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

1153515361538154015411576

Comments

  • 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: 8,354
    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: 7,744
    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: 7,744
    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: 4,737
    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.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,490
    The main issue I have with "top X lists" is the usual lack of criteria identification in determining what makes the list.

    For example, the Chrysler Airflow was a loser because it didn't sell well, but it was advanced in its design and construction technique, even if there were some problems.

    The Vega sold well for the first few years, but had tons of design flaws.

    Just my opinion, but I like to have a handle on exactly what's being measured before getting out the measuring device.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,849
    I've heard that the '57 Ford was a horrible car in just about every respect...flimsy body, rust-prone, engines and transmissions that weren't up to par, etc. But, I still see them at car shows, and I'll say the build quality definitely looks better than the Plymouths, although not as good as the Chevy. But, wide body gaps and mis-aligned panels don't always mean a car is going to fall apart right away.

    My grandparents had a '57 Ford Fairlane 500 hardtop sedan, and one of my uncles said it was a really nice car. They traded it in '61 for a Galaxie 500 hardtop sedan, so they might not have kept it long enough for it to rear its ugly head.

    I don't know if this is true, or hyperbole, but supposedly if you took a '57 Ford hardtop sedan down a bumpy road, the body would flex so much that the doors could pop open. Even if that's exaggeration, you could see all the little tricks they did for '58 to strengthen the body, like the hood scoop, and the creases in the roof.

    I've heard mixed things about the Mercury. I think it was better than the Ford...at least, it was definitely heavier. But, I've heard they were also rust-prone.

    As for engines, I'm not really up on my Fords from that era, but looking in the old car book, here's what I found for '58:
    Ford: 292, 332, 352
    Edsel: 361, 410
    Mercury: 312, 383, 430
    Lincoln: 430.

    Not positive, but I think the 312 was a version of the Ford "Y" Block (Ford used a 312 in '57). I think the 361/383 were a design developed for Edsel/Mercury, while the 410 was a version of the Lincoln 430.

    I can't remember the last time I've seen a '57 Mercury, and I don't think I've ever seen a '58 in person. I have seen, on rare occasion, a '59 and even a '60. While those cars weren't tremendous sellers, they sold more units in any of those years than Chrysler or DeSoto. So, I dunno if that's some indication that the Mercury wasn't built as well, or simply that there's more demand for old Chryslers and DeSotos?

    With the cheaper cars, I see more '57-58 Plymouths at car shows than I do Fords, but that's somewhat influenced by the "Christine" effect.

    But, of course, everyone knows that every single '57 Chevy ever built managed to survive! :P Just like the early Mustangs and '76 Eldorado convertibles!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 33,509
    Late 50s Fords are prolific rusters. My dad was into Fords of that era, and I remember looking at many cars 15-20 years ago that were piles of rust. Even his 60 Ford, a decent low mileage car, had rust free panels - but the front floors were shot when he bought it. Sketchy quality control. They must have improved soon after, as I remember plenty of 63-67 Fords that were still solid.

    I spotted this thing a few years ago, apparently unearthed after a long slumber. Has to be very rare:

    image
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,737
    Tough to strike a balance. Jobs are good, but we need sustainable jobs.

    Exactly. Which is why when people brag how many more jobs GM has than say, Honda or Toyota in the US -- well that's not altogether a good thing. Sort of like bragging about how many people the US Government employs...
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    I knew a guy in college who had a mid 50's Buick sedan and those doors would pop open on bumps. But I think it was more about latches than body flex. I always heard the 59/60 GM flat tops were notorious for body flex. And I agree with you and Fintail that latter 50's Fords were rust buckets, as was the 60. The 57 Ford had kind of clean body lines though for it's time and I remember the 57 wagons being very popular in the Chicago area even though it was a GM fan town.
  • berriberri Posts: 4,141
    I always liked the roof lines on those 57 Ford and Merc upper level 4 door sedan and hardtop models. They were kind of unique looking, although the less expensive 6 window sedan models were the volume leaders by far.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,354
    Do you honestly think that is an authoritative list, circlew? I ask seriously, because if you do, I'm stupefied.

    According to the source, it's authoritatively pretty relevant:

    We asked Edmunds, an auto information company that spends a lot of time driving and compiling information about cars, to put together a list of the top 10 worst vehicles ever sold in America. :shades:

    Regards,
    OW
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,494
    I think most 'car guys', with perspective on 'those days', would consider that list very shallow.
  • jpfjpf Posts: 496
    GM is cutting jobs in Canada at its Oshawa plants. The Oshawa plants will soon lose Camaro production but gains the new Impala. GM's Oshawa plants employed approximately 20 thousand workers 20 years ago and now its down to about 3 or 4 thousand. In 2016, GM will fulfill its agreement under the bailout with the Canadian governments. By then, there may be no GM jobs left in Oshawa.
Sign In or Register to comment.