Ford has something else going for it too - fresh modern design, especially the Fusion. In my eyes, modern Fords are sleeker than their domestic counterparts, more European. Some like that.
The taxpayer also has a say in not buying from places subsidized by American taxpayer largesse so they have an easier time bailing out their own failing automakers.
So say a 15% market share going to a 16.5% market share? That shouldn't be impossible.
>>>>>>Selected from a shortlist of 12 candidates in each category, the car finalists include the Cadillac CTS, Mazda3 and Chevrolet Corvette Stingray>>>>>>>
Would have figured that the Chevrolet Impala would have had a higher possibility as a finalist than a Cadillac CTS. The CTS should have been disqualified on looks alone. The grotesque looking front end. Somebody left over from the era of Pontiac Aztek is fooling around with the Cadillac now.
Saw a list of car of the year as picked by Motor Trend over the last 4 or 5 decades. What were they thinking on too many of their choices.
To be fair, a lot of those cars seemed like a good idea at the time. Even the Vega was rated at "Better than Average" by Consumer Reports for the first year.
I think by design, many COTY winners are going to ultimately be questionable in hindsight, simply because of the criteria of the contest. Mainly, to be considered, the car has to be mostly all-new, revolutionary, and groundbreaking in some degree. Well, quite often, first-year-out models tend to be troublesome. "Revolutionary" often means trying untested techniques, materials, processes that aren't quite ready for mass production, etc.
LOL, totally agree. Glad I'm not the only one who hates the front end on the new CTS. And then to have such a dull, fuddy duddy rear end to go with it...
The ATS might not be anything daring but I prefer that thing to the fugly new CTS anyday...
Still won't stop GM from trying to compare it to the German stalwarts which GM fans have labeled as "dull" and "outdated", but I don't see it making any inroads based on the looks outside of the GMi forum IMO.
And I expect it to continue to go unnoticed by the Germans and Lexus...
"For the very same reason, GM can't be sure of how much sales they lost to the bankruptcy/bailout loss. "
Well, here is an unscientific survey of one. I won't ever buy a GM product, because of the bailout. They stiffed private investors to bail out the union, in my opinion.
I don't know if I would have bought one anyway, but it is definitely off my list now.
I had an ad on this site yesterday or last night, from the same site that showed '14 Malibus at "less than $17K" per the one poster....showed Fusion S models at $17K-odd. Even though I'm sure, like the Malibu, that's with every possible discount thrown in, that virtually no one would get, but apparently Fusions aren't getting a whole lot more money than Malibus if that's the case.
Personally, I won't buy a new vehicle built in Mexico--although I know supposedly some Fusions are built in Flat Rock now--and I'm not a fan of the Ford grille that's current, and I'm also not a fan of rear door cutouts that require an unnatural duck into. Seems like Ford has more of those.
I guess it doesn't much matter, as I won't be in the market for a looonnnng time. I much-more enjoy looking at '50's through '70's cars online.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I, and most of the people I know, don't generally buy either Ford or GM products. I actually supported the bailout, but it has no effect on my buying decisions. I would be surprised if most people knew whether Ford or GM got bailouts.
GM’s market share represents a near two-point decline from the 19.7% recorded in 2011, according to WardsAuto data. In the years preceding the economic downturn that helped spin it into bankruptcy, the auto maker routinely would command more than 24% of annual industry sales.
Here's a question - is this retail market share, or overall market share? In terms of profitability, it's an important distinction.
And another - why does someone who patronizes a bailed-out brand based in a nation subsidized by the American taxpayer hate things that are bailed out and subsidized?
Saw a list of car of the year as picked by Motor Trend over the last 4 or 5 decades. What were they thinking on too many of their choices.
I wonder how many vehicles are even eligible each year? They have to be new, and so that limits the field quite a bit. The COTY is awarded in the first year of production. If the product turns out to be a turd or a market failure, that's not something anybody can see up front. So COTY is of limited value. It's a best guess based on early information, and only for the new redesigned vehicles for that year.
