Thanks for the Input

In 2007, GM will offer 23 models that get more than 30 mpg — that's more than any other automaker in the world.

And GM will also offer zero models that get more than 40 mpg.

Ed,

I agree and think that the H3 is a fine vehicle for South Africa. Its about time people over there had an alternative to Toyota Land Cruisers and Land Rovers. And it gives GM more global presence, something that is sorely needed even from a U.S. perspective, when you consider immigrants come to the U.S. in such numbers and when they want to buy a car the only brand they had exposure to was, for instance, Toyota or some other Japanese brand. I see that in the Vietnamese American community a lot. People buy Toyota or Mercedes because that's often all they know from their home country. And those buying trends and brand loyalty carry over to the new country.

Here's to seeing more global GM product. And stop renaming cars that don't need it. I hope that the Saturn ION becomes the Saturn ASTRA when that car design is used here.

There's no reason to have U.S. specific nameplates for well-respected global vehicles.

Please bring burgundy back to Buick interiors. You had it in concept cars a couple of years ago. It looked great!

And bring sky blue back to Chevrolet. These simple points of difference add greatly to brand identity.
Also, push through a trim design that's unique to Chevy. The fakewood is ssoooooo tired. Yes, tell Bob to stop requiring it!!!!

Give us all a Stingray-inspired Corvette with the Nomad-style front end!!!!

Get the upscale look of the Enclave's face onto the Lucerne PRONTO! Right now it looks like a stupid rental for granddad, a pale reflection of the Buick brand face. What's with that bumper shape?

Agressively push to get a rear-drive sedan beauty named Electra that you can personally pour the Buick DNA onto! It would be glorious!

Paul,
I do not get people like you,Lets face the facts how many car makers make vehicles with 40mpg?how many of these little things(Yaris,Aveo) are on the road?how many people would want to drive them.lets be real.we have money to drive bigger cars and for the most part gm makes them and they are good.
Do not whine all the time.Get your thoughts right.

You know Paul, I'm sick of this nonsense of 40, 50,60 mpg. While I will agree wholeheartedly with you about the Aveo having relatively poor fuel economy, and the need to bring more diesel engines to the U.S. for cars,I am amazed you won't give credit where credit is due: most of those 23 cars are GM's popular models like Malibu, Impala, G6, Lucerne, etc. Also, they have one thing in common; They can achieve this WITHOUT the need of a set of $5000.00 batteries that WILL yes, WILL need to be replaced in 5-8 years. So, all that money saved on gas will go right in the pockets of TOYMOTOR buying THEIR batteries. Yes Victoria, 30 MPG in a 3750 lb car is a significant achievement!!!!

In all this focus on the styling, please do not forget the customer. GM cannot just sit back and accept that its dealer network is "out of control".
GM dealers need to be held to a higher standard with constant training, feedback, and a little heavy-handedness (but many incentives).
Maybe link dealer cash to increased sales and high feedback scores or something.

If every GM dealer tried to be like Saturn, Saturn moved up even more, and Cadillac went after Lexus in dealership experience, you'd have a lot more customers today.
There is no reason you should be average.
Work quietly and efficiently to make GM dealers the best (P.S. Let this one spread by word of mouth; no need to spend useless money advertising).

Lastly, speaking of design, I hope you can find money someday to help your dealers keep up-to-date in terms of showroom design.
Some dealerships are absolutely dreadful.

I'm glad that you are successful in South Africa! And I understand that attention is being put there, but North America needs more attention in my opinion. People are buying Toyota's without even considering GM. I want to know what GM is going to do about this.
Advertising needs much improvement. I love GM, but I must say that it is rediculously bad (for the most part).
The new Malibu is supposed to be amazing, and I truely hope that it will be. If it is, I will trade in my G5 for one.
In your article above, you say that the cars' design is about courage. I believe what you say by seeing upcoming products like the Aura, or Camaro.

So. I will just finish off by saying great job! Keep up the great work and fix the advertising! It needs help!

I will even email you what is wrong with it, and how to fix it if you want :)

Ed,

It would be great to see the thought and passion that you obviously have for Africa actually IMPLEMENTED in the new designs at GM. Not flagrant, flamboyant designs for the sake of being different, but real, useable, and class leading designs. That's what GM should be striving for, but you all act as though you won't be around to see next year. Not everyone wants the cheapest car that you can possibly produce. Why is that the direction these days? Be honest - is it really working?

Lutz said one of the greatest influences on design is management. Recently he said that at GM there would be no more boring designs. To a designer it literally liberates their hands, ideas and dreams and sets free their spirit. That's why when management makes a statement like that these designers deliver such cars as the Aero X and Efijy and a whole host of other great designs both revealed and under cover.

I am just loving the design competitions, what a great idea to let those 6 design houses compete to see who will make the next great Buick. There was one other thing I wanted to comment on while we were bouncing ideas off eachother. Lutz said the designers will design the car then the engineers must figure out how to make it work; no more changing designs for ease of engineering.

The bottom line is this. When a consumer sees a design those vibes, those things which forged that design are received by the consumer. When a designer's hand is constrained, the customer instantly picks up on this. When the designer expresses themself with excitement like in the Chevy TLC (You know that pocket rocket in Paris) we got it, we got that vibe all the way over here in NJ.

Well what does it all mean? Look, understand when GM had a 50% market share and it was extending fins, fender flares and raising the roof and rounding the trunk. Those things were great but what sold those cars was not how long the fender flares were or how long the fins, what sold those cars was the great vibe that was created in Detroit and it spread all the way to the showroom. Customers pick up on all that excitement in design. Today the excitement centers around the latest gadget like self parking and hybrids but design will trump everything.

So back to engineers yielding to design.

Ed, this is exactly what GM should be doing with its product lineup. First you figure out what is the PERFECT Buick line-up? What is the PERFECT GMC line-up and then have the organization figure out how to get it. In other words no more, "Hay Buick we got a pick up you want some of this?" "Hay Pontiac we got minivan you want some of this?"

We should have flexible manufacturing figured out by now, you got the basic platform and factory you should be able to make anything. Think about what kind of showroom GM should have and then figure out how to get there. Don't sit in a room with a minivan and then try and figure out how to squeeze that minivan into every showroom.

Ed, you and GM are better than that now.

Keep the momentum alive!!!

"Your comments also held a very important debate about American jobs and the future of American manufacturing. The assembly plant I visited in South Africa will not displace a single American plant. Hummers will continue to be made in the U.S. for North American buyers."

My question was more pointed. Specifically, how does purchasing, (for example) a Chevy-branded Daewoo or other "captive import," built in Asia, benefit the consumer, the taxpayer, or the US economy more than buying a Toyota or Honda built in (for example) Ohio or Indiana, by Americans?

Mr. Welburn: Thanks for the news on the new 4 door Astra that will be introduced at the Istanbul Motor Show Nov 3-12.

Hopefully this great looking sedan will be coming to the U.S. to replace the ION sedan.

Will the Astra Twin-Top be offered as a replacement for the ION Quad Coupe and 4 passenger alternative for Sky owners?

One of the first “Turnaround by Design” models should be the Astra 2 Door Hardtop Coupe from the Twin-Top.

It would have the great looks of the Twin Top at a much lower cost and could be the “Must Have” car for the Tuner crowd; especially if it was offered with the 260 HP 2.0L Turbo and 6-speed.

Another alternative would be a Quad Coupe version with the rear doors of the current ION (this is a great idea that will catch on with the right car).

Yet another alternative would be a 3 door hatch with the Twin Top styling opposed to the shorted styling of the GTC model.

What GM could do is offer the Quad Coupe as a Saturn in addition to the Saturn Twin Top Convertible giving Saturn (2) two unique models.

SAAB could offer the 3 door hatch (Twin Top) version complete with optional “Panoramic” windshield giving SAAB a car that young buyers would love with the versatility of a hatch design. It would even have more cargo room than the current Astra 3 door and could be sold in Europe as a unique to SAAB model. SAAB could also offer the 1.9L Turbo Diesel giving GM a sporty coupe that could deliver 45 MPG.

Pontiac could offer the 2 Door Coupe with the 260 HP 2.0L Turbo from the Solstice GXP complete with either 6-speed manual or automatic transmissions.

Chevy could even substitute a cloth top and beef up the Twin-Top structure as required to make a Cobalt Cabrio model.

These alterations to an already great design would give GM (4) all new “Must Have” products for little investment.

As for the rest of the Astra lineup, please make sure that Saturn gets all (4) of the current models.

I do like the current 3 Door and 5 Door hatch models and think the “Panoramic Windshield” option on the 3 Door GTC would be a big hit in the U.S. market.

GM also has an opportunity to introduce the Easytronic transmission to the U.S. market with the Astra. DCX and VW are both offering similar transmissions on their new small cars. From what I have read these transmissions give drivers the option of manual shifting when they want it but with the option to let the car shift automatically for those dreaded stop and go city driving situations. There seems to be about a 1 second penalty in 0-60 times but most cars get even better MPG with the Easytronic than with even a 6-speed manual.

Finally do not forget about the Estate model, if GM will not offer it as a Saturn; make it a SAAB 9-2X replacement.

The same would apply to the current 3 Door and 5 Doors, the OPC trim versions would also make great SAAB models and bring back the unique and versatile character of the SAAB Turbo.

The best SAAB model of all would be the Turbo-Diesel hybrid concept GM showed at a few car shows recently.

SAAB should be GM’s Hybrid division as well as AWD and Turbo-Diesel.

What a great lineup GM could make from just one existing platform.

2 Door Pontiac G-5 Coupe (or SAAB 9-2X Coupe)
2 Door Cobalt Cabrio (or SAAB 9-2X Cabrio)
2 Door Saturn Astra Twin Top (Hardtop Convertible)
Quad Coupe Saturn Astra
3 Door Sport Hatch SAAB 9-2X (Twin Top Style)
3 Door Hatch Saturn Astra
3 Door Hatch SAAB 9-2X
4 Door Saturn Astra (and/or 4 Door Buick Skyhawk)
5 Door Saturn Astra
5 Door SAAB 9-2X
5 Door SAAB Turbo Diesel Hybrid
5 Door SAAB Sport Combi (Wagon)

The next generation Delta architecture could have an AWD model for SAAB 9-2X and be the basis for a crossover 9-4X.

