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

1104010411043104510461051

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,343
    :sick: I really don't think they STOLE our/your money.

    If I steal 100 billion dollars from the US treasury, and return it 10 years later, is it not still theft?

    Give me a break! :confuse:

    I'd of charged Chrysler 100% interest rates and required collateral for loans. I'm sure the gov't was far nicer with there terms than the average person would have been, otherwise, they'd of received loans from the private market.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    edited February 2013
    The thing that got me most was that all the hubbub on here about many other cars, but when CR showed they didn't even test as well as the "lame" Malibu (as it's been called on here)--the silence was deafening.

    Listen, the '08 'Bu was the first significant family sedan GM produced in DECADES, afaic. Your '11 was a great car as well. But the facts remain before'08, the 'Bu was disastrous vs. the competition, much like all GM cars were until VERY RECENTLY. Then, to refresh it with what we see now is, well, SAME OLD GM.

    Re-Do....perhaps someday, GM will get it right the first time. But that hope is tenuous, at best! ;)

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    Their only real complaints were the tight back seat and the relatively high price.

    EXACTLY! A FAMILY sedan that doesn't fit a family and then that good 'ole GM pricing system that begs for HUGE incentives...because the product does not meet the value proposition in the market, in the first place.

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    Doesn't that show GM concedes to building mediocre product? I ask that because I really do not know. :blush:

    Regards,
    OW
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Doesn't that show GM concedes to building mediocre product?

    Isn't GM the world leader in full size pickup trucks? Chevrolet, GMC?
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    My friend had a '69 Camaro, my oldest 'Bro had a '58 Chevy and a '64 'Bu.

    My younger 'Bro completely rebuilt by his hand '64 Nova with a 327/400 HP. My Dad bought a '79 Chevy 1/2 ton P/U which my ' Bro still has (rebuilt engin/rust/and all).

    But the Chevy I love the most was my Mom's '56 Chevy Biscayne.

    image

    At the end of the day, that was then. This is NOW. GM lost it! :P

    Regards,
    OW
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    edited February 2013
    Buick and GMC don't share any product, do they--other than a single SUV? Rather apples and oranges.

    OK, your right. Let's try Chevy and GMC. Use that one to compare against HyunKia. :)

    Apples/Apples. :P

    There is one overriding reason why the West Point, Ga. assembled Optima is Kia’s best seller: value for the dollar. And don’t forget the long 10-year, 100,000-mile limited powertrain warranty and 5-year, 50,000-mile basic coverage. Not to mention a “recommended” rating from Consumer Reports.

    "Hello, Chevy? Anyone at home??"

    Regards,
    OW
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    Say what you want, but IMO the domestic cars built from the mid 1950's into the early 1960's were truly art forms that provided transportation.

    There were some very real masterpieces made back then.

    I enjoy watching old TV episodes such as the original Perry Mason series, because that show seemed to highlight so many convertibles of the era. In that pretend world, everyone drove convertibles.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,382
    EXACTLY! They WERE works of ART!!! Couldn't agree more.

    The Corvette truly embodies that lost art at GM. It used to be almost every car. :cry:

    Regards,
    OW
  • scwmcanscwmcan Niagara, CanadaPosts: 394
    As I recall Chryslers recent loans were at a higher interest rate than they could get once money in the private sector was available again, this was the reason they got private sector financing to pay off their government loans as quickly as possible. I know you don't like them ( with reason) but at least in the second bailout the interest rate was high ( not 100% like you want ( loan sharking anyone) but still higher than normal, if they had been able to get financing from another source I think they would have) ( on the other hand I don't recall of the got additional money above and beyond the loans like GM did). In any case as far as I know their money has been repaid with whatever interest was owed
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,764
    Isn't GM the world leader in full size pickup trucks? Chevrolet, GMC?

    Shouldn't the world's largest (until recently) auto maker be able to put out a full line of competitive vehicles? Otherwise just dump the cars and be the truck company.
  • fho2008fho2008 Posts: 393
    Fiat is trying that with Ram. But they still make cars.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    Man, with that excellent warranty (although Honda runs an entire commercial around here goofing on a long warranty--WTH?!), it's too bad apparently they can't engineer a base-model Optima that tests better than the new "lame" Malibu.

    That '56 Chevy is a lovely car and a favorite Chevy of mine in a favorite color scheme of mine, but there was no such thing as a '56 Chevy Biscayne.

    I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

    I'd have to dig to find the link/reference, but a friend sends me online "Automotive News" clips every so often and in the last month he sent one that said that Detroit has 92% of the truck market share. It suddenly became so much more apparent to me why they focus so much on trucks.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,651
    I'd have to dig to find the link/reference, but a friend sends me online "Automotive News" clips every so often and in the last month he sent one that said that Detroit has 92% of the truck market share. It suddenly became so much more apparent to me why they focus so much on trucks.

