WomanOnWheels.ca

Here are the cheapest 2024 vehicles in each segment

Nothing's really inexpensive anymore, but in every segment there's one that undercuts everything else, and I have a list of them over at Driving.ca.

First Drive: 2022 BrightDrop Zevo 600

Online shopping has changed almost every aspect of retail, including how the stuff you buy gets to your home. GM is introducing its BrightDrop subsidiary, which makes electric vans for couriers. I got a chance to pilot one - find out more in my story at Driving.ca.

Deep freeze: Cold-weather testing at GM's Kapuskasing Proving Grounds

Every automaker does extreme-weather testing, and for GM, much of that happens in Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario. What's it like to freeze your fingers making sure everything works right? Find out in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

Pickup Trucks: Some history highlights

The first motorized truck was German, GMC is older than Chevrolet, and Toyota built a truck before it was even officially an automaker. Find out more in my pickup truck history -- with video! -- at Driving.ca.

Ten auto innovations that flopped

Automakers are always trying new things, and while many of them turn out to be hits, there are a few that make it to market but then don't make it in the market. How about retractable steering wheels, heartbeat sensors, or in-car record players? Find out more in my story at the National Post (Driving.ca).

GM's going electric, including bringing back the Hummer

At a no-cameras-allowed event earlier this week, GM showed off ten new electric vehicles, including two in the Hummer brand (yes, seriously, the name's coming back) that it says will be in customer hands within five years -- and it plans to sell a million a year by then. Find out more in my story at Driving.ca.

GM EV1: Not ready for prime time

California's zero-emission vehicle mandate of 1990 required major automakers to sell a percentage of electric-only cars if they wanted to sell anything in the state. Ford, Toyota, and Honda built some, but the best-known -- if perhaps for the wrong reasons -- was GM's EV1. It was leased to drivers, and then taken back and crushed when the leases ended. Find out more in my story over at AutoTrader.ca.

How do the midsize trucks stack up?

Ford's the latest in the segment with its new Ranger, but what else in out there? Check out my round-up at the National Post (Driving.ca).

Should your next truck be gas or diesel?

Each has its strong and weak points, and you need to objectively assess how you drive, what you need the truck to do, and the extra costs that may be involved. Find out more in my story over at the National Post (Driving.ca).

Chevrolet Silverado Heavy-Duty: Here's What We Know...

It hasn't been officially unveiled yet, but Chevy has given us enough teasers about its new big-bad-boy. Find out more in my story over at the National Post.

General Motors of Canada: A century old in 2018

Of course the big news in Oshawa, Ontario is GM's decision to close its assembly plant there, but the city is also home to the headquarters of General Motors of Canada. It grew out of a horse-drawn carriage company and carried its founder's name, McLaughlin, up until the Second World War. Find out more in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

Buying an accessible vehicle? Here are some of your options...

While you can get almost anything converted to at least some sort of accessibility, getting the right vehicle for your needs can require expert advice and, in most cases, a fair chunk of change. None of the mainstream automakers convert vehicles themselves, but some offer rebates if you have it done. And there's even one that's purpose-built for wheelchair passengers -- find out more in my story at AutoTRADER.ca.

General Motors: It all started with a salesman

Most auto companies began with a new vehicle, and then its inventor created the business around it. General Motors was different: founder William Durant created an umbrella company and brought automakers inside. He lost the company twice, and then founded a third. Find out more in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

GM's EV-1: What happened?

Some said it was cost and complexity, while others said it was a conspiracy, but for whatever reason, GM's EV-1 electric car came and went. Find out more in my "Rearview Mirror" column at the National Post.

How much technology is in your car? Maybe enough to go to Mars ...

That's Gita Ravindran, and she works on connectivity systems for General Motors of Canada. How do you get a job like that? Well, in Ravindran's case, you start as an aerospace engineer working on the Mars Rover. Find out more in my story at the Toronto Star.

What does "lightweighting" a car mean?

The more something weighs, the more energy it takes to move it around, which is why automakers are putting their cars on diets: less weight equals better fuel efficiency. Still, there's a lot more to it than just using lighter materials. I visited GM's technical centre to find out more for my story in the National Post.