Modern motor oils, especially synthetics, help all modern engines, including the more highly stressed turbos, last a lot longer than engines in the '80s and prior. Better machining is also a contributing factor to longer engine life. Engines designed for turbo applications have reinforced components to compensate for the additional stress.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy an EcoBoost powered Ford. With proper maintenance it should provide 200,000+ trouble-free miles.
While, yes, GM's bankruptcy was unique and it was allowed to wipe tens of billions of dollars in debt off its books, it's still been quite a bumpy road for the company. A short decade ago General Motors' market share in the U.S. was at 25%, and much higher decades before; now it checks in around 18%, which is near record lows for the company.
The Treasury's exit marked the end of General Motors' worst chapter in company history. While it will take longer to repair its brand image, and hisses of "Government Motors" will likely remain, the company is clearly on track and putting its best foot forward.
It was no coincidence that after the Treasury announced its exit, a successor was named for CEO Dan Akerson.
I'm still riding the fence regarding your last comment. I agree that it is ironic how Akerson announced his retirement 1 day after the Government sold their stake. My gut instinct says that he didn't find out about his wifes cancer yesterday, but I do think it was a strategic move to open the books on an all new chapter of GM.
And not even 24 hours later, "Bloody Mary" has ended it's partnership with Peugeot.
I wonder how many vehicles are even eligible each year? They have to be new, and so that limits the field quite a bit.
Yeah, that definitely does limit the field. For instance, in 1974, the Mustang II won COTY. Seems like a joke, looking back. But, in 1974, what else out there was substantially new? GM had nothing, as the compacts hadn't been redone since '68, the Camaro since '70, full-sizers in '71, and intermediates in '73. Chrysler redesigned their full-sized cars for 1974, but that was precisely the wrong year to do so, in the peak of a fuel crisis. Ford had nothing else other than the Mustang II that was "new" that year. And in those days, import cars tended to have their own contest "Import Car of the Year".
Also, what seems like a bad joke today, often did seem like a great idea at the time. And, for a short time, the Mustang II did seem like a good idea. It was small and light, harking back a bit to the original, and a complete 180 compared to the fat '71-73 models. It was also fuel efficient for the time, something that was very important at that time. Sure, its performance sucked, but in 1974, performance didn't sell cars.
Interestingly, for 1972, Motortrend decided there was nothing of virtue on the domestic front, so they gave the award to, of all things, the Citroen SM! And, looking back, I think the only new domestic that year was the midsized Ford Torino/Mercury Montego, cars that were longer, fatter, and heavier than their forebears, a tradition that had been going on for awhile now. Cars that were so heavy in fact, that Ford gave up on putting 6-cyl engines in them, and after a few years I think even the 302 was inadequate, so a 351 was standard for awhile. Fuel economy was so bad they also fit them with larger tanks after a few years, to at least bring up the cruising range.
since GM's sales seem to be in a normal pattern relative to other automakers, I don't see any reason to suggest some sinister boycott taking place behind the scenes.
could they be doing better? Yeah, but in the US market, grabbing even one point of market share is incredibly difficult.
I was enamored of the '75 Monza 2+2 V8, compared to the Mustang. In PA where we lived, you could only get a 4.3 liter in a Monza versus a 302 CID in a Mustang II, and the Mustang II was more luxurious inside, for sure.
At the time, I thought the Monza's styling was terrific compared to the Mustang's though. In hindsight, I don't care for that big hunk of plastic right at eye level, on the "B" pillar.
Our dealer didn't get one until Feb. '75. I think there were launch issues, and they were only built at the small Ste. Therese, Quebec plant.
Two of my high-school friends got one. One was orange and V8 automatic, saddle cloth and vinyl interior. The other was red with sandalwood (light) vinyl interior, also V8 and automatic. The orange one looked like crap in five years; the other guy still has the red one tucked away with 40K or fewer miles. Not worth a lot, but when's the last time you saw a nice one?
The '75 V8 Monzas had terrible brakes and front-end weight that rapidly wore out the new-for-'75 radial tires. I could hear either friend turning onto our street a block away from the brake noise. I believe the '76's were improved in that regard, but I didn't like the new instrument panel nor the bumperette-"corners" put on the cars in '76.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
GM is trying to at least cut back a little on fleet dependency, right? Maybe that explains a total market share stagnation, then. I wouldn't think it would be impossible at all for their share to increase by 10% (vs old share, not 10% of the market) over an entire decade.
When mentioning subsidized-by-the-US-taxpayer locales and bailed out failing automakers, I wasn't thinking TARP...
While, yes, GM's bankruptcy was unique and it was allowed to wipe tens of billions of dollars in debt off its books, it's still been quite a bumpy road for the company. A short decade ago General Motors' market share in the U.S. was at 25%, and much higher decades before; now it checks in around 18%, which is near record lows for the company.
To be fair, GM was downsized quite a bit in BK, mainly due to elimination of some fo the redundant brands. A good thing IMHO. Better to have a stronger mix of products than so much "filler" and duplication.
And that comment above from me is the kind of "balance" that is often called for, but not seen on the other side of the argument from some of the posters!
since GM's sales seem to be in a normal pattern relative to other automakers, I don't see any reason to suggest some sinister boycott taking place behind the scenes.
I understand what you want to believe, but you have no more substance than I do. The logic is flawed. The analogy is this: There's a type of illness that cures itself in 90% of the cases. A set of people take an herbal remedy, and almost all of them get better! They are convinced that their herbal remedy was the reason.
What we don't know is what GM's sales would be if people (however many their are) who won't buy GM due to the bailout, changed their minds. It's irrelevant anyway, as if there were no bailout there would be no GM as we know it today.
I was enamored of the '75 Monza 2+2 V8, compared to the Mustang. In PA where we lived, you could only get a 4.3 liter in a Monza versus a 302 CID in a Mustang II, and the Mustang II was more luxurious inside, for sure.
Wasn't that the car/engine combo that was famously designed to require an engine pull and lift to change one of the spark plugs?
Yes, that's right. The interval then was 22,500 miles and it required loosening one mount. Not as bad, but the Mustang V8 required removal of the battery to replace spark plugs.
I bet a lot of those Monza V8's never had that one or however many plugs changed, ever.
One thing I remember loving in my two friends' Monza V8's was that wonderful V8 sound coming from a car that small--a new thing at that time.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
"Balance" means not leaving hugely-relevant things entirely out of the discussion. Don't get me going on how that was S.O.P. on the old GM forum...kind of like watching (fill in your favorite) TV news network. I think even the most ardent import-lover would have to legitimately come to that conclusion.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Well, the way I define balance is that any poster says positive and negative things about any make, with some measure of objectivity.
What is not balance in my mind is when some posters say only good about preferred makes, and only bad about other makes, ignoring other sides of both equations.
All true, what you say, but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is some unmeasurable, but real "boycott" due to buyer revulsion at the idea of a bailout. It stretches some people's credulity (mine ) to presume that American car buyers are hoarding some 5 year old grudge without any definable grievance done to them.
I would have thought just the opposite. If GM tanked, then all those GM buyers would have been stuck with cars they recently bought and no more warranties. THAT'S a grievance.
But really, nobody came to your house and took $10 from you to bail out GM....sure, your taxes (pre-paid) might have been dipped for $10 bucks, but really, how painful was that?
That's not to say that the American public cannot be riled up into a frenzy over a false crime committed---THAT happens all the time.
What happened with GM is no different than farm subsidies or pork awarded to various states by their congresspeople. Where's the rage there, and there you have definite proof of skullduggery.
All true, what you say, but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that there is some unmeasurable, but real "boycott" due to buyer revulsion at the idea of a bailout.
We don't have proofs, only opinions. That's why it's an opinion board!
You may think it stretches credulity, but I can tell you I wouldn't buy GM due to the bailouts, and I've seen other posters here say the same thing. So are we unique due to an auto board, or not? No way to know, really. I find it stretching credulity to say there is NO effect when we already know some people are affected. What we don't know is the magnitude of the effect. I'm willing to agree that it could be negligible. But it also might not be, correct? Isn't that also a possible answer?
The entire discussion is a bit silly anyway, because a) we will never know the answer; and b) GM had no choice. Complete failure was the other option.
