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

1103310341036103810391051

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    What has Chrysler done since 2000 or even 1994/5 to win my business as a customer, regain trust, or otherwise show they have changed and improved?

    What are the signs that say the odds have changed?

    What are the positive indicators that show they may have improved since 1995?

    They've successfully gone bankrupt, that's certainly not a positive indicator.

    They've successfully received a second bailout, I suppose a few CEO's and executives deserve huge bonuses and golden parachutes for finagling that arrangement, but how does that make a customer more confident?

    The bogus lifetime warranty on the power train was short lived, and riddled with exclusions and fine print anyway.

    FIAT's reputation is no better.

    What have they done to win back any trust?

    They still rank at the bottom of CR's rankings.

    I see no reason to predict otherwise yet.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,753
    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?

    That pans out that the companies that pass him up are not as sustainable in the long run. Do you really think GM is superior but is just doing badly because others are cheating? I don't think so.

    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.

    I'd go with number 1, not number 2. Unfortunately everybody seems to think #1 is the cats meow. How is that doing for our competitiveness?
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,379
    Please don't make me itemize the list of factually incorrect things I've seen on this board again.

    The posts that are "incorrect" have nothing to do with GM's reality.

    Start by itemizing everything GM did to go bankrupt. Then, itemize everything since bankruptcy they continue to do incorrectly. Feel free to add the things they learned to stop doing to prevent repeating bankruptcy.

    I'm waiting eagerly....

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,379
    Nice excuses. Kia/Hyundai are making GM look third-rate! I guess the Korean Government are all "Car Guys". :P

    Regards,
    OW
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    I don't recall any clear profitability being shown when the old organization was intact

    Hyundai as a whole was loosing money, but that doesn't mean every division within Hyundai was unprofitable. I've read more than one article stating Hyundai Auto was relatively healthy at the time, same with Hyundai Heavy Industries.

    given the mediocre to horrible Hyundai product of the era,

    The D3 made money off lousy product for decades;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yep, some sort of carbon tax.

    US manufacturing plants are zero landfill and cleaner than ever.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    edited February 2013
    I am positively stupefied at how much energy is exerted on a GM board by people who hate GM.

    How does one determine that a poster "hates" GM? Would simply posting parts of reviews by Edmunds, or CR, or Car and Driver, etc about their "findings" and when the findings are not complimentary after they have tested a GM vehicle constitute posting "hate"?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,773
    They are more sustainable as long as they are coddled - which doesn't seem to be fading anytime soon. Even the leading makers receive gifts. Reminds me of college kids who are dependent on a parental allowance, if not a free ride, but pretend to be on their own.

    #1 helped the competition compete, we're supposed to blindly embrace theory as we have with trickle down and free trade garbage, why not here?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,773
    I don't recall those articles. I suppose creative accounting could make it work - move the R&D under another umbrella, and reap pure profit from manufactured goods sales. Hard to believe H was truly that healthy given their 1990s product line.

    D3 didn't have real competition during most of their lousy days.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,773
    They know how to spoil their children, anyway. And when you received decades of developmental aid and still receive military protection, it comes that much easier.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,773
    I wonder how much prices would rise if environmental standards were equal.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    The funny thing is I did not like the Dart, but come on...

    What has Chrysler done since 95?

    Pentastar V6. We could stop right there, really.

    Much, much better interior on the 300. Half of the rest of the lineup is about half way there but still much improved.

    Have you sat in a Jeep Grand Cherokee? Wrangler will have a Pentastar V6 and an 8 speed auto soon, that's not progress?

    Check out a Ram pickup, too, coil springs and ram box setting it apart.

    They're not at the head of the class, but they are no longer the burn out who skips class and doesn't graduate, either.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Hard to believe H was truly that healthy given their 1990s product line.

    Healthy might be to strong of a word, but from what I've read, Hyundai Auto wasn't circling the drain either.

    Who knows if the books were cooked or if assets and expenses being pushed around.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Probably double
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    edited February 2013
    D3 didn't have real competition during most of their lousy days.

    Can anyone imagine the garbage we would be forced to buy and drive today if not for the Japanese and their impact that forced American branded manufacturers such as GM to make changes to catch up or else. What if there were no Japan. No Honda. No Toyota. Look at the offerings by GM in the 80's. Starting in the early, mid 80's, the Japanese clearly took over the lead in quality, reliability, innovation that forced the American brands such as GM to take notice. It took a very long time for GM to respond to the Japanese superiority.

    And, was not only in cars. In TVs, it was the Japanese with Sony Trinitron and Panasonic that showed how to manufacture excellent quality and reliability in TVs. American brands could not compete. Did not try. They are gone or exist only as an old brand name now used by some companies not based in the U.S.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 40,776
    Uplander does bring up an interesting point. This discussion is very active and there's a lot of venom hate loathing disgust distaste for GM expressed.

    You don't see that in the Ford News discussion.

    Okay, I can understand that - Ford didn't take a bail-out. GM getting bailed out made my next door neighbor so mad he purchased a Flex to replace his Bravada.

    But - why then does Chrysler get a free ride? Is it simply because it got sold to the Italians or because Dan Quayle was a part owner for a while or because people thought it was still run by the Mercedes crowd?

    Even when I skim the SUV discussions here, there's more anger directed at GM from owners with problems than I see with owners of Explorers or Durangos.

    It's all a bit curious to me.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    Pentastar V6. We could stop right there, really.

    While that shows progress in the numbers and stats department (HP and MPG), it does nothing to show progress in the reliability and dependability department.

