?

I don't care about the orgy of organic orbs ozzing from the Orient. If Buick makes cars like the Buick 8 of its past then GM will be the star it once was. No more pancakes, lets make wonder bread Buicks.

Harley-Davidson doesn't worry about Honda anymore. When Buick finds its soul, it won't be worried either.

There is one huge problem with this SUV, it looks abysmal.

The previous Yukon/Denali wasn't perfect, but it's looks had much more verve than the new one. I'm extremely dismayed at the "been done" styling of this vehicle, and that the Denali no longer has a distinctive face with touches like projector lense lowbeam headlamps that give it a true premium look.

GM trucks have looked the same for years, I would have thought with so much riding on their success that you would have given each of them some pizzaz, much like the Chevrolet Equinox.

There's nothing that stands out about these new SUVs, they are not something you could stare at all day or covet despite high fuel prices, and that isn't going to help them be the exception to the fall of the fullsize SUV.

Huge opportunity missed.

It is amazing all the arm chair quarterbacks insisting that hybrid technology is the only way to go. Hybrids have a number of drawbacks. They are heavy, expensive to produce and maintain, and in real world conditions, are not living up to claimed gas mileage. Displacement on demand is a relatively cheap, simple way to get better gas mileage. I have read that General Motor's full size SUV's will get approximately 27 MPG on the highway and slightly over 20 MPG in the city with displacement on demand and the 6 speed automatic. That is quite an achievement.

Also, I think it is foolish to assume that gas prices will continue to go up. The price increases caused by the oil shortages of 1974 and 1989 resulted in more oil and gas exploration that resulted in oil and gas prices eventually going down. Unless the supply and demand principles of economics have been suspended, this will happen again. I know experts in the media are stating oil will continue to rise, but take this with a grain of salt. Remember during the last years of the Clinton Administration, the Administration's economic advisors stated that the traditional business cycle no longer existed, that recessions would no longer happen? The experts were wrong then and I feel they are wrong now.

I remember during the 1974 oil shortage Frank Borman, ex-NASA astronaut and Chairman and CEO of Eastern Airlines, thought airline fuel would continue to go up and bought 23 Air A-300's because of their fuel efficiency. Oil prices subsequently went dramatically down and Eastern was stuck with a lot of high cost debt. This was a major factor in Eastern going out of business.

An automobile company would be foolish to bet their entire future on hybrid technology.

It's too bad trucks have taken a large portion of the vehicle market. Cars can profile and have personality, trucks are blah (for the most part). I do (of course) know trucks have much utility though.

And I am certainly not blaming GM for this. These days it seems GM is blamed for everything.

A few comments about CAFE standards and EPA mileage ratings since GM keeps beating its drums about mileage leadership in SUVs on this board.

First, mileage standards are set by governments. Those governments, especially the US government, are swayed quite heavily by lobbyists, Congressional leaders from manufacturing states and by big donors such as large corporations. America's mileage standards are half that of Europe, Japan and by a soon to be aggressive efficiency standards to be implemented in China. That means any "flawed methodology" in computing what is really the true MPG is likely a direct result of policy swayed by large American car companies.
Since our oil consumption is almost all a result of vehicle consumption our government, auto industry and consumers are paradoxically contributing to our national security dilemma. No diatribe on whether it is right or wrong or just happens to be because of no strategic thinking.

Now, that said, historically the catch phrase used to be "What is good for GM is good for America.". So, in reality standards were set so companies could pump out high profit vehicles thus helping all involved with bigger tax revenues for government, better return for shareholders, bigger bonuses for auto execs and more good jobs for American workers. Or so that is the theory. And with gas at a buck for a long time, many Americans didn't care what type of gas mileage they got and they usually didn't want diesels especially since GM tried diesels in their cars and had main bearing failure rates(as I recall) that were astronomical because of shoddy engineering.

So, is the reality that GM is just unlucky with the energy situation that has come to pass? Possibly.