Just some thoughts on a existing platform that GM could get 4 more years out of in the U.S. market and would be able to offer in other markets for maybe another 8 years.

These models would all sell well and be the base for a desirable 40 MPG compact with a 1.8L 140 HP Astra with Easytronic.

A 50 MPG 1.9L Turbo Diesel Astra with the 6 Speed automatic (from the Zafira) or a 60 MPG Turbo-Diesel Hybrid.

At least offer a 50 MPG E-85 capable BioPower Hybrid with even better MPG performance with a Plug in Hybrid option.

The Astra Line in Europe also has some great color options on the OPC models and the Astra would be a good line to try some new color ideas for the interior.

Make sure that desirable options like 8 way power seats, heated steering wheels, AFL lighting and other European Astra options make it to the U.S.

The Astra lineup alone could be a real perception changer for GM, and don’t forget that you could build some of these great models at the Spring Hill plant.

Thanks again for asking and I hope I gave you some ideas.

Borderless - that's the word!

Ed, what you and GM have failed to notice is that the consumers of the world has gone borderless! We're frustrated that the Sony PS3 is not released at the same time in the whole world - And we're even more frustrated that an Opel in Europe is sold as Chevy in South America and Saturn in the US, and to complicate matters even more Daewoo is sold in Europe as Chevy! An the real Chevy's are not sold at all in Europe!

If you want to continue beeing a player in the whole world - you've got to stop reusing your brand names and vehicles! Otherwise you'll end up with a a bunch of bland names on bland vehicles.

Hi Jennifer,
if you are interested in the Astra, there's a story: http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/11090/news-saturn-ion-to-be-replaced-by-opel-astra-in-2007.html
I'm also of the opinion, the Astra should keep its name to emphasize, that there is coming along something real new. If GM might offer the Astra with the CDTi-Diesel, it should get the 40+ mpg, mentioned by Paul.

When the next generation Corsa will enter Saturn-showrooms, I think the Asian competitors really will start to sweat.

Selling vehicles that get over 30 mpg isn't anything new. Every Toyota car currently sold in the US gets over 30 mpg (including the full-sized Avalon, which clocks in at 31 mpg on the highway). Several of their cars get at least 40 mpg, and at least one gets over 50 mpg. You guys must be sick of hearing that - but it's something consumers are very conscious of. Especially with gas at $2+ per gallon.

This "style renaissance" is nice and all, but there's a lot of us who want to hear about a design renaissance, a quality renaissance, and a technology renaissance. The H3 is just lipstick on the old GMC truck pig; most of its technology dates back to the 1940's, when live rear axles and solid ladder frames were all the rage. As an off-road vehicle, it's probably tolerable ... but in terms of putting GM back on the global map (where companies like Toyota and Honda have soundly trampled it), it's not even a blip on the radar.

Part of what GM hasn't figured out yet is the idea that big isn't always better. The Hummer probably has its redeeming qualities, but there are many of us who won't buy it simply because of its grotesque connotation with excess and frivolity (not to mention the fact that 19mpg is embarrassingly poor mileage, even by SUV standards). Ditto for Cadillac - there are *many* companies out there that produce world-class vehicles in small, clean packages. The only reasonably sized vehicle that I see in Cadillac's current American offerings is the XLR. But seventy-eight thousand dollars? Please - I can doll up a Mercedes AMG SLK55 for less than that. No wonder I see so few XLR's on the road.

I'd love to see some articles on the Fastlane blog about the vehicles GM is working on for the masses. Show me a viable competitor for the Corolla and the Civic. Talk about how GM is going to compete with advanced hybrids like the Prius and Insight. Give me a good reason why I should even think about going into a GM showroom when I trade in my C-class Benz next year - when companies like Acura and Lexus are producing small, tightly designed vehicles that combine excellent mileage with world-class handling and build quality (not to mention higher resale values). Tell me about GM's plans to replace the decrepit Cobalt (aka Cavalier, aka Monza) with something that's even remotely in the league of the VW GTI and Jetta - cars with a 30+ year pedigree of world-class designs that redefined our expectations of compact-sized cars.

Show me all of that, and I'll show you a company that is taking things seriously. But as long as we keep talking about re-badged pickup trucks and huge lumbering Cadillacs, it seems clear that GM is still living out its big car fantasies of the 1960's.

"...how does purchasing, (for example) a Chevy-branded Daewoo or other "captive import," built in Asia, benefit the consumer, the taxpayer, or the US economy more than buying a Toyota or Honda built in (for example) Ohio or Indiana, by Americans?"

I really don't understand that question. Buying a car, built by Daewoo, generates the same way profits for GM (what's good for US-economy), like buying an Opel in Germany or a Holden in Australia. If you choose a Toyota or Honda, the money goes to Japan. Right?

To GMO:

That's not true. The Corvette, Tahoe, (and at earlier times the Camaro) are also available in Europe. The re-introduction of the all-new Camaro will be seriously considered for Europe, too, as I could read over here. The Kroymans-Group and Geiger Cars, Munich, even offer Hummer in Germany. Furthermore we get every Cadillac-model (exception: DTS) BTW, other car-manufacturers do badge-engineering, either.

Sorry to be contradicting, but the H3 getting 19mpg on the highway is not anything to boast about; personally it is embarrassing when compared to the Tahoe and TrailBlazer. If it is offered with a diesel and can get high 20's, then brag, otherwise it is an insult to our intelligence. BTW, it is a very good looking vehicle and would love one in my driveway if it had a little more muscle turning the wheels.

"Selling vehicles that get over 30 mpg isn't anything new. Every Toyota car currently sold in the US gets over 30 mpg "
Hardly ! What a misleading general statement that is !The base 4 cyl models do, but the V-6 models don't. Try driving a 4cyl Solara ! Put more than 1 person in the underpowered slug, and kiss that 31mpg goodbye. And Toyota's trucks slurp gas as much as or more than other makes. Stop using Toyota as the gold standard, when the their only qualification is hype.

"I do not get people like you,Lets face the facts how many car makers make vehicles with 40mpg? How many of these little things (Yaris,Aveo) are on the road?how many people would want to drive them. Lets be real. We have money to drive bigger cars and for the most part GM makes them and they are good." - Besa

Where I live, almost everyone drives a small car. The biggest car on my block is a Nissan Altima, and that's one of the college kids who doesn't have to deal with city life. I can count on one hand the number of SUVs I see parked in front of people's houses during my morning commute. Most of the ones I see day to day are suburbanites who commute into town.

On my run to the post office during my lunch hour, I saw four Prius, three Mini Coopers, and a slew of Corollas, Civics, and, yes, Aveos. And how did I get to the post office? My 70 mpg scooter. That should go to show you that different markets buy different vehicles.

If GM wants my business, they will make a five-door compact or subcompact car that gets over 40 mpg. Yes, Victoria, there are people who don't want to drive huge cars, even if they can afford them.

I really don't understand that question. Buying a car, built by Daewoo, generates the same way profits for GM (what's good for US-economy), like buying an Opel in Germany or a Holden in Australia. If you choose a Toyota or Honda, the money goes to Japan. Right? - Mr. Langlitz

The profits go to the parent company, yes. However, most of the cost of a car is in the engineering and the manufacturing. If I buy a Honda made in the US, that money goes first to the dealership, who takes a cut, then to the factory, who takes a bigger cut to pay the workers and finally back to the home office to pay the engineers. The profit is distributed to the shareholders, which, in today's global economy, include everyone from pensioners to Saudi Princes.

Generally, it's better to buy goods produced locally than those produced far away, regardless of where the parent company is, because you'll be spreading the most amount of cash closest to home, thus benefitting your local economy the most.

@Besa & others: If you think Paul's comments are negative, you haven't been on www.leftlanenews.com lately. There's nothing BUT GM haters on that blog...actually, they hate pretty much anything domestic. You're right, though--I don't know many people who want to drive toasters that get 40+ mpg. BORING!!

"Generally, it's better to buy goods produced locally than those produced far away"...This part of your statement is true, but I disagree with the part about "regardless of where the parent company is." So you'll buy a Honda because it's built in Ohio to support that small community vs. buying a GM or Ford vehicle which would help support communities all across America? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'd rather buy from an American company to support the Americans living and working here in this country, not just in one community. There are too many people who rely on these American companies to survive for me to ignore that and buy a Toyota, Kia, etc.

Paul, What are you going to do when it comes time to plop down $$$ Thousands $$$ to replace 2 batteries in your beloved Prius?

I assure you we are looking at all sorts of fabrics and materials to create an interior haven in your vehicles.
Thats great news. We all spend a lot more time looking at the interiors of our vehicles than the exteriors. Finally we'll get more choices than just drab light grays and tans. Focusing on making interiors quiet, comfortable and attractive will pay off in higher customer satisfaction. Exteriors lure customers, but interiors are just as important if not more so in truly satisfying them.

Now as for Paul's comment about 40 mpg cars, I'd point out that an improvement from 18 mpg to 22 mpg represents the same decrease in fuel consumption as an increase from 30 mpg to 43 mpg. To reduce America's dependence on petroleum GM is correct in prioritizing improvements in large vehicles. I think GM needs to educate the public on mileage versus consumption. Unlike most of the world, Americans compare vehicles on mpg ratings and it distorts their perspective on fuel economy.

High-mileage minicars sound so impressive until you do the math and see how little they really reduce fuel consumption. Reducing the fuel consumption in large vehicles is by far the most effective way to battle America's energy dependency.