    The Neon had "class-leading" horsepower for small cars in its day. Means little if it's in the shop all the time.

    Same thing with 8-speed auto. Time will tell, and I'm talking 7 years before we can decide Chrysler's changed for the better.

    So they've improved interiors and "product" quality, but what about the durability and longevity of their "planned obsolescence" parts?
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,341
    Put me in the line of "Chrysler doesn't get a free pass," please!

    I suppose people forgive Chrysler faster and quicker because they repaid their debts faster and quicker and more fully than GM ever will.

    They also probably forgive them quicker because they've been bailed out before, and it's becoming routine.

    Maybe they are forgiven because they sunk so low (not just in reliability) but also, during the 2000's, in product competitiveness. They had no where to go but up, and have showed more improvement perhaps.

    Maybe there aren't enough Chrysler owners out there to sustain a Chrysler discussion or forum?
  • ajvdhajvdh Posts: 223
    I recently rented a car and when I found out that was all they had was a Chrysler 200, I'll admit to some trepidation.

    I was pleasantly surprised: Yeah, the driving dynamics weren't anything to write home about, but they were acceptable for a transportation appliance. At least on par with the Altima I had a week later.

    The interior materials were quite nice, seats were comfortable, and it was quiet. According to Chrysler's site, it was the cheapest possible trim, with a sticker of under $19k. I'm not gonna run out and buy one, but I can see if one wanted a car in this size category for not a lot of scratch, it'd be a reasonable choice.

    The Impala we wound up with last summer, OTOH... Thank goodness they're putting a bullet in that turkey. A/C works well, and it's got decent trunk space. That's all the positives. The Kia minivan I'd rented before had better ride and handling. Hell, my 2001 F350 doesn't handle much worse (but I'll admit the Impala rides better). Uncomfortable seats, terrible visibility for the rear seat passengers, and trim that screamed "lowest bidder."

    At least it wasn't a Galant. I still shudder when I think about that thing.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Another example of what I'm talking about is, when CR's Malibu actually scored higher than other much-talked about cars here, no one--and I mean no one--said a single thing about that, until I brought it up.

    It's really exhausting.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,379
    I won't even start the hate, disgust, loathing my bro' has for Chrysler. He was a Dodge guy as well as Chevy guy (could take the cars apart and back together back in the day). But since he just experienced an utter lemon of a JGC and their moronic "floating lifter" design failure fist-hand, he just traded the dog-of-a Jeep in for....wait for it...... a Kia Sorrento!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But this is a GM forum....GO KIA! :P

    Regards,
    OW
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 40,776
    I suppose people forgive Chrysler faster and quicker because they repaid their debts faster and quicker and more fully than GM ever will.

    Maybe there's more goodwill because they paid off their last bailout too.

    But I mean, c'mon. Chrysler is a two time loser. :shades:

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    What, you mean if you're too big to fail, you're too big to exist? Hmm, I seem to recall hearing that somewhere before...
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,379
    edited February 2013
    Another example of what I'm talking about is, when CR's Malibu actually scored higher than other much-talked about cars here, no one--and I mean no one--said a single thing about that, until I brought it up.

    It's really exhausting.


    That was then. This is now!

    Get ready to really get exhausted. Page 23 of CR's "Best and Worst cars for2013" rates a buch of cars including the Optima high on predicted reliability for family cars above the 2 Chevys and the Optima SX and standard are recommended! Both Chevies are NOT RECOMMENDED. :P

    Go Kia!

    Regards,
    OW
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    It's because most of us have already given up on Chrysler. Unlike GM, they're not worth trying to save. :)
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 40,776
    Americans love underdogs so much, GM should take a page from Avis and talk about how they are trying harder.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,753
    Who knows if the books were cooked or if assets and expenses being pushed around.

    Thank goodness we in the USA have the much better accounting of the US government and the big banks. :surprise:
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Same thing with 8-speed auto. Time will tell, and I'm talking 7 years before we can decide Chrysler's changed for the better.

    The ZF 8 speed Chrysler is using is good enough for Audi, Rolls, Mercedes, and BMW as they all use versions of this transmission.

    I think Chrysler has improved overall. Sure, there are a few dogs in the lineup, but they have several vehicles I'd consider buying.

    The Jeep Wrangler and Grand Cherokee are very nice and well well too. The minivans are competitive, my SIL has an 09 Grand Caravan for a company vehicle and she's put 120k miles on it w/o any problems. The Ram pickups are very nice too.

    Plus the 300, Charger, and Challenger are all cool cars. Okay, the Dart isn't doing so well and the 200 is kind of lame. I like the Durango too. I haven't driven one, but I have sat in them. The interior is very nice.

    I'd certainly be open to a Chrysler product as long as I like how it drives. I'll be checking out some new GM products too as soon as the '14 trucks and Suburban are on dealer lots.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,753
    Okay, I can understand that - Ford didn't take a bail-out. GM getting bailed out made my next door neighbor so mad he purchased a Flex to replace his Bravada.

    Here's a theory. GM was the biggest, so more people were affected. GM had the largest market share and has lost more share of the market than any other maker, so that means many, many more people have bailed on GM than any other company. So that drives the much greater degree of negativism.

    I know that my impressions of GM were very negative well before the bailout. I actually think they've improved quite a bit, just not to where they need to be.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,650
    Thank goodness we in the USA have the much better accounting of the US government and the big banks.

    LOL, that might be one of our major exports;)
Sign In or Register to comment.