Chevy to Bring Back Chevelle...as a Australian Holden/GTO Twin

Sounds like you need to find employment with GM's planning committee. Instead of bitching where you won't be heard by GM, why don't you submit you ideas to them directly.

Just as a matter of fact, Chrysler has UGLY cars and so does Nissan, Toyota, Ford and Volvo. They all have their dogs.

GM might be big and dumb and slow to change but they sell cars and make a sure profit. From time to time they even come out with a winner.

Actually, they could sell more 2005's than they can apparently make... or ship to dealers.

Source for this rumor?

The Chevelle was to be a "twin" of the next-gen GTO, built in NA (most likely Oshawa 2), but we all know what happened to the U.S.-built Zeta platform (it continues on in Australia, where the next-gen Holden Commodore comes out next April).

The next-gen Holden Monaro (the GTO's twin) was to be built here alongside the GTO and the Chevelle, and exported to Australia. Holden's rework of their assembly lines was to mean the end of their coupe production abilities. Not sure if they were able to reverse that decision quickly enough, but, if it the plan continues unchanged, this means they would have no production ability to build a next-gen Monaro - or GTO or Chevelle - in Australia.

Makes no difference if someone contacts GM with there ideas, its been done before, they are known not to respond and not listen to customers. Its part of their problem. Thats why you very seldom see a GTO driving down the street now, they are ugly machines that even speed and power cant over come. If this were 1960's and 70's the streets would be flooded with GTOs because they had STYLE and POWER. Do you think they wouold have been popular if the old GTO had a Box Rambler body with a big engine? No. Its all about power in an aesthetically pleasing package.

>

Excuse the rambling tone in this message....

I donno, chrysler seems to be selling an awful lot of those fugly 300M's....

Nissan Cars all look like Nissans, Toyota's, well, not sure why they are doing so well...

Mazda deserves to be doing better after they released the 3 and 6. Volvo, never see a new one around here...

All the Ford cars are a joke, I don' really like the F150, but I guess thats their bread and butter.

Honda's got their great little Honda looking cars, and they seem to be doing really well.

Now how come Chevy doesn't do so well? The Cobalt is decent, the Malibu is UGLY, but better mechanically then the old N-body Malibu. The Impala and Monte Carlo are decent cars, I dont really like the concept shots of the

2006 models, which is the stemming part of Chevy's problem, they

are trying to make all their cars look the same! Generic looking cars that all have the same styling ques is something that imports can get away with, for the sake of sales let them all be different! If I buy a GTO, I dont want it confused with a Cavalier....

Also, having alienated so many people and having so many mechanical problems in the last 2 decades, a simple apology wasn't good enough.

Now lets look at the bright side of what GM has to offer: The Pontiac G6, nice looking car, should have released the coupe at the same time. A little plain looking, can get confused with a Grand Prix at times... Killing off the N and J body (yes I know the Sunfire is still made in Canada) was a pretty good idea, those platforms were getting pretty moldy. The Grand Prix is a nice sedan, and has decently large front doors for someone making the transition from a coupe a little easier. The front air grills seem a bit large though, as do the fog lamps. The Pontiac Solstice, I keep saying this is gonna be the new hot moneymaker that GM has been looking for. Kinda disappointed they didn't make a Chevy branded, one, but that would have ended up looking like the rest of the chevy line. The Saturn Sky, being the sister car to the solstice, will probably sell very well as well, unfortunately it got a crappy name. The Chevy Tahoe, Suburban, Avalanche, they are great trucks in their own way, but with the gas problem, sales on those is taking a hit, and I'm sure their value is depreciated right now as well because of that. Nissan and Honda might be making trucks, but if I buy a truck, I want one that actually has bumpers, instead of bumper covers like a car...

Exactly which GTO are you talking about? I owned a 1964 Tri-power Coupe. The differences between it and the Tempest LeMans was the dummy hood scoops , 4 (1 in the grille, one on each flank and 1 on the trunk) name plates, the

6.5 litre medallions behind each front wheel, and the red line "Tiger Paws" tires on the "styled" wheels, and, if you paid extra, the split tail pipes behind the rear wheels. It was a clean design, but not a knockout. It wasn't as swoopy as the Fords or (thankfully) as ugly as the Plymouths and Dodges. Went like hell, couldn't stop worth a damn, handling was par for the time.

It 65 wasnt fancy, it was brawny, not ugly. It sure as hell looked better than the 2005. A 63 Super stock Hemi Dodge wasnt much to look at either, it was basically a hotrod cab, a sleeper...a standard family car like the GTO that was simply beefed up with performance parts. That makes it even worse when GM designs a brand new GTO for 2005 that is built ugly from the ground up. I just hope the Holden is not as ugly as the GTO.

"Da udder one ya dont know" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

A "sure profit"? GM lost a billion dollars (with a "B") last quarter. They have ~20 billion dollars in the bank and are in debt ~300 billion dollars (or so I've read).

So the points to the assertions of your post..

1. They aren't making a profit 2. They aren't winning (in fact damn close to bankruptcy) 3. They're bonds are one step away from junk.

As you put it "dumb and slow" don't cut it in this market.

Now, personally I think GM makes as good a car as anyone. Some are top rated. They just treat customers like dog-poop when they do have some issue that needs attention AND they don't listen to what the customer says they want (in fact ignores them). All the GM badges and chrome exhaust tips in the world won't fix a decade or more of soured relations with the customer.

A "sure profit"? GM lost a billion dollars (with a "B") last quarter. They have ~20 billion dollars in the bank and are in debt ~300 billion dollars (or so I've read).

So the points to the assertions of your post..

1. They aren't making a profit 2. They aren't winning (in fact damn close to bankruptcy) 3. They're bonds are one step away from junk.

As you put it "dumb and slow" don't cut it in this market

Do you now or have you ever worked in the auto industry? I'm talking about the manufacturing part not a dealership. I have and if GM was in that bad of financial shape they would lock the doors and shut down. Come up with some real figures about their profits and losses and you will find the losses are to the budget and only on paper, not real. Try reading a real and true report not written by some doomsayer and report actual figures (GM will never relaese the real figures).

No one seems to ever mention that a LARGE factor in the recent GM 'losses' was the ill-advised Fiat venture from 2000. The Agnellis had that killer "put" option back when GM thought Fiat might be worth something, and GM had more money than they knew what to do with.

GM paid 'round about $2 billion (which was only $840 million after-tax charge) just to NOT have to buy Fiat Auto once it was clear that it not only had nothing to offer, but carried $10 billion in debt as well (see Detroit News Feb.14, 2005)

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure ........