Recreate Old GM Divisions

[Dave@Moon]

If you haven't seen it yet Jerry Flint's take on fixing GM appeared last month on Ward's Auto World:

Recreate Old GM Divisions

[Guest norb]

He always has some good ideas but we cant go back. The engineering is mostly done now at the GM Tech Center in Warren.These guys are restricted as to how much they can do for each division.When I started at Buick they had engine design & development,Body engineers,ride & handling,everything,now its much too expensive for each divison to do that anymore.

[Steve Moskowitz]

Happened to "walk in on this post"...what is very interesting to many of us is that today GM announced that they will have dedicated field personnel for each "channel". EVERYONE, dealers and wholesale personnel said it was a mistake when they tried to make all field staff generic GM. They finally realized that it was a horrible "Ron Zarella" decision and now you will actually have reps dedicated to the brand! Amazing it took this long!

Norb, you are right. There was way too much duplication of resources in the day but it was a time GM had enough $$$ to waste. Certainly not the case today!

[NTX5467]

Good to see you in here again, Steve!

It seems that sometime "A L" ("after Lutz"), that some orientations changed or, as some might claim, evolved into a more brand-focused approach. Initially, the reps (as I understand) were more concerned with the dealer doing well rather than making sure the individual brands in the "channel" were performing up to their local market expectations. For example, if a dealer's strength was in Pontiacs and they kept doing well with Pontiacs, the early orientation was fine, but they now would need to leverage their Pontiac success for the store into success in Buick and GMC also (which is a much better situation for everybody).

It DOES seem that in the "A L" GM, brand focus is much better than it used to be. The 2006 Impala give Chevrolet a product in the same orientation as the mid-80s Caprices (value with luxury appointments at a very competitive price). The 2004+ Grand Prix is more hard-core sporty and nicer. The LaCrosse carries the Buick core values too. All three of these cars are on the same platform, but have different feels aimed at their respective consumer demographics--just like it used to be. In that area, I feel they are doing very well, even if there is some price overlap (just like there always has been!).

Plus, in 2006, Impalas have exclusively Chevy-architecture engines (the 60 degree V-6 plus Chevy-specific LS1 V-8 in the Impala SS). Buicks have their 3800 V-6, plus the NorthStar V-8 and HF V-6). These are orientations that I like, for as long as they will last.

I concur that in the era of emissions controls, safety, and fuel economy certifications, each division can't be out there doing their own things, per se, but if the products might are perceived to have the differentiation that they had in those earlier times, however it might be achieved, it should be beneficial.

I also concur that things didn't go quite as they should have in the 1990s at GM. In some respects, the change was good as it brought us to where things are today, but it was not a smooooth road getting to the point that product is once again important at GM. If, per chance, Mr. Smale had not taken the reins as he did, I wonder how things might have evolved without the "beloved" brand management orientation that came later on? Brand management is not a bad thing, just that rather than what we all considered to be "the brand" (i.e., each GM division) was not "the brand" (i.e, what we used to call "model") the way they did things. THAT orientation is what went awry rather than brand management per se.

Brand management used to be what each divisional chief help control of and administered to those that worked for the respective division. In this earlier brand management orientation, you had a divisional Chief Engineer that was in charge of engine, transmissions, and other things. They were given a basic architecture for a series of vehicles and then developed their vehicles from that, with their unique engines and suspension and such attached to it. About the only thing "standardized" were transmissions and a few other powertrain-related items. So, if the new administrative architecture can give the product the appearance that what used to happen is happening (in each division), it should be beneificial.

The one thing that somewhat troubles me is that with all of the "combination strategies" that have been in existence since, roughly, the late 1970s, where are the real cost savings from these consolidations and economies of scale? Or are they really there, even as other things might override them?

Anyway . . . I'm glad the current slate of GM vehicles have improved as much as they have the last couple of years. In some respects, they've "caught up" (as some would insist), but in other ways, they've surpassed many others (as some would not like to admit to!) in the process.

In other ways, it's regrettable that we don't have Olds to be the "American Jaguar" as Pontiac plays to the "American BMW" orientation. In spite of Mr. Zarella's contentions, you can't just poof off that many loyal GM customers and not expect to have problems in the future. But that's another story . . .

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

Dave , I havent had the chance to read the article yet , but I do want to chime in on a few of the things that NTX mentioned in his post.

First off GM may have gotten a little better at creating specific brands but the overall quality of the cars they produce is still low. You may remember a post I put up a couple of weeks ago about my wifes 2004 Malibu MAXX (GM should be ashamed of themselves). Well the car is back and GM did only the BARE MINIMUM to fix the car. It is still on the same defective rotors it left the factory with, except now those defective rotors are a few thousands of an inch thinner than they were before. Then GM had the guts to send a letter which basically boiled down to "Gee we are sorry we didnt fix your car to your satisfaction...... but too bad" . So until they get things such as inferior parts & inferior customer service back in line, anything else they are doing is just putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Now the other thing is the new 2006 Lumina ......er Blandpala Im sorry I mean Impala.What a boring car , why didnt they just save the dignity of the Impala name and call this thing the 2006 Chevy Rentalmobile. I own a base model 2002 Impala. My wife was given an 06 Blandpala while GM was band-aiding her Malibu.The comparison was VERY disappointing. My car has some curves to it , the 06 is a slab of meat on wheels. When it comes to side by side comparison of these 2 base model cars, option & comfort wise , it was like comparing my car to a 74 Gremlin

02- Dual climate control, 06 not there

02 -Lumbar support in seat, 06 not there

02-drivers side side impact air bag , 06 not there

02-Fold down rear seats, 06 ... well you get the point

And my car is the cheapie version.I mean they went from a bland car, the Lumina, to what Im driving ,which granted isnt the most stylish car , but compared to the Lumina, then they went back to the Lumina look. And the biggest mistake of all that they made , with BOTH cars is the fact that a true Impala has 2 taillights on each side with a backup light in the middle. Sorry NTX , didnt mean to single you out, but you captured my interest with your comments.

Dan

[NTX5467]

Greetings, Dan --

In the case of warranty repairs, think "insurance adjuster". That's the best analogy I can think of. And that might be openning up a whole shipload of barrels or worms.