I have never even seen a Prius, but I see a LOT of SUV's and full size trucks (3 of them are mine). I live in a rural area, and a lot of people use there vehicle for work, hauling toys, and the trials of home-ownership. While getting 20mpg isn't the best aspect of a truck, when you really look at it, for 15k miles a years, you will spend about $1100 in $3 gas if you get 40mpg. For 20mpg, you will spend another $1100. $1100 a year is a whole lot cheaper than having a second vehicle payment, insurance, and registration. FOr a lot of people that have a use for a truck (real or imagined), it just isn't practical to buy a commuter instead. How do I move my dogs, boat, kids and gear in a prius?
As for the original topic here, I can't wait to actually start getting interior choices again. I love the wonderful choices of the 50's and 60's. Look at the color and pattern choices in the 59-62 Impala and you will see how much visual interest and personality the interior of a car used to have. Gotta love the heringbone pattern in the 69 Camaro, particularly the Hugger Orange matched to a Hugger Orange car. Ads interest. You have made progress with interior in the last several years, the GTO/Monaro (which have the most comfortable seats I have EVER sat in) starts to show the potential of color again. Love the red interior, and all the different textures for the seating, bolster and door panels. The Kappa's have some great interior work. The Sky really looks nice with a silver/chrome exterior against a black/red interior. Keep working along these lines, and for heavens sake get a fun interior in the GMT-900...

big picture guy

I want a car that gets more than 40mpg. GM doesn't make them. (Well, the ones they make aren't available in the US.) So I'm not going to be buying a GM car. If GM wants my business, they'll make a car that meets my expectations. Because this blog is read by the head honchos at GM, I'm going to tell them what I want. How else will they know?

Also, I don't see how a 4mpg increase is better than a 14mpg increase, assuming the same vehicle is going to be driven the same amount.

Well, at least there's no ambiguity about how people feel here!

When did driving an efficient car mean driving a boring car? My wife and I have owned Volkswagens for years; small, economical cars that were a blast to drive. We recently ordered her a new Honda Fit. "Ordered" - because there's not a single one to be found on a dealer lot. The waiting list is currently at about three months.

When we shopped for the Fit, we were surprised to find that the Matrix, the Yaris, the Versa, and many other small cars are also in incredibly hot demand right now. It took us almost a month to find a Yaris hatchback to test drive.

Obviously, someone is buying small cars.

In terms of the "fun" factor - one of the neatest vehicles I test drove in recent memory was the Honda Insight. That little car had fantastic handling, and a very tight body. The 55+ MPG certainly didn't hurt. You can argue that it isn't practical (being a true two-seater and all), but it would certainly make a fun (and economical) commute car.

I worked at a Ford dealer some years ago (giving me the opportunity to drive all sorts of vehicles), and have been interested in cars for as long as I can remember. With rare exception, I have always enjoyed owning and driving smaller vehicles, and I consciously choose to buy smaller cars - even though I can afford something much larger. For what my C-class coupe cost, I could have bought a full-sized Mercury or Buick, for instance.

In my parents' (and moreso in my grandparents') generation, the physical size of a person's car seemed to be very important. One of the places I think GM has really been slack on is in their smaller vehicle lineup - perhaps because there's this perception that people who can afford more will want something larger?

For what it's worth, the rental cars I dread getting the most are the Ford Taurus, the Cobalt (and its predecessor, the Cavalier), and the Malibu. These cars have redefined "boring" in my books, and can only be described as mediocre transportation at its worst. I'm no lover of the Camry, but I'll drive a hundred of them before I drive one more Malibu.

One last note ... I'm not sure I understand the math behind this "mileage versus consumption" statement. Mileage directly corresponds to consumption, and vehicles that achieve 30 MPG *will* consume less fuel than a vehicle achieving 20 MPG. I would argue that the best way to reduce America's dependency on fuel is to simply choose more economical vehicles. The key here is the word "choose" - buying responsibly doesn't mean picking the biggest or the most powerful vehicle for the money. It's a decision that consumers need to make, since the one true vote we all have is to vote with our wallets.

As to big picture guy, you may have a point. For so many of us, we don't take the time to do enough research about fuel consumption and all the factors that relates to it. All that some of us do is just look at mpg which is an estimate and thinks that is gospel. The one factor that is not taken to account is the energy to move a car to get the highest fuel rating possible. The issue is to key on weight and aerodynamics without using alot of power in short burst of extreme power with huge consumption of fuel.

Hi Paul,
first of all, Hondas and Toyotas, built in the USA, do not consist of US-made parts, at least not to a degree, which really is worth to be mentioned. Second: If I would tell to one of these nearly 2000 BenQ-Siemens workers, who have been fired these days, that it might be better, to buy a Nokia-Cellphone, built in Germany, she/he probably would hit my nose!
Regarding an earlier comment, in my opinion, you also contradict to yourself. On the one hand you criticize GM for not working fast enough on Hybrids, but on the other hand you are considering to buy a Volkswagen, which, in contrast to GM, doesn't offer a single Hybrid-car yet. Well, VW's Diesels might be fine in fuel-efficiency, but their gasoline-engines are among the worst gas-guzzlers, what even some VW-enthusiasts not really deny.

@Paul: I agree that GM should offer at least one vehicle that gets 40+ mpg so that people who want them will consider GM when purchasing their next vehicle.

What you have to understand is that the typical GM customer over the years has not been one that prefers this type of vehicle. That's why you're taking so much flak on this blog. Usually, people with your vehicle interests don't even consider a GM vehicle because all they want are the econo-boxes that Toyota puts out (i.e. Scion xB). Nothing wrong with that, but you can't expect that all manufacturers will be alike in their product offerings.

@absent.canadian: The Malibu IS boring, but the Yaris, Matrix, & Fit are equally dull. You should get with Paul & go shopping together. You seem to have the same vehicle interests. You both seem to think of your vehicle as an appliance, so maybe a toaster on wheels is a good "fit" for you. GM really doesn't offer anything along this line at this point in time, but maybe in the future. Stay tuned.

Hi Paul, in order to answer your earlier comment:

I have no idea yet, which Astra-engines might be available in the USA. As I believe, a 5-door-hatchback should be offered. There are even already pictures, regarding an Astra 4-door-sedan, but I don't know, whether GM plans to introduce it in the USA. Look at this: http://www.speedheads.de/index.php?page=news&area=news&show=34667&s=d34a93a30eb1352f4ca542d026f78394
I don't believe, GM would start its sales with incentives, because I am absolutely sure, this car might be a true winner in the USA. You also may have noticed, how many people, posting at this blog, are keen on the latest Opel-cars.
In general Opel is the most inexpensive German car-brand. Even with more features its models very often have a SIGNIFICANTLY lower price than its domestic competitors. I can't imagine, that would be much different in the US. BTW, Opel scored highest among all German car-manufacturers at the Quality Report 2006 by the "Auto Bild"-magazine. I still have my father's (he died in 2002) Opel Rekord from 1977. It has 283.200 miles on it and it drives and looks as great as nearly 30 years ago.

If it's possible, I would like to ask the corresponding people at GM, providing some more information about the Astra, coming up as Saturn Ion-replacement next year, referring to media-reports. I think this would be very interesting.

"Also, I don't see how a 4mpg increase is better than a 14mpg increase, assuming the same vehicle is going to be driven the same amount."

Paul

-------

Answer: Here's the big picture that Big Picture Guy is pointing out, and he's right. Pay attention as it's a very good lesson.

Let's compare 2 vehicles:
1) A semi-truck that gets 5 mpg, and you drive it 1,000 miles. You'll burn 200 gallons of fuel (1,000 miles / 5 mpg).

2) A compact car that gets 50 mpg, and you drive it 1,000 miles. It will use 20 gallons of fuel (1,000 miles / 50 mpg).

Now, increase the mpg of both vehicles by 5 mpg, and drive them 1,000 miles.

The semi-truck now uses 100 gallons (1,000 miles / 10 mpg) of fuel, while the car uses 18.18 gallons (1,000 miles / 55 mpg) of fuel.

The semi-truck saved 100 gallons of fuel, while the car saved less than 2 gallons.

Paul - How is an increase of 4mpg better than 14?

Play around with the numbers.

Which is better, adding hybrid to a truck to move it from 15 to 19mpg, or a small care to move it from 30 to 44 mpg.

The truck will save 14 gallons per 1000 miles while the car will save 10.6 gallons per 1000 miles. Which is better... each can choose.

Buick Diesel

I can see how improving mileage for large vehicles could save more gas than for small vehicles. But that's not really comparing apples to apples.

I've said this before: People should buy the most fuel efficient car that meets their needs. If you really, honestly need something the size of a Suburban, buy the Suburban because it gets the best fuel economy in its class.

But if you can make do with a five-door compact car, you're better off buying the most fuel efficient car you can afford, and not buying a huge car or SUV because you "like" it better.

(Of course, this is all coming from someone who sees a car as a transportation appliance, not a member of their family or a status symbol.)

In my case, that's a VW Golf TDI. If GM wants my business (or absent.canadian's business), they need to make a car for people like us.

Also, GM often talks about how they're perceived by people as the company that made the Hummer. Well, if you want to change that perception you need to do more than say "we make a lot of cars that get mediocre mileage compared to the most efficient car on the road." In my mind, that's the comparison that is being made.

If GM made a car, say, a Corsa with a dual-mode hybrid system tied to a three-cylinder diesel or natural gas engine, that got the equivalent of 60 or 70 mpg, this perception would start to change.

Actions speak louder than words, and until this action is taken, all the words just seem like platitudes.

Paul,
I think you may be missing the point of the stance GM has been implimenting on fuel consumption. You may not know it, but GM has actually focused most of their efforts into mass transit, which definately returns the best consumption savings for our country. One Hybrid bus can save a city 1500 gallons of fuel a year. In a Prius, assuming a perfect 60mpg, driven 15K miles a year, it would take you 6 years to use 1500 gallons of fuel. To save 1500 gallons of fuel compared to a car that got 30mpg would take you another 6 years. Let us think of that as 6 Prius/Year. The 500 buses GM already has out there are worth 3000prius/year. While it is desirable for all consumers to make the best compromise they can regarding fuel economy, the actual consumption of fuel in this country can more easily be countered by improving the efficiencies of mass transit, and distribution / supply networks. If GM could produce a bus that doubled the current improvements, you are now looking at 3000gal/yr. That is 12Prius/year, so using the same 500 buses, we have 6000prius/year. GM would have to support, build and sell 6 vehicles that get 60mpg vs. 30mpg to equal the fuel saving of one transit bus at the current efficiency. Double that and you have 12 vehicles. A more efficient Diesel locomotive can have a much greater impact than a fleet of hybrid cars. GM is moving into the higher efficiency technologies for consumer transportation, but still devotes a lot more of their research and development money where it will have the greatest real benefit. I support the approach GM has taken, and would really like to see GM and DCX both get the credit they deserve for working towards real fuel consumption reduction. Paul, please buy a Prius, it seems to be the car that most closely meets your needs. While it may not be as big an impact to the consumption overall, every person that can feasably reduce specific consumption helps a little. For my family, we would be best served by a 20% increase in the economy of the larger vehicles. I am a GM fan, always have been, but I would never buy a vehicle just because of who made it, it has to meet the needs and expectations of what I intend to use it for.

