Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





GM News, New Models and Market Share

1102210231025102710281051

Comments

  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,380
    LONDON – Japanese car maker Toyota Motor Corp. has reclaimed its position as the world's No. 1 car maker by sales.

    On Monday, Toyota said that it sold a record 9.75 million vehicles last year. Detroit-based General Motors Co. sold 9.29 million vehicles over the same period.

    GM had been the top-selling automaker for more than seven decades before losing the title to Toyota in 2008. GM retook the sales crown in 2011, when Toyota's production was hurt by the quake and tsunami in northeastern Japan.


    This FACT is directly related to how GM remains trapped in it's own diseases internally despite the blind loyalty some wish to bestow on a lost leader. :)

    Regards,
    OW
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,989
    I see not much has changed. OW is still hating on GM :P

    Thought I'd give the old gang a hello. Just purchased another GM product to replace my 2000 Grand Prix GTP that was totaled a few weeks back with a 2003 Grand Prix GTP with 21K. Got the deal of the decade on it and will be here this week. :shades:

    -Rocky
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    There is no way an Edsel was any worse than anything else offered at the time

    The Edsel definitely had its problems, but I think the biggest reason it failed was simply that it was conceived in more optimistic times, when everybody thought the prosperity would go on forever, but by the time it was launched, the economy was in recession, the middle-price market was too crowded, and buyers were starting to shun cars with big, powerful, thirsty engines.

    I've heard that quality was bad on them, because they didn't have a dedicated assembly plant. Rather, the smaller models were built on a sped-up Ford assembly line, while the bigger ones, like the Corsair, were built on a sped-up Mercury assembly line. The result was that they were typically built more sloppy than an equivalent Ford or Mercury. Supposedly that Speed-Racer type "Teletouch" electric pushbutton transmission control was troubleprone as well.

    Standard engine on the Ford-based models was a 361 with 303 hp. On the bigger models, they used a monstrous 410 CID unit with 345 hp. Consumer Reports tested an Edsel (forget the series), but at the time, they said it was the fastest car they had ever tested at that point, in 0-60 at least. Now granted, CR didn't test things like Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars, Dodge D-501s, Fuelie Corvettes, and so on. So no doubt, there were faster cars out there. But, at their price point, I think the Edsels might have been the most powerful cars out there at the time. For instance, in 1958, Buick's most powerful cars only had 300 hp. Olds topped out at 312. Desoto topped out at 305 in its mass-produced cars, although the Adventurer got 345 hp out of a 361, 355 with fuel injection. Chrysler's much more expensive New Yorker, priced about $600-700 more than the top Edsel (and back when $600-700 was a lot of money!) got the same 345 hp, out of a 392 Hemi.

    I think Ford got caught with their pants down earlier in the 1950's, with regards to the mid-priced field, but by the time they got serious about it, they were building exactly the type of car the public did NOT want. Mercury had a similar problem, fielding cars that were big, heavy, and thirsty. Top engine in a Mercury for '58 was a 430 with 400 hp! Sounds great today, but I imagine trying to sell one of those in 1958 was about as much fun as trying to sell a big-block anything in 1974
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 18,260
    >Just purchased another GM product

    Congratulations. Good to see you post here. Come back more often.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    What an honor. To be in the top 10. With Yugo. All of these GM brands or models on the ash heap: Saturn Ion, Olds diesel, Pontiac Aztek, Chevy Vega, Cadillac Cimmarron. What about the top 20 or top 50? Would GM place more models in these larger groupings?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Long time, no see Rocky.

    Seems like people complain that GM focuses on volume, then complain even more when they don't! :D
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Wonder if LA Times had considered putting the Corvair on their list. The one that Ralph Nader wrote about and said that was Unsafe.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    This FACT is directly related to how GM remains trapped in it's own diseases internally despite the blind loyalty some wish to bestow on a lost lead.

    So basically GM is junk/dying/on its way out is it's not in first place.

    But GM is doing mostly fleet sales, which it shouldn't be doing as fleet sales are a sign of weakness/the same old thing/don't make a profit...

    Essentially GM sucks no matter what it does, in your mind.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,189
    Welcome back, Rocky! Nice to see you in here again!
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    GM places more anywhere, simply because of the sheer number of different models they make: more than any other manufacturer.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,809
    edited January 2013
    These top 10 lists are usually terrible, written by hacks who have as much automotive knowledge as a 2 year old.

    Far worse things out there than an Edsel (I wouldn't kick a mint loaded senior Edsel out of my garage) or Ion. The Aztek wasn't even terrible as a vehicle, just terrible looking.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    The Edsel definitely had its problems, but I think the biggest reason it failed was simply that it was conceived in more optimistic times, when everybody thought the prosperity would go on forever, but by the time it was launched, the economy was in recession, the middle-price market was too crowded, and buyers were starting to shun cars with big, powerful, thirsty engines.

