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

1154815491551155315541576

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,575
    Gotta duck to get in that back seat, and the seats aren't very good.

    LOL, that's me with most cars! The one thing the Dart has going, for me at least, is the front seat. It has, by far, the most legroom of any compact car in my recent memory...at least in terms of how well I fit. Published specs might disagree with me. However, I'm basing that on the Dart I sat in a few months ago at the Dodge dealer, as the one I sat in at the DC auto show had the power disconnected, so I couldn't adjust the seat.

    I think its biggest problem is that fuel economy really isn't all that astounding. With the 2.0/automatic, which will probably be the most common engine choice, it's rated 24/34. And for a compact car, that's just not very good.

    Chevy's somewhat guilty of this phenomenon as well, as their Cruze 1.8/automatic, which again is probably the most common version, is rated 22/35. Looks like Ford did their homework though, as the Focus 2.0/auto gets 27/38.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,442
    Subaru, BMW, and Hyundai/Kia have the shortest supply and simply cannot build their cars fast enough. That's not a positive - they lack capacity, it's a missed opportunity.

    Financially speaking, I agree. Lack of product = missed sales and less revenue.

    OTOH, keeping a tight control over production in order to control quality, thereby limiting production (costing immediate sales) is taking the long view, which is what so many often complain about the Big-3 NOT doing.

    This same scenario played out in the early 1990's at Harley Davidson. After the introduction of the new "evolution" engine and redesigned bikes, the factory simply couldn't meet customer demand for several years. Having been through the lousy quality wringer in the 1970-80's, Harley management understood the value of quality as simply a cost of business, and left short-term revenue on the table while a taking the long view. It was a huge success for the company, yet there were those screaming for a rapid expansion in production.

    IMO, if product shortage is due to keeping the quality (as well as the perception of quality) high, it's a small price to pay, as long as production is gradually being increased.

    Look up a guy called "Chainsaw Al" and see what he did to Sunbeam appliances. That's a worst case scenario of promoting revenue above all else.
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    I've said this before, but as a customer, this doesn't bother me.

    If you prefer GM vehicles it should concern you a little, if GM can't make a profit they won't be around. Oh wait....


    This is why he doesn't have a problem with it and we do. We basically have to subsidize his favorite cars and company because they don't know how to operate profitably. But to let them go bankrupt is somehow a violation of the American Way.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,320
    Sure not like a foreign manufacturer hasn't ever been subsidized, either here or in their home country, n'est-ce pas?

    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.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    There are economies of scale as production increases, though. The incremental cost of producing one more car gets lower and lower. The overhead is fixed, but production costs are not.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    Chevy's somewhat guilty of this phenomenon as well, as their Cruze 1.8/automatic, which again is probably the most common version, is rated 22/35. Looks like Ford did their homework though, as the Focus 2.0/auto gets 27/38.

    I'm glad Ford didn't waste their time on a base/premium engine option in the Focus.

    GM should have just made one engine available for the Cruze. No other compact I know have has two engines available unless it's for a high performance trim. I'd be curious to see the break down between the 1.8 and 1.4T.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,442
    There are economies of scale as production increases, though. The incremental cost of producing one more car gets lower and lower. The overhead is fixed, but production costs are not.

    Yes, up to a point.

    A simple example...

    Lets say I'm in the overseas shipping business. I have a ship that will carry up to a thousand units (cars, bales of cotton, whatever). My fixed cost is the ship itself, along with the crew. My variable costs are things such as fuel.

    The ideal situation is for me to carry 1000 units during each and every crossing. As I approach the magic number of 1000, my cost per unit drop.

    Once I have to transport unit number 1001, I've got a problem.

    So, its not a linear decrease, although sections of the decrease have linear characteristics.

    Overall, as you approach infinity, I do agree with your premise.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    There are economies of scale as production increases, though.

    True, but if you build more than will sell, you have to either cut production or lower the price to move excess inventory which likely will negate any savings of extra production beyond demand.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    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.

    I could go on and on about Ford too, but that forum is dead. Apparently no one cares about Ford.

