Saturn has a death warrant, Pontiac will not be a separate division, SAAB and Hummer for sale, more job cuts and plant closures, automakers need more money to survive.
DETROIT — The brand that was once hailed as an important part of the future of General Motors now will be part of its past.
G.M. said Tuesday that it would phase out its Saturn brand by 2012. It does not plan to develop any more new vehicles for Saturn, which began 19 years ago as an effort to attract owners of small Japanese cars.
G.M. also said it was considering its options for the Pontiac division. The Pontiac name, part of the car business since 1932, could remain on some models, but may no longer be a separate division. G.M. said Pontiac would be a “focused brand” with fewer models.
The disclosures by G.M., contained in a viability plan submitted to the government, means that G.M. plans to cut its brands in half, to four: Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC.
It said last fall that it would try to find buyers for Hummer and Saab. On Tuesday, it said it would decide on Hummer’s fate by March 31.
But is four the right number?
After all, most of its big competitors, including Toyota, Honda and Chrysler, build their businesses around three brands or fewer in the United States. Ford is moving to shed its foreign brands and plans to focus primarily on three — Ford, Lincoln and Mercury.
“A volume brand and a premium brand can get the job done. Toyota has proven that,” said Karl Brauer, editor in chief of Edmunds.com, a Web site that offers car-buying advice. “Cadillac, Chevy, done.”
The more brands a carmaker has, the more it must spread money around to develop vehicles and market them.
As a result, “every brand suffers,” said A. Andrew Shapiro, a managing partner with the Casesa Shapiro Group. “No particular brand or brands can achieve the share of voice that they need.”
Its extensive brand lineup has long been G.M.’s primary weapon. Founded in 1908 by William C. Durant, who brought together a collection of car companies, G.M. made the concept of “a car for every purse and purpose” its strategy during the 1920s for retaining buyers from their first car to their last.
Brands were a crucial element in G.M.’s effort to thwart Ford, then the country’s biggest car company, whose founder joked that buyers could have any color they wanted, as long as it was black.
G.M.’s strategy paid off during its best years, when it controlled more than half the American car market. But it held only 22 percent of United States auto sales last year, with more than half of its share coming from a single division, Chevrolet.
G.M. found out last decade just how expensive it could be to unwind a brand. It spent more than $1 billion to buy out dealers at Oldsmobile, which built its last cars in 2004.
Rick Wagoner, G.M.’s chief executive, said the automaker had set aside money to buy out dealers, but declined to specify a figure. “We have reserves in our plan to facilitate that,” he said.
He cited the economic downturn as the reason G.M. was phasing out Saturn. “Frankly, the opportunity for any brand, and for our volume as a whole, just looks radically different,” he said. “It is unfortunate and it seems like a cruel twist of fate at a time when Saturn is loaded up with a fantastic product portfolio.”
In a letter sent Tuesday to Saturn dealers, G.M. said it would entertain a plan from Saturn dealers or other investors for a spinoff of the division to keep it operating. It said it would provide information to potential investors.
But it warned a spinoff would be “a difficult and complex task, and some of the issues that must be resolved include product sourcing, capitalization and financing issues,” G.M. said in the letter signed by Mark LeNeve, a G.M. vice president for North American sales, and Jill Lajdziak, the general manager of Saturn.
When Saturn was started in 1990, as a “different kind of car, a different kind of car company” aimed at owners of small Hondas and Toyotas, its small cars were immediate hits. But G.M. executives decided in the mid-1990s that they needed to support G.M.’s other brands over Saturn, which by then had cost $5 billion.
G.M. did not add any new vehicles to the Saturn lineup for five years, despite pleas from dealers for bigger vehicles. Earlier this decade, G.M. decided to start selling vehicles from its Opel division, with some design changes, as Saturns in the United States.
Saturn sold 188,004 vehicles in 2008, down 21.7 percent from the previous year. Its best-selling vehicle was the Saturn Vue, a small sport utility vehicle.
Strict franchise laws protect dealers across the country from seeing their operations shut down without advance notice.
G.M. dealers said they were led to believe that the company was committed to the division.
“G.M. is picking on Saturn,” said Sherrill Freeborough, who owns Saturn dealerships in Grand Ledge and Okemos, Mich. “I want G.M. to be successful but I don’t think that always happens the other way around.”
