Agreed. However at this point we've only seen photos. All I'm saying is drive the car and live with it on a daily basis for some time. Then make suggestions on what needs improving.

 

The dot regulation is for blackouts or other headlight covers! No where does it say no pop up lights, these where done away with cause of cost and failure!

 

Sir, how exactly does one live with it on a daily basis for some time without buying it???

After the flaws show up after purchase, it's too late - and LOTS of things can be caught prior to purchase, with just a good, careful looking over.

 

Rental, lease, extended test drive... use your imagination.
If you're worried about that then buy a Mustang for all I care. You obviously don't think GM can build a car properly so why would you buy another GM product... ever?

 

Glad we just teleported over into fantasy-land. Cool.

Yep, SS Camaros are going to be falling out of trees over at Hertz a few days after they go on sale... any day now... and I'm POSITIVE my local dealer is going to give me one for a few days or a week just to test drive.

Right.


And there we go...

The "hurt feeeeeeelings" response to a rational discussion.

Constructive criticism must mean I'm a freaking Ford fan, and that I deserve a Mustang.

Check the signature, Einstein...

See any Fords? Hmmmmmm?

Christ, I don't even buy PONTIACS, let alone Fords.




Psssssst...

Every one of them was bought new except for the 1963... which I would have bought new, but I was an unfertilized ovum at the time it was built.




Oh... one final thingy... saw your sig.

I can see it in person every day if I want to.




.

 

Go blow it out your AZZ!! Nice first post. Can you say TROLL!!!!

 

Stating an opinion doesn't make him a troll. So he's disappointed. So what?

 

So I busted his *****. So what? We all have opinions.

 

It will if he doesen't come back.

 

Without a going into a lot of detail about why these two vehicles made it into production, I am going to simply say - WRONG!

There is a reason for each one of those, but it had nothing to do with the reasons you are stating.

-Geoff

 

Puh-leeze. First, there is no SINGLE reason that those disasters happened... more like a huge set of systemic issues - pretty much the ones I described.

Pontiac swore up and down that the Aztek was a winner, and Chevrolet swore that the SSR was a great idea.

Two rather expensive mistakes.

As an example, Peters' design for the Aztek, which was very interesting initially, got committeed and focus grouped and conservatively engineered into oblivion.

And the SSR...

Well hell, there's just WAY to much ground to cover there...

"Hey! We're NOT gonna build a Camaro anymore, but we have this great idea for a performance pseudo-truck that really doesn't perform OR carry anything of note and really isn't a truck... but costs as much as a Corvette!!!"

"BRILLIANT!!!!"



Want me to keep going with a more recent example?

Some group of individuals decided, in their infinite wisdom, that not putting a real NAV system in a "BMW fighter" G8 was a great idea.

Bzzzzzt.

Wrong.

Look, doesn't matter if OnStar IS better. Fact is, what's one of the first things that comes up in conversation about the car?

"Erm... what's that stupid readout thingy doing where the navigation screen oughta be???"

The EXCUSE for why it doesn't have NAV doesn't matter. Neither does whatever engineering reason anybody wants to come up with - the fact remains that if you're going to build a BMW fighter, it's got to be aspirational.

In other words: Shallow BMW-lover types who you're trying to rip away from BMW need a freaking NAV screen in their G8 to impress OTHER shallow BMW-lover types.

The excuses and analysis and justifications for OnStar don't matter to them. They want a NAV screen. Quit telling them they're wrong and give them a damned NAV screen.



If your opinion is double-secret probation inducing, send me a PM or we can meet in the "Cone of Silence", Agent 007... I know the secret handshake and own a decoder ring... but the battery is dead on my shoe phone.

 

Your still wrong. It makes me feel good that it rankled you so much, though, that you put so much time into your response.

Who engineered the SSR Mr. know-it-all? I'll give you a hint - not GM! Kind of blows your theory all to hell, doesn't it?

Have a nice day, and don't forget your blood pressure medication. I don't want you passing out before you can get your shoe phone out of your mouth.

-Geoff

 

Ummmm...

NO.

GM SPECIFIED the car.

Because the engineering got outsourced at that point to meet the specifications means nothing at all. GM outsources design and development engineering all the time nowadays...

EDAG...

Hawtel-Whiting...

Etc... etc... etc..

That being said, GM does not turn over specification control to anyone. Ever.

GM says:

Make (or engineer) a twidget that looks like this, does this, lasts this many cycles in durability according to this schedule... etc... etc... etc...

The suppliers then run off and do precisely that.

Saying that somehow the utter failure that... erm... thing... turned into was somehow the fault of the supply base for building EXACTLY what GM told them to build is nonsense.


You haven't gotten to anyone, Sparky. The depth of your wrongheadedness in this case requires long answers in an attempt to bring you back from the brink of the intellectual abyss.



.

 

The SSR was not a bad idea and neither was the Aztek in their own right. Their execution and transition from design to product was suspect. The SSR was not a failure other than it was overpriced and GM put some higher expectations than any sane person would, bean counters probably. I bet that was part of the sale just to get it. Aztek took an idea like the Nissan Exterra and didn't quite hit the goal. Both vehicles were compromised by several factors.

Again if you’re not inside GM it's hard to explain. I've put in my time. For every idea like the Camaro, SSR or Aztek you almost need to sell it to the suits and it's almost like they take on a slightly adversarial role in trying to keep the program on track. The Camaro is Zeta based and if it wasn't we wouldn't have it. End of story.
So the goal is set to deliver a Camaro that mirrors the concept with enough content to lead the Pony car market in power and content at a Mustang price point.
To get there is all compromises. They placed safety, crash rating, and content of options ahead of curb weight. They were stuck with the weight because GM can't offer a carbon fiber bodied Camaro for the price of a Mustang and still make money on the program. The Camaro team obviously felt that content is what's important to buyers in this segment and is a better use of funds than all out performance.
Pick 10 aspects of the car and know that you have the money to improve 7 of them and only really the money and time to make 5 of them as you want them. Take a vote as you're on the clock. Every criticism that you have or will ever think about is on the table right then and there.

Welcome to car design and platform engineering in 2008; it's not a pretty picture in Harley Earl's scrapbook or on a GM Motorama display. The world has changed and GM isn't the same corp.

No car is perfect to everyone. There are criticisms of everything. Know that now and all of this will be easier to digest. If you’re not buying a Ferrari you’re buying a compromise of some degree or another.

 

Ferrari is particular who they sell the "real" Ferraris to. There's compromises there in Modena...