The other possibility is that GM has been extremely slow with product innovation and, in my opinion, has done the bare minimum in the US to achieve effiency standards. I would guess GM spends $5+ billion a year on R&D without checking. That would mean GM has likely spent $100+ billion on R&D since the 1970s energy crisis. And for that we get a fleet with an average MPG of 25 instead of 15 thirty years ago. Those are guesses not facts but likely within the ballpark without looking it up. Now, when America sent a man to the moon, we spent $108 billion as a nation and developed whole new industries with the research that went into that project. As stated before, it is unbelievable that GM couldn't do better if a single engineer could take a Prius and make $2K in changes to get 200MPG. People can poo-poo whether the car actually gets 200MPG or whether the electric componentry skews the real MPG but the fact is, it does do something significant to save crude.

Now the argument could be made that GM was just giving the consumer what they wanted. Indeed that is true. But, there is the flip side that GM could have created new markets with new products. The reality is consumers sometimes don't know what they want until a product is developed to fit a latent need. Would GM have successfuly sold a 100MPG diesel hybrid with battery assist for short term trips when gasoline was a buck? No one will ever know. But, in 1985 experts said no one would ever buy a PC for home us and they would never need more than 64K of memory. Thousands of innovations and enhancements later we see new markets were developed and whole new industries created via innovation in that space. Could GM have been that innovator? Could they still be? Absolutely.

This is one situation where the issue is not GM specific. The auto industry moves at glacial speed as it pertains to true product innovation. But GM could have and still could be the global innovation leader by monetizing all of that R&D knowledge and unleashing it's human capital by creating an environment of transformational innovation. But unlocking that value requires new thinking, new processes, new management methodologies and an unshackling of traditional management teachings.
GM is a global leader in diesel engines. GM has a concept diesel hybrid in Europe. Someone on here had a great idea to utilize that efficiency in the new SUVs/pickups. Maybe GM is doing that. Maybe not.
If oil stays over $50 per barrel for an extended period of time, GM will likely suffer severe damage. I was shocked by Mark LaNeve's comments that people were not going to abandon SUV/Pickups. If oil at these prices is a long term trend, GM will likely suffer more than they anticipate in large vehicle sales. One thing is certain. Trends never last forever and they can end violently. ie, Ever increasing SUV/Pickup sales or, for that matter, $60+ oil.
I believe this shows an insular attitude as to what sea changes are taking place. People, other than core users who needed one for work, bought SUVs or pickups because they were a status symbol. There is a very reasonable chance that these same status symbols will become pariahs as people awaken to more than $3 gasoline.

Frankly, even if gasoline drops by a significant amount. That is an awareness of doing what’s right, of being socially responsible, of trying to do some little thing to save our planet from perceived destruction. This is an issue that is gaining momentum and GM needs to recognize it and be out in front as a socially responsible company. That, my friends at GM, is something you are considered the antithesis of.

All said, GM and the entire American auto industry is about to embark on a transformational change of some sorts. The only question is if it will be voluntary or involuntary and will it unleash the innovation of the American auto industry? Will it be bankruptcy? Will it be Tracinda getting board seats and forcing change? Will it be Tracinda with GM management's blessing?
One thing is certain. GM will be a drastically different company in ten years. With catastrophe comes opportunity. Likely a much more competitive company in almost all regards. There will likely be fallout to that change including health care taking a center stage in the national political debate as the auto industry will surely have jettisoned their legacy health care costs.
The auto industry should buckle up because it's likely to go for the ride of the century.

For the last two weeks, your only entries have been "Podcasts". I used to enjoy reading through the items on your blog, but have no intention of wasting my time listening to the prattle on this Lowest Common Denominator media trend. The TV mentality may embrace "Podcasts", but I suspect they have little appeal for the intelligent consumers who buy Toyotas and Hondas.