Paul,
you mentioned the possibility of an Opel Corsa, running on CNG.
Let me tell this: My wife is driving a new Chevy Aveo, running on LPG. There's absolutely no doubt, she's driving cheaper and less pollutant than any Prius that way! For example, fork-lifters, using LPG, are even allowed for indoor use! In addition, LPG is better for the engine, leads to noise-reduction and is very easy to handle. Furthermore you get more miles with a filling than with CNG. There's also no higher risk in case of an accident. Nearly 97 (ninety-seven!) percent of German car-drivers, who got an LPG-system installed in their vehicles, are happy about their decision, referring to a survey. Chevrolet Germany offers such an additional LPG-system (BiFuel) for its whole line-up as an option. In the USA there should be a considerable amount of Propane/Butane. I still wonder why it's obviously not popular in the US yet. As I believe, especially for SUVs it really would make sense. BTW, my Olds Alero in the meanwhile is also running on LPG and it works great with it.

Ed

If I buy a new car, I want to have a choice of an interior color coded to the exterior. Whatever happened to red blue and green interiors. Black interiors make me claustrophobic, grey interiors depress me and tan gets boring after a while and doesnt go with every exterior color.

CF: I hoped that this conversation wouldn't descend to name calling. I'll try to keep my response higher-brow.

I drive a Mercedes sports coupe right now; hardly a toaster, and certainly not boring. It gets 34 MPG on the highway (based on my runs from North Carolina to Ontario), and I'm not exactly known to be light-footed.

The simple point I'm trying to make is that small, efficient cars don't need to be boring. Lutz alluded to the idea that what we're really talking about is "soft quality" - carefully crafted interiors, for instance, that don't look like the shiny plastic door panels from just about any American car in the 1980's. But that's a HUGE part of it; he even admitted that Volkswagen has done a superb job of this. I agree wholeheartedly (having owned Volkswagens continuously for the last 12 years). The VW's were also efficient little buggers (even the gas cars achieved good mileage), and they always lasted a long, long time.

Thankfully, small cars aren't just about soft quality. Honda has one of the best reputations for superb handling vehicles; you may hate the S2000, but you can't deny that it has the sporting character of a well-tuned racing car in every regard - in a clean, tight package that can easily function as a practical commute car (as practical as any two-seater can be). I guess companies that have spent a lifetime making small vehicles are just better at these things.

There's a misnomer that people who can afford a more expensive vehicle want something bigger. GM used to work on the model that people would move up through the nameplates (from Chevy to Buick, Oldsmobile, and eventually Cadillac); now, it seems to revolve more around the idea that I want to go from an Aveo to a Cobalt, Malibu, Lacrosse, Reinier, and perhaps an Escalade or an H3. If we suppose that the largest vehicle I want to own is roughly Cobalt sized - where do I have to go? The reskinned G5? The Solstice?

(by the way, someone at GM needs to go back to the drawing board on the Solstice's ragtop. I have yet to see one that doesn't have wrinkles in it. Take a nod from the VW Eos, the SLK, the Volvo C70, and the uglier-than-sin SSR; soft tops are SO 1990's. At least the S2000's top is as tight as a drum.)

As I said before - the lust for big cars may have been true with my parents' (and particularly my grandparents') generations, but it's not the case with many people in my age group (let's call them the 25 to 40 year olds).

Size isn't quality. Quality isn't excess. And there are many, many companies offering excellent automobiles in small packages.

I grew up just outside of Oshawa, Ontario - a proud GM town. It hurts to see such an iconic company struggling; I just wish there was more clarity and direction in the product line.

Here's my parting thought for the night: Sell me less pizzazz and rock n' roll, and sell me more car. Sell me quality, not quantity, and make it something I'd actually want to be seen in. This doesn't mean flashy and glamorous, either; note how young people go ga-ga over the clean, simple lines of the Volkswagen GTI. And for heavens sake, make it last; the best way to get me back into your showroom is to build decent resale value into the last product I bought from you.

absent.canadian and Paul,

I wanted to point out the contrast between consumption (gallons per mile) and mileage (miles per gallon), as fuel economy is at the forefront of conversations these days (finally), and most Americans have a distorted perspective on fuel economy because of the American custom of comparing vehicles in mpg rather than the more telling units of gpm. It doesn't seem intuitive that a 4 mpg increase in a large truck can reduce consumption the same as a 13 mpg increase in a small car, but trust me, the math is correct. Please free to check. Thats why I think it would be smart for GM to promote some sort of consumer education on this subject. There are millions of others who would doubt that statement the same as you did.

buick diesel did a nice job of explaning a real world example of how improving a high consumption vehicle would have a much more dramatic effect on fuel usage than improving a more efficient vehicle. As a nation we need to focus on consuming less petroleum and the quickest way to do that is to prioritize improvements in the large consumption vehicles.

True, that if a consumer wants a ultra-high mileage vehicle, GM does not offer a 40+mpg vehicle in the States (yet) so those buyers have to look elsewhere. But if GM can sell enough large trucks and SUV's that make significant reductions in the nation's consumption, then all consumers will benefit by the lower fuel prices that will result. (Supply and demand market forces will drive prices lower) That will continue to erode an already shaky business case for spending thousands of dollars extra for a hybrid vehicles that delivers scant reductions in consumption.

This was a good thread. Way off topic from the original post, but thats the way the blogosphere seems to work.

Big picture guy: I think I understand what you're talking about ... let me rephrase it in my own words:

Let's take two vehicles - one that gets 15 MPG, and one that gets 30 MPG. If we can improve the mielage of both vehicles by 1 MPG, the fuel consumption savings (per mile driven) is actually higher on the 15 MPG vehicle.

Over 10,000 miles, the 1 MPG improvement on the 15 MPG vehicle would result in a savings of 47.6 gallons of fuel, while the 1 MPG improvement on the 30 MPG vehicle would only reflect a savings of 10.8 gallons.

What it doesn't change is the fact that the 30 MPG vehicle is still consuming almost half the fuel that the 15 MPG vehicle is. All things equal, it should also mean that the emissions would be roughly half that of the 15 MPG vehicle.

As a vehicle consumer, though, I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. It's great that 13 MPG SUV's are now getting 16 MPG, but what difference does that make when I have other vehicle choices that get upwards of 30 or 40 MPG?

By the way, concerns about mileage is very much a European thing. Paying as much for gas as they do, I'm not surprised one bit. We could all learn a thing or two about driving efficiently from our European friends.

By the way, does GM have any plans to bring new generation diesel technology to its cars in North America? I understand the new Mercedes E320 diesel for 2008 is quite the machine - 400 foot-pounds of torque, getting 44 MPG on the highway and about 29 MPG in the city. That's pretty remarkable for a car of that size.

Posted by: Paul on October 25, 2006 11:21 AM
"People should buy the most fuel efficient car that meets their needs. If you really, honestly need something the size of a Suburban, buy the Suburban because it gets the best fuel economy in its class.
But if you can make do with a five-door compact car, you're better off buying the most fuel efficient car you can afford, and not buying a huge car or SUV because you "like" it better."

That's a little preachy.
Who are you to tell anyone that they can't have what they want if they have worked for it and earned it?
I've ordered a new GMC Canyon and I got the 5 cylinder engine. I could fit my wife and kids into a Prius. I could even have "made do" with a 4 cylinder engine but I don't want to. I "like" the 5 cylinder Canyon. At the end of the day, It's my choice, not yours, and I chose GM.

Jerrod,

I want a car that is reliable, looks good, drives well, has excellect fit and finish and no cheapness to it. After 6 years, I still look back at my car when walking away in a parking lot - it looks great and I enjoy driving it.

And no, it's NOT a GM car, because there is no mid-size, V6, 5 speed family car in the lineup that would evoke this passion. And please, don't bore me with details about the great new Aura, or the great new Malibu. Puuhleese, these are B-O-R-I-N-G.

I agree it's all about personal choice. And looking at the trend in market share, more people are choosing other than GM because the cheapness just cannot be overlooked. Even the new cars just wreak of cheapness, and are losing more and more content, even though the interiors may "look" better. Underneath, you just know there has been far too much cost cutting. GM needs a complete overhaul, and not just plant cuts.

It's been said over and over here and in other publications, it's the product, features, new technologies, content, great design, reliability and true not perceived quality that will sell more cars. Do the executives actually read this stuff? Do you care about the future of GM? Why are you so freaking resistant to change?

"...Hondas and Toyotas, built in the USA, do not consist of US-made parts, at least not to a degree, which really is worth to be mentioned."

The same can be said of a Chevrolet. My last Cavalier had a Brazilian engine. Automobile components are sourced globally, have been for decades. It's quite possible that a given Toyota might have more domestic parts than an equivalent GM product.

I should have been more specific in my question about rebadging Korean cars: How do GM profits (assuming there ever will be any) benefit the retirees and laid-off GM workers in communities throughout America, especially since GM retirees are in danger of losing their benefits?

Toyota or Honda (or others) move in to a community, build a clean, modern, efficient, profitable plant, and hire workers, who need the jobs to support their families. In communities not far away, GM is laying off its workers, many of whom have been loyal employees for decades.

Being a diehard tightwad, I buy vehicles for selfish and economic reasons, not political ones. If I was politically motivated, I would be more inclined to buy from the company that's hiring my neighbors than the one that has left thousands of other neighbors dangling.

I presently drive a Geo (made in Canada) and a Ford (also made in Canada). I bought them because they were priced right and do their jobs efficiently. The Geo gets excellent commuting mileage, the Ford has a cavernous trunk that hauls just about everything I need- and when I need to haul sheets of plywood, I rent a pickup truck from my local Lowes. Brand loyalty? I don't have any.

Hello Mr. Welburn: Are you still there?