I'm sure if GM had failed completely there would still be parts of the company in operation today, but perhaps part of Ford or another automaker. But GM wouldn't exist as we we know them. So good for GM that the bailouts happened. While I'm opposed in principle, I can see that it may have been the best choice given where the markets were at that time.
I'm also quite consistent. I moved all my money from my big monopolistic bailed out bank to a credit union and have been happy ever since. I wish the government had broken up those banks. They are still big zits on the US economy, just waiting to pop with new trouble.
You never once saw me say "A (fill in the blank) is a POS". Never once. Conversely, I got people 'on the other side' who said that to admit that they never even sat in the vehicle they made that flat statement about.
Ridiculous by any yardstick. And I believe you really do know that but don't like to say it.
Similarly, I'm not going to say great things about Madonna or Lady Gaga when absolutely everybody else does. I'm going to say why I like Carly Simon. That thought-process is about liking things for different reasons than everyone else. "Under the radar" is more interesting in my mind. That's all.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I waited a long time to have an Engineer at GM agree with the P.O.S. description of one Chevy and the New C.E.O. define the past and future...No More Crappy Cars.
...and this is why I really think the new Exec suite of Barra and Reuss may turn this company around over the next half decade or so. It's doable with the right leadership in place. I'd like to see them make it happen. We consumers only benefit from strong competitors.
...and this is why I really think the new Exec suite of Barra and Reuss may turn this company around over the next half decade or so.
I see Reuss gone within a year. He was passed over for CEO. Unless he is loyal to a fault, I think he will be looking for a new role at another automaker.
Could well be. Probably depends on how much GM runs through his veins (he's a legacy) and his compensation package. He did get a big promotion in the deal. Whether he stays or goes doesn't change my opinion about GM potential. Actually, I think Reuss would make a better Ford CEO than Mark Fields when Mulally leaves. I'm just not that impressed with his tenure at Ford. Lots of botched intro's and quality issues under him IMHO.
"... If GM tanked, then all those GM buyers would have been stuck with cars they recently bought and no more warranties. THAT'S a grievance. ..."
But that is just the point. GM would have gone into bankruptcy, and emerged leaner and meaner. The brand would have changed, but I don't think it would have been gone. And a rejuvenated company would have honored the warranties.
I disagree. Ruess is a Car guy and he will be head of Global Development which if it were my position, I would be ecstatic about! Just think, a World outside of the lumbering Suburbans and Cadillac or Buick land barges of America. He has the power to jumpstart the sluggish Europe market on his terms, which is WAY more exciting than what we get here. And in return he gets to work closely with Opel (barring it doesn't go the way of the Dodo Bird... Or ahem, Holden...) which could bring some more "Euro" product to our shores, or with Asia where small cars are the thing.
But heck, he has full control over development and might even have the power to build to his terms and not what the Bean Counters limit him to...
I think being a "Car Guy", and not someone with a background in Soda is going to make a pretty big impact on the product portfolio both here and overseas. I envision many more risks and many more ideas being implemented in the future...
Now, the quality of work that comes out of the UAW, or the continued reduction in American content, I imagine that falls on "Bloody Mary's shoulders... And if she blows it, I'd bet on Ruess getting the next crack at it. He's been with them for far to long to quit now.
Just my .02
Edit: just proofread my post and it's a bit disheveled, sorry about that. Typing while on a 5 min. break from a conference call, lol...
For all the talk on how the Dart was looking to be a 'typical Chrysler', I find it (smile) interesting that the Jan. '14 CR says it has "much better than average" reliability in its first year. It didn't test that great to their standards though.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
"But that is just the point. GM would have gone into bankruptcy, and emerged leaner and meaner"
I think you may be forgetting that the big banks were in a financial disaster as well, so getting the financing to restructure under a normal BK may well have been impossible. I believe that's the reason the gov bought stock instead of the preferred guaranteed loan route normally employed.
Don't think so, if you mean Chapter 13. That's dissolution of the corporation. They'll be nothing to come back from.