    I don't exert much energy, my negativity towards GM just comes naturally. It's almost therapeutic;)
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,320
    I'd be surprised if the 1.8 was the most popular engine in the Cruze. It's only in the LS. I see mostly LT's and Eco's, more than LS's 'out there' and on dealers' lots--unscientifically though.
  • dieselonedieselone Posts: 5,627
    I see mostly LT's and Eco's, more than LS's 'out there' and on dealers' lots--unscientifically though.

    Is the 1.4T standard in the LT trim and up? Looking at them used, it seems the LT is the most common.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,320
    To be honest, I haven't looked at Cruzes for a while but that's what I remember when they came out. Only the cheapest LS trim level had the 1.8 and all others had the turbo.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,575
    I just did an unscientific search using the inventory of a local dealer (www.fitzmall.com). Looks like they have 43 Cruzes in stock, but only 14 are LS models.

    So, it looks like GM is doing a pretty good job of luring in buyers who want something more than just a cheap, basic compact. That should help their profit margins.
  • anythngbutgmanythngbutgm Posts: 4,158
    edited February 2013
    Is the Turbo the one that was recalled for catching fire?

    I was talking with one of my co-workers about his and he has the base model without the Turbo. Never got a recall notice so that's why I am asking...

    He likes it but I guess the seats are awful. But no issues at 35k.

    Edit: looks like my answere is yes. The 1.4T is built in Austria and the recall was for the same engine all over the world, no mention of the 1.8... Didn't realize the Tranny came from Mexico? Only 45% US content... :(
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,695
    Sure not like a foreign manufacturer hasn't ever been subsidized, either here or in their home country, n'est-ce pas?

    And two wrongs make a right? You don't really address the point of the original post.

    I also think using the word "hate" for people who criticize is inflammatory, as I doubt many of us hate GM. We may be here because we'd like them to improve. Not something you'd do if you hated them.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,682
    >I am positively stupefied at how much energy is exerted on a GM board by people who hate GM.

    The hypocrisy by some as to how foreign makes were are subsidized in various ways but that was okay, but because GM was helped by the administration that's not okay. Wow. Just wow.

    Further, someone thought it's not okay to have posts here about another company's recalls, let's say toyota for example, but then it's okay for all the kvetching about GM and okay for people to post how much they love another favorite (insert name) car company over GM here on the GM discussion? Wow. Just wow.

    This message has been approved.

  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,695
    edited February 2013
    The hypocrisy by some as to how foreign makes were are subsidized in various ways but that was okay, but because GM was helped by the administration that's not okay. Wow. Just wow.

    I don't get the use of the word "hypocrisy" and the lack of understanding of some basic ideas.

    If my kid is cheating at school, I'm going to rag on him about it. When he states "But other kids cheat, too", I'm going to say "I don't care about the other kids, I don't want YOU to cheat." Whereas in this "surprise" from some posters, they would obviously say to their kids "OK, then go ahead and keep on cheating."

    Wow. Just wow. :surprise:
  • bpizzutibpizzuti Posts: 2,743
    Sure not like a foreign manufacturer hasn't ever been subsidized, either here or in their home country, n'est-ce pas?

    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.


    So two wrongs makes it OK to be as bad as them?

    I don't hate GM at all. I dislike the government for giving them a taxpayer-sponsored "Get out of bankruptcy free" card. I dislike some of their current cars, and the decisions they've made pre and post. But frankly, I criticize because I want them to know where they're screwing up so they can improve.

    On the other hand, you want to give them a free pass because they're GM.
  • busirisbusiris Posts: 3,442
    If my kid is cheating at school, I'm going to rag on him about it. When he states "But other kids cheat, too", I'm going to say "I don't care about the other kids, I don't want YOU to cheat." Whereas in this "surprise" from some posters, they would obviously say to their kids "OK, then go ahead and keep on cheating."

    Too bad Lance Armstrong didn't have parents like you.
  • uplanderguyuplanderguy Kent, OHPosts: 7,320
    edited February 2013
    I don't give them a free pass, but I dislike seeing errors of fact on this board, one or two or so of which you have posted. I'm also not a fan of leaving relevant information out of a discussion, but at least that's not posting just-plain wrong things.

    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). That is so typical of the endless posts on this board.

    Please don't make me itemize the list of factually incorrect things I've seen on this board again. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.