Since we seemed to establish that GM needs attractive small vehicles in the lineup why not look at some existing models. GM does make a 40 MPG car; in fact GM makes 29 Different Models with over 101 different Engine/Transmission options in vehicles that range from 4 passenger mini cars to 7 passenger minivan. There are 5 Gasoline and 5 Turbo Diesels that get over 50 MPG and 3 Turbo Diesels that top 60 MPG.
Matiz (2 Gas)
Agila (2 Gas)
C2 3D (Corsa B); 4D; 5D and Estate (2 Gas)
Corsa (C Model) 3D; 4D and 5D (5 Gas 3 TD)
Corsa (D Model) 3D and 5D (5 Gas 3 TD)
Tigra (2 Gas 1 TD)
Aveo 4D; 5D (2 Gas)
Meriva (2 Gas 2 TD)
Combo; Combo Tour (1 Gas 1 CNG 2 TD)
Astra Twin Top (1 Gas 1 TD)
Astra 3D; 4D; 5D and Estate (3 Gas 3 TD)
SAAB 9-3 (1 TD); SAAB 9-3 Sport Combi (1 TD)
SAAB 9-5 BioPower (1 Hybrid) *Plug in model
Vectra 4D and 5D (2 Gas 2 TD); Vectra Estate (2 TD)
Zafira (1 TD)

Models like the Aveo, SAAB 9-3 and SAAB 9-5 that have powertrain options outside the U.S. that do get over 40 MPG are not offered here. Turbo-Diesels make sense now with low sulfur diesel and Bio Diesel options and should be introduced in the SAAB line along with the (E85) Bio Power Hybrid with the Plug in option.

Since the Astra will be offered in the U.S. next year GM should have most of powertrains that get over 40 MPG certified for the U.S. market.

Powertrain options on the European Astra models (info from Opel website):
Eng Trans MPG Perf
1.4 5M 29/47 0-60 13.6s
1.6 5M 27/44 0-60 12.3s
1.6 Etrnc 28/44 0-60 13.2s
1.8VVT 5M 24/40 0-60 10.1s
1.8VVT 4A 22/37 0-60 11.2s
2.0T 5M 18/35 0-60 8.5s
1.3TD 5M 38/59 0-60 13.6s
1.7TD 5M 37/56 0-60 12.3s
1.9TD 5M 32/48 0-60 10.5s
1.9TD 6M 32/48 0-60 8.9s
1.9TD 6A 24/44 0-60 11.4s
2.0T 6M 18/33 0-60 6.4s

As far as existing models the 3 D Astra GTC with Panoramic roof would be a “Must Have” car with great styling and 47 MPG on Gas and 59 MPG with the Diesel. The 1.6L and Easytronic would be a good base powertrain for the U.S. market since it would provide the best MPG for a car that is not a manual.

Sales of the Mazda 3 show that there is a market for a well thought 5 Door and with innovative features like AFL lighting and a high quality interior it will do well

The 4 Door will sell well in the U.S. and its midsize class 36.7 inches of rear leg room shared with the Estate (Wagon) will make both market favorites with lots of rear seat room and large cargo area. 8-way power seats from the HHR with heated leather surfaces and fold flat passenger seat would complete the interior. How about a laminate wood with brass or nickel inserts for the wagon floor, it could be made the reverse side of a carpeted or a rubber one. If GM would offer the Panoramic windshield on the Estate with the 1.9L Turbo Diesel I would buy one.

Zafira choices:
1.6 5M 25/38 0-60 14.3s
1.8 5M 23/37 0-60 11.5s
2.2gDI 6M 21/37 0-60 10.7s
2.2gDI 4A 20/35 0-60 11.6s
2.0T 6M 18/32 0-60 9.0s
1.9TD 6M 31/45 0-60 12.2s
1.9TD 6A 24/41 0-60 12.5s
1.9TD 6M 30/44 0-60 10.4s
1.9TD 6A 24/41 0-60 10.7s
2.0T 6M 18/32 0-60 7.6s

Saturn should offer the Zafira as a replacement for the Relay as an economical choice for buyers who find the new Outlook a little too big for their needs. The Zafira is the same size as the HHR but offers 7 passenger seating with styling that is more mini van but if the OPC version styling was used could sell better than many would think. It offers unique 7 passenger seating that can be converted to 6 passenger and is capable of 37 MPG on Gas and 45 MPG with diesel.

The Zafira interior could add the HHR 8-way power seat to an attractive interior and the overhead console with DVD/video game monitors would be unique to the U.S. market in this size vehicle.

As for some of the other vehicles on the list the Agila and C2 (Corsa B) are older platforms that would need too many updates.

The Matiz maybe interesting as a “City” car to compete against the Smart car and is sold as the Pontiac Matiz G2 in Mexico but it may not meet safety rules. The Matiz is the same size as the old Chevy Sprint of the 80’s so this size car can sell in the U.S. and the 1.0L maybe adequate but the 1.2L would be the best choice. The 1.2 L Matiz with Easytronic and 30.4 turning circle would make a fun inner city commuter with 35.4 of rear leg room allowing 4 adults to commute in one car.
.8 (3) 5M 31/51 0-60 18.2
.8 (3) 4A 34/56 0-60 21.9
1.0 (4) 5M 33/50 0-60 14.1
1.2 Etrnc 35/55 0-60 10.5

The Corsa C model is offered in Mexico in 3D and 5 D hatch along with a 4 D sedan, it also has regulation problems but may make a better “City” car for our market. It could be offered as the Chevy Corsa in all three body styles just like in Mexico and marketed as a high MPG entry model with sport handling. Base models would have the 1.2L and give GM a 50 MPG car on gas and 60 MPG with 1.3L Turbo Diesel. The Corsa could updated for U.S. sales and be built in Brazil or Mexico since it is also sold in those markets.
1.0 (3) 5M 34/53 0-60 15.0s
1.0 (3) Etrnc 35/55 0-60 16.5s
1.0 (3) ECO 37/60 0-60 17.3s
1.2 5M 30/51 0-60 11.8s
1.2 Etrnc 35/53 0-60 12.8s
1.4 5M 30/50 0-60 10.5s
1.4 Etrnc 28/48 0-60 12.0s
1.6 Etrnc 27/45 0-60 10.2s
1.8 5M 22/42 0-60 8.0s
1.3TD 5M 42/64 0-60 13.5s
1.3TD Etrnc 43/65 0-60 15.0s
1.7TD 5M 37/62 0-60 11.5s

The same improvements could be applied to the Tigra Hard Top convertible allowing it to be sold in the U.S. as a Chevy
1.4 5M 29/47 0-60 12.4s
1.4 Etrnc 29/48 0-60 13.4s
1.3TD 5M 41/60 0-60 15.5s
1.8 5M 22/41 0-60 9.4s
1.8 4A 21/38 0-60 10.5s

These updates would also enable GM to offer the Montana Pickup as an entry level Pickup with Turbo Diesel capable of over 40 MPG.
1.7TD 5M 30/41 0-60 11.5

If GM does not update the Corsa C as a Chevy then it could offer the Meriva which again is offered in Mexico and has unique SUV styling with 5 passenger seating with plenty of rear leg room and cargo space.
1.4 5M 28/44 0-60 13.4s
1.6 5M 27/43 0-60 12.5s
1.6 Etrnc 26/43 0-60 13.4s
1.8 5M 22/38 0-60 10.3s
1.8 Etrnc 22/38 0-60 11.8s
1.3TD 5M 38/55 0-60 16.6s
1.7TD 5M 35/52 0-60 12.4s
1.6T 6M 23/37 0-60 8.2s
The Meriva is an interesting vehicle and offers a lot of space in a little package it also has a flexible interior with features like fold out tray tables for rear seat passengers with a large center console that can be moved out of the way when 5 passengers are carried.

This may actually be the best choice for a new GM model to compete against the Fit and Yaris since it is the same size as the Fit but offers much more interior space and can deliver 40 MPG gas or 50 MPG diesel. It also has an OPC version with a nice 1.6L turbo that delivers good performance with 37 MPG.

I like the Meriva styling and from road tests I have read it gets good reviews for ride and handling. This may be a good vehicle for GM to offer as a high MPG SUV.

The Combo is a vehicle that Saturn must offer to small business owners that have to deliver products in inner cities. IT can even be fitted with a rear seat for 5 passenger capacity. These vehicles are very popular in Eastern Europe and are gaining popularity in Europe. The Combo has huge cargo area for its size and very maneuverable and delivers 50 MPG with a diesel and an equivalent 60 MPG on CNG. An Easytronic or Automatic transmission would need to be added for U.S. market and open the business fleet market for Saturn.
1.4 5M 29/44 0-60 13.4s
1.6 5M 24/39 0-60 12.5s
1.6NG 5M 36/60 CNG
1.3TD 5M 36/55 0-60 16.6s
1.7TD 5M 36/50 0-60 12.3s

The Combo Tour passenger model with the optional airline overhead bins could be popular and open up an entire new market. There are many different “themes” that could be tried in this configuration from a “First Class” airline feel with reclining seats and fold out tray tables to a 6 passenger model with facing second and third row seats with drop down table.

If none of these vehicles are added to the GM lineup at least put one of these powertrains in the Cobalt and HHR
1.6 Etrnc 28/44 0-60 13.2s
1.8VVT 5M 24/40 0-60 10.1s
1.8VVT Etrnc 25/40 0-60 11.2s
1.8VVT 4A 22/37 0-60 11.2s
1.7TD 5M 37/56 0-60 12.3s
1.9TD 6M 30/44 0-60 10.4s
1.9TD 6A 24/41 0-60 10.7s

I would really like to drive a Cobalt or HHR with an Easytronic transmission and guess the 1.8L with Easytronic could get 25/40 MPG. I would be very interested in buying a HHR with a 1.9L TD and 6 speed automatic.

GM should have a ride and drive event at the upcoming LA and San Diego Auto Shows for the European and Mexico market vehicles mentioned to get some real world feedback from a market GM is not doing well in. I know you will find at least 3 models that will be home run hits in the Southern California market. I have seen some of these on the roads out here and they look good.