In 1992, when G.M. began discussing the end of Oldsmobile, the division sold 412,000 vehicles. Except for Chevrolet, none of G.M.’s current brands sold that many vehicles last year.
Mr. Shapiro, the analyst, said G.M. should have rethought its divisions in the 1980s, when a number of new brands appeared in the United States, including Acura, Lexus and Infiniti, the Japanese luxury brands, and the Korean makers Hyundai and Kia.
“There were always good short-term reasons for not doing something,” Mr. Shapiro said.
Ed Dena, a Pontiac dealer in Dinuba, Calif., said he would eventually have to focus on his other G.M. brands, including Chevrolet, Buick and GMC. “Of course we’re sad because Pontiac is an icon,” he said. “But right now, in this industry, nothing is a shock anymore.”
DETROIT — The price tag for bailing out General Motors and Chrysler jumped by another $14 billion Tuesday, to $39 billion, with the two automakers saying they would need the additional aid from the federal government to remain solvent.
In return, the two companies also promised to make further drastic cuts to all parts of their operations, in the hope that they can eventually strike a balance between their bloated cost structures and a dismal market for new car sales.
G.M., for example, said it would cut 47,000 more of its 244,000 workers worldwide; close five more plants in North America, leaving it with 33; and cut its lineup of brands in half, to just four: Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC and Buick.
The Pontiac brand will have a much smaller role, if any, in G.M.’s future, and the company also said it would phase out its Saturn brand, which it once hoped would build small cars to counter the best of the Japanese brands.
G.M. also said it had made progress in discussions with the United Automobile Workers union and its bondholders to reduce its costs further.
The cash crisis will require fast action by the administration’s new cabinet-level Presidential Task Force on Autos, which is overseeing the reorganization of G.M. and Chrysler.
The deteriorating finances of the two companies present the Obama administration with two options, neither of them appealing.
It can provide the money in the hopes that the companies will stabilize, and no longer have to keep pushing workers into a growing pool of people without jobs. But there are no guarantees, as the Treasury Department learned on Tuesday when the automakers filed updates on their restructuring plans, that they might not be forced to come back again with requests for more money.
But if the federal government balks at the automakers’ requests, that would mean the two companies probably would have no choice but to file for bankruptcy protection, because they are losing hundreds of millions of dollars each month.
And the car companies said on Tuesday that the cost of a bankruptcy reorganization, with the government providing financing to help it through that process, would be far greater than their latest loan requests. Without such help, the companies would have to liquidate, creating staggering new job losses.
In a statement, the administration said Tuesday night that its task force would be reviewing the carmakers’ reports in coming days, adding that “more will be required from everyone involved — creditors, suppliers, dealers, labor and auto executives themselves — to ensure the viability of these companies going forward.”
The third Detroit auto company, Ford Motor, has not received federal assistance and has no requests pending.
By March 31, the presidential task force is expected to rule on whether G.M. and Chrysler have restructured enough to be viable businesses for the long term.
Big questions remain, including whether G.M. and Chrysler, as well as Ford, will be able to cut their unionized labor costs to parity with foreign automakers, as was required in the original loan agreement from last December.
The companies have been in marathon negotiations with the United Automobile Workers on reducing costs, as well as determining how they will finance health care trusts for retired blue-collar workers and their surviving spouses.
G.M. is also pushing for a deal with its bondholders to help it reduce its debt to $9 billion, from $27 billion. The U.A.W. said on Tuesday it had reached “understandings” with the Detroit companies on modifications to their contracts. Ron Gettelfinger, the union’s president, said “discussions are continuing” regarding how to fund the health care trusts at each of the companies.
Rick Wagoner, G.M.’s chief executive, said there had been “good progress” in talks with both the union and bondholders.
On the concessions in the U.A.W. contract, he said, “the things that have been negotiated really take a big bite out of what needed to accomplish.”
G.M.’s restructuring plan extends to its global operations. It will cut 47,000 jobs worldwide by the end of this year. It also said it would close 14 plants in North America by 2012 — five more than were included in its Dec. 2 loan request.
Mr. Wagoner said on Tuesday that the revamping plan was “comprehensive, responsive and achievable,” and could help the company break even by 2010. Both G.M. and Chrysler said they expected to begin paying back their federal loans by 2012.