In the case of service concerns, the dealers are (and always have been) instructed to repair vehicles to factory-generated guidelines (parts and service). We might like a little more attention to areas that seem to be proven problem areas, but the dealer will get reimbursed only for what the factory specifies to be done under warranty. Yet it's the dealers who typically get the "bad rap" for these things.

As consumers, we usually look at things from our perspective. WE spent the money on the vehicle in the first place so WE are the ones to be satisfied (in cases of problems with said vehicle). WE want some of our those profits back that were generated by the sale of the vehicle to us. Yet as soon as that money leaves our hands, it ceases to be ours . . . it now belongs to somebody else (just as with your insurance premiums) and it's that "somebody else" that determines just how much is spent to keep our business in the event of a loss (or warranty issue with a vehicle or similar).

Now, from the other side of the fence -- the side that received our money. Would you be willing to hand all of that money back over to the person that gave it to you a few months prior? Probably not. You'd probably want to use just enough to make the customer happy, or at least try to -- key word "try". If you read the fine print of the warranty coverages document, you'll find that the manufacturer is the one that determines how warranty repair funds are spent and on what (including towing and overnight travel interruption amounts). After you hand it over to them, it's their money and as they are paying the bills, they can specify how that money will be spent.

Now, the rebuttal to that orientation is that the consumer has choices in how they spend their purchase dollars. It's a free-market society and we have choices. And, of course, we always hear dialogue about how so-and-so vehicle has "no problems" and how they are better . . . until you talk (or read the related product-owner forums) and see that those products (typically import brands) ALSO have problems in certain areas that are "known and consistent" with certain models of that brand from that manufacturer. I saw that happen with the 6.2L GM light truck diesels and similar Fords, for example, on certain durability concerns--the GM owners were going to "buy a Ford next time" and then you talked to the Ford owners and they had the same problems the GM owner was trying to get away from. Only thing is that some brands do a better job of seeming to keep the coverage of their vehicles' problems out of the new media than others (i.e., sludge issues with certain import brands' engines--determined to be "design issues", engine noises in certain import brands' V-8 engines) while if it's a USA brand, the media has a field day with it (always mentioning how seemingly "down" that manufacturer's sales or stock prices are for the year).

I can state, from the GM dealership side of things, warranty repairs are drastically down from prior decades. Not "labor operation" issues, but parts sales issues. The spikes we used to see last for a whole model year (and afterward) are now lasting only a few months, with a few straggling in every so often. In other words, they aren't breaking nearly as much as they used to--with respect to warranty issues. They might be "building them cheaper", but they have also made great strides toward "building and assembling them better". If they are easier to repair, they are easier to build at a higher level of assembly quality too! And I tend to concur with some of GM's dialogue that they are and will equal and possibly pass the quality of Toyota products if they have not already done so, in the very near future. (suspecting Toyota loyalists will cringe at that statement as they see how much less money an Impala costs to buy and maintain rather than their Camry)

On the Malibu brakes, I never have figured out where the problems come in. I know that as the problems seemed to become more wide-spread, there were many part number changes on the brake rotors from GM. This indicated to me that they were at least trying to fix the problem and possibly were changing something (metallurgy, vendors, whatever) as a result. THESE would be things the customer has no real knowledge of, only those that sell the parts would know of these things, with all due respect.

As I recall, that system was spec'd from Girling in Australia. I find this curious as it has seemed that every brake component from that source has components that seem to cost about twice+ what similar North American-sourced product do. Brake pads are very expensive, in comparison, for example, to systems from North America. Similar with rotors and calipers. By observation, it would seem that a "everyman's car" would need to have very good components that didn't cost three-arms to replace. I did a search for brake pads one time, finding the least expensive OEM brand was $62.00+ shipping (from an online vendor and not ACDelco). Yikes!

So, I suspect that your brakes got resurfaced using an "on-car" resurfacer. Just as with the older "on-car" wheel balancers, this can correct for other things that might be having problems and cause your brake issues to surface (no pun intended). As with any other vehicle, once the particular component/system is designed, priced, approved, and validated, everybody seems to sign-off and the situation and go on to other things. If issues develope after the vehicle is "out in the world", getting them fixed within the existing design architecture becomes a priority, but not a complete redesign situation--until such "freshenings" or "upgraded platforms" are scheduled a few years later (lead time and cost issues).

With regard to your Impala comments, I recently saw some Impalas ordered for a national vehicle rental customer. They were 2006 Impala LS (base) models. The OnStar and roof rail side impact airbags were "delete" options on that vehicle. It still had the front driver's and passenger's airbag Supplemental Inflatable Restraints as your older Impala does. The back seat might not fold down as yours will, but there's a new optional situation that is much better than any prior version.

Now, the OTHER thing is that Impala models were changed a little for 2006. The prior Impala LS (upscale) has been replaced by the Impala LT (three order variations thereof). Therefore, the 2006 base Impala (now called LS) is a much nicer car in many respects AND is priced a good deal lower than the prior models. And, in comparison to the prior base Impala models, it very nicely appointed and equipped. So, making sure the comparisons are for equlivalent vehicle equipment levels, not specific model nomenclatures, in important.

Styling? I'm getting more accustomed to the 2006 Impala styling, but considering how much better it drives and performs and "fuel economies" to me, I can deal with that. It's more "contemporary" for the times and assembly strategies too. Everybody has their own orientations on these issues and I respect that. I was not too impressed with the styling until I saw the 2006 Impala in person at the new car show--similar with the Cadillac DTS.

Then, I got a 2006 Impala LT (base LT) from the rental fleet (with 6 miles on it) for a weekend rental. I was highly impressed with the progress they had made on what was already a credible product! The engine upgrades on the existing 3.5L Vortec V-6 are much better than the prior 3.4L V-6 . . . power and highway fuel economy BOTH. Ride and handling are improved, generally, but I like a more firm suspension calibration. I've observed that tire choice can greatly influence this too, as I suspect the prior Uniroyals ride and handle a little softer than the current Goodyears (by obsevation).

And, then, later on, I had the chance to rent several LaCrosse vehicles (CXL and CXS) and some Impala 3LTs and LTZs. You can talk about them being "the same", but the way they are configured, the architecture might be the same, but the feel and orientation are not -- just like the old days (circa 1970) when the Chevy Malibu/Pontiac LeMans/Olds Cutlass/Buick Skylark were "all the same", but highly different from each other -- with the Impala being a really nice car at a nice price point and the Buick being and feeling more upscale for not much more money.

