Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 00:35:50 -0400
From: "Joe" <Joenospamspam.net>
Subject: Re: GM's excess baggage - Buick, Pontiac, Saab, Hummer


"Lon" <lon.stowellnospamast.net> wrote in message news:nbednZ9Da4Gc6trbnZ2dnUVZ_uejnZ2dnospamast.com... > Walt Kienzle proclaimed: > I'd say you are giving them too much credit. Chrysler came out with the > 300 series, but on their negative side is pretty much everything else they > make except Jeep which they are also doing their best to emasculate and > abolish. Ford just sold Aston Martin and is trying to trash Jaguar. Let's don't get too picky. Aston had strong growth, and actually makes money now. As for trashing, Jaguar doesn't need any help. That's gotta be the most incompetent auto manufacturer on earth that actually still builds something. Ford has been nothing but salvation for them the whole way. Billions were spent, and they'll never get a nickel back. > The Ford 500 isn't really a bad car, as is the Mercury version, but > neither one of them exactly pulls folks away from the lines for the > Chrysler 300 [which is a disguised Mercedes chassis with an American > engine]. Ford hasn't built a real showcase Lincoln since the Mark VII Boy, that's the truth. I thought the Mark VIII was a good follow-on, but I thought the 89-98 or whatever t-bird was kinda ugly.. What on earth were they thinking when they canceled the whole platform? Their badge engineering is a bit scary now. Neither Mercury nor Lincoln has anything with its own sheet metal now. They're just changing the grilles on stuff. A 1995 Mark VIII seems extravagant now, compared to the obviously badge-engineered MK-Focus. > All three have the talent it would take to make a series of > interesting, reliable, safe, and even economical cars, but not one of them > has the guts to do so. That's a GREAT set of criteria for cars. You know, I think there are some products out there. The Mustang and the 300 are both interesting. At least they look like a car instead of an egg on wheels. The 300 can be pretty economical if it's equipped right. GM doesn't have a product in that same "interesting/reliable/safe/economical" race. I have to admit that I woke up and realized the HHR really does look like a 47 Chevy. The panel truck is what woke me up. It's very questionable whether that makes it interesting, but I bet it's reliable, safe, and economical. Makes you wonder how Chrysler is going to follow up the PT. That was interesting, and a huge huge success. But now they have to do that again, don't they? > Agreed... but underneath, you need a vehicle not built by a bean counter Gosh - all those years of purpose-built rental cars. I don't see how some of the brands make it. I guess the truck sales paid for all the money they lost on rental cars.

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2018 - The Saab Network - saabnet.com.
For usage guidelines, see the Saabnet.com Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | Saabnet.com on Facebook | Saabnet.com on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]