A bankruptcy filing, Mr. Wagoner said, would be a “highly risky and costly process.” G.M.’s president, Frederick Henderson, said the company would require as much as $100 billion in debtor-in-possession financing from the federal government if it filed for Chapter 11. Chrysler said it would need $25 billion if that step were required.
G.M. and Chrysler admitted that their current federal loans would be exhausted by March 31.
G.M. said Tuesday that it had increased its overall loan request from the government to a total of $30 billion, up from $18 billion.
The company has received $13.4 billion so far from Treasury, and the most recent installment — $4 billion — was turned over to G.M. on Tuesday.
But G.M. said that loan would not last long. Company officials said they hoped to receive another $2 billion loan in March and $2.6 billion in April. Beyond that, G.M. is asking for another $12 billion by 2011 — $7.5 billion in loans and $4.5 billion to pay off a credit facility that comes due.
Chrysler, which has received $4 billion in loans, also increased its overall request for funding. In December, it said it needed $3 billion more to survive 2009, but it raised that request to $5 billion.
The smallest of Detroit’s Big Three, Chrysler has drastically scaled back its operations since being acquired in 2007 by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management.
On Tuesday, Chrysler said it would cut another 3,000 jobs and discontinue three models — the Dodge Durango, P.T. Cruiser and Chrysler Aspen.
“Chrysler will be viable,” said the company’s chairman, Robert L. Nardelli. “An orderly restructuring outside of bankruptcy, together with the completion of our stand-alone viability plan and enhanced by a strategic alliance with Fiat, is the best option for Chrysler employees, our unions, dealers, suppliers, customers, and certainly the taxpayers.” The company is exploring a deal with Fiat to share products.
But Mr. Nardelli said Chrysler would have to consider liquidating itself in the event that it received no more federal aid.
G.M. executives sidestepped questions on Tuesday on whether they had been given any assurances by administration officials about additional loans. “They fully understood we would be coming in with additional requests,” said Ray Young, G.M.’s chief financial officer.
But the possibility exists of a negative political reaction to the administration’s pouring more taxpayers’ money into the companies, especially when they continue to operate at huge losses.
its not just GM canada is just a more peaceful area. i mean i live outside of philly which has become one one of the murder capitols of the usa. this most recent cop shooting happend not to far from where i was drinking friday night. and also right next to philly is camden. enough said. canada just seems like a nice place to live.
IP: Logged
11:35 PM
Feb 18th, 2009
timmer Member
Posts: 1266 From: langley/surrey b.c..canada Registered: Oct 2002
really ? come to the lower mainland GVRD (greater vancouver regional district) we have had 11 shootings in about 16 days with 6 deaths . welcome to the mean streets .
[This message has been edited by timmer (edited 02-18-2009).]
IP: Logged
12:22 AM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
really ? come to the lower mainland GVRD (greater vancouver regional district) we have had 11 shootings in about 16 days with 6 deaths . welcome to the mean streets .
But, but, they don't have guns in Canada! Unpossible!
IP: Logged
12:54 AM
Austrian Import Member
Posts: 3919 From: Monterey, CA Registered: Feb 2007
Well if Pontiac is going to be a niche brand, may I suggest a niche product?
It's small, engine is in the middle behind the driver, corners on rails, and it'll replace the Solstice...
Yea, I know. Won't happen...
I'm still holding out for either Audi with the R4, or VW, with their mid-engined roadster. (heck, maybe Toyota will build a 2nd gen MR-2 remake ) Yea, I know. I'm dreaming.
*is about to give up all hope in GM *
[This message has been edited by Austrian Import (edited 02-18-2009).]
We have destroyed Amerca ,,many have not woke up yet,,free trade is now a joke !! and I still hear reporters, politicians, leaders saying we need this ,,of course they have no money worries . Get out there and buy a Toyota or Mazda Do you realize the significance of The financial center of the world gone?? Think about where our money has gone ?? where did you send your money,, yes you, what did you buy ?? hard to buy american any more.. people damanded the lowest price over quality,, ,of course jap cars are great.. dont you love your,s Hmmmm, fewer hate me here now ?? wonder why?? wait to see whats comming
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 02-18-2009).]
Yup id say this country is falling appart this is why i wana move to canada.
Our door is always open.... .....yes, that's right.... to everyone!
