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

1103210331035103710381051

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    But GM probably has labor agreements and in some cases may be paying people not to work. A production stoppage may not save nearly as much as we think.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Please don't make me itemize the list of factually incorrect things I've seen on this board again.

    Oh, no, please feel free to do so. :shades:
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,830
    edited February 2013
    But at the same time, if your kid falls behind in part due to the others cheating (and many of his own bad decisions, of course), and ends up the lowest ranked of his peers, then passed up for advancement or scholarship, how does that play out? And when your own taxes subsidize the cheating perpetrated by others? That's how it works in regards to cheating in the auto industry.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes, an additional wrong is needed to simply keep afloat. Either that, or playing field leveling trade policies, which make those who believe the lie of "free trade" scream and cry. Many of these screamers also embrace dirty tax havens and idiotic defective trickle down style theory.

    We can either assess equalizing and even punitive measures against those who cheat and wish to have access to our markets, or we can cheat to even things up a little. No other way about it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Simple punitive measure - tax the cheaters so as to level the playing field.

    Example: if China doesn't pay for health insurance for their laborers, tax imports to even out what it would cost if they did.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    The difference is that the Asians currently being subsidized in Asia are not being subsidized because they can't sell enough cars. Or because they can't figure out how to make a profit. Honda and Toyota do that quite well, as does Hyundai.

    GM forgot how to make money, and for that they demanded subsidies or they would take down the entire auto industry. At least that's how it looked to some.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    But GM probably has labor agreements and in some cases may be paying people not to work. A production stoppage may not save nearly as much as we think.

    I'm sure you're right. Few things are ever simply black or white, although quite a few seem to see the world in those 2 shades only.

    There are probably a hosts of qualifiers, including tax incentive clawbacks for idled plants, etc.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    edited February 2013
    Simple punitive measure - tax the cheaters so as to level the playing field.

    Example: if China doesn't pay for health insurance for their laborers, tax imports to even out what it would cost if they did.


    Excellent idea... Then, take that money and use it to pay for the uninsured folks in the US.

    You oughta run for elected office!

    LOL!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,830
    The reason alone doesn't really matter, the mere existence of the subsidy does too.

    I suppose sending Japan and South Korea bills for military presence in the region, keeping the monster to the south at bay, would change this drastically.

    Not long ago Kia was dead man walking, and the Hyundai group had some troubles too - but their feds stepped in even moreso than usual (and they have huge governmental involvement through good times and bad) yet nobody says a bad word.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,830
    Exactly. Also compensate for Chinese environmental abuse.

    And if an automaker receives gifts from their respective government, that can be compensated for as well. Either that, or we have to play the same game. There's no other solution.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    I think the Dart is sharp looking on the exterior (see a Ralleye) version parked near me at work.

    The Dart would be a winner if they had halfway decent build and design quality. Knowing Chrysler as well as I do, I know that's a virtual impossibility. But a Dart with a Civic SI power train and AC would be cool. At least then, those expensive parts wouldn't break down so fast.

    Also, they probably overprice them. Frankly, they should just give them away for free to former Neon owners as an apology.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited February 2013
    Not long ago Kia was dead man walking, and the Hyundai group had some troubles too - but their feds stepped in even moreso than usual (and they have huge governmental involvement through good times and bad) yet nobody says a bad word.

    From what I remember Hyundai auto acquired Kia after Kia filed for bankruptcy. IIRC, Hyundai Auto was profitable when the Chaebol collapsed and was only like 30% of the total business. I believe it was the construction division that took Hyundai down, that and the business/political relationships in Korea at the time. Hyundai was split up after the Asian financial crisis.

    So no, I really don't have any thing bad to say about the deal. That was Korea's business not mine.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    The Dart would be a winner if they had halfway decent build and design quality. Knowing Chrysler as well as I do, I know that's a virtual impossibility

    And you're basing this on.....what? Oh, that's right, a '95 Neon.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    So no, I really don't have any thing bad to say about the deal. That was Korea's business not mine.

    "heh, not my problem!"
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    . I think their reliability has improved overall but quality and fit-n-finish still leave a lot to be desired.

    But doesn't seeing obvious quality control gaps and shortcomings in a car lead you (logically I say) to thinking and at least perceiving that perhaps other shortcuts were taken under the hood, inside the wheels, and other unseen places?

    If visible portions look cheap, I shudder to think what cost savings measures were taken where the eye can't see normally.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    It appears Korea fixed many of the problems by breaking up institutions that were to large. Maybe we can learn something from them;)
  • greg128greg128 Posts: 346
    edited February 2013
    Guys like you give the other guys a free pass by saying things like, "Geez, look at GM's average owner age"--when it's the same or extremely close to all the other big manufacturers.

    That applies to recent reliability ratings of GM cars compared to others. My family and myself own GM cars that have been very reliable and we are very happy with our purchases.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    I've said it before, I'll say it again....I am positively stupefied at how much energy is exerted on a GM board by people who hate GM.

    The hate could have been avoided if the 40% that were pro-bailout offered to pay for 100% of the costs, and leave the rest of us 60% that were against the bailouts with a tax refund or rebate. How the minority convinced 2 Presidents from 2 parties to go against the majority is beyond me. I will say, it tends to show that there is no difference between the two parties anymore, or the differences are comical and minor in relation to the big picture.

    Pro GM and GM fanboy people should offer to subsidize GM on their own. Those against GM should be able to UNCHECK that tax box on their tax forms this Spring.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    It is my understanding that "anything"'s domestic content percentage, and also engine assembly point, was only for the earliest Cruzes, but I will have to look and verify when I take my car in for an oil change this weekend.

    What do you drive, anything? I drive a Cobalt and my wife drives an '11 Malibu. It'd be interesting to see about recalls on what you drive, but I honestly don't remember you saying.