Clay: Still an important part of car design

Clay car models have been around since the 1920s, and computers can't make it go away. It's still an essential part of vehicle design and engineering, and I got to see Bailey Isgro doing the job over at General Motors. Find out more in my Toronto Star story.

Preview: 2015 Chevrolet and GMC Heavy-Duty Pickups

I love trucks, but a diesel dually goes even a step beyond that. On the heels of a makeover for its half-ton, GM now puts the finishing touches on its Silverado and Sierra 2500 and 3500 models. Read my story over at the Toronto Star.

GM's new trucks: Here's to 2014

I recently went to Detroit to get a look at the 2014 Chevrolet pickup trucks. I didn't get to drive them, but I did find out a fair bit about them, including new engines, new styling, and some new features. Read more at the Toronto Star by clicking here.

Hey, OnStar, I'm lost again ...

I'm driving a GM car this week, and so I used the OnStar Turn-by-Turn Navigation system to find a destination. I'm guessing all the Canadian operators were busy, because I got through to someone with a strong Southern accent.

I wanted to go to Georgian College in Barrie, Ontario. After I told her how to spell Barrie, she searched and couldn't find the street address, so I suggested she plug in the name of the college. Success, and my directions were downloaded ...

... except that instead of going to Georgian College, I got sent to Georgina Street, in a subdivision on the other side of town. When another operator finally got me going in the right direction, I was late for my appointment. This newest generation of OnStar is a lot better than the old one (which couldn't find my house, even though it hasn't moved in the last 60-plus years) but it still isn't always perfect. Paper maps still rule.

GM's OnStar: Big help, or Big Brother?

Most of you are familiar with GM's OnStar system, which connects your car to a centralized facility. Depending on the plan you have, OnStar and its operators can give you navigation directions, unlock your doors, call an ambulance if you have a crash, send you an update of your car's maintenance requirements, and even slow your vehicle to a crawl if it's being driven away by a thief.

But the other day, I learned about a few changes that OnStar is proposing to make to its system, effective December 1, 2011. When these go through, GM buyers will be well-advised to read the fine print on their contracts. These proposed changes include:

Data connection - If you or OnStar cancels the service, OnStar still maintains the two-way connection "and may continue to collect data from your vehicle." If you don't want the company to do this, you have to call OnStar, request the connection be deactivated, and then wait up to 60 days for it to take effect.

Stolen vehicle slowdown - Owners have always been able to have the Stolen Vehicle Slowdown disabled if they didn't want the police and OnStar to be able to slow the vehicle down in the event of theft. Under the new proposal, if you decide you want this feature removed, you won't be able to receive any other OnStar services. Technically, it's not a mandatory feature - it's now just mandatory that you accept it if you also want OnStar to unlock your doors or send you a navigation route.

Data collected - OnStar says that "we may use the data we gather about you and your vehicle to improve the quality of our service and offerings, and may share the data we collect with law enforcement or other public safety officials, credit card processors, and/or third parties we contract with who conduct joint marketing initiatives with OnStar." Some of the data it collects on your vehicle includes its tire pressure, odometer reading, whether you've paired a mobile phone, crash information including the direction from which you were hit and if you were wearing a seatbelt, and even if your ignition is turned on or off when you put gas in the vehicle.

Under certain conditions, which can include a request for service, airbag deployment, request for Stolen Vehicle Assistance, or when required by law, OnStar may also collect information on the location and approximate speed of your vehicle, based on GPS. The company may also collect this information "for any purpose, at any time, provided that following collection of such location and speed information identifiable to your vehicle, it is shared only on an anonymized basis."

Why are there so many auto brands? And should you buy one that's gone?

Ever wonder why there are so many auto brands, especially among the domestics? And if one has been discontinued, should you buy a used one anyway? I have a look at it in a Toronto Star story that you can find by clicking here. (Sorry about the pdf; it never ran online.)