    Don't forget the front end design that many thought looked like part of the female anatomy, which was compounded in that most car buying decisions back then were made by men.

    Lots of jokes were made about that front end design...
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    Don't forget the front end design that many thought looked like part of the female anatomy, which was compounded in that most car buying decisions back then were made by men.

    Even more disturbing, is that GM almost took some inspiration from the Edsel! Before the all-new 1959 models came out, GM was planning on getting one more year out of the '58 models. For Chevy, they were thinking in terms of a "central theme", along the lines of the Edsel's grille, or the Tucker's third headlight.

    Maye it's a good thing that the '58 body wasn't used one more year! I thought the '58 Chevy was actually quite handsome, and it's kind of hard to imagine GM screwing it up. But then, look at the '58 Olds and Buick, compared to the '57 models, which were the same basic design.
  • lemkolemko Posts: 15,189
    I've seen pictures of a 1959 Chevrolet design that had the two low beam headlights on the outer edges of the grille with the two high beams stacked in the center of the grille ala the Edsel grille: a truly gruesome design.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    edited January 2013
    But then, look at the '58 Olds and Buick, compared to the '57 models, which were the same basic design.

    Took a look. What were they thinking. Could be the children or grandchildren of the stylists for the 1958 models did the Pontiac Aztek in more recent times.

    On 58 Olds and Buick, wonder if these are on lists of 10, or 50 worst styled cars of all time. Seeing the last post mentioning "gruesome", the word "grotesque" comes to mind when looking at the Buick, Olds.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Aztek actually did well in the JDP APEAL study, winning its class, even.

    It became a punch line, but owners actually liked them. Problem is, there were too few of those.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,007
    It became a punch line, but owners actually liked them. Problem is, there were too few of those.

    Even the Aztek wasn't a total loser. It begat the Buick Rendezvous, which was fairly popular for a few years, and a lot easier on the eye.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,856
    There are a couple in this area that I see regularly. The owners must like them.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    There are a couple in this area that I see regularly. The owners must like them.

    My guess is they are cheap to buy.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They gave one away on Survivor, then Rosie O'Donnell got mad at who won and gave one to each of the other contestants. Funny.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The company plans to construct a 450,000 square-foot building for the paint shop, which will feature new tools and robots aimed at reducing energy use and improving quality

    Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/20130128/OEM01/130129906#ixzz2JJHObWcf

    Oddly these are usually accompanied by xxx,xxx jobs created, so I wonder if the automation will actually displace jobs?
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    If you read the official announcement from GM, it appears the selling point (from a labor perspective) is that no one loses a job from the newly constructed facilities once put into service. At least, that's how I read it....
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,380
    So basically GM is junk/dying/on its way out is it's not in first place.

    No, GM is continuing to loose market share regardless of being 1st or 2nd place.

    But GM is doing mostly fleet sales, which it shouldn't be doing as fleet sales are a sign of weakness/the same old thing/don't make a profit...

    No, 27%-30% are fleet sales. Imagine their market share without it. In addition, their profit margins do not lead.

    Essentially GM sucks no matter what it does, in your mind.

    No, GM sucks regardless of what is in my mind. Some refuse to admit the facts that point to GM not being a leader at really anything! :P

    Regards,
    OW
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,856
    My guess is they are cheap to buy.

    I've seen these in the same driveways for many, many years. I'm guessing original owners as I remember commenting they must have been the only two sold in greater Boston.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,856
    If you read the official announcement from GM, it appears the selling point (from a labor perspective) is that no one loses a job from the newly constructed facilities once put into service.

    That's the way I read it. The investment is in a new paint shop and press to replace the existing ones.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,754
    If you read the official announcement from GM, it appears the selling point (from a labor perspective) is that no one loses a job from the newly constructed facilities once put into service. At least, that's how I read it....

    Nobody likes people losing jobs. The problem is that keeping more people on than needed ruins your competitiveness vs. other companies. And then you fail and people lose jobs, anyway.

    Let's hope GM works to improve their inefficiency. That saved labor could go into better quality vehicles, or maybe just being profitable...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Tough to strike a balance. Jobs are good, but we need sustainable jobs.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Do you honestly think that is an authoritative list, circlew? I ask seriously, because if you do, I'm stupefied. I think true car people, with historical knowledge of cars that goes back more than ten or fifteen years, and who know a thing or two about perspective, would think that list is a complete hack.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    The 'Teletouch' shifting was problematic, supposedly, on Edsels, and that wasn't shared with other Ford products. And I've heard the stories about assembly line workers 'resenting' the car. Frankly, built with Fords and built with Mercurys of the same ilk, with the same powertrains (although the 410 may have been Edsel only, I don't remember), I simply don't see how it could be worse than the same year Ford or Mercury. I have also read and heard for years that those cars weren't anything great, quality-control wise, either.
Sign In or Register to comment.