A few things: Building, selling and servicing the medium and full size SUV market it profitable for GM. Gas prices are up, but prices have been low, and I mean compared to world standard for quite sometime - most Americans are cognizant but the media is polluted with negativety, they'd have you think we're in a crisis - we're not. There are a lot of people that will pay the price at the pump and pay for the SUV's like the Yukon and more powerful Denali - it's not a question of affordability for literally millions of Americans who do have the cash for these bigger vehicles. So look at it this way: GM is filling a need, and that is in the SUV market as a whole. These are profitable vehicles for sure that why GM builds these - fuel cost is now becoming a consideration, but 30MPG on a full size SUV will take some years, but that is not and should not hinder production - GM will add Hybrids, I am sure. And there are also regular people, Americans and others who make money building and fixing them and selling them; and many people make money with these vehicles like Contractors, and they create job. And others that need them (big SUV's) for neccessity, like Fire, Police, Rangers, Border Patrol, Off-Site Maintenence, etc.

The 2007 full size SUV's are great. I say join'em if you can't beat them. So buy a 2007 Yukon or Tahoe and keep more jobs and money in America, or wherever people benefit from these big suv's. I doubt you'd hate the vehicle. And if you can't pay the gas bill, don't worry about it, someone else can handle it. That's all that really matters. Blunt, but true.

Karl Racenis

You wrote, "The TV mentality may embrace "Podcasts", but I suspect they have little appeal for the intelligent consumers who buy Toyotas and Hondas."

Well maybe you could cook up a t.v. dinner for all us t.v. mentality folks, that is if your yuppie intelligence can handle it?

What GM desparately needs in their trucks and SUV's are modern diesels like the one in the Merc E-class or the one in the BMW 5-Series (in Europe). Hybrids are over-priced, over-hyped, under-performing (in reality) and with hideously expensive batteries that die after a few years.

What was the point of the Fiat partnership if not to get modern diesel technology. OK, where is it or was that just 5 billion down an Italian toilet?

That is one fugly truck. Is the interior still as chintzy as always?

Using podcasting to discuss the Yukon and Yukon Denali is a little like using fiber optic cable to make buggy whips.

Seriously GM, how about making a car for THIS century.

You know, the one where gas is $3 a gallon in L.A., and people like RWD and road feel?

Seriously, if you all made a GM version of the Honda Accord Hybrid, but made it roomier and rear-wheel drive (and had a stick shift as an option) you wouldn't be able to keep it in stock.

250hp, RWD, and 30+mpg? A car you could drift/autocross AND carpool with? That would be awesome!

Yet another sub-20mpg SUV? Not so much.

Seriously, remember the last gas crisis? The one where Japan took huge amounts of market share, because domestic manufacturers were making large gas-guzzling poor-handling vehicles no one wanted?

Yeah, a 250hp RWD GM hybrid sedan looks like the way to go right about now.

Just build it!

It looks ridiculous. I am glad I just purchased a new Yukon, because it appears that it will be a while before I will be interested in a new one. Why does GM have to reach for such melo-dramitics in design. Your designs are consistently cheesy, and a joke to the public. You have lost your dignity and respect from the public. Fire Ed Welburn.

The new Tahoe looks great, but you missed it with the Yukon and Yukon Denali. The front clips are ugly.

As for the claim of 27 mpg on the highway -- no way. Not a chance. Maybe 20 mpg highway in the 2WD version driven at a steady 65 mph.

The only way it would get 27 mpg would be if you put a diesel in it. Which is what you should have done from the start.

Edward said previously:
"Harley-Davidson doesn't worry about Honda anymore."

Uh-oh. Isn't that exactly why GM is in the mess it's in today--because they didn't worry enough? Isn't that what every business school in America pounds into MBA students--if you don't continually "worry" about your business and work to improve despite your current success, you will be outsmarted fairly quickly? No, to say that a company is not worried about a competitor is like saying that the company has fallen asleep at the wheel. Check out Harley's stock price lately, and you'll see what I mean.