GM's heated washer module: One expensive piece of hardware

You're looking at one very expensive piece of hardware there. That's the module for GM's heated washer system, which is now being recalled in a very major way. More than 1.3 million vehicles in the U.S., almost 99,000 in Canada, and 64,000 in Mexico and abroad contain them, and GM is going to pay out $100 or so for pretty much every one that's still on the road.

The company already performed a recall -- an expensive proposition even when you're not compensating with cash -- to correct a printed circuit board problem. That wasn't enough; the modules seem to be prone to failure, and could possibly start a fire. So far, five fires have been reported. The company that made the module isn't making them any more, so a better design isn't possible. Instead, GM is disabling them, and then paying customers $105 in Canada ($100 in the U.S.) in compensation for loss of the feature.

I never understood why GM ever offered this in the first place. When I first heard about it, I figured it would heat the washer fluid so that, when you turned on the squirters, you'd get nice, warm fluid to take the ice off the windshield. Alas, that wasn't the case. Instead, you turned on the system, and it gradually heated the fluid. When the fluid was hot enough, it would then activate the washers and wipers to use up the fluid in the heated reservoir. Which meant that you never got warm fluid when you wanted (or could really use) warm fluid. You just got warm fluid when it was good and ready to give it to you.

That's still no reason for the module to fail, of course. But I'm betting that right now, GM sure wishes it hadn't bothered answering a question that no one asked in the first place.

Whitacre stays on at GM: so where will this take us?

So Ed Whitacre, appointed to GM's board by the Obama administration to make sure it had a familiar face watching its bailout money, has announced that he will be staying in the position. This follows Fritz Henderson's getting the boot from the top spot, which he occupied after Rick Wagner was similarly tossed out when the money was tossed in.

Whitacre says it was the board's decision to keep him on, but color me slightly cynical on that; I suspect Whitacre may have made the decision himself. Once Fritz was turfed -- and right on the eve of the LA Auto Show, where he was supposed to give the keynote speech -- GM said it put Whitacre in the position for the interim, while it looked for a new leader. Said leader was also expected to come from outside the auto industry -- no doubt in an effort to find another Alan Mulally, who came to Ford from Boeing and, to my surprise, seems to have been a far better man for the job than anyone expected.

I was dead wrong about Mulally. I figured you needed a car guy to run a car company. The genius Mulally brought to the job wasn't that he understood cars, but that he understood manufacturing.

Whitacre comes from AT&T. Perhaps understanding communication is part of it, as well. But it still doesn't sit right with me that in his press conference announcing that his bags were truly unpacked, Whitacre said that he spent "the past few months learning the business."

A few months. To learn how to run the largest car company in the world.

I sure hope my gut feeling is wrong.

Oh, the irony ...

I was writing up some specs for a buyer's guide yesterday, and noticed that General Motors has discontinued an exterior paint color called Blue Chip ...

General Motors: the new McDonald's of the car world?

I was out for a walk with my Other Half today, and we got to discussing the future of the car industry. (Well, what do other couples talk about?) And when it came to what might happen to General Motors, the company that came to mind was McDonald's.

Okay, some background. Much of the bailout money is dependent on General Motors (and Chrysler) concentrating on hybrids and small, fuel-efficient cars. And I don't think that's necessarily very smart. Letter-writers and "green" politicians want auto companies to build mostly hybrids and tiny cars. The problem is that the public isn't all that keen on buying them, especially in the U.S., where the sales numbers really matter. Hybrid vehicles have never held more than 4% of the American new-vehicle market. And subcompact cars don't come anywhere near the top ten in the U.S.; even luxury cars outsell them. It's great to look green, but not if it puts you in the red.

Many of the major automakers are famous for something, even if it's not exclusive to that brand. Most buyers equate Volvo with safety, even though other companies now make vehicles that are just as safe. Toyota's all about hybrids, in spite of the Tundra and Sequoia. And General Motors, no matter what its woes, makes some vehicles that people still buy in droves and which return a decent profit: pickup trucks, Suburbans, and other assorted SUVs.

Hence the McDonald's analogy. Sure, in an effort to put on a "healthy" face, McDonald's plays up its salads and wraps. And what do most people do? Look right past them, and continue to order the Big Mac, large fries and keg-o-cola.