Just some thoughts and comments . . .

NTX5467

[Guest bkazmer]

don't confuse what you pay for the parts with what GM pays. GM consistently buys the very cheapest componentry they can, even if it functions less well or , in some cases, waiving their own performance specs. This is not my supposition, I have seen it. Too much of what's in a GM car is driven outside of the engineering department. and no, not all OEM's work this way.

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

I have to agree with you on the LaCrosse. I had an opportunity to drive a LaCrosse for several days. I used to work at a GM dealership as a salesman and was given the opportunity to drive several "company cars" while the intake gaskets were being done on my Impala. One being an 04 GTO and the other being a new LaCrosse. I loved them both. But once again my service point comes up. I know I was an employee, but the dealership I worked for treated me like gold while my Impala was broke down. the car has been fixed for over a year now and for being a high mile car, it runs ,drives & looks like a new car. Oddly enough the Malibu was involved in an accident at the same time the Impala was getting repaired, so I took it to my dealership to be repaired. Once again treated like gold, Good service IS out there but you have to look for it and Im not sure why that is. The dealer I used to work for and another GM dealer that is local to me have given me FANTASTIC service, while others have seemed like they could care less. Even the dealer that sold my wife her car , tried as hard as GM would let them to make things right.

As far as the new Impala I get the feeling its either going to be a love it or hate it kind of car. I know many people who are as about impressed with it as I am. However for as much as I disliked my wifes rental .... she loved it. One thing I wish they wouldnt have changed tho is the dual climate control. I never really thought it worked that good until I had one . My wife is always cold , I think she would wear a jacket in hell. Meanwhile I carry a lot of um .....insulation . And the dual climate control in my car is a godsend. After nearly 16 years no more fighting over the temperature control. Just that alone makes my car IMHO better than the 06 version.

Dan

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 02- Dual climate control, 06 not there </div></div>

The base model Prius has a thermostat. You set the temperature in the car just like at home or in your wealthy uncle's Lincoln. Even the fan speed will automatically increase if the computer finds that your fan setting isn't keeping up with the thermostat. How long do you think it'll be before a $21K list GM car will have that feature?

GM's quality has improved <span style="font-style: italic">and</span> still has room for improvement. However their product simply isn't keeping up, and you don't need a 48 mpg Partial-Zero Emission mid-size car to figure that out.

[Guest my3buicks]

At least nothing GM makes (even the now gone Aztek) is as ugly as those Prius's though - they are butt ugly, no way around it. UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If GM would have come out with something that looked/looks like the Prius they would have been lambaisted by the auto press - Oh, case in point was the Aztek. Most people when they see a Prius don't think, hey, there's a really economical, futuristic, high tech vehicle, they think BUTT ugly.

[Stu Allen]

I must have missed Dan's previous comments on the Malibu Maxx. We have a 2004 Maxx and the quality has been great! The car has never been back to the dealer since we drove away nearly two years ago. We bought it primarily to flat tow behind a motor home but it quickly became my wife's favorite and her van sits in the garage and she drives the Maxx. I've recommended the Maxx to several of my friends and those that have bought one are very happy with the vehicle. I hate to see a whole vehicle line get trashed due to one person's bad experience with a car and/or dealer.

Stu

[Guest unclefogey]

Sorry, not butt ugly, aerodynamic! Chrysler Airflow, butt ugly, but also aerodynamic. Difference is today, people understand aerodynamic and will buy based on that claim no matter the perceived ugliness. 200,000+ purchasers of the Prius last year and this year can't all be ashamed of driving a Prius. Remember the claim of the Ford Aerostar that it was more aerodynamic than a Porsche? Not sure the public was ready for that claim back then as they are now.

By the way, Knight Ridder had an article in my Sunday paper that Dave's Prius is harmful to children, blind and sighted pedestrians and other living things. It is too quiet! One statement in the article was, "When idling, hybrids run on the quiet electric battery". I have now read that sentence at least ten times and still can't process it. I only know what I read in the newspapers.

Suggestion was that all hybrids be required to have an ice cream truck bell installed . Or, to have the radiator fan run constantly when running on battery power .

[Guest Dans 77 Limited]

Stu, heres a link to my Malibu saga:

http://forums.aaca.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=352642&page=9&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Dan

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 02- Dual climate control, 06 not there </div></div>

The base model Prius has a thermostat. You set the temperature in the car just like at home or in your wealthy uncle's Lincoln. Even the fan speed will automatically increase if the computer finds that your fan setting isn't keeping up with the thermostat. </div></div>

WOW!! never knew that! Now I really want to rush out and buy one of those. YUK

Please,...... I'll walk

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Please,...... I'll walk </div></div>

Eventually.

[Reatta Man]

Dan....

You had it right the first time. It IS the 2006 Lumina! Suddenly, it is 1996 all over again!

Since when did GM start using the lower air vents in a Sears Kenmore refrigerator as the template for designing their grilles? C'mon, guys....the grille on my tractor has more style than the new Lumina/Impala...and that includes the bland 2006 Monte Carlo, too.

As for service, I have found the problem here in San Antonio is with the dealership and not GM, and other people have led me to believe the problem exists in other cities as well.

Case in point--I bought my last two Chevies at Gunn Chevy here in San Antonio because they had the best price and selection by far over some of the other 50 Chevy dealers here in the San Antonio area. But, their service department is run by Moe, Curly and Larry, with Laurel and Hardy for service writers. Soooo....after learning they couldn't diagnose a noisy fuel pump even though you can hear it whinning from 10 feet away, I have taken everything to Ancira Chevrolet....and basically gotten the red carpet treatment every time. The bottom line is the quality of service is an attitude generated by the dealership management, and not by the corporate offices in Detroit.

The fact is GM would do well to spend some money on secret shoppers taking GM cars into dealerships to FIND OUT FOR THEMSELVES how customers are REALLY treated, and not jus solely rely on those rigged customer service surveys they use now. You know, the way other corporations find out how well things are going out in the boonies, and how Consumer Reports often finds out how customers are really treated?