I find it difficult to have any sympathy for GM. How many divisions did they think they could manage and still make a profit??? 8 divisions... and how ever many brands to each respective division. ...just comes off as greed to me. Maybe there was success to be had in that approach back when the big 3 owned the auto market here in N.A., but times have changed. The idea is to change with the times.... not run things into the ground, and simply turn to daddy with puppy dog eyes and your palms out stretched. ......unfortunately many are going to suffer for the poor decisions they have made.
In any event.... I'm a bit disappointed that they are cutting Saturn. I like the styling of most models. They're fuel efficient, reliable, and reasonably priced. Mind you, my opinions are based on a handful of people I have known to own one. ......btw, are all saturns fiberglass shells?
IP: Logged
01:57 AM
MDFierolvr Member
Posts: 2025 From: Great Mills, MD Registered: Mar 2004
Originally posted by The MaD cOw: In any event.... I'm a bit disappointed that they are cutting Saturn. I like the styling of most models. They're fuel efficient, reliable, and reasonably priced. Mind you, my opinions are based on a handful of people I have known to own one. ......btw, are all saturns fiberglass shells?
Yea based on this I would have figured that Saturn was one of the more sound divisions of GM. Though I wouldn't be surprised if they cut them even if they were in the black to help support there self destructive habit known as Chevrolet and its unattractive everyday cars.
Please note I am not talking about the Corvette or Camaro, because those are sexy. But the Malibu? Really?
[This message has been edited by MDFierolvr (edited 02-18-2009).]
But, but, they don't have guns in Canada! Unpossible!
Or a President. They have a freaky...Prime Minister? What's up with that? Yuck. They also have moose, back bacon, only two TV networks, PROVINCES instead of states, and ice...LOTS of ice. Good for hockey. Not so good for baseball and picnics.
Nah, I'll stay here, thank you!
IP: Logged
02:52 AM
PaulJK Member
Posts: 6638 From: Los Angeles Registered: Oct 2001
Or a President. They have a freaky...Prime Minister? What's up with that? Yuck. They also have moose, back bacon, only two TV networks, PROVINCES instead of states, and ice...LOTS of ice. Good for hockey. Not so good for baseball and picnics.
Nah, I'll stay here, thank you!
And Curling. And mosquitos that can straddle a quarter.
IP: Logged
03:19 AM
hookdonspeed Member
Posts: 7980 From: baltimore, md Registered: May 2008
its not just GM canada is just a more peaceful area. i mean i live outside of philly which has become one one of the murder capitols of the usa. this most recent cop shooting happend not to far from where i was drinking friday night. and also right next to philly is camden. enough said. canada just seems like a nice place to live.
east bal-ti-more repa-zent! holla
IP: Logged
08:29 AM
Fformula88 Member
Posts: 7891 From: Buffalo, NY Registered: Mar 2000
The worst day in America is better than the best day in Canada !
You really want to go there ???
GO !
(they'll be back, I promise).
*Apologies to our Canadian brethren, but you know for what I speak is true.
I am going to have to stick up for Canada here a little. I live on the border of southern Ontario and have been to Canada a good amount over my life. They look like they are doing just fine up there to me. A great example is Niagara Falls. The difference between NF Ontario and NF NY is like the difference between East and West Berlin before the wall was torn down... the NY side playing the roll of East Berlin here. Toronto also looks as prosperous as any large US city I have been in, plus it is clean and has relatively low crime.
Yup id say this country is falling appart this is why i wana move to canada.
Talking from Ontario, Canada's biggest province, and a nice 330,000 citizen city, I can tell you there are days I would just as soon be an American.
Sure we have "universal healthcare" but the lineups and backlogs and lack of funding is a nightmare, we have a rather leftist supreme court, and some really repressive gun laws, as well as a multi-party system which leaves an unstable government.
Of course the grass is always greener .......
It is too bad about GM's position right now. The numb skulls running the show have done a worst job than Ford at positioning the company and being a proud Oldsmobile owner of several years I am saying "here we go again".
G.M. said It does not plan to develop any more new vehicles for Saturn, which began 19 years ago as an effort to attract owners of small Japanese cars.
And of late Saturn has had the Relay van, Outlook SUV, Aura midsize. If GM would have stuck with Saturn's original plan, well.....
GM has come a LONG way in building a good, small car - but are obviously doomed to fail until they can make a PROFIT on them.