And what if there were a "boycott", and what if it were tremendously successful? What good would that have done? Ford and Chrysler could not have possibly absorbed 250,000 or so workers + whatever suppliers also tanked. Plus, Ford and Chrysler couldn't possibly ramp up to cover the GM market, and so foreign competition steps right in on that.
>Well, the way I define balance is that any poster says positive and negative things about any make, with some measure of objectivity.
Not quite getting it why you're bringing up this hot button allegation again. As far as telling others here on the board what they are to say or to believe, I don't think it is a requirement of the Rules of the Road that someone believe and post in a specific belief manner. Specifically, I don't believe anyone has to post that they like things about the imports just to satisfy a forum requirement.
As for me, I have had good experiences with the GM vehicles which I have owned and with the dealers. I just crossed 200,000 mi on my leSabre and the other has 165,000 mi. Why should I praise Hondas? I have never had a transmission problem in my GMs. I will continue to post about my good track record with GM.
If your goal is to alleviate bias in posts made and to effect an affirmative action campaign for equality in posting brand balance, I can suggest certain other forums here where the primary posts are about foreign brands. Just send your email to my user name at yahoo period com and I'll share my evaluation of posting in certain forums.
...and this is why I really think the new Exec suite of Barra and Reuss may turn this company around over the next half decade or so. It's doable with the right leadership in place. I'd like to see them make it happen. We consumers only benefit from strong competitors.
Just having Barra say "no more crappy cars" means GM is probably 80% of the way to improvement. That's an excellent and important thing to hear the CEO saying. Congratulations to her.
Comments
So say a 15% market share going to a 16.5% market share? That shouldn't be impossible.
Would have figured that the Chevrolet Impala would have had a higher possibility as a finalist than a Cadillac CTS. The CTS should have been disqualified on looks alone. The grotesque looking front end. Somebody left over from the era of Pontiac Aztek is fooling around with the Cadillac now.
Anyway, as we all recall, sometimes the "Car of the Year" award turns out to be the kiss of death.
To be fair, a lot of those cars seemed like a good idea at the time. Even the Vega was rated at "Better than Average" by Consumer Reports for the first year.
I think by design, many COTY winners are going to ultimately be questionable in hindsight, simply because of the criteria of the contest. Mainly, to be considered, the car has to be mostly all-new, revolutionary, and groundbreaking in some degree. Well, quite often, first-year-out models tend to be troublesome. "Revolutionary" often means trying untested techniques, materials, processes that aren't quite ready for mass production, etc.
The ATS might not be anything daring but I prefer that thing to the fugly new CTS anyday...
Still won't stop GM from trying to compare it to the German stalwarts which GM fans have labeled as "dull" and "outdated", but I don't see it making any inroads based on the looks outside of the GMi forum IMO.
And I expect it to continue to go unnoticed by the Germans and Lexus...
All we know is market share has suffered and hasn't recovered. Period.
Well, here is an unscientific survey of one. I won't ever buy a GM product, because of the bailout. They stiffed private investors to bail out the union, in my opinion.
I don't know if I would have bought one anyway, but it is definitely off my list now.
Personally, I won't buy a new vehicle built in Mexico--although I know supposedly some Fusions are built in Flat Rock now--and I'm not a fan of the Ford grille that's current, and I'm also not a fan of rear door cutouts that require an unnatural duck into. Seems like Ford has more of those.
I guess it doesn't much matter, as I won't be in the market for a looonnnng time. I much-more enjoy looking at '50's through '70's cars online.
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
Wrong!
GM market Share
YTD Nov. 2012 = 17.9%
YTD Nov. 2013 = 17.9%
GM’s market share represents a near two-point decline from the 19.7% recorded in 2011, according to WardsAuto data. In the years preceding the economic downturn that helped spin it into bankruptcy, the auto maker routinely would command more than 24% of annual industry sales.
http://wardsauto.com/sales-amp-marketing/gm-s-us-december-sales-rise-market-shar- e-declines-historic-low
Any questions?
Well you know....statistics depend on how you create them.
Nobody said they were up from 2011---the point was that they aren't losing market share.
So we're both kinda right.
And another - why does someone who patronizes a bailed-out brand based in a nation subsidized by the American taxpayer hate things that are bailed out and subsidized?