    I do remember you saying that one could absolutely not get factory cruise control in a Cruze though. ;)
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    The small car market can be won with good product. Since a small car is often one's first purchase, there are new customers to be won over.

    This works well, when for example, Chrysler has a customer they can never win back (short of a full refund) like me. I just know all too well and first hand what they are capable of (the levels to which they will sink to) in the design and engineering of their cars. Anyone that knows their capabilities for stinking will stay away for life.

    Of course, this assumes the youngin' doesn't have good parents that wisely tell them to stay away from the Big 3. Of course, that also assumes the young person will listen to their parents! :P ;)

    In the end, if they don't have a good product Chrysler will be unable to resell to Dart owners in the future, and we'll be asked for bailout #3 in about 10 to 20 more years.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    The fact is, the jury is out on the quality of the Dart, even though you have your mind made up already, sadly. Again, the enlightened often feel they are the most open-minded. I discovered this on my own about thirty years ago.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Pro GM and GM fanboy people should offer to subsidize GM on their own. Those against GM should be able to UNCHECK that tax box on their tax forms this Spring.

    Obviously there aren't enough of them, or GM wouldn't never have gone bankrupt.

    In all seriousness, while I am not happy about bailing out a business like GM that already had one foot in the grave long before the crisis, it probably was the right thing to do.

    The bonus is I get to continue criticizing GM.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    And you're basing this on.....what? Oh, that's right, a '95 Neon.

    Yes, that's part of it, but I'm also basing it on the dealer interactions, reactions, and service after purchase.

    I went to 3 different Dodge dealers seeking refuge from continued breakdowns (fix it right and fix it once and for all dammit!).

    All of them pretty much performed the same with the same level of service and culture.

    So after warranty, that would have been years '98-'01 at 3 separate dealers. The reaction of "oh yeah, that's normal to go bad." The "parts just breakdown" routine, and so on and so on. It amazes me that more parts weren't broken while trying to repair other parts. At least, I was never told if they were.

    I'm basing it on the fact that Chrysler never sent a letter for extended warranties on the auto transmissions, the head gaskets, nor the air conditioners and compressors that routinely failed.

    Or how about a recall on the leaking gas tank? A recall would even be welcome, I can't recall a single recall on the Neon. :cry:
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    But doesn't seeing obvious quality control gaps and shortcomings in a car lead you (logically I say) to thinking and at least perceiving that perhaps other shortcuts were taken under the hood, inside the wheels, and other unseen places?

    Logically yes, but I haven't seen that in reality. Most of the company cars my wife has received over the past 10 years have been shoddy to me, but they've mostly been very reliable. That doesn't change the fact I wouldn't buy any of those cars with my own money.

    I think she's got about 45k miles on her '11 Taurus. No problems yet except for a few rattles and lousy fit-n-finish. The Taurus is the first company car I've looked forward to her getting but it's not an impressive car.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,380
    I believe the turbos increase rpm which may add wear on the internal combustion engine. I haven't driven a recent turbo, but from what I've read it sounds like spool time and turbo lag have been mostly resolved. However, I wonder whether they had to compromise efficiency to get there.

    I'd comment but I don't want to upset GM, which is way late to the 4T party. I'll note both points you made as follows:

    #1 - No lag or torque-steer in the Kia.
    #2 - Efficiency is way up there if you know how to use it, as bpizzuti noted. ;)

    Regards,
    OW
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    edited February 2013
    The small car market can be won with good product. Since a small car is often one's first purchase, there are new customers to be won over.

    Ford and GM have already learned that IMO. The Cruze and Focus are nice small cars. They are selling well (not everyone can be #1 in sales) and from what I've seen on used listings, they seem to hold their value better than ever before. I'm surprised the Focus sells as well as it does with it's lumpy transmission.

    I don't think Uplander could buy a used Cruze for what he paid new for his Cobalt.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    Obviously there aren't enough of them, or GM wouldn't never have gone bankrupt.

    Not sure about that. It is just that they want to continue to be able to buy bottom of the barrel vehicles for rock bottom prices. The only way to get rock bottom cheap prices is to make a cheap undesirable car, produce the heck out of it until inventories are ultra overstuffed, and then the massive discounts and rebates ensue.

    It's a vicious cycle.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Not sure about that. It is just that they want to continue to be able to buy bottom of the barrel vehicles for rock bottom prices. The only way to get rock bottom cheap prices is to make a cheap undesirable car, produce the heck out of it until inventories are ultra overstuffed, and then the massive discounts and rebates ensue.

    Well you have a valid point, having a customer base that isn't willing to pay what the competitions customers will, can be a problem. At least GM, Chrysler, and Ford have trucks to extract some profits from customers;)
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,759
    Too bad Lance Armstrong didn't have parents like you.

    It's the expectation that since everybody cheats, you can too that is sending the USA down the tubes.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,830
    I don't recall any clear profitability being shown when the old organization was intact - given the mediocre to horrible Hyundai product of the era, it's hard to believe real profit was being made. The government-coddled old chaebol might have broke up, but the connections remain - check who is the CEO.

    Korea's business, partially enabled by your tax dollars.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,759
    Guys like you give the other guys a free pass by saying things like, "Geez, look at GM's average owner age"--when it's the same or extremely close to all the other big manufacturers. Come on. Your high school debate teacher would shake his or her head at that one (I know that particular example wasn't you).

    Since I was the original poster, I'll respond. Even though you don't like people leaving things out, you left you the fact that I prefaced my message with "I believe I've read this but have not verified". Not quite as definitive as you are making it sound. Also, we did confirm that Buick and Caddy have quite old user populations - less so with Chevy, but still older than many others in the same market area.
Sign In or Register to comment.