GM should do this on both coasts and in all major U.S. cities at least to gauge real world reaction. These cars are in production so if one shows that there is a real market it would be easier to justify any costs required for the U.S. market. These vehicles will be sold around the world for another 4 to 8 years and be new to the U.S. even though they maybe over 4 years old so why not get some more years out of a good vehicle.

GM has to offer vehicles in smaller sizes with high MPG to gain any credibility in the market and it already has some very good models in production.

GM should have learned from the Prius that if you offer a model with high MPG the improvement in your company’s perception allow you to sell more of all your models.

Mr. Welburn,

Some colors are very popular like the white gold flash, champaigne golds, metalic greys and grey blues. Offer contrasting interiors, for example, with gold exteriors offer ivory leather interior with dark tan rugs. More Ivory leather would help sales, it is a nice change from black leather and it lightens up the interior of a dark colored car. Tan and black leather gets old after a while.

Teal green, teal blue, mist blue, and bronze mist are popular colors that we haven't seen for a while. Charcoal grey metalic would be a nice color.

Also, with burgandy cars, offer a dark burgandy leather again, it is so luxurious, and it would help sales.

My two cents about fuel economy in the USA and all over the world:
It's crazy important to get an affordable plug hybrid (coughcough) to market asap so commuters can go to and from work without using any gas! Show the tree huggers that GM means business and stop leaving all the glory to Toyota/Honda.

"I do not get people like you,Lets face the facts how many car makers make vehicles with 40mpg?"

The 1985 Nissan Sentra I drove for many years consistently delivered 40mpg on the highway; Nissan has made bunches of Sentras over the decades. How did Nissan do it? First, it was smaller and lighter than the typical American-made "small" car, and had a smallish 1200cc engine, coupled to a 5-speed manual transmission- yet was peppy enough to keep up with freeway traffic. As a bonus, it had more headroom (headroom matters, I'm 6'3") than the Cavaliers that eventually replaced it.

While GM has all but abandoned the domestic manufacture of small, efficient, inexpensive cars, Honda and Toyota are both opening new assembly plants in Indiana, beginning in 2008- Toyota making Camrys, Honda making Civics.

If GM is determined to rebadge small Asian vehicles, I do wish they would come to an agreement with an Asian manufacturer that's building them here, rather than exporting good jobs to Korea- or China.

I drove 18-wheelers in the 1980s/1990s. My 1985
Freightliner consistently got 6.5 mpg; my 1991
Freightliner got 7.2 mpg (about a 10% decrease
in fuel consumption).

Let's compare these numbers realistically: a
hypothetical 40 mpg 4-seat car, a 20 mpg SUV,
my 7.1 mpg Freightliner, and my older 6.5 mpg
Freightliner.

Used efficiently (that is, fully loaded to their
80,000 Gross Vehicle Weight Rating), the
Freightliners roll down the road carrying 46,000
lbs of freight; let's say the "efficient car," used
efficiently, hauls four 180 lb adults, or 720 lbs.
Toss in 130lbs of luggage, for a total of 850 lbs
of "freight," which is typical weight capacity for
cars and SUVs.

Drive 1,000 miles. The car uses 25 gallons of
fuel, delivering 35 lbs of "freight" per gallon.
The SUV uses twice the fuel, thus carries half
the weight per gallon consumed- 17.5 lbs of
"freight" delivered per gallon of fuel used. And
this is "efficient" use of the vehicle, with most
of the seats filled!!!
The 7.2 mpg truck used 133.33 gallons of fuel,
but delivered 345 lbs of freight per gallon. The
"less-efficient" 1985 Freightliner used 153.85
gallons, delivered 299 lbs of freight per gallon...

Do the numbers for the car and the SUV
carrying one 180 lb person, with luggage,
for a total of 212.5 lbs of "freight-" the
"efficient" car delivers 8.5 lbs per gallon!!!
The SUV delivers 4.25 lbs per gallon of fuel
used!!!

Do the fuel-cost-per-pound-of-freight
numbers at $3 per gallon-

1991 Freightliner: $0.0086
1985 Freightliner: $0.010

40 mpg car: $0.086
20 mpg SUV: $0.171

One person plus luggage-

40 mpg car: $0.353
20 mpg SUV: $0.706

A 10% decrease in fuel consumption yields:

44 mpg car: $0.318
22 mpg SUV: $0.635

Do we still think increasing efficiency of
large (already very efficient) vehicles is
more "productive" than increasing fuel
efficiency of passenger cars?

Jerrod: nobody is saying that you can't buy the vehicle of your choosing. Paul (and others) are merely suggesting that people make fuel efficiency more of a priority in vehicle selection.

Enjoy your Canyon. I test drove one about a month ago, and was impressed; it's sure come a long way from the old S-10.

Ed, I'm glad to hear your positive comments about color, especially interior color. This is one of my pet peeves with most automakers, but particularly GM, since GM basically invented the colorful interior back in the 1950s and did very well with it for many years. Originally only the cheap imports came with a gray or neutral interior and somehow that became an industry standard -- a shame.

You need only look at the GM cars of the 60s and 70s for inspiration. While we may not want the bright green brocade fabrics of 70s Buicks and Oldses, shades of blue, red and brown, tastefully done, can really work well. I had a late-70s Buick Electra with a light blue interior that was just beautful. The late-60s Cutlasses had a red interior that was stunning. Heck, the '68 Cutlass had a TEAL interior -- a shade that would have looked wonderful in my 2002 Intrigue with its Tropic Teal paint.

The Intrigue is a good example of where GM needs to go. That basic body design is gorgeous, the best of the W-bodies of the time (weren't you the designer, Ed?) and just needed a little more trim in the rear (just like the LaCrosse does) to be outstanding. But you need to be careful not to overdo the plastic chrome either -- the Aura comes dangerously close on that score. The Intrigue interior design wasn't bad, but the choice of finishes were too plain and the absence of any bright trim whatsoever really hurts it. The Aura's interior is a good example of where you need to go -- even the base car is very nice.

Finally, please make sure Chevy and Buick get the very best GM Design can offer. It's all well and good to have Saturns with nice designs, but I'll never buy a Saturn for a bunch of reasons. I would buy a Chevy or a Buick though, but probably not with the designs they now have -- the current Malibu should never have left the design studio, and Buicks look like they were rushed out when about 85% finished.

You're getting there -- here's hoping you can get it done 100%!

I remember when we GASPED at how cool and sexy and
beautiful each year's new Pontiacs were, 40 years ago. That is what
takes wallets out of pockets.

We no longer gasp. Please make us gasp again. Is design dead?

I'll copy this to Bob Lutz.

I test drove my top two cars this weekend...a 2007 Cobalt SS Supercharged, and a 2007 Mazdaspeed 3. You know, as much as I wanted to, I could not escape the fact that the Cobalt SS is just not as much of a car as the Mazda. From the "feel" of the switchgear to the exhaust note, for some reason, the Cobalt just did not have what the Mazda did. This is coming from a lifetime GM/Chevy guy. I own and love a GMC Typhoon; I own and love a Fiero. I currently drive a 2000 S-10. It pained me terribly to think that I will probably not buy a Cobalt. Somehow, some way, GM has to get that "feel" back in its cars. I really want to believe...but somehow it's just not there.

Mr Welburn

Thanks for listening

Please bush for more exciting colors in car interiors.
Holden in Australia has been doing it for years now, but GM in the US still seem to stick with ultra safe color combinations.
Also please look at expanding the color pallete of exterior paint - agian Holden is way ahead of the rest of GM in this area!

absent.canadian

Much of the incredible diesel technology now available in Europe can't be brought to the States because the diesel fuel is so much different here than in Europe. European diesel has a much higher cetane value and lower sulfur than American diesel. Further, high NOx emmisions make many of those European diesels unavailable for sale in the States. The improved fuel economy does reduce CO2 emmisions, but those engines can't pass American NOx standards, yet.

NOx is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You can't focus on one and neglect the other. Global warming isn't all about carbon emmisions even though that's all we ever hear about.

Our Governments need to figure out some way to standardize the fuel specifications. I'm not sure what the roadblock to standardization is, but I'm guessing it involves politicians and lobbyists.

"Jerrod: nobody is saying that you can't buy the vehicle of your choosing. Paul (and others) are merely suggesting that people make fuel efficiency more of a priority in vehicle selection." - absent.canadian

I'm also saying that I make fuel economy a primary concern in vehicle selection. And judging by the responses on this blog, I don't feel like I'm welcome at GM.

absent.canadian

Much of the incredible diesel technology now available in Europe can't be brought to the States because the diesel fuel is so much different here than in Europe. European diesel has a much higher cetane value and lower sulfur than American diesel. Further, high NOx emmisions make many of those European diesels unavailable for sale in the States. The improved fuel economy does reduce CO2 emmisions, but those engines can't pass American NOx standards, yet.

NOx is worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You can't focus on one and neglect the other. Global warming isn't all about carbon emmisions even though that's all we ever hear about.

Our Governments need to figure out some way to standardize the fuel specifications. I'm not sure what the roadblock to standardization is, but I'm guessing it involves politicians and lobbyists.

Clip below from Automotive News shares similar thoughts as Bill Jenkins (above), but from a dealer perspective:
>>
By getting rid of commodity products, GM and its dealers won't have to offer huge discounts to consumers. "The gross on a (Pontiac) Solstice is 2½ times higher than that of any other deal," Larson says. "So if you make a great car, people will pay for it, and the dealer makes more on it."
>>
Something that GM is sorely losing sight of is PROFIT and SALES. If you continue to focus on designing and building cheap cars, and don't sell any, what good is that? Just what will GM have achieved if the cost reduction targets are met, but sales continue to decline and the perception of GM continues to erode? The current direction at GM sounds like the beginning of a Saturn commercial - "like always" - and it has been the same for many years and IT IS NOT WORKING. You should focus on the end of the Saturn commercial - "like never before" - and REALLY change the way you conduct your design, purchasing and engineering. The focus needs to be on product and sales improvement, not cost reductions. If the executive decisions that you make will not help you to sell more cars, then it's a bad decision, PERIOD. GM is losing even loyal customers to the competition. You may think you're changing, and improving but it's not nearly enough.