And maybe that's what will happen with General Motors. It'll make hybrids and small cars, and it will sell some of them and put on the green face, while it stays afloat with the pickup trucks and SUVs that Americans are buying. And maybe it isn't the best thing for the planet right now, but a country full of idled plants, closed dealerships and people with no jobs isn't such a grand idea, either.

GM: Kick it when it's down

So now it's official: GM has filed for bankruptcy protection. I knew it was coming, and yet it's still the news I never thought I'd hear.

I just took back the new Camaro today, after test-driving it for a week. And I have to admit, what really surprised me was the frequently negative reaction it got. Not because of what it is, because it's a really nice ride overall, but because of the company that builds it. I can't believe how many people complained about minor quibbles, and not because it mattered to them, but because it gave them an opportunity to slam General Motors.

I took it to a couple of cruise nights, and I parked it alongside a new Challenger and Mustang. I expected the usual cold shoulder from the Mopar and Ford guys, although you could tell that in an odd way, they were glad to see it, as if the triumvirate was once again intact. But people were coming up to it -- in many cases, people who drive GM cars, or work for GM, since the Camaro is built where I live -- and picking it apart. The grille's too big. The lights are too small. The windows are this, the hood is that, the seats are this. And while it's very difficult to describe their tone, it was obvious they weren't picking out what they saw as flaws on the vehicle. Rather, they just needed to complain about something.

One guy said GM had taken too long to bring it to market, and that's what was wrong with it. The next guy said they'd rushed it into production, and that's what was wrong with it. 

I took it to the gas station this morning. One man there, a former employee at the now-defunct truck plant, told me he'd been thinking about getting one. Another fellow, filling up a GM minivan, yelled over, "There's been two recalls on it already! My daughter works there! She says there's been two recalls on it already!"

I guess what I really don't understand is this need to kick the underdog. You don't like the Camaro, you don't like the Camaro -- that's fine. But in my week with it, I didn't hear from anyone who truly didn't like the Camaro. Instead, I heard from people who just needed to pick it apart, for whatever reason.

GM certainly has done a lot of things wrong. It wouldn't be headline news this morning about its bankruptcy if it hadn't. And yet, when the company does something right, no one will accept that. I've brought home some GM vehicles that deserved the slamming they got, but more recently, I've brought home a lot of them that can stand against the best of the competition. And always, someone will pick on whatever tiny fault they can find to drag down the whole car, because they can't allow anyone to think that maybe this time, the underdog got it right. And that's the part I simply don't understand.

GM + Segway = What on earth were they thinking?

  This photo, in a nutshell, is pretty much everything that's wrong with General Motors these days. Maybe this is why President Obama gave Rick Wagoner the boot, while mysteriously leaving Chrysler's top brass in place. Perhaps he got a sneak peek at what GM is trumpeting across the airwaves today on the eve of the New York Auto Show.

This is P.U.M.A., or Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, and yes, they're really serious. It's a joint effort of General Motors and Segway, and according to the press release, it's an electrically-powered, two-seat, two-wheeled prototype vehicle. "It could allow people to travel around cities more quickly, safely, quietly and cleanly, and at a lower total cost," GM says. "The vehicle also enables design creativity, fashion, fun and social networking."

If this were 2007, things would be different. PUMA is a perfect example of how a concept car works. It's a showcase of numerous technologies GM has developed or used over the years, including electric drive, vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and smart energy management. In better times, you put all your technologies together, you rolled them out onstage, the media fell over itself trying to get the pictures, and then you took what you learned to the sketchpad for your next new production vehicle.

But it's 2009. GM builds some of the best cars on the market, and it can't give them away. It's so far in the hole, it's burned through the funding it's already received, and it's asking for more. It's seriously considering bankruptcy protection. And then it rolls onstage with something that looks like the malfunctioning egg in Spinal Tap?

Toyota brought out a similar vehicle -- more like a wheelchair on steroids -- at the auto show a couple of years ago. We all shook our heads a little, but then looked at the big picture. It's a company from Japan, where electronic gadgets can't get to market fast enough, micro vehicles so small they don't require driver's licenses are common, and the culture reveres elders who could benefit from it.