No proof non-bailout contributed to Ford's gains. Got any basis for your claim?
Mr Shift would claim that the bailouts (or not) have no effect on buying patterns.
I wonder how many vehicles are even eligible each year? They have to be new, and so that limits the field quite a bit. The COTY is awarded in the first year of production. If the product turns out to be a turd or a market failure, that's not something anybody can see up front. So COTY is of limited value. It's a best guess based on early information, and only for the new redesigned vehicles for that year.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy an EcoBoost powered Ford. With proper maintenance it should provide 200,000+ trouble-free miles.
I loved the TARP! Love bailing out "Too Big to Fail".
The Treasury's exit marked the end of General Motors' worst chapter in company history. While it will take longer to repair its brand image, and hisses of "Government Motors" will likely remain, the company is clearly on track and putting its best foot forward.
It was no coincidence that after the Treasury announced its exit, a successor was named for CEO Dan Akerson.
And not even 24 hours later, "Bloody Mary" has ended it's partnership with Peugeot.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cad2faa-630a-11e3-886f-00144feabdc0.html
Unlike the 2 Billion that was lost to the FIAT deal going south, they are prepped to lose 39 million on this deal...
Yeah, that definitely does limit the field. For instance, in 1974, the Mustang II won COTY. Seems like a joke, looking back. But, in 1974, what else out there was substantially new? GM had nothing, as the compacts hadn't been redone since '68, the Camaro since '70, full-sizers in '71, and intermediates in '73. Chrysler redesigned their full-sized cars for 1974, but that was precisely the wrong year to do so, in the peak of a fuel crisis. Ford had nothing else other than the Mustang II that was "new" that year. And in those days, import cars tended to have their own contest "Import Car of the Year".
Also, what seems like a bad joke today, often did seem like a great idea at the time. And, for a short time, the Mustang II did seem like a good idea. It was small and light, harking back a bit to the original, and a complete 180 compared to the fat '71-73 models. It was also fuel efficient for the time, something that was very important at that time. Sure, its performance sucked, but in 1974, performance didn't sell cars.
Interestingly, for 1972, Motortrend decided there was nothing of virtue on the domestic front, so they gave the award to, of all things, the Citroen SM! And, looking back, I think the only new domestic that year was the midsized Ford Torino/Mercury Montego, cars that were longer, fatter, and heavier than their forebears, a tradition that had been going on for awhile now. Cars that were so heavy in fact, that Ford gave up on putting 6-cyl engines in them, and after a few years I think even the 302 was inadequate, so a 351 was standard for awhile. Fuel economy was so bad they also fit them with larger tanks after a few years, to at least bring up the cruising range.
could they be doing better? Yeah, but in the US market, grabbing even one point of market share is incredibly difficult.
could they be doing worse? Oh, yeah
At the time, I thought the Monza's styling was terrific compared to the Mustang's though. In hindsight, I don't care for that big hunk of plastic right at eye level, on the "B" pillar.
Our dealer didn't get one until Feb. '75. I think there were launch issues, and they were only built at the small Ste. Therese, Quebec plant.
Two of my high-school friends got one. One was orange and V8 automatic, saddle cloth and vinyl interior. The other was red with sandalwood (light) vinyl interior, also V8 and automatic. The orange one looked like crap in five years; the other guy still has the red one tucked away with 40K or fewer miles. Not worth a lot, but when's the last time you saw a nice one?
The '75 V8 Monzas had terrible brakes and front-end weight that rapidly wore out the new-for-'75 radial tires. I could hear either friend turning onto our street a block away from the brake noise. I believe the '76's were improved in that regard, but I didn't like the new instrument panel nor the bumperette-"corners" put on the cars in '76.
When mentioning subsidized-by-the-US-taxpayer locales and bailed out failing automakers, I wasn't thinking TARP...
To be fair, GM was downsized quite a bit in BK, mainly due to elimination of some fo the redundant brands. A good thing IMHO. Better to have a stronger mix of products than so much "filler" and duplication.
And that comment above from me is the kind of "balance" that is often called for, but not seen on the other side of the argument from some of the posters!