Joe

[Steve Moskowitz]

Joe,

GM has used secret shoppers in the past. Heck, at one point they even asked the dealers to pay for it. The fact is that there are great service deparments and poor ones. There are all shades of good and bad. You are right that the service department is a direct reflection on not only upper management but the dealer him or herself. I was very proud of my award winning service department and made it a priority for our team.

However, if you think the J.D. Powers surveys are rigged to make a dealership look good you are mistaken. Dealers have been screaming for years that the survey is flawed in its construction and pre-determines a less than correct response. As someone who called owners to find out why they did not give us a perfect score, I can personally attest to how confusing it was to our customers.

The good thing is that more and more dealers are trying to upgrade the quality of their service, especially compared to the last couple of decades. When you find a dealer with lousy service, it is time to walk.

[JohnD1956]

The Service Department is the most valuable part of a dealers operation. It is a shame what goes on in some of them. I have seen managers who belittle customers because they didn't call a part by it's right name. What are they trying to prove anyway?

I am basically gun-shy about buying a new car because of sour Service Departments.

[NTX5467]

Well . . . dual climate control might not be in the 2006 base Impala LS, but the new "corporate" automatic dual zone climate control is on the higher level 2006 Impala LTs.

As for that automatically variable fan that Dave (and others) think is neat, that's the way the Chrysler LH cars with automatic a/c controls have been since, 1995 and prior. Have to let it be in "Auto" mode and not override it for it to work as Dave describes. It'll even vary the fan speed on a/c if you go under a cloud (and the temp load sensor on the dash senses less light), going down a few notches and then raise it again when the bright sun again strikes the sensor--I've seen and heard that happen myself.

On GM's parts procurement practices . . . I have no doubt the engineers spec out things that will work very well. I also have no doubt that when the vehicle is "costed out", some compromises are made. Compromises which generally (according to the DeLorean book circa 1982) end up getting the less expensive part with a projected failure rate of __%, which will save the corporation more money (even after they pay warranty costs of the failed parts) than spending a little more money in the first place and not paying warranty claims. Just where they might put the failure rate/component cost perspective can be variable, I suspect. In the book, he gave several examples of where the engineers/designers used a prior year's vehicle and fixed some problem areas and then presented it for final approval, thinking they had done a good job of cost containment compared to last year's model, and (it seemed) the financial people told them to take (say) $20.00 cost out of the vehicle with some different parts. He said that at that point in time, about all they could do is delete some trim, choose less expensive upholstery/carpet, different tires, etc.

Later, when I was talking with some Chevy enthusiasts and owners, it was noted that one year's car (in the 1960s) would have an interior that "wore like iron" and the next year's model fell apart in about 2 years. Or the less expensive Biscayne or BelAir would have interiors that were inexpensively done with inexpensive fabrics, yet the more expensive Impala had stronger stuff in it. So, after those conversations, it all fell into place.

In the case of the later '70s Caprice and Bonneville, they both had a nice looking velour fabric for the seats. Looked to be the same in both cars--but it wasn't. When we went to a trim shop and viewed the material on raw bolts of fabric, the Pontiac fabric was twice as thick as the Caprice fabric, but the general public could not really tell the difference unless they were side by side. Naturally, the Pontiac being the more expensive vehicle could fade the extra cost of the better fabric than could the less expensive Chevrolet. Perhaps they both started out with the better fabric and the Chevrolet's fabric had to be less expensive?

Yet one of the worst things about trying to sell GM parts with the "Hecho en Mexico" or "Made in China" stamp on them is the fact that the public perceived the ACDelco parts were the same as those at the auto supply. They could have been, but the only way I could answer their concerns was to state "The parts are made to GM specifications", with the implication that the other ones could be made to "any" specifications and that GM's parts were warrantied by GM, which we could take care of at the dealership if any problem arose. I had a very high success rate by using the "Made to GM specifications" orientation, which also conveyed confidence in the product and what it would do.

We can armchair quarterback procurement policies for any company until the cows come home and leave again. Yet there are many "other" costs for other alternatives too. Investing that extra dime in a part so that it will "last forever" can make customers happy when they don't have any "failures" with their vehicle, yet from the investor's standpoint, they might only wish to approve 2 cents of that dime so they can have the other 8 cents in profits and stock dividends.

Another perspective from the Lee Iacocca book, circa 1983, during his earlier years at Ford. In a vehicle cost approval meeting he was in, it was mentioned that they approved shock absorbers that cost $3.00 (say) over ones that cost $4.00 each. He knew the more expensive ones would last longer and be better for the customer, so he asked his superior about that decision. He was told that they went with the less expensive one as it would be good enough to last about one year in normal use (back when factory warranties were not longer than 1 year or 12K miles). After that year and the car didn't ride as well, the owner would take the vehicle to the dealer and let them put the Ford replacement shocks on it then, which were better than the $4.00 shocks were anyway--or the customer traded the car for another new Ford. So, when the customer took the car back for new shocks, they got "the good ones" from Ford's Rotunda parts operations. This got the customer back into the dealership and also generated work for the dealers--what they considered to be a win-win situation . . . . at that time. I recall seeing the Monroe Shock Absorber ads that mentioned the weak factory shocks, which were generally acknowledged to only last one year anyway, so they were selling their Super500 line of hd shocks.

Perhaps the imports, being more sensitive to vehicle longevity and reliability in their earlier years, went ahead an spent that extra money on some things OR made them all the same so that economies of scale kept the prices down. In any event, they became "maintenance intensive" vehicles (for many reasons) whereas American vehicles, while being very reliable and highly durable with not much maintenance needed, were viewed as "repair intensive". I suspect this is where the "check the service records" for the imports really took hold (although it was recommended when you bought any used vehicle anyway)--especially in the case of the later OHC motors with timing belts that would need replacement at certain intervals. In those earlier times, American vehicles usually needed timing chains replaced at 80K miles for good measure anyway.

So, for import makes, maintenance issues kept the service departments profitable, plus the warranty and other repair work. As American brand vehicles come to need fewer repairs, maintenance work is becoming more important for them too. Be that as it may . . .