But when an American automaker does it, we shake our heads a lot. Subcompacts can't crack the top-ten sales, never mind a car you wear, and Segways are pretty much limited to mall cops and postal routes. And it was like that when times were good.

GM had obviously been working on this for a long time, undoubtedly back when times were much better. And it should have done the most logical thing: left it at home, and maybe brought it out when (or if) this whole economic mess is over. Every company, no matter how large or how small, makes bad decisions, whether through oversight or, perhaps in this case, circumstances beyond its control. The key to getting through it is in how they handle it. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think putting it out at one of the world's biggest auto events was it.

GMC Terrain: It's a what?

  General Motors has just announced it will unveil the 2010 GMC Terrain at the New York auto show.

In its press release, the company calls it a "crossover SUV." Say what?

Really, this is getting goofy. First it was SUV, tagged to vehicles that were neither sporty nor truly utilitarian. Then, when those fell out of favor, they became crossovers, although I'm not quite sure exactly what it was that they were crossing over.

And now, we have a hybrid -- oops, that's taken, too -- of a "crossover SUV." So has it crossed over from being sporty? Or has it crossed the line for utility? Or is it just that someone figured he'd touch every possible customer base with this vehicle?

This all reminds me of the people who ridiculously insist that their dogs are "Labradoodles" or "Goldendoodles" or "Cockapoos." Folks, you do not have a new breed of dog -- you have a mutt of known parentage. Equally, let's get real with "crossover SUV." Try too hard to be all things to all people, and you'll just come off looking silly.

Hang on ... the government's making SENSE?

In the wake of the Detroit Three zipping over to Washington to plead a case for a bailout (and I still can't believe anyone pulling down a salary as a spin doctor didn't foresee the private-jet fiasco), Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have sent them a letter outlining what they'll need to do in order for their request to be considered.

Much to my shock, the government's demands make sense. Mark that one on the calendar; people will be talking about that for centuries to come.

Among the things the automakers need to do:

- Provide forthright, documented assessment of the current operating cash position, short-term needs, and how they'll meet long-term needs;

- Provide varying estimates of the terms of the loan, tied in with assumptions of current, improved or worse sales rates;

- Report and share information with any government mechanisms designed to safeguard the loans;

- Ensure the taxpayers get paid back first;

- Address health care payments and pension obligations;

- And my favorite, bar the payment of dividends and excessive executive compensation, including bonsues and golden parachutes by companies receiving taxpayer assistance.

The only other question: why the hell didn't the auto execs fly into Washington with such a plan already tucked under their arms? I think we've all applied for loans, whether through credit cards or the bank, and we pretty much know what the loans officer is going to ask us. I've never run a multi-billion-dollar company and know I can't. But sometimes it scares me when I realize just how out-of-touch these folks on the upper floors can be.

So should the government bail out the Detroit Three?

Yes.

Okay, so you want more than that. Yes, I think it's necessary, because of what North America would look like without them -- and I don't just mean directly. I live in a GM town -- one where the automaker has closed an on-site subsidiary and a truck plant so far. It's tough enough for outlying businesses just when the plants close down for two weeks each year on summer holidays. You should see it when a plant closes for good.

When people think about auto companies, they think about men and women bolting parts together on the line. They don't think about how much further that goes. The feeder plants that make the parts, and all the people they employ. The company that supplies the cafeteria, and the company that provides them with the bread and beans and bagels. The companies that make the shipping containers, the work gloves, the bathroom tissue, the companies that deliver it, the companies that take it away. It's almost impossible to comprehend the amount of material in an auto plant that isn't even related to the cars, and all of that comes from somewhere.

Certainly you can say that the Detroit Three helped bring this on themselves, but that doesn't make things any better. You can castigate a welfare mother for birthing a new baby, but that doesn't change the fact that mother and baby need to eat to stay alive. The three automakers should have become leaner and meaner 25 years ago, but they didn't. That was then, but we have to fix it now.

