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

1152015211523152515261576

Comments

  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,703
    Toyota starts settling lawsuits over unintended acceleration.

    "LOS ANGELES – Toyota Motor Corp. has settled what was to be the first in a group of hundreds of pending wrongful death and injury lawsuits involving sudden, unintended acceleration by Toyota vehicles, a company spokesman said Thursday.

    "Toyota reached the agreement in the case brought by the family of Paul Van Alfen and Charlene Jones Lloyd, spokeswoman Celeste Migliore said. They were killed when their Toyota Camry slammed into a wall in Utah in 2010.

    "Migliore declined to disclose the financial terms."
    ...
    'The Van Alfen case was to be the first of those tried, and to serve as a bellwether for the rest. It had been set to go to trial in February."

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/01/18/toyota-settles-first-hundreds-wrongful- -death-suits-involving-unintended/#ixzz2INyEXdZ8

    This message has been approved.

  • fho2008fho2008 Posts: 393
    "Weird indeed. GM has never again put in production any US vehicle with a rear engine, rear drive layout."

    Surprised nobody beat me to this.......so what was the Fiero then?
  • js06gvjs06gv Frisco, TXPosts: 168
    Wondered the same thing when I saw that, until I remembered that the Fiero was mid-engined.

    2014 Kia Optima SX Turbo, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2011 Ford Mustang GT, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited January 2013
    Wow, I've officially been accused of anti-import brand bias. :D

    As for being on topic, I post GM news ALL the time and get few responses. You missed my last few.
  • fho2008fho2008 Posts: 393
    Oh it had a "cargo area" that could hold what behind the engine? I seem to remember it might fit something very small.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    I seem to remember it might fit something very small.

    Some groceries or a small duffel bag is about all that would fit behind the engine. Or ideally a fire extinguisher;)

    I remember the spare was stored under the hood and IIRC, it had a decent amount of storage room up front. I had a friend who had an '84 2M4 in HS and another who's dad had an '87 GT. I have drive both. The GT was fun, the 2m4 was bad other than looks.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,953
    "Last month, the U.S. Treasury sold 200 million shares of common stock back to GM for $5.5 billion and announced its plan to sell the remainder by April 2014. As of now, the government owns a 19% stake in the company.

    It's still not known how much the investment will end up costing taxpayers. GM paid $27.50 each for the 200 million shares last month. If the remaining shares were sold at that price, it would still mean a $12.6-billion loss on the GM investment.

    But GM shares have been trading above that mark recently -- they closed at $29.28 Friday."

    U.S. starts plan to sell rest of GM shares (Detroit Free Press)
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,447
    That is how I see it. Sure, the Monza opened some eyes to the potential of a small affordable sporty (in looks, anyway) American car. But I was thinking engineering/design wise, or even market position, where there is no influence at all. Not bashing the Corvair, they are interesting cars, but I don't think it has any influence on the pony cars other than maybe planting a seed in someone's mind.

    I see original Monza buyers as being unconventional and being car enthusiasts. I see original Mustang buyers as virtually anyone - who wanted something cool looking and affordable. The former has a much smaller demographic.


    It's all from one's perspective, IMO.

    What the Corvair DID do was to identify a market segment of some significant size that was willing to buy a non-traditional product, at least domestic-wise. Of course, one can make an excellent argument that Beetle owners had already uncovered this market. So, when former Ford executives claim influence from the Corvair, this could be what they mean.

    Both would be correct, depending upon how one wants to define the parameters.

    So, IMO, the significant influence (the amount can be debated forever) the Corvair had was on the vision car makers had on what folks were willing to buy. It seems pretty clear to me that the mechanicals were so far apart that the Corvair had no impact on the Mustang design, from a purely functional standpoint.

    One should remember that car companies are basically the same as Hollywood, in that once a new "theme" of interest becomes apparent, everyone scrambles to duplicate a product to fit the demand, until the market is completely over-saturated.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    We taxpayers subsidize the Chevrolet Volt by $7500 per car. How long will that go on? What about the new Cadillac Volt? Will that be subsidized also?

    It is time to remove the subsidy and let the free market decide the worth/value of these Volts. Let GM raise prices on its line of other vehicles to provide its own subsidy funds for the Volt development and production costs.
  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    So, IMO, the significant influence (the amount can be debated forever) the Corvair had was on the vision car makers had on what folks were willing to buy. It seems pretty clear to me that the mechanicals were so far apart that the Corvair had no impact on the Mustang design, from a purely functional standpoint.

    Well stated.

    I would offer that beside "willing", Ford had combined that with "excitement". People were excited about Mustang upon its introduction and for many months afterwards. Demand far exceeded Ford sales forecasts.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,703
    >What about the new Cadillac Volt? Will that be subsidized also?

    It should be.

    >remove the subsidy and let the free market decide the worth/value of these Volts.

    Were you there demanding repeal of the $4000 (?) tax credit from the Fed and more from certain states IIRC on the Prius? That's what helped toyota, a perfectlly profitable company, launch itself as the maven of electric assisted vehicles. I can't recall any great protest against the US taxpayers subsidizing the Prius and other toyota/Honda products. There were few other companies with hybrids which were purchased at that time. It was the big push to toyota.

    This message has been approved.

  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,351
    edited January 2013
    It wasn't the Corvair that influenced the Mustang...it was the Monza model which was the first time anyone had equated 'sporty' with 'compact', by adding deluxe vinyl trim, things like full wheel covers standard, bucket seats standard...both Monza and Mustang did those very things. The Mustang's creators admit that the Monza concept influenced them in the Mustang. I don't know why it's such a hard thing to accept for some folks here (not you, busiris).

    Monza sales took off, and it's what saved the Corvair in the early years. Everyone in the industry knew that.