When a vehicle is designed, it's typically designed to a "price point" at the retail level and also to a production price point. It's not specifically the price point itself that governs what is spent for what, but where the priorities for that type of vehicle might be. In the case of the Impalas, the 2006 Impala is obviously less expensive to assembly and produce (one tail light module per side, as before, but no deck lid light/reflector mechanism and related wiring, for example, but a really nice interior and VVT in the engine). A/C controls and radios now appear to be "corporate" than "divisional", so more savings.

And you can use this orientation when you comparison shop. If one brand of car in a particular price class has Michelins on it rather than Uniroyals or other tires, for example, you can bet that they got some economies of scale somewhere in the vehicle to free-up the extra expense for the Michelins (if they are standard equipment). OR they opted for the Michelins to allude to a more upscale "we spent more on this vehicle to make you like it better" orientation and possibly make the other vehicle look "cheap" in comparison. OR they build two engine families from common tooling, adding OHC components to one while the other ones uses normal pushrods (i.e. Chrysler LH cars' 3.3L and OHC 3.5L V-6s). Lots of ways to juggle things!

Sometimes, it's the technology in the component that makes it expensive (as in the "touch control" a/c control heads). At the time, those touch-sensitive controls were really upper-end items for vehicles. When the Reattas had their "tv screen" touch screen control panels, that "touch screen" had a dealer cost of more than $2K, for example. Again, in that time frame, any computer touch screen was really high end stuff . . . much less in a car. To it's credit, it was a great idea that surely would be less expensive to do now than then. Being able to pull up the vehicle diagnostics via the screen was really great, but changing the a/c or radio with the screen might not be the safest way to do things--now, there's voice commands to do the same thing.

I'm glad Dave likes his Honda hybrid, but down here in the land of Suburbans and Tahoes, plus Texas Dust Devils, and "miles" to work, such a lighter vehicle can have "unspoken" costs that might not be outweighed by fuel savings or less vehicle emissions. To me, the 4-dr Honda Hybrids make a better vehicle in this environment down here. But then there's the 50mpg VW diesels and the in-a-few-months new Nissan vehicle that will get 43mpg EPA highway without having to pay the cost of a hybrid (their words).

I can see the orientation about electric/hybrids being "dangerous" as they are "too quiet". Perhaps, with their fancy hvac fan control, they can add some radar/sonar sensors to sound exterior alarms when they come in closer proximity to humans, animals, and other vehicles? Kind of like some of the fancier vehicle alarms used to do?

There can be one drawback to any electric/hybrid vehicle . . . . which might relate to a particular customer demographics being twarted from ownership while others are driven to it for the same reason. Hint . . . "boom" "boom" "boom" "da boom" . . . . mega watt sound systems. It takes massive power to push those sub-woofers to the sound pressure levels that some people desire, so it would seem that customer demographic will not be buying hybrids, especially the "two passengers and a briefcase" models. NO place to stuff those sub-woofers and the related amps, not to mention the decrease in fuel economy due to the added electrical system loads from the sound system. Yet, at the other end of the spectrum, other customers would have no need for such things anyway.

Have a great day, everybody!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As for that automatically variable fan that Dave (and others) think is neat, that's the way the Chrysler LH cars with automatic a/c controls have been since, 1995 and prior. </div></div>

Chrysler LH, $35K ten years ago. Prius, $21K now. That was my point, it's the modern equivalent of punishing buyers by designing in a picture of clock on the dashboard (<span style="font-style: italic">Ah--the memories!</span> ) to make people buy the leather seats and moonroof if they want something so basic as a decent climate control. Going backwards in that respect (as Dan stated in the Impala) only exacerbates the problem. People running a car company should know that.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm glad Dave likes his Honda hybrid, but down here in the land of Suburbans and Tahoes, plus Texas Dust Devils, and "miles" to work, such a lighter vehicle can have "unspoken" costs that might not be outweighed by fuel savings or less vehicle emissions. </div></div>

Actually there's one benefit to the car that'd be uniquely appreciated in Texas. I never thought that much of aerodynamics except as an aid to highway mileage. However the Prius (the second-most aerodynamic publicly-sold car ever to the Honda Insight--bar <span style="font-style: italic">none</span>) has shown me something! It is the most highway-stable car I've ever driven. Crosswinds, semi-truck drafts, headwinds, gusts, etc. faze it less than anything I've ever driven, including my 4400 lb 1960 LeSabre! <span style="font-style: italic">Seriously</span> impressive for a tall 2700 lb. car!

[NTX5467]

Actually, Dave, the first and most of the first gen of Chrysler LH cars listed for approx $31K. Only option was a sunroof. The same automatic a/c setup was ALSO available on the less expensive Chrysler Concordes and Dodge Intrepids too--vehicles that probably could have been dealt down to the lower $20K range.

Actually, that extra clock (which REALLY works! and was STANDARD equipment) of the 2nd gen LH cars, as the Chrysler 300M, is really quite handy. Even Infinity has a similar setup! Might seem redundant (as I was suspect of the duplication when I first saw it) until you find that you can easily glance and see the time rather than looking down at the radio display. No need to take your eyes from the general plane of the roadway and surrounding areas.

I noted that Dave didn't say anything about "intimidation" on the roadways, from larger vehicles or possibly getting caught between two semis on a three-lanes-same direction road, going uphill. Not to mention those soccer parents on the way to practice that starts in 5 minutes, in a 4wd Excursion diesel.

One aspect of a narrow vehicle as Dave's is that two of them can probably drive side by side in a single lane of traffic. THAT could ease congestion, possibly, just as everybody driving motorcycles.

Being that TX also has some 70mph and higher legal speed limits, what does the fuel economy drop to at those speeds with the a/c running full blast in 90 degree weather, Dave? Just curious.

Also, how does it handle driving 70mph with a cross wind hitting on the edge of one of the front fenders, constantly, at say 40mph? Might be a little extreme, but it has happened that way down here.

I'll concur, Dave's hybrid will have to be highly aerodynamic in order to better use its limited power. I'd like to see one ascend Ranger Hill on I-20, east of Ranger, TX. The ride "down the hill" might really be interesting too! Might get the batteries charged realllll good too (via regenerative braking)!!!

I saw a Toyota Highlander Hybrid today, a new one. I didn't get a chance to look at the price on THAT one. Nor the EPA mileage ratings.