Incidentally, a great way for Buick to "find its soul" would be to rebadge the Toyota Avalon as a Buick, kindof like the Pontiac Vibe is a rebadged Toyota Matrix. That would work quite well, I think.

Podcasts are worthless when you blog during breaks at work. I just can't afford to spend 12 minutes listening to an interview when I can read/skim articles in less than 1 minute. Sorry.

The new Yukon reminds me of "Odo" on Star Trek DS9. His face was smoothed over so he didn't really look like anyone in particular. Kindof like that: they smoothed out the irregularities until it looked like a bar of soap with wheels.

What's up with the Podcast infatuation lately? It would make more sense to just provide a link to the story and provide some photos of the new vehicles. Really now, how many potential large SUV customers have ipods? Heck, how many even know what an ipod is?

I would prefer to see Mr. Larson standing next to a 2006/7 CAMARO.

Sorry Matt, I assumed that the top brass at GM passed automotive 101 as for you, the last time I checked Buick was a luxury brand and Honda was a value brand.

In China Buick lowered its prices in response to one of Honda's entrys in that market. If a value brand is competing and possibly taking away sales from your luxury brand something is wrong.

Buick will not be worried about a value brand if it were making luxury cars to compete with Lexus as it should.

I had the chance to sit in a Buick automobile from the 1950's about one year ago. I believe it was a Buick Eight. I also stopped at a dealership yesterday and looked at the Buick LaCrosse.

If we could put those two cars side by side it would explain how the once greatest company in the world is fighting for its life. Buick, once the #3 brand had lost something on the way to GM's blind attempt to hone in its divisional heads, make small front drive cars to compete with imports, mindless consolidation of brands into two goofy groups in the 80's. The cookie cutter designs to cut costs and the death of countless models that were its icons like, yes, the Camaro and Firebird.

It takes a long time to fix those cars, that is happening, but it may take decades if ever, to fix the damage done to the brands and repair their image.

GM's cars and trucks are coming back if not back already, its the brands, their image and perceptions that are still years behind, somewhere in the 80's.

And I tell you, they are everywhere, they stopped believing in GM and a number of its brands altogether.

I may be the last one believing but I know what I said, and as long as GM isn't dead I know Buick and GM CAN be what it once was. To do it they need to know where they came from and know how they got there.

Buick needs its independance day, and the Hummer general manager needs something else to do.

It's a good SUV, but I don't like the front end it makes it look like a big Envoy.

Chris,
Indeed your comments are correct that many Americans can afford SUVs at gas prices of $3. The question is if that is enough. I don't know that anyone has all of the answers but a few points of thought.

1) SUV resale values have dropped by 20% in 6 months. New SUV sales are down as much as 60% depending on the specific model. Emotional irrationality or a trend?
2) As a lay person of human psychology and history, it is very apparent trends never last forever and they can end violently. The foregone conclusion that a country still abiding by centralized planning and where 99% of its citizens speak little or no english will eventually rule the world economically. ie, China will likely self destruct or remain little more than the cheap labor pool for western companies without market driven transformation. Or $10 oil will last forever or never ending SUV sales will continue to climb....or $60 oil? Oil is due a correction as is the pricing action with any healthy market driven trend. Has it hit a peak or will it march higher eventually?
3) Some might argue our love of SUVs might be over as it isn't just a matter of affordability anymore.

So the $64 question is is there a sea change? Many believe industrialized countries, especially Americans, have been living with their head in the sand for over thirty years. Many paradoxes exist within our thought processes. $10 oil coming from the most unstable, anti-western culture on the globe. Our ability to do whatever we want by spewing billions of tons of poison into the world without much thought for the consequences. So has the trend changed direction? If oil dropped back to $30 a barrel, would Americans return to thought processes of the past?