Don't think they aren't trying; for the most part, these three are turning out the best and the most fuel-efficient vehicles they've ever made, but it takes time. I'm very tired of opening the paper each day and seeing yet another letter to the editor where someone says, "GM needs to immediately start making the Volt/microcars/cars that run on coffee." Quite simply, you do not convert auto production in a day, or a week, or a month, or in many months. The cars coming off the line right now were designed and engineered years ago. Flexible manufacturing helps immensely, but the reality is that an all-new vehicle needs to be tooled, dies must be made, parts must be sourced, the supply chain must be adjusted, people must be trained, advertising must be focused, dealers must be prepared, and that's just the big stuff. I've talked to designers. It takes weeks just to come up with a door panel that can be readily produced in bulk, doesn't hit on the power switches, and fits the outside door that someone else designed. And that's just one part in a car that has thousands of them.

GM, Ford and Chrysler get it; don't think for a moment that they don't. They know what they've done wrong, and what the Japanese and Koreans have done right. But while they've been focusing their operations to bring us better and more fuel-efficient vehicles in the shortest timeframe possible, the goalposts moved.

There must be bailout money, and it's got to be freed up now, before it's too late. Automakers operate on something called economy of scale. If vehicle production drops below a certain number, the company can't survive. It's happened before; we now only know names like Studebaker, Kaiser, Pierce-Arrow and Packard because of antique-car shows. It could very easily happen again, and it could very easily happen very soon.

Put strings on the bailout. Tell Mulally, Wagner and Nardelli that they'll get their operating cash, but they'll draw no more than a manager's salary until the books are in the black again. That's tough love to someone hauling down $20 million a year, but look on the bright side: do you want to be the hero who saved the ship, or the rat who went down with it? Then, when the strings are in place, open the purse, and open it wide.

Can we afford to do it? We can't afford not to do it. Go rent Michael Moore's Roger and Me. Take a good look at the scenes of Flint. I mean a really long, good hard look at those scenes. Now think about what it would be like to live like that in your neighborhood. And if you think it wouldn't happen that way, then believe me: you're just not giving it enough thought.

The Volt: Look what it started

  Just a couple of weeks ago, General Motors unveiled the production model of the Chevrolet Volt, and now the floodgates have opened.

One of the three electric prototype models that Chrysler unveiled recently is an extended-range, meaning that, like the Volt, it runs on plug-in battery power and when that runs out, it goes to a gasoline engine that makes more electricity, rather than running the wheels itself. And at the Paris Motor Show today, Volvo announced that it will also have a similar vehicle, scheduled for production after 2012, which will run on battery power and then on gasoline to generate electricity.

So I wonder: did everyone have the same idea at the same time, or did automakers see the Volt concept unveiled in 2007, run to the drawing board, and then wait for the production model to be presented before making their own announcements? It sure seems odd that others are coming out with similar cars so quickly -- and very heartening, too.

Putting aside rivalry for one day ...

  This was the scene yesterday at Ford's headquarters in Michigan on the occasion of GM's 100th anniversary.

Class act, guys.

Chevrolet Volt: And the hits just keep on coming

  I was in Detroit for GM's hundred-year anniversary celebration, where the company rolled out the production version of the Volt. It's Chevrolet's extended-range electric car, which drivers will plug in to get a 40-mile range on battery power; if you need to go beyond that, there's a small gasoline engine that doesn't power the wheels, but runs the electric motor. GM first introduced it as a concept in 2007 and says it'll be built in November 2010.

The moment it rolled out on stage, the bloggers and the chat rooms exploded. And y'know, I'm no fan of corporations, but I have to admit that I feel for GM on this one. It seems that no matter what you do, you just can't make some people happy. Check out a few message boards and you'll see what I mean.

GM was castigated for dropping the EV1 program. People were furious that the company discontinued its electric car program. And now it's back with one, that addresses the EV1's drawback of range, and people still aren't happy.

The company did its research and found that the average American commuter trip is 40 miles. But if you go beyond that, there's a gas engine to get you a few hundred more miles, either to a wall socket or another gas station. And yet I've heard complaints of "but not everybody drives just 40 miles." Hit. Head. Here.