In some ways, Dave's hybrid is similar to the Chrysler AirFlow. Some really great advances in technology, comparitively aerodynamic, but a somewhat controversial styling situation. Hybrids are still a "work in progress" in many respects as their various technologies continue to evolve. They can be viable alternatives for many people who currently don't own one, but there are also other buyers that should probably stay away from them (for various reasons). Be that as it may.

I still highly question their resale value as new technology replaces old, IF resale value enters into the picture. I suspect there will always be a market for them to others that might currently own them or those that are fully aware of the possible various idiosyncracies of the vehicle and its components. In the same orientation as taking a confirmed GM owner and putting them in a competing brand of vehicle (with its different feels and reactivities to input and "sounds"). Suddenly, the "other" vehicle can become the "Worst vehicle on the road!" when compared to their GM vehicle.

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

[BUICK RACER]

Just to be clear, I haven't read all the previous posts, but in a meeting I attended on Wednesday, this week, Paul Ballew, General Motors Corp.'s executive director of market and industry analysis spoke at our Leadership Meeting with all of GM's Worldwide Facility Group about how we have to have more market share, stop advertising as GM, and advertise the great cars and trucks we have to offer with better quality than Toyota, in particularly the Buick Lucerne and many others. And sell more cars and trucks, but also lower our operating costs. He also stressed that he and all the other GM employees with many years need to retain some sort of equitable retirement, and that is the upmost concern of the GM Management. Which is way cool. After a couple of other presentations about Safety in the workplace, and environmental issues GM also has to abide by, Tim Lee, Director of Manufacturing, reinterated Paul Ballew's statement's that we need to be lean and mean, and sell alot of vehicles, and reduce costs in producing those vehicles.Take the waste out of production of parts, engines and vehicle assembly, that's a big deal, but the UAW and other unions that have work for GM, and it's suppliers need to realize, waste is $$, and we have a long way to go, some of it can be reduced immediately at local levels, other waste, is outside the local level,and Management needs to address,ASAP, or else.

[NTX5467]

Thanks for that information, Roberta!

------------

Manufacturer = GM "A product for every purse"

Make = Vehicle division = "brand"Model = The particular vehicle in the division's product assortment ("portfolio" sounds classy and might be accurate, but sounds a little "uppity" to me)

Focus (not the Ford model) = The brand first and the models therein second, plus what each brand stands for at what price point (i.e., value, luxury, performance). If a customer comes in looking for one model of the brand's offerings, yet finds they can't get what they want or at a price they can afford, perhaps they will find another model in that Brand that will fit their needs and desires. In a multiple-brand group, there will always seem to be "weaker" and "stronger" segments, but rather than bemoaning that fact, raise the weaker segments to the level of the stronger ones and make them all better from their prior reference points.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Guest unclefogey]

Eliminate waste? Sounds more like someone who is running for Congress. "If you elect me, I will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse!" I assume that at least one item of "waste" that must be eliminated was identified.

Forgive me if I take a negative point of view, but it sounds to me that waste might be another way of saying that if you are paying more than $12 an hour for pay and benefits or you have a pension plan, you are wasteful. As a retired U.S. Customs employee who worked in the commercial importation area, and whose line of merchandise included autos and auto parts, I would notice a general transition of local auto parts manufacturers from U.S. production, to foreign production, to disappearance as an importer. The times that I had the opportunity to talk with someone with these manufacturers to ask what happened to their import program, they would reply that they had gotten out of the OEM auto parts manufacturing business because of the never ending demand to reduce costs. They couldn't loose money on every item and hope to make it up in volume .

Doesn't bode well for the employees of Delphi.

[JohnD1956]

Hey Roberta, I wonder what goes on at the meetings. I mean... do the participants ever talk about giving the public what they want in a car? Does Management ever ask what does the public want in a car? Do any of the workers or management ( other than a few enthusiasts like yourself) even know about forums such as these where enthusiasts for Buicks pine for and describe what they want in cars today?

Please know that I do not in any way, shape, or form, intend for this comment to be a reflection on you, or any type of criticism of you. I just wonder... Does GM management consider this type of forum to be suitable market research about what the public wants in a car? If not, how do we get to them to express our opinions?

JD

[NTX5467]

One thing that I often wonder about is just how many more times can cost reductions be "requested" (or you can insert your own word there) and how many more times can operations be "reinvented" and/or streamlined before there is nothing left to work with? The other problem is that a strictly automotive OEM's operations can tend to mirror the health of the industry they build parts for, which means "unstable", generally. The less stability and profits, the more inclined they would be to find work in other areas where they can provide the product they can deliver at a price that is realized to allow them to make appropriate profits and prosper. I suspect that "outsourcing" to overseas vendors is something of a band-aid fix as they'll probably be approached on these same issues, eventually. When and IF they balk, with lots of other local vehicle manuacturers they can sell to, THEN where will things be?

It's always easier to "cut" things than "build" them, yet "cuts" generally appear on the profit/loss statements before the investments that "build" can get fully operational (due to lead time issues).

Sometimes, I wonder how anybody in MI has a job, with all of the job cuts from GM and others. I suspect that one thing that might be "cut" is those in the Jobs Bank that do not participate in the community service as other Jobs Bank workers do, with all due respect. Yet there's not one simple answer to these complex questions . . . lots of interacting issues . . . and orientations that must be considered. HOPEFULLY, an equitable solution can be reached.

In some respects, having Delphi to be a separate entity from GM was a seemingly good move. That way, Delphi could work for whomever they could sell things to, plus expand R&D for future global vehicle platforms. These would be things that if they were still a part of GM that might be frowned upon, in some way "cavorting with the enemy". I'm not sure if Visteon achieved the same measure of success, globally, as Delphi has? It should also be noted that only Delphi-North America has been said to be "unprofitable" as Delphi-Global has been reported to be doing quite well. It's become a sticky mess, it seems.