Only time will tell, but I believe the train has left the station and a new trend has been crystallized by this shock to our thought processes. And guess who will be the leaders of adopting that new trend? Many of the same people you mention who can afford gasoline prices at $3 a gallon. Why? Because they can. An awareness is developing across the developed world that those who can afford to make a difference want to make a difference. A difference in making our lives safer and making our planet greener. It is driven by that human desire to make our world a better place and a desire to make a difference. What would we do for our children? If GM had operated as a socially responsible company as well as a profit driven company, some of that innovation its labs are capable of would have shown up as products with this theme. And today we'd be seeing media advertising with this theme. GM's customer perception ratings would be significantly higher and it wouldn't be in as big a mess as it is today. Net, net is that doing what's right can be very profitable. Time will tell.

Could you please stop making these radio shows where GM employeed interviewers lob easy questions at Executives. Please only post interviews where the questions and answers ARE NOT prepared in advance. Just because the interviewee says "great question" after every question does not stop the interview from sounding FAKE.

In all honestly I just can't understand GM at all. Tying it's future on full sized, truck based SUVs?

I live in Southern California and our gas prices are high and congestion terrible. Large SUVs in our freeways make less sense than a screen door in a submarine. I guess that a lot of the yuppie moms in my neighboorhood used to want Suburbans and Expeditions for their housekeepers but now I see lots of new Odysseys, Siennas and the odd Toyota SUV. These vehicles, although large, still get over 20mpg. I know our own Odyssey gets over 22 mpg at 80mph on the open road and is roomier inside than a Suburban.

Why is it that GM can't see the light of day -which is not necessarily hybrid- and start building efficient unibody vehicles?

The way it's going, GM SUV's are becoming rare from The Coastal OC.

Me? I'm going for a new S2000.

News flash: The SUV craze is sooooo over. Harley Davidson doesn't worry about Honda anymore? They ought to, their bikes are about as exciting as a Holden Monaro re-badged as a GTO.

Why doesn't GM build a true split bench in the Colorado/CAnyon Reg Cab. Only a lap dog could sit in the middle. IF someone likes buckets, they can get that option. Make the middle of the seat usable, like millions of other small/mid-size trucks from years past and I'd buy one. Crew cabs and extended cabs can't turn on a dime and plug up your garage. I wouldn't own one. Another example of why GM is losing market share.

This "blog" is nothing more then a GM Spin generator. Another avenue to avoid the real issues.

tonyE GM like all car companies can not make money by only selling motorized skateboards at $10/15K. even toyota makes all it profit from its gas guzzlers not it hybrids on which they loose money. do you think a odyssey can pull a 24" race car trailer like a suburban???

Maybe this blog attempts to be a "GM spin generator," however, its interesting that the majority of posts agree that GM has serious self-inflicted problems and that the competition is winning. The occasional happy-feel-good posts tend to have that borderline irrational, I'd-die-before-buying-foreign slant to them. So I would agree that this is a spin generator, if the goal of the spin is to reinforce both internally and externally that the 20th century is over and its time for a totally new business model.

If full size SUV's do not make sense and indicate GM is out of touch, then why has Toyota and Nissan spent billions of dollars on new designs, tooling, and plants to build full size SUV's?

GM redesigning their full size SUV's makes business sense since they dominate the full-size SUV's segment and have made considerable profit in doing so. GM just won Strategic Vision’s buyers’ satisfaction survey for their full size SUV which are at the end of their life cycle; an impressive indication of how competitive GM is in a segment that includes Toyota and Nissan.

Some of the comments I have read are very negative apparently because of an anti-SUV attitude. If a person wants a full-size SUV and can afford it, they certainly should have an opportunity to buy one. Personal freedom is one of the things America is all about.

If you want to find real comment and great links go here:

http://www.gminsidenews.com/

That applies not only to consumers here, but to GM people, including Bob Lutz, who seems to have dissapeared.