Paul,
Don't judge GM by what we write. While I think I have a pretty good idea of what you are looking for in a car, since you outline it on most threads, you cannot hold GM responsible for the responses you elicit from the rest of us. Mr. Langlitz in Germany is quick to point out the real situation in Europe, and a lot of the rest of us are quick to focus on the aspects we care about. While economy doesn't really matter to me in the slightest from a purchase angle, I understand that it can be very important to someone else. Several people, myself included, are merely trying to point out the difference between our country having true energy independance (or as close as we can feasably get), and buzz-word based tech. When you look at the true cost of owning a vehicle like the Prius, you may not be spending what you think you are. If you are truly concerned about the environment, you would definately like to see a total reduction in consumption and emmisions. If you are concerned about fuel prices in this country, you are conerned about specific vehicle economy, preferably based on an economically viable technology. If you are just flinging mud, none of this matters. I do think that GM is acting in a responsible manner concerning total consumption, particularly in light of the losses they have undertaken in the last several years. I do not feel animosity towards Honda and Toyota, and having lived in japan for several years, I just do not care for the Japanese vehicle design approach. While a vehicle like the Prius or Civic Hybrid look like a wonder and joy when you look at the MPG figures, the reality of the actual impact of these vehicles is considerably worse. As an Engineer, I am used to look at many angles of a product or idea, and I honestly do not support the idea of the Hybrid engine beyond a stopgap, temporary solution. The environmental impact is considerably worse than the ICE. I have a lot of hope for Hydrogen, as it looks great on paper. I do think there are a LOT of hurdles ahead of the Hydrogen economy yet, but as a long term solution, it is the best I have studied so far.

As for the original thread.... what do you think about the interior changes so far? I hope to see more coming, and really hope that Ed looks at what GM was making in the 50's and 60's. The 59-61 Impala's had great interior design. Fun colors, modern convenience, tons of room, they screamed lavish. On a stately vein, the early 60's Caddy had it all. Think Biaritz. How do some of you feel about the changes in interior design? What leaves you feeling shorted? WHat makes you pleased? I personally LOVE the seats in the GTO. Absolutely the most comfortable automotive seat I have ever been in. The XLR is georgeous. I really love the color coordinated wood. I normally dislike wood trim, but it really looks nice here. I would like to see more color and interest in each vehicle interior. More color matching to the exterior colors, more console differentiation between siblings. The Soltice and Sky had very differnt interiors, that is the what I want to see. No more corporate twin approaches in sheetmetal or interiors. Look at any W body through the late 90's and try to tell one interior from another. Ed, you really need to get a bit of pizzaz into the interiors. This is an area that the asian cometition cannot follow. They have no history here. Ford can look back at the 62 T-Bird and see fun. Mopar can always look back at the decadent interiors of the letter series cars. Toyota has made a variation on the same theme since the begining, and you guys copied them! Please bring back cabin design that leaves the consumer breathless.

Hi Aaron,

to me it was also very interesting reading your last comment. Concerning your statement regarding Hybrids, I'd like to recommend the following report: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=3408

I already once provided this link, but maybe you missed my comment a couple of months ago.

Aaron

Improving mileage of large vehicles can have a greater impact, assuming people buy those vehicles over smaller vehicles. But if the market is switching to smaller vehicles, GM is going to be left in the dust, because their small cars aren't up to snuff.

If GM is the truck, SUV, muscle car and large sedan automaker, then I don't want to do business with them. I want a small, fuel-efficent (as in 50mpg+), inexpensive four-door hatchback. GM does not make one. That's okay, I just won't buy a car from them.

However, this goes against Bob Lutz's previous post that GM will be the best automaker in every segment. If GM wants to be the best automaker in every segment, they need to create a vehicle with the capability and fuel economy of a Prius. Period. Have they? No. Are they going to any time soon? It doesn't look like it. If they provide details about the engines and body styles of the Astra they are bringing in to replace the Ion, I might change my mind.

Mr. Langlitz

That study was created by CNW Marketing Research, who happens to have a multi-million dollar contract with GM. I put about as much stock in that as I would a study on the TCO of Linux from a company hired by Microsoft. In other words: Not much.

CNW assumed that hybrids would have half the useable life of conventional vehicles, when experience with hybrid taxis has shown that the electric motors and batteries break down less than the conventional engine parts.

I point you to the criticisms levelled at this study here.

Dear Ed,
I am really worried about the baby 'Slade and rumored Saab twin.
I am afraid you'll get lost inthe crowd in this segment.
Please avoid that pitfall stylistically.
Please do not back off of Art and Science!
I really like the body creases (character lines) that run across the side of the CTS (and now BMW 3-Series).
Don't be afraid to stand out at all.
I don't want another jellybean cute-ute. They all look alike.
No RAV-4 clones wanted.
The new Antara went in the wrong direction because it is so timid.
Please no more jellybean styling!
I also how you stay true to the Aero-X "sexiness", particularly in the front.
So many people say you guys are not committed to Saab. Please prove us wrong. We have faith in you.
--John

P.S. The SRX is swell. I hope you make it look less "wagon-ey" in its next iteration.
It need to look less conflicted from the back--although it looks good overall.
I think the wagon part turned off too many people--although I liked the taillights. That is what you call innovative design.
I also love, love, love the sharp haunches inherent in Art and Science, and I like the shape of the headlamps. However, they could look a little more futuristic (with better-looking, more detailed projector beams).
Lastly, I like colored leather (red, burgundy etc) I cannot wait to order a Cadillac with pitch black leather and thick flaming red stitching!
Hope I don't sound too bossy!
P.P.S. I love the Caddy grilles!

Maybe somebody has read this story today: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061101/BUSINESS01/611010395/1122

How serious should those analysts take Mr. York after remembering his former "ingenious" proposal to sell the Hummer and Saab-Brand, which obviously prove as increasingly successful for GM...?

Paul, Please do something about the hideous cloth patterns for seats and door trim. They are embarrasing. Who wants bubbles or checker table cloth ? Simple, low key and tasteful.
I believe the Nomad concept would be a huge hit. It looked amazing and was practical to boot. I think with a bit of tweaking of the front end and adding some muscle around the wheel opening and it would be perfect. It would be a great competitor to the mini and sure to be a cult classic.
I would seriously look at AWD options for the ASTRA and/or Cobalt so that GM would be front & center with the tuner demand for small AWD turbo cars.
Please ensure the next Delta have top interior design and finish. It is vital.

Thanks

It’s always amusing to read Paul’s bleatings because they are so ignorant. Paul, I answered your last fuel economy comment on the City Lights Not So Bright Thread. It is the last post:
http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2006/10/city_of_lights_1.html#comments

Bottom line is that the Chevy Aveo currently meets the average EPA ratings of your precious VW TDI. Honestly, you really need to get educated on fuel economy issues before you try arguing the points. You are about as "informed" as the New York Times.

Anyway, back on topic.

Ed,
A few things on what it takes to get back on top.

1. Cut back on the chrome. You may not remember me but I was the guy at the New York Auto Show Press preview who warned you to make chrome optional on the new Enclave. Trust me, not everyone wants their car slathered with enough chrome to make it look like they are auditioning for the cover of DUB magazine. That fact has killed most attempts I have made at getting people to try the GMT 900 SUVs and the Escalade in particular. What is it with GM and chrome?! Is it just a cheap topping used when the design team has run out of ideas? A desperate attempt to pander to purported urban trendsetters? Whatever it is, please make the shiny wheels and trim optional for those of us who find it abhorrent.

2. Don’t ever use fake wood in your cars. I will be the first to defend GM when they have in fact done no wrong but I was ashamed for you and the GMT 900 team when I read the reviews of the new Escalade and realized that the flagship truck for GM’s flagship division was too cheap to use real wood. The media rightly roasted the vehicle for it. Was whatever the team saved worth the embarrassment?

3. At some point, hopefully in our lifetimes, GM will learn that it is not possible to cost cut your way to greatness. As Autoextremist pointed out today and has done in the past I will use the Corvette program as the example of the lesson GM steadfastly refuses to learn. The Corvette race team has dominated Le Mans for the last 6 years because GM spends the money to win. The Corvette road car benchmarks the best and strives to defeat them. As a result, the car exceeds sales and profit targets. Contrary to traditional GM-think this is truer the more expensive the car gets. Witness the Z06 which has debuted to critical and commercial success despite its relatively lofty price. Today, two years into its production, the only thing you will negotiate at your dealership is how much you will be paying above sticker. Now I am not saying that you should price every car through the roof. I am saying that you should not be afraid to smartly add features which rock the competition back on its heels since people will pay a little extra if they believe they are getting something better. Some examples:

4. Let’s look at the Chevy Aveo and the Toyota Yaris. At a base price of $11,050 this car is about $1,000 more expensive that an Aveo. Why not use that disparity to make an independent rear suspension and four wheel disc brakes with ABS standard instead of the cheaper and inferior beam suspension and rear drums used on both cars? The more sophisticated suspension would allow better handling tuning and the disc brakes would afford the kind of technology and performance that buff books love. The key thing is that these technologies will improve the driving experience and that is what the buff books tend to focus on. Stellar performance there will stand the car in good stead in the inevitable magazine comparisons which people check to help decide which car to buy. The magazines WILL note that the Aveo’s competitors don’t feature 4-wheel disc brakes with anti-lock and independent suspension. Benchmark the Aveo against the Yaris from now on with the same fervor that the Corvette team benchmarks Porsche and Ferrari and the Yaris and its ilk are doomed.

5. Safety sells. Get curtain airbags into each and every car GM sells. Look back on all the side-impact crash ratings the media ballyhoos as evidence that GM cars are deathtraps. All it would have taken is curtain airbags to significantly improve your scores. Again, you save nothing when you don’t include them and get crucified when you lose to cars which have them.

6. Displacement on demand should be in all your engines.

7. Get out of Saab. They make Swedish Buicks. Buick makes perfectly good Buicks.

8. Roll Hummer into GMC Truck. Call them the GMC Hummers. You are going to have to reimburse the dealer networks for all the money they spent on redesigning their dealerships.

9. Kill Saturn. Each and every product it makes is redundant. Buyers, smarter than you think, know this and are turned off. Take the one price strategy and apply it to Buick and Pontiac.