Just some thougths,

NTX5467

[55PackardGuy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how many more times can operations be "reinvented" and/or streamlined before there is nothing left to work with?</div></div>

Good points there, NTX. After "reinventing" the corporate structure often enough, there comes a time when you're reinventing last week's invention until there is chaos. The original mission is lost. The "change is good" mania is driving a lot of conscientious employees out of many work settings, I think. Change is sometimes bad, but if an employee points that out, the knee-jerk reaction is that they're just "disgruntled" (hate that word--only employees ever get labeled with it, management is somehow immune) and simply "don't like change."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's always easier to "cut" things than "build" them, yet "cuts" generally appear on the profit/loss statements before the investments that "build" can get fully operational (due to lead time issues).</div></div>

The temporary fixes that show up in the quarterly statements often don't work in the long run--but they make the stockholders temporarily happy and keep top management in their jobs. Eventually the piper must be paid. Look at the current stock prices of the auto manufacturers. They're bordering on penny-stock values. Can you say "short-term fixes?"

There was a great cartoon back in the early '90s when Al Checchi and Gary Wilson were gutting Northwest airlines and pocketing taxpayer's money to "save" the airline. Al was looking out over the tarmac and musing: "This would be a great business if it weren't for the employees... and the customers... and the airplanes." When you have management that never looks up from their spreadsheets, everything becomes a number and the end of the fiscal quarter becomes the only issue.

BTW Al and Gary are doing very well, Northwest is bankrupt. They somehow managed to sell their stock in time.

[NTX5467]

Thanks for the comments, Guy.

I have a soon-to-be-retired machine shop operative that's also a long-time hot rodder (since the later '50s). Over the years, he's seen lots of things go on at the race track and at the machine shop he owned.

One of his favorite comments had to do with the "Trick of the Week", as usually printed in some recent hot rod magazine. Purported to work great and be easy to do, so everybody gets away from their tried-and-true chassis (or engine) setup to try this new magic bullet . . . which doesn't work nearly as well for them as it did the magazine writers.

Another of his favorite comments has to do with what happens at the track. The scenario: A racer is trying to get his chassis (or engine) set up dialed in, but is having problems in the process. A friendly "pit advisor" comes up and offers his advice to do a certain change and it'll work like a champ . . . and then walks off. He "sounds" like he knows what's going on, so the change is made, which usually results in even more substandard performance. Then here comes another . . . and another . . . and another, each with their own cheering section and credibility, it seems.

Chassis setup in a drag car seems to be one of the largest "mysteries" of drag racing--to a large number of racers. Many theories of operation for each style/type of rear suspension, it seems--and that's just for one particular car and set of chassis components. Sometimes, when things are acting right and working good, the feel that is desired is not there for the driver . . . if only they'd look at their time slips and fine tune rather than "change".

In one case, a customer wanted him to get his rear suspension on a Chevy Monza straightened out so it'd work better with the more powerful engine they'd just built for it. My friend got the car at his shadetree shop and went over it and made sure that nothing was biasing something that should not be. When done, the suspension was "free" and would work. Yet it squated too much for the owner's taste, so here came the pit advisors and they readjusted things so that it "hopped" down the track once again, rather than driving smoothly and compliantly--what my friend noted was "the 2x4 suspension setup" that he'd just spent time getting rid of had returned.

You can draw many parallels between my friend's observations and current business events. As more time can be spent pointing fingers, which is seemingly easy to do, than fixing things, sometimes it's better to draw a line in the sand and say "From this day forward, we will learn from our past mistakes and move forward toward a better tomorrow for the company and its employees". No finger pointing, just positive actions.

The problem comes when so many legacy concerns are in play too. Getting them under control is just as important as moving forward, yet they can have a diminishing role if the business grows as desired.

Sometimes, there are "hot button subjects" that some operatives always key upon. They are important to them, but might not be nearly as important to others in the corporation, yet everybody has to keep hearing about them--like it or not. For former GM Board Member, Mr. Smale, it seemed to be brand management as implemented by Proctor&Gamble. Now we have health care costs and other things that particular operatives have for their own hot button subjects. Talking about these things doesn't fix anything, yet an improving business and growth can make them less significant in the total scope of things.

So we end up with the "90 Day Wonders" sort of fixes. Everybody likes to see results, but it seems that with the focus on "here and now" orientations, the sight of the future is forgotten as being necessary to consider and plan for. Kind of like a day-to-day bookkeeper orientation, with all due respect. Keeping the bills paid tomorrow is highly important, but if you can structure the repayment so that you make more progress with the liabilities and also build reserves at the same time (which can be one heck of a balancing act!), having some reserves for future business expansion can happen.

Much of the media reports have dealt with the "here and now" orientation for GM's alleged problem areas, yet there are also lots of neat things in the works now, happening NOW too, to be ready for the future vehicle markets' needs and consumers' desires. Some were originally supposed to be out for 2007, but the more recent "ills" have delayed them to about 2009-2010 . . . from the signals I've seen. In the mean time, GM's doing a pretty dang credible job with what they ARE doing (which was all approved about 3 years ago to be happening now). But there is still more to do in the short term to support what was planned in the long term a few years ago--and on the ground now.

Even if the Chrysler Group might have many popular models that sprang from the LX family of vehicles (just as they had in the early 1990s with the then-new Ram truck and the new LH cars), they are also running up against having to find a place to build additional new versions of the LX chassis for future products. Ford and GM have some good coverages in many market segments, but need to expand in others.

Hopefully . . . in the future the American car companies can get back to having competitive products in all product segment areas. At least the trend is currently in that direction! Leveraging their traditional and current strengths (which they actually have!) to produce new products for the North American market that are designed and conceived HERE rather than elsewhere, plus the uniquely American muscle car-style and sporty vehicles that evoke memories of past glories and future joys of ownership.

Have a great week, everybody!

NTX5467

[Gene Brink]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The base model Prius has a thermostat. You set the temperature in the car just like at home or in your wealthy uncle's Lincoln. Even the fan speed will automatically increase if the computer finds that your fan setting isn't keeping up with the thermostat. How long do you think it'll be before a $21K list GM car will have that feature? </div></div>

Must confess I have not looked at anything new close enough to notice this was not on any GM cars presently. On my '93 Park Avenue and works just fine...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> At least nothing GM makes (even the now gone Aztek) is as ugly as those Prius's though - they are butt ugly, no way around it. UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! </div></div>

Keith, tell me you are just being contrary. Do not think the Prius is good looking but compared to the Aztek? The Aztek? Have not seen the angle that makes that thing look good yet.