I still say if car companies are headed for bankruptcy, They should have a 1/2 price sale on all inventory! I mean that is what you and I do when we need money to live on, pay past overdue bills and keep from going bankrupt ourselves.
I even been in bankruptcy and they MADE me sell off the big ticket items (jetski, stocks, etc.) nobody offered me a bailout. And I turned out fine
Wait isn't pot legal in Canada? maybe that is also the kid's reason to go there...
IP: Logged
09:29 AM
timmer Member
Posts: 1266 From: langley/surrey b.c..canada Registered: Oct 2002
The worst day in America is better than the best day in Canada !
You really want to go there ???
GO !
(they'll be back, I promise).
*Apologies to our Canadian brethren, but you know for what I speak is true.
Actually i think your Canadian Brethren would tend to disagree with your statement . Other than the recent spate of killings here mostly by gang members B.C. is a truley remarkable and beautiful place to live .
The worst day in America is better than the best day in Canada !
You really want to go there ???
GO !
(they'll be back, I promise).
*Apologies to our Canadian brethren, but you know for what I speak is true.
The fact that you would make a comment like this is one of the reasons why YOU likely wouldn't be happy here. Maybe you just wouldn't fit in. Generally speaking Canadians are humble, and respectful people. As shocking as this may be to you, some of us canadians are just as proud of our country as you are of your own.... and in fact may take offense to a post like that (whether you follow it with a bogus apology or not)
Yes, there are areas where the U.S. succeeds Canada. But, I could orchestrate a post that points out areas where America fails, and Canada excels... but I wouldn't, out of respect for the American members here. It would be nice to see that respect was returned.
IP: Logged
11:00 AM
fieroboom Member
Posts: 2132 From: Hayden, AL (BFE) Registered: Oct 2008
According to Murphy's Law, everything East of the San Andreas fault is going to fall into the Ocean anyway, leaving The United State of... California. -Paul
We have destroyed Amerca ,,many have not woke up yet,,free trade is now a joke !! and I still hear reporters, politicians, leaders saying we need this ,,of course they have no money worries . Get out there and buy a Toyota or Mazda Do you realize the significance of The financial center of the world gone?? Think about where our money has gone ?? where did you send your money,, yes you, what did you buy ?? hard to buy american any more.. people damanded the lowest price over quality,, ,of course jap cars are great.. dont you love your,s Hmmmm, fewer hate me here now ?? wonder why?? wait to see whats comming
I guess I must mention again that it wasn't buying foriegn cars that caused this mess, it was the housing market crash bringing credit down with it. Sure buying foreign cars didn't help, but it went on for 35 years without a problem until the housing credit problem which blew up and affected everything else.
IP: Logged
01:23 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
The more brands a carmaker has, the more it must spread money around to develop vehicles and market them. As a result, “every brand suffers,” said A. Andrew Shapiro, a managing partner with the Casesa Shapiro Group. “No particular brand or brands can achieve the share of voice that they need.”
A bad example is the making the Sky and Soltise. Who makes a car to compete with itself? That move was plain stupid. The same can be said of all SUVs. GM's brass....
IP: Logged
03:16 PM
naskie18 Member
Posts: 6258 From: Commerce Twp, MI, USA Registered: Jun 2002
A bad example is the making the Sky and Soltise. Who makes a car to compete with itself? That move was plain stupid. The same can be said of all SUVs. GM's brass....
On the other hand, you could argue that they're trying to reach more consumers without the cost of developing/designing an entirely different vehicle to do so.
A Sky, I considered buying, I think its a great looking car. A Solstice, I wouldn't consider. I think it looks like a giant jellybean.
------------------ Nick www.naskie18.com GoogleTalk: nick@naskie18.com
IP: Logged
03:29 PM
madcurl Member
Posts: 21401 From: In a Van down by the Kern River Registered: Jul 2003
On the other hand, you could argue that they're trying to reach more consumers without the cost of developing/designing an entirely different vehicle to do so.
A Sky, I considered buying, I think its a great looking car. A Solstice, I wouldn't consider. I think it looks like a giant jellybean.
That would be called "over-lapping" which could've easily been produced using one company. Either car could've came out the following years with a new fascia under the same name and same roof. The R&D spent trying to copy the same platform under two different companies is bad business. Notice no American car company came out with a Fiero-like car in the 80s. All Pontiac did was- retooling thus we have several types under the same roof (Pontiac); formula, GT, and notchbacks. The only rival was over-seas; Japanesse's MR2.