People complained that the Volt concept's styling was too "out there" to be taken seriously. So the company designs a more conventional (and to my eye, attractive) design, and people are complaining that it's too bland.

There are complaints about the price, even though GM hasn't yet said what it will cost. Yes, price will make or break this car. Do these people honestly think that the company doesn't know that?

And already I've heard complaints that it's an "untried technology". What, and the Prius and Insight were just new versions of hybrids that we'd been driving for the last 50 years? Yes, the battery is new, the system is new, the car is new. Perhaps these folks haven't realized that no matter what it is, from computers to refrigerators to ballpoint pens, somebody had to take a chance on the first ones.

What's wrong with the Volt that makes these people immediately hate it, even though it's been rolled out just once? Simple. It doesn't have Toyota on the nameplate.

Come on, GM: this is the best you could do?

This is the new utility vehicle, based on the Pontiac G8, that General Motors will put on the market in 2009. It held a contest to name it, and 18,000 entries poured in.

The winner?

The G8 ST.

Really.

"We actually thought very long about El Camino," a GM spokesman said. "In the end, we felt it was more appropriate to honor the El Camino's unique place as part of Chevy's heritage, and not use that nameplate on a Pontiac."

Okay, fair enough. But why G8 ST, which rolls as smoothly off the tongue as gum off a hot sidewalk? "G8 ST was one of the most popular suggestions (in the contest), plus we noticed a far broader trend toward simple, easy-to-remember names," the company said.

Uh huh. Show me a car fan out there who doesn't easily remember, oh, say, Firebird. Or Trans Am. Or Bonneville, LeMans, Grand Prix or Catalina.

This is, after all, the company that once cast and chromed nameplates that read Fleetwood, Toronado, Skylark, Chevelle, Cutlass, and perhaps the finest name of all, Rocket Eighty-Eight.

Show me anyone who saw those cars 20, 30, 40 or more years ago and doesn't remember those names. G8 ST? When this car's actually on the street, I'll bet you'll be able to stop a hundred people and they'll know what the car looks like, but they'll be damned if they can remember what it's called.

R.I.P., Oshawa Truck Plant

Well, it's official: GM plans to close its truck plant in Oshawa, Ontario in 2009. Funny that that news apparently wasn't passed along when the company negotiated a new contract with the union a couple of weeks ago.

Even more troubling is a blurb in the Toronto Star newspaper today: 2005: Ontario invests $235 million with GM's Beacon project, $60 million of which goes to universities for R&D and the balance to GM for its Oshawa operation. The agreement includes minimum job levels at the truck plant.

I think it's time that Ontario had a second look at that particular piece of funding, methinks.

GM: Time for "strategic initiatives"

In the news today: GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner used the stockholders' meeting to outline the plans in store for GM. It looks like gas prices have finally gotten through.

There's going to be more emphasis on smaller vehicles, an all-new Aveo, a new global compact Chevrolet, and funding to get the Volt on the road.

There will also be plant closures, including one at the truck plant here in Oshawa, Ontario, where I live, which should go over really well. I've never figured out why the plants that win the most awards for quality always seem to be the first to close.

And there's going to be a "strategic review" of the Hummer brand. Gee, ya think? The only surprise is that it took them this long.

Today's translation: GM Corporate-Speak

In the news: some 19,000 GM hourly workers in the U.S. have accepted the company's attrition program, and they'll be out the door and home by July 1 at the latest.

First crack at their jobs will go to current employees "whenever possible", according to a release from GM. But if new workers have to be brought in, they'll come in at entry-level wages and benefits.

According to GM North America president Troy Clarke, "This attrition program gives us an opportunity to restructure our U.S. workforce through the entry-level wage and benefit structure for new hourly employees."

Translation: We're going to save a bundle by getting the old guy out of the slot, and putting in a new guy at a lower wage.

Now yes, I do understand that the domestic auto companies are still bloated from a quarter-century ago, and that trimming down doesn't happen without some tough decisions.