    Mustang's sales performance at introduction time is legenday, which of course made Chevy take notice and make a sporty compact off of the chassis of its Falcon-like Chevy II. Ironically, the chassis of a Corvair Corsa was far more sporting than that of a Mustang or Camaro, as reviews of the day will verify. Still, the Mustang looked great, was cheap, had a huge options list, and could be had with increasing levels of V8 power, all things the Camaro cribbed two years later.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,447
    edited January 2013
    Ironically, the chassis of a Corvair Corsa was far more sporting than that of a Mustang or Camaro

    Maybe I dreamed this, or old age is catching up with my memory... But, I seem to recall a Corvair commercial in which they drove a Corvair up Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta...

    I can't find any info on it, so I guess it was all a dream...
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,253
    No, the Malibu is not a terrible car. It's an ok car in a field with much better competition. I see continuing acceptance of mediocrity. Why is that ok? I never see an answer to this question.

    The USA isn't going to excel by being mediocre.


    You will never get an answer to GM's mediocrity being accepted by some :shades: .

    Fact is GM is in the middle of rebuilding mode. Mediocrity is being fought with the new models such as the ATS/Vette. But in the case of the Malibu, ""GM-Disease" remains alive and well in the operational systems at GM. Let's see if the P/U Truck does better. The competition will either keep GM motivated or keep them mediocre. ;)

    The Malibu’s reputation as a toxic vehicle may have more to do with the botched launch rather than the Malibu’s merits as a vehicle. In that case, the fault lies with management rather than the Malibu itself.

    Keep that competition coming. It's most welcomed, afaic!

    But GM badly needs that new line-up. In its American home market, its share slipped from 19.6% to just 17.9% last year, the lowest since GM’s rise to pre-eminence under the leadership of Alfred Sloan in the 1920s. Although its worldwide sales last year rose by 2.9% to 9.2m vehicles, its best since 2007, its global share slipped by 0.4 points to 11.5%. It looks like being deposed as number one carmaker by a resurgent Toyota, with an expected 9.7m sales. And it is feeling the hot sausage-breath of Germany’s Volkswagen on its neck: VW’s relentless drive to become world leader took it to just under 9.1m sales.

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,351
    Can you confirm or not, that "North American Truck of the Year" must be a vehicle which is currently available for sale?

    BTW, recent VW's have had a lot of problems if you read around. To be fair, I don't know anyone who owns one, but at some point I believe that will 'catch up to them'.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,351
    I'm not a fan of the uber-Corvette with black wheels, red brake hardware, etc., but I like the 'lesser' Sting Ray model (and I wasn't even a fan of the original Sting Ray). I could still see the wife and me getting one in ten years from now and doing the stereotypical Route 66 trip and other road trips in contemporary comfort in one. It'd have to be not red, not white, not silver, not yellow, and not black, so not sure what that would leave us.;)

    Anyway...since we were discussing emblems a week or two ago...I will say right here....I dislike the "Sting Ray" (stingray?) emblem on the car. It took me a minute or two to actually realize what it was.

    I'd rather have had a small, discreet nameplate that said "Sting Ray" than this:

    http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/v/main/auto-shows/2013-detroit-auto- -show/chevrolet/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingray/2014-chevrolet-corvette-stingra- y-emblem.jpg.html

    Almost looks like an electric guitar! ;)

    I can put up with that for the rest of the car, though.

    CR says Corvette has one of the absolute highest owner satisfaction rates of anything out there...behind the Volt, though.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,351
    Can you confirm or not, that "North American Truck of the Year" must be a vehicle which is currently available for sale?

    Answered my own question, circlew. From their website:

    "The awards are given yearly after a months-long selection process by jurors. The award, and a back-to-back test session each fall at Hell, Mich., are paid for by jurors' dues."

    So the new GM trucks weren't considered. It's no surprise that the several-year-old truck design didn't win. ;)
  • berriberri Posts: 4,000
    I think you're beating a dead horse Uplander. This argument is apparently as divisive as Washington politics! I grew up watching all of this and still agree with you about Monza, which was then replicated by GM with Nova and some of the other division compacts. I can buy some of busiris' comment about VW if you consider the Karmann Ghia, but it was a much more understated approach. The big question I have in all of this is why GM was two years late to the pony party? Did they think they could accomplish a similar feat with existing vehicle lines for less money than a separate product line, or were they afraid a separate Camaro line would cannibalize too many other division vehicle sales, as well as possibly nibbling at high margin Corvette volume, or something else? To me at least, that's the more interesting question in all of this.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,351
    edited January 2013
    You're right about the dead horse, berri. The guys responsible for the Mustang admit it, and the, ahem, experts here can't buy into it! ;)

    In answer to your question...and even as a kid, more so than now, I absorbed everything I could about Chevrolet... I think GM thought of themselves as the inventers and innovators, and others copied them, not the other way around. Ford caught them off-guard with the Mustang, right around the time Nader's book came out too, hurting Corvair sales not long after the gorgeous (IMHO) and very improved '65 models came out.

    On a Cub Scout trip, I went to Lordstown, OH when they were building Camaros and Firebirds there in '68. Great memory. I also remember seeing on Youngstown TV (we lived in PA 25 or so miles away, thankfully!) when they phased Firebird production into the plant in the spring of '67.

    I used to not like the '67-69 Camaro styling very much. The '67 has grown quite a bit on me though, over the years...simpler and rounder than the '69 which I know is a lot of people's favorite.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I was about to mention the same thing.

    Early on, hybrids and even TDi diesels had incentives early on. Ford capitalized big time. And VW. And Toyota.

    Today hybrids are widespread. Diesels sales have also grown. Both after the incentives expired.

    So it worked, actually.
Sign In or Register to comment.