[Guest my3buicks]

[NTX5467]

On the hvac system of the beloved Prius . . . it would make sense that in a vehicle run by electricity (basically) that the fan speed would be variable in order to hopefully maximize utilization of the electrical power in the vehicle. But does the Prius have dual controls on the hvac system as many GM cars have had for years? If they need to vary the hvac fan speed to conserve electrical power, is there enough excess to run another set of electical actuators to accomodate the driver/passenger air flow/heat/cool operations? What about a "kickin'" sound system, subwoofers and all? Hmmmmm, if you build a box for the subwoofer and then find space for the amp, how much would the extra weight affect real world fuel economy, not to mention the additional electrical drain and the need for the "fossil fuel" motor to run to keep up with demand?

In reality, the variable hvac blower motor speed should be a simple software issue to make happen. Maybe a few other sensors too. Not a really major issue to me, though. It might be a serendipitous situation for a new Prius owner, but not enough to make me want to rush out and buy one just for this feature, with all due respect.

Let's see now, if the Prius has the "luxury item" of automatic variable hvac fan speed, does it also have . . . . power windows, power seat, power antenna, power sunroof, electronic variable shock absorber/strut damping, electric power steering, and power door locks . . . as so many Lincolns, Cadillacs, and some Chevrolets have???

Just curious . . .

I'm really glad you like your car, Dave. I hope it continues to perform to your expectations.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

The last thing you have to do in a car with a 200V battery that can move the car at least 2 miles on it's own is conserve electricity. The owners manual actually suggests that if the car is going to be parked for more than a few weeks you should turn the headlights off!

The fan will bump up a level or two if the intake air (or the air in the intake area if outside air is being used) to the system isn't heating (or cooling) in the direction desired by the thermostat setting. If you have the heater set at 70 and the "intake air" cools from 68 to 67 degrees (instead of getting warmer) the fan will go up a level. It happens most often on the defrost setting where the heated air is directed away from the intake. You can override it manually if you want, and there may be a way to turn the feature off (I haven't bothered to find out).

At any rate I'd agree, only a fool would by a Prius for the heater. Few fools have any reason to, there are too many good reasons for the sound-minded to literally line up to buy one for a fool to get the opportunity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> does it also have . . . . power windows, power seat, power antenna, power sunroof, electronic variable shock absorber/strut damping, electric power steering, and power door locks . . . </div></div>

Yes, no, no, no, no, yes, and yes.

Should I mention the stereo with 7 cd capacity or the keyless operation (incl. keyless pushbutton start)? Standard cruise, heated mirrors & intermittent rear wiper? Available Bluetooth, vehicle stability control, HID lights, voice activated navigation, & auto-dimming mirror?

No, it's not a Park Ave. It's what the Century should've been, and for less money.

[Guest Skyking]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It's what the Century should've been, and for less money. </div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I don't think so.................</span>

[Guest sintid58]

Buick has had an automatic climate control I believe since the late 60's. Of course all the rice burners are right there with there high tech right away. I love (hate) the commercial from one of the Japaneses companies about the amount of time saved by the wipers that start when it starts to rain. My 97 Park Avenue has that and it works quite well thank you. Gee if I remember right GM had rain sensing in the works in what was it the 40's when they built the concept Le Sabre. The convertible roof went up automaticaly when a drop of water hit the car. I can't think of one thing that the foreign car market had really developed totally on their own. Variable valve timing by Honda you say-----------used by Detroit Diesle since the early ninety. Tell me something you think is innovative by them so I can tell you how it was used here first, probably by the trucking industry or someone else. They are very good at taking existing technology and using it in there cars and then advertising it.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I can't think of one thing that the foreign car market had really developed totally on their own. </div></div>

Should I aquaint you with what's under the hood of my Prius? Like I said, nobody's buying these things for the heater (or wipers).

[Guest unclefogey]

Dave, Had my first ride in a Prius last week, just a two mile trip into town on snow covered gravel roads in the only county in Wisconsin w/o a stoplight. Not enough, obviously, to make a judgement, especially since I was fixated on the computer screen most of the time.

Keyless entry and starting. Was looking around the dash for a place the key would be inserted and asked where it was. Owner answered that was a sore subject since they had lost a key and it cost $245 to replace it. I dropped the subject. What do you do, just keep the key in your pocket? Or is a brain chip implanted in the owner, the same one that causes the owner to subscribe to CR and to respond to the yearly CR survey that their Japanese car is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

[Guest bkazmer]

not sure if Detroit Diesel or Alfa Romeo offered variable valve timing before the other.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What do you do, just keep the key in your pocket? </div></div>

Yes. The car (when off) sends out a constant signal keyed to the transponder "key", which looks just like any keyless lock remote. When the transponder gets that signal it sends a signal back to the car (you need to be within 5-8' and there are about a billion codes). The car then unlocks the doors when you touch the handle, and will start with the push of a button when a second receiver tells it the transponder is inside the car. The dome light also comes on as you approach the car as a safety feature.

Stripped base model cars don't have this function (called Smart Key), it's an inexpensive option found on about 90% of the cars (part of what I think was called "Package A" last year, tied in with the alarm system and--for 2006--an electronic auto-dimming mirror for NTX5467). In a base model car you need to push a button on the remote to open the door and put the remote itself in a little drawer-like ignition switch for the car to read the code and allow the car to be push-button started. <span style="font-style: italic">How savage!</span>

It really does seem ancient to have to put a metal key in an ignition switch after a year of driving this car, I must say. The replacement cost is correct, and the dealer warned me sternly about that in the same breath as he told me what real-world mileage to expect. You could tell he'd been coached about items people were dissappointed in with the early cars. Pontiac isn't the only one doing surveys.

[Guest imported_Thriller]

It's interesting...in the last couple of weeks, I've seen a few on the road here, whereas before I hadn't. It seems to me one of them may have been a taxi as well (recently saw a VW taxi - Passat possibly?). The government department I work for got one about 2.5 years ago at the one facility...they had problems with the batteries initially because nobody wanted to drive it and it sat. After that, they enforced a rotation among the fleet vehicles. I still don't think it sees enough use to make it worthwhile. Putting it into an enforced rotation required all the possible drivers to take a bit of a course to know how to use it...then again, remember this is government, so if there is an awkward or time-wasting way to do something, it will be found.