But before you jump on the bandwagon and say "about time", keep a few things in mind, including the fact that good-paying jobs generate higher taxes and more disposable income than low-paying jobs. Those taxes help pay for your social programs, your schools, your neighborhood, your police and fire protection, your parks and your libraries. Do you want your neighborhood funded by an autoworker making $25+ an hour, or by someone whose job description includes "Do you want fries with that?"

Henry Ford, back when he was still turning out the Model T, raised the salaries of most of his workers to $5.00 a day, which was twice the going rate. His theory was that a decently-paid worker could afford to buy the product he built, thereby increasing demand for the product and turning it into a cycle. How many minimum-wage workers do you know who are buying new cars?

And don't kid yourself; if the auto plants could get workers to screw together the vehicles for a buck an hour, I doubt the price would go down. Profits would go up and the shareholders would be happy, but don't think Flint would be fired back up to make $2,500 Tata cars. One of Chevrolet's best-selling models is made in Korea, but its price doesn't seem to reflect the wages those workers make over there.

Now, don't get me wrong -- the automakers need to do something to stay afloat in these troubled times, and they're probably doing the best they can.

Just don't make the mistake of thinking that what's good for General Motors is necessarily good for America.

Chrysler's leaving California

Chrysler has announced that it's closing its Pacifica Advance Product Design Center in Carlsbad, California and will consolidate the Advance Design function at its headquarters in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

Now, news from the automakers is usually made available to journalists on media-specific Web sites during business hours, with lots of quotes that we can use to beef up the story, and photos if they're available. This little tidbit came as a very low-key email, and with the same terse message posted not on Chrysler's media Web site, but on a blog that it reserves as a chattier version for the press. No quotes, no photos, not even an attribution -- just "by Editor". And it arrived late on a Friday night.

Methinks they don't want us to say too much about it.

The email said that the function will be consolidated with Michigan, but the last paragraph reads, These changes set the stage for Chrysler's future global growth efforts, which also include our intent to establish global expertise in design, engineering and sourcing through centers of excellence. These actions will help the Company meet its long-term globlization goals.

Translation: we're going to find a place that'll make the cars for cheap.

It's not new, of course. GM's been doing it for a long time -- you want to get a deer in the headlights look, go up to half the people driving Chevrolet Aveos (bonus points if they've got a "Buy Domestic" license plate frame) and ask them if they know their cars are built in Korea. Rather tellingly, GM built three new subcompact concepts and had the public vote on which one it should build. One was designed in the U.S. The winner, announced at last year's Los Angeles Auto Show, was designed in India. Hmmm. I wonder where the actual car will be built, and if that has any bearing on how that particular design was chosen.

Y'know, in the grand scheme of things, I do have a bit of a handle on how corporations work. Even if I don't like it, I understand why companies move production offshore, whether it's cars or clothes or call centres.

I just wish everyone would be honest, instead of coating it all in bafflegab. Come clean with us: it costs too much money to design a car in California, so we're closing that office and we'll be contracting the work overseas. Will the public like it? Of course not. But I think John Q. Public would have more respect for a company that tells him up front what it's doing, instead of sneaking out the back door in the middle of the night.

Happy Birthday, GM

On September 16, 1908, William Crapo Durant filed incorporation papers that formed a new company he called General Motors.

He was already involved with Buick, and he'd agreed to license their production to the McLaughlin Motor Car Company in Oshawa, Ontario. Its founder, Sam McLaughlin, sold his company completely to GM in 1918 (it became GM of Canada) but stayed on as president and as a board member of the U.S. company. He also built a little place in Oshawa that he called Parkwood.

The 55-room mansion is now a public museum and national historical site, and if you spend any time watching movies, you've probably seen it; it's been the backdrop for such films as X-Men, Hollywoodland, Chicago and Billy Madison.

In honor of GM's 100th anniversary, it'll be holding a number of events throughout the year. The one I'm most looking forward to is the McLaughlin Buick Club's Homecoming on August 4, when it's expected that 200 vintage vehicles will drive up Oshawa's main street and into the grounds.

All the info on Parkwood can be found here.