    That's one area where Detroit dominates and where the vast majority of the profits come from.

    No question I'd buy a domestic pickup, but with cars it wouldn't be likely.
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,877
    To this day, in snowy, salty NE OH, I bet I see the second-generation Neons a few times a week.

    I'll concur. I see dozens every week. Heck my neighbor has 3 of them for his kids and himself.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

    There is definitely a difference between Chevy and GMC besides appearance. What is it? Quality, reliability, closer tolerances, better components? Why would GM have spent many millions on commercials over the years telling us that GMC is "Professional Grade".
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    Go to a GM plant where both are built. One will follow the other straight down the assembly line.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2013
    It's funny you mention ridiculous interest rates because Marchionne actually complained about just that, I think it was over 20%.

    So indeed the rate was absurd.

    US basically exploited the help from Fiat.
  • carthellcarthell Posts: 124
    On the other hand, absolutely no one else on the private market at the time would lend to Chrysler any money at any amount or cost.

    Sounds like the classic payday loan situation to me.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    When the shoe is on the other foot, we call them predatory lenders.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    That '56 Chevy is a lovely car and a favorite Chevy of mine in a favorite color scheme of mine, but there was no such thing as a '56 Chevy Biscayne.

    IIRC, the Biscayne came out in 1958..,
  • berriberri Posts: 4,213
    I might add, I still believe that there is no sane reason whatsoever why a Chevy version of a GMC product should have any reliability difference whatsoever from the GMC.

    Do buyers equip GMC with more options and electronics perhaps, or do they sell a much greater proportion of heavy duty trucks at GMC than Chevy? Otherwise, it may well be an aberration. Probably sampling error like too few GMC responses, or possibly GMC owners less/more inclined to report problems because they're embarrassed that they paid more than the Chevy?
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    A newspaper in our region reported that Chevy Cruze came in fourth in 2012 sales in compact car segment. The Honda Civic, the benchmark auto for many years, was first with 317,909. The Toyota Corolla was second at 290,947. The Ford Focus was 245,992. The Chevy Cruze was 237,758. Elantra, Sentra and Forte came in at 202,034, 106,395 and 75,681 respectively.

    Newspaper said that Civic model has been offered by Honda for 40 years.

    Chevrolet has gone through and discarded many small/compact car models in the last 40 or so years. Vega, Chevette, Cavalier, Cobalt. Can GM or Chevrolet ever unseat Honda Civic as the standard, the benchmark. The Saturn experiment did not work. Perhaps Cruze will eventually succeed.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    For years, GM has been telling us that GMC was "Professional Grade". Is that supposed to mean it is better in one or more ways than their other offerings with Chevrolet? Or, was GM trying to suggest that GMC, rather than Chevrolet, was Professional Grade in that professionals, building contractors, supervisors, ranch foremen, etc drove GMC trucks and mere workers, carpenters, bricklayers, etc drove Chevrolets. Was GM trying to set up a class distinction?
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    edited February 2013
    The Saturn "experiment"...lasted twenty years.

    Corvette, Camaro, Impala, Malibu, and Suburban were in use in 1975. What Toyota and Honda names are being used now that were used then? Corolla, and Civic. Cavalier was used for 24 model years.

    Toyota has dumped Solara, Echo, Tercel, MR2, Corona, Cressida, and more I'm missing for sure.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    It's nice to be number one, but it can't be equated with 'good'. If it were, McDonald's would be the best-quality fast food place. I've never heard a soul say it was. It surely isn't mine.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    For years, GM has been telling us that GMC was "Professional Grade". Is that supposed to mean it is better in one or more ways than their other offerings with Chevrolet?

    Of course it does. Have you ever had an introduction to management class? It's called 'puffing'.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    There was an article in this Monty's BMWCCA (BMW Car Club) Roundel magazine covering a comparison between the latest M3 and ZL1 performed at Lime Rock Park.

    Overall, the car's likes/dislikes were almost identical, but the writer preferred the ZL1's manual transmission and brakes, but disliked the limited field of view provided by the ZL1 and some of the interior ergonomics. Overall, the writer said the ZL1 was a "great value for the money".
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    A newspaper in our region reported that Chevy Cruze came in fourth in 2012 sales in compact car segment. The Honda Civic, the benchmark auto for many years, was first with 317,909. The Toyota Corolla was second at 290,947. The Ford Focus was 245,992. The Chevy Cruze was 237,758. Elantra, Sentra and Forte came in at 202,034, 106,395 and 75,681 respectively.

    I'm still amazed how many Corollas sell, mainly due to how outdated it is in comparison to competitive models.

    Of course, they have really targeted their market and advertise it using terms like "reliable, affordable, economical".

    Any model that sells over 200K a year is doing well in today's competitive market.
Sign In or Register to comment.