What I find most interesting about GM-EVERY single Overseas company owned by GM, whether it be Opel for GMBrazil, etc etc make better looking vehicles inside and outside than GM North America.
Why does the rest of the world get good looking vehicles and we get crap?
You obviously have inferior talent Stateside, from designers to parts to marketing. Why not just bring some overseas talent over here and start producing cars that people want to buy?
And..................10 YEAR WARRANTY

Too sad. This used to be an interesting blog, giving rare 'behind the curtain' information (especially the entries from Bob Lutz). Now GM seems to have converted it to podcast-only. I'm not interested in audio. If I can't read the info here, I'll look for it elsewhere.

steve g i bet those overseas countries goverments do not stick their noses into cars design like they do in the USA. i bet they do not have a CAFE or a gas guzzler tax.

GM has more to worry about in the last few weeks. Their prior created mess at Delphi is blowing up in their face and they are trying to steer the ship in tight confines.

This blog is a good idea but they will likely spend less time dealing with us ingrates that wish to hold GM management accountable for this mess. I would be surprised if GM knew the responses would be so negative. Why would you create a blog where all of the press can read the responses and get supporting views of their generally negative stance?

It is a sign that GM management is so insular that they had no idea the consumer sentiment was so bad. Of course, anyone with an IQ above 82 should know that when you lose 50% of your market share in 30 years.

Motorman,

I don't think you're right about the regulations in other countries. Are you aware of the ridiculous "pedestrian safety" regulations taking effect in Europe. They're ruining many otherwise pleasant automobile designs.

C'mon people; let's not be so harsh. I don't see anybody harping because Toyota is introducting a 268hp Rav4 or because Honda is producing a 255hp truck. GM isn't going to walk away from a large & profitable segment of it's portfolio -- regardless of gas prices. Some people need a large vehicle that has the capability of towing. Some people prefer driving a large, roomy truck. Give GM credit on this: these trucks will have unsurpassed gas mileage for the full-size truck/suv segment. As for small, gas-friendly cars, GM hasn't abandoned that segment either: as can be witnessed by the Aveo, the Cobalt and the Malibu. I didn't see one person comment that the Malibu gets better gas mileage than the Honda Accord or the Toyota Camry -- regardless if you compare 6-cyl models or the 4-cyl models -- and to think GM's Malibu is disadvantaged with a dated 4-speed transmission.

Don't want an SUV? Don't buy an SUV! BTW, full-hybrid models of these SUV's will debut next year.

>steve g i bet those overseas countries goverments do not stick their noses into cars design like they do in the USA. i bet they do not have a CAFE or a gas guzzler tax.

Most of their cars are made to international specs, at least they will be from now on.
The design of the vehicles, interior and exterior has nothing to do with those regs anyway.
They are designed better than they are here. They look better inside and out and there's no reason why we should get ugly cars here.
Wake up GM!

Love the site!!

To reply to motorman... I am not implying that GM -or any other company- should make it's profit off 15K motor skates, that would be as foolish as a car company attempting to make all of its money off truck based SUVs.

What I noted is that an automotive company should offer a range of vehicles that are in tune with the market realities. And properly designed unibodys offer more bang for the engineering dollar. Honda, for example, only has three major platforms, yet from them they make a whole range of vehicles. From relatively gas guzzling light duty trucks to very economic subcompacts. The niche products are the sport cars.

That's the problem with GM you see? It's betting the farm on a single type of vehicle that is not very fuel efficient and is tied down to a narrow range of vehicles(not in volume but in type, ie: SUV/truck ) and is doing so ignoring the threat of rising gas prices for the last four years.

Now then, you bring up the point of towing a race vehicle. Should GM bet its business servicing folks that need to tow 10000 lbs? Huh? That's not a great market. I suppose it will be OK for maybe 5% of the market tops, but for most folks it's simple overkill and a luxury. I can't imagine that GM can support run rates of 1.5 mil units per year on heavy duty trucks and SUVs when gas is hovering around three bucks a gallon. Ther Impala SS may have a V8, but who cares? Where are the efficient, high quality, high value small, medium and large cars? Where are the efficient, high quality, high value small SUVs?