As for trying to "reach more consumers" GM did that with a vase heep of SUV's under every name one can think of and with little or differences between models. "Giving the people what they want" is GMs biggest mistake they very seldom do- and when they do....they kill it within 4-yrs tops.
[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 02-18-2009).]
I park my pontiac Down the hill out in back Late every afternoon With a coke and a cigarette And all of the neighbors there They see a nice old man And the girl there across the street She sits on her front porch swing She never realized What I told her with my eyes How back in the second war I killed twenty German boys With my own bare hands
And the woman inside my house She won't stop talking She never says a thing She just keeps talking And I might just leave her still After the sun goes down And I smoke this cigarette
I park my pontiac Down the hill out in back Late every afternoon With a coke and a cigarette And all of the neighbors there They see a nice old man And the girl there across the street She sits on her front porch swing She never realized What I told her with my eyes How back in the second war I killed twenty German boys With my own bare hands
And the woman inside my house She won't stop talking She never says a thing She just keeps talking And I might just leave her still After the sun goes down And I smoke this cigarette
Automotive News is reporting that General Motors has killed off the GM Performance Division. This is crushing news to fans of domestic performance vehicles and the decision appears to have been made in order to appease the government.
Quoting directly from the AN piece by Jamie LaReau, “All high-performance projects are on indefinite hold," GM spokesman Vince Muniga said. "The engineers are moving into different areas of the organization, and they will work on Cadillacs, Buicks, Chevrolets and Pontiacs."
Outside of the obvious implications regarding the desirability of the GM product line, we think that this means no SS Camaro. This truly is a shocking and frightening development for everyone involved in the automotive hobby, whether you are a GM fan or not.
Again, quoting from the story in Automotive News, “Muniga said there are no plans for high-performance versions of upcoming cars.The move is in the spirit of GM's viability plan delivered to the U.S. Treasury Department on Tuesday. In the plan, GM said its future-product focus is on fuel- efficient cars and crossovers. It also pledged to increase its current offering of six hybrids to 14 by 2012 and to 26 by 2014. GM also boosted its request for federal aid by as much as $16.6 billion.”
‘The High Performance Vehicle Operations unit could be reinstated once GM regains its financial health, GM's Muniga said.’
We’re out of words.
IP: Logged
07:49 AM
Raydar Member
Posts: 41355 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
Automotive News is reporting that General Motors has killed off the GM Performance Division. This is crushing news to fans of domestic performance vehicles and the decision appears to have been made in order to appease the government.
Quoting directly from the AN piece by Jamie LaReau, “All high-performance projects are on indefinite hold," GM spokesman Vince Muniga said. "The engineers are moving into different areas of the organization, and they will work on Cadillacs, Buicks, Chevrolets and Pontiacs."
Outside of the obvious implications regarding the desirability of the GM product line, we think that this means no SS Camaro. This truly is a shocking and frightening development for everyone involved in the automotive hobby, whether you are a GM fan or not.
Again, quoting from the story in Automotive News, “Muniga said there are no plans for high-performance versions of upcoming cars.The move is in the spirit of GM's viability plan delivered to the U.S. Treasury Department on Tuesday. In the plan, GM said its future-product focus is on fuel- efficient cars and crossovers. It also pledged to increase its current offering of six hybrids to 14 by 2012 and to 26 by 2014. GM also boosted its request for federal aid by as much as $16.6 billion.”
‘The High Performance Vehicle Operations unit could be reinstated once GM regains its financial health, GM's Muniga said.’
We’re out of words.
I read a similar article on GM Inside News. The feeling I got was that the high performance vehicles already in production (CTS-V, Camaro SS, Colorado V8, etc.) will remain in production. The engineers who designed these vehicles will be reassigned, however. Therefore, no NEW, high performance stuff. At least I hope that's the case.
------------------ Raydar 88 4.9 Formula IMSA Fasback..........................88 3.4 coupe -soon to be something other than red Read Nealz Nuze!Praise the Lowered!
IP: Logged
09:10 AM
1FST2M6 Member
Posts: 3905 From: Dallas, GA. Registered: Jan 2000
)
A bad example is the making the Sky and Soltise. Who makes a car to compete with itself? 