10. The next time you guys bring out a Cadillac V car try to actually look at what your competitors are doing (see the Corvette example above) so that your STS-V is not torn limb from limb like the current car was in the latest Car and Driver test. Honestly the STS-V’s performance was a joke. It was if it were developed in a vacuum.

11. Get Cadillac back into Le Mans at either the P1 or P2 level since the ALMS apparently won’t allow the CTS-Vs.

12. Spend the extra $3,000 in the base price of the C7 Corvette to get an interior that is the class standard with top quality leather on the doors and dash and genuine aluminum where used. The current Corvette demographic, which underwent a sea change with the advent of the C5, will be unfazed and the reviewers will rave that the last redoubt of Corvette criticism has fallen.

13. Buick needs a flagship performance vehicle. Bring back the Grand National with a twin-turbo V-6 putting down 380-390 hp. Be prepared to take it racing in the Speed World Challenge.

14. Stop chasing low price points by decontenting your cars for the sake of advertising. Instead, realistically equip your base cars with the features you know the majority of buyers are taking and then point out that the competition makes these features optional. Case in point, equip every GM car with A/C standard. Make humorous ads that point out the failing of comparable Hondas, Nissans and Toyotas. Keep them on the defensive like that when they inevitably adapt.

I think a Hybrid car made from the concept Nomad, would be a great addition to Chevys current lineup. I think the design is flexible enough, that it could probably be molded into a really cool hybrid sedan, as long as they stay true to the concept. I think it would do great in the market place. It sure has a lot more character then the Prius.

big picture-
actually we do finally have 15ppm sulpher diesel now (US & Canada) and the MB CDI w 3.2L diesel just missed the .05 g/m NOx spec by .01. It appears a slightly smaller engine using the same technology would pass 50 state emission. Many mfgs apparently will by next MY, however havent heard a peep out of GM.

I completely understand that beauty and design are in the eye of the beholder and one guy's dream car is another guys piece of junk but I don't understand the criticisms of GM's recent design focus. I feel like those who are criticizing GM and indicating that the japanese makers are superior at design have not been in a gm car lot this year to look at any of the 07's. Are you kidding me. Anyone who would criticize the aura has never sat in one...its a beautiful car with an interior look and materials of a luxury car and its in the 20k range. And who can criticize the buick enclave....that car is surely one of the most beautiful designs in recent years and is a game changer for buick's reputation in most eyes. None of the asian automakers have anything that approaches it or even on the drawing boards that approach it...has anyone looked at the interior of that car...cmon' open up your mind and give it an honest appraisal. Anyone who was in Detroit and saw the camaro concept (now in design for production) or in Geneva and saw the saab aero-x would not dare say that GM design is behind their competitors...btw both cars won best of show. And I say all this being a guy who has driven asian cars most of my life...I've had toyotas, hondas, hyundais and suzukis and had no complaints about them...they were and are fine cars and fine automakers...but I now have 2 gm cars in my driveway for the first time in my life primarily because of much better design, far better options, and quality that is (if we believe the 3rd party reports) as good or better than the asians (afterall toyota has had over 1 million recalls this year and has delayed the intro of several models because of quality problems while GM has has relatively few problems and just upped their warranty on all brands to 5 years and 100k miles.) Frankly these cars suit the needs of my family best and a price point I can afford. My point is I'm an American and a "convert" to american cars precisely because of what many have criticized them for on this blog. Either I have a major illness affecting my judgement or some of the criticism here is without benefit of test driving cars like the tahoe, the cts, the hhr, the lucerne, the aura, the new silverado or avalanche or even the escalade. These may not be the cars for you and that's fine but don't make the mistake of justifying your purchasing decision by saying GM doesn't get it or can't change...the evidence to the contrary is all around you...just look. I say way to go GM...yes you have more work to do but you have at least won over me.

Hello again Mr. Welburn: The current lineup that the Astra is based on includes (2) versions of the Delta architecture and there is (1) carryover GMDAT platform shared with Suzuki and offers 14 models. Many of these models are duplicated as Chevrolet, Daewoo, Holden, Opel, Pontiac and Vauxhall in different countries making the total count over 30.
2 D Chevy Cobalt Coupe and 4 D Sedan
2 D Astra Twin Top (H/T Convertible)
Quad Coupe Saturn ION and 4 D Sedan ION
3 D and 5 D Hatch Opel Astra
4 D GMDAT Optra Sedan and Wagon
4 D Opel Astra Sedan and Wagon
5 D Chevy HHR
5 D Hatch GMDAT Nubria
5 D Opel Zafira (7 pass Van)

The next generation Delta2 architecture must have an AWD model for the new SAAB 9-2X and be the basis for a crossover 9-4X. The Astra name would replace the ION and the Lacetti name would be used for 3 door fastback and Cabrio models. GM needs to offer a V6 on this size platform as DCX will do on the next PT Cruiser and must make the 3500 V6 available on HHR, Buick Skyhawk, Rendezvous, GMC Jimmy and Safari. All 4 Door Sedan, Wagon and Crossovers would use a Wheelbase around 106”. There would be short and long wheelbase Coupe and hatch models with the LWB models using either the Twin Top rear styling or the “fastback” style of the new Scirocco. New models would be made at the Spring Hill plant all derived from single Delta 2 Architecture ADDING these models to existing lineup:
2 D Hardtop Pontiac G5 & Holden Astra (Twin Top styling)
Quad Coupe Hardtop Saturn Astra (Twin Top)
2 D Chevy Cobalt Soft Top Cabrio and Lacetti Cabrio (Outside U.S. market)
3 D and or 5 D Hatch Chevy WTCC
3 D and or 5 D Fastback Hatch Chevy Lacetti
3 D and 5 D Hatch SAAB 9-2x styled more like original SAAB Turbo (AWD opt)
4 D Buick Skyhawk Formal Roof Sdn V6 opt (in place of G5 model)
4 D Chevy Cobalt Sedan and Chevy Optra Sedan
4 D Holden Astra Sedan and Saturn Astra Sedan (Styled like Twin Top)
5 D Chevy HHR opt. 3500 V6 (now sold worldwide)
5 D Chevy Optra Estate
5 D Saturn Astra Estate (Tall Wagon “Outback” AWD opt)
5 D SAAB 9-4x (LWB 108”Crossover 7-pass version of Astra Estate)
5 D Saturn Zafira 3.2L V6 opt. (7 pass Van)
5 D Buick Rendezvous (LWB 108” 3.2L V6 opt.)
5 D Chevy Rezzo (similar to Skoda Roomster)
5 D GMC Jimmy (similar to Jeep Patriot)
5 D Pontiac Vibe with 3.2L V6 option
5 D SAAB 9-4x (similar to Dodge Caliber)
5 D Chevy Borrego (similar to the concept)
5 D GMC Trakker SUV (similar to Honda CR-V)
5 D GMC Safari wide mini van (similar to Honda FR-V)
GMC Montana Pickup (Delta2 version of Corsa based one)
GMC Montana Crew and Extended Pickup (3500 V6 opt.)

Engines would be a consolidated version of the current eco-tec 4-cylinder with direct injection and HCCI added to as many engines as possible. The 3500 V6 would be used for high MPG and low cost with the option of the 3.2L ‘high feature” on performance models both with 6-speed automatics as options. Turbo-Diesels would be offered in the U.S. market along with Eastronic transmissions.

What a great lineup GM could make from just one new platform and with economy of up to 60 MPG.

Hello Mr. Welburn: The new GMT 900 architecture provides the most interesting options for new designs.

A new narrowed version of the light duty chassis derived from 1500 models with IRS added for better handling in 116”, 119” and 130” Wheelbases using the 4.2L I-6 as standard with 5.3L E85 V8, Twin Mode hybrid and new light duty Turbo-Diesel as options.

This chassis would be used for the next H3, Canyon, Trailblazer and Cheyenne mid size truck and SUV models similar to what Nissan does with the Titan/Frontier. A new Astro mid size van could also be offered in RWD and AWD versions.

A shortened 100” and 110” WB chassis with solid axles would be the basis for a shorter H4 (Wrangler size) HUMMER as well as a K5 “Blazer” version of the Trailblazer.

A new 55-57 BelAir series of car models can be created for very little cost and a good profit since it would also use the new narrow chassis. Other “retro-modern” versions of the original GTO, 60’s Impala, 70 Chevelle, Buick GS, 442, Grand Prix and Monte Carlo could also be made. Interiors would bring back the 50’s style big bench with modern touches like fold out console with DVD entertainment center, storage for lap tops and reclining rear seats.

Nomad models would be offered in AWD versions and use extended cab doors to maintain 2 door styling, the El Camino would also have an AWD model and a 4 door model shared with the Holden Crewman and Cross 8.

Bucket seat models would use the excellent GMT 900 ones for even more cost savings and in turn the GMT 900 models could use newly designed features like hand brake on the console. A 6 passenger interior for all models would start with full feature GMT 900 heated buckets in cloth or leather with a fold out console in the center seat section. The fold out portion would have storage for iPod, MP3 players and lap tops with 12 and 110 volt power supplies. A storage compartment or subwoofer would be in the bottom cushion under the fold out section.

Tahoe and 1500 Suburban models would go to an IRS suspension to increase third row leg room and allow the third row seat to fold flat.

The following new car platforms will be derived since they are nearly “free” these models will make a large profit with “Retro” styling no other carmaker can compete with.
Bel Air
Nomad
El Camino in 1969 and/or 1970 styling

Taxi specific versions could be designed using many of the much loved Checker cab looks and large interior space.

Police specific versions could also be designed with input from individual police forces.

The GMT 900 will also be used as a base for the next generation Express and Savanna. A "Dual Fuel" Gasoline/CNG (or LPG) AWD model with IRS and lowered ride height suspension would make a good “Westfalia Camper” model. The propane or CNG tank that would be used only occasionally for the stove and fridge could be utiliized when not needed for camping. A Twin-Mode hybrid with electric generator and battery pack would be an option. As a camper it would have "Plug In" connections built in.

An smaller Astro Camper model could also be offered.

A pickup version of the Express could be created with up to 8 passenger capacity with either 6 regular doors or extended cab doors for the third row. The shorter cab would allow this larger cab with a short box 5’8” or 6’6” bed on the long 8’ chassis. A “sleeper cab” m