Don't tell me about the G6 or Cobalt. In an age when a Honda Civic comes with a five speed automatic and the Toyota Corolla ain't far behind, the Cobalt is doomed to exist only as a rental car. The G6 is similarly doomed. The interior is cheap looking and the powertrain is simply not up to par (neither in spec nor real world ) to what Honda and Nissan are putting out. Even Hyunday for cryin' out loud.

That's because GM is shortchanging its long term R&D in exchange for the high profit that its SUVs used to bring. Unfortunately the market is shifting and GM never made plans to get off it's opiated dependence on SUVs and trucks.

In contrast to GM, other manufacturers, even Chrysler, have come out with cars and are making a good effort at minivans too. Even Ford has paid some attention to its cars.

Toyota? That's the Evil Empire. Amazing outfit. Best PR in the world.

Oh, the S2000 is not a cheap skate either. Cheapest legal thrill short of a sports bike, but not $15K. I doubt Honda makes much money off it, but like the Vette it's great PR for the company.

In response to:

(Could you please stop making these radio shows where GM employeed interviewers lob easy questions at Executives. Please only post interviews where the questions and answers ARE NOT prepared in advance. Just because the interviewee says "great question" after every question does not stop the interview from sounding FAKE.)

Please know that the answers to the interviews are NOT prepared in advance. Yes, the questions may be thought out and formulated ahead of time but any experienced interviewer follows that as standard procedure. You have to have an idea of where you want the interview to go.

tony e the 6 speed trans in the new corvette only makes 1 MPG difference not worth the extra they charge and i drive a 05 corvette with the 4 speed auto and this car make 20 every day and 28 on the road with 400HP. most car buyers have no idea what is under the hood either engine or trans as my wife was in the car business for 15 year and the most asked question was not what is the MPG or how many gears in the trans BUT how much are the monthly payments.people will adjust to the $3.00 per gallon just as they adjusted to the $1.50 per gallon. the trouble this time was that the raise in price came in one big jump not slow increments like before.

In 1973 gas prices spiked because of OPEC. We saw mass mayhem and some consumers turning to fuel efficient automobiles. The 1974 model year wasn't very happy for the Big Three.

By the 1976 model year the Big Three had their best Year To Date. 1977 and 1978 followed suit. The "crisis" as far as gas guzzlers was over.

Now it is 2005. Prices again have spiked. But if you look at the price of gasoline in the 1980's, the price now is really in line with inflation.

I do not see GM hurting with their new 2007 Yukon Denali. In fact it probably will do quite well.

cmutt my wifes Malibu is getting 24 to 25 mpg with a V6 and ALL city driving! The new platform for Malibu makes for a good car. motorman I could agree more! As for me, I drive an ole 88 Pontiac Fiero. I got over 38 mpg on a trip to Detroit a few weeks ago. Its fun to drive and doesnt look like the cookie cutter look a like imports. Toyota needs to get new designers!

New Yukon/Denali both built in the same factory.Show me another American or foreign SUV that has won the JD Power awards consecutively like the current builds. DOD and six speed transmission are just the icing on the cake. The new styling of the sheet metal gives the Denali the look of a Caddy. It purrs like a kitten. I challenge you to test drive this new vehicle and tell me it was not a fantastic experience!

I have a 2005 Yukon Denali that rides like a school bus on rough roads.
How can I get a better ride?
Can I ditch the Stb. control and add LT shocks?
What was GMC thinking?
We want a smooth quiet ride...not a 4x4 that can go 90 mph around a skunk in the road.
I don't know anyone that drives their Yukon like that.
Why does GM keep marketing the Yukon that way?

C.