I understand what you want to believe, but you have no more substance than I do. The logic is flawed. The analogy is this: There's a type of illness that cures itself in 90% of the cases. A set of people take an herbal remedy, and almost all of them get better! They are convinced that their herbal remedy was the reason.
What we don't know is what GM's sales would be if people (however many their are) who won't buy GM due to the bailout, changed their minds. It's irrelevant anyway, as if there were no bailout there would be no GM as we know it today.
Wasn't that the car/engine combo that was famously designed to require an engine pull and lift to change one of the spark plugs?
I bet a lot of those Monza V8's never had that one or however many plugs changed, ever.
One thing I remember loving in my two friends' Monza V8's was that wonderful V8 sound coming from a car that small--a new thing at that time.
What is not balance in my mind is when some posters say only good about preferred makes, and only bad about other makes, ignoring other sides of both equations.
I would have thought just the opposite. If GM tanked, then all those GM buyers would have been stuck with cars they recently bought and no more warranties. THAT'S a grievance.
But really, nobody came to your house and took $10 from you to bail out GM....sure, your taxes (pre-paid) might have been dipped for $10 bucks, but really, how painful was that?
That's not to say that the American public cannot be riled up into a frenzy over a false crime committed---THAT happens all the time.
What happened with GM is no different than farm subsidies or pork awarded to various states by their congresspeople. Where's the rage there, and there you have definite proof of skullduggery.
We don't have proofs, only opinions. That's why it's an opinion board!
You may think it stretches credulity, but I can tell you I wouldn't buy GM due to the bailouts, and I've seen other posters here say the same thing. So are we unique due to an auto board, or not? No way to know, really. I find it stretching credulity to say there is NO effect when we already know some people are affected. What we don't know is the magnitude of the effect. I'm willing to agree that it could be negligible. But it also might not be, correct? Isn't that also a possible answer?
The entire discussion is a bit silly anyway, because a) we will never know the answer; and b) GM had no choice. Complete failure was the other option.
I'm sure if GM had failed completely there would still be parts of the company in operation today, but perhaps part of Ford or another automaker. But GM wouldn't exist as we we know them. So good for GM that the bailouts happened. While I'm opposed in principle, I can see that it may have been the best choice given where the markets were at that time.
I'm also quite consistent. I moved all my money from my big monopolistic bailed out bank to a credit union and have been happy ever since. I wish the government had broken up those banks. They are still big zits on the US economy, just waiting to pop with new trouble.
Ridiculous by any yardstick. And I believe you really do know that but don't like to say it.
Similarly, I'm not going to say great things about Madonna or Lady Gaga when absolutely everybody else does. I'm going to say why I like Carly Simon. That thought-process is about liking things for different reasons than everyone else. "Under the radar" is more interesting in my mind. That's all.
GM's M.O. for DECADES.
See Market Share for the Competition.
Balance comes when truth forgoes emotion.
I see Reuss gone within a year. He was passed over for CEO. Unless he is loyal to a fault, I think he will be looking for a new role at another automaker.
But that is just the point. GM would have gone into bankruptcy, and emerged leaner and meaner. The brand would have changed, but I don't think it would have been gone. And a rejuvenated company would have honored the warranties.
But heck, he has full control over development and might even have the power to build to his terms and not what the Bean Counters limit him to...
I think being a "Car Guy", and not someone with a background in Soda is going to make a pretty big impact on the product portfolio both here and overseas. I envision many more risks and many more ideas being implemented in the future...
Now, the quality of work that comes out of the UAW, or the continued reduction in American content, I imagine that falls on "Bloody Mary's shoulders... And if she blows it, I'd bet on Ruess getting the next crack at it. He's been with them for far to long to quit now.
Just my .02
Edit: just proofread my post and it's a bit disheveled, sorry about that. Typing while on a 5 min. break from a conference call, lol...
Hmmm, I like the exterior, if not a bit derivative. The interior is unique with the split controls but it looks cramped and the materials kinda meh...
Really weird with the Vent shrouds built into the Nav bezel... :sick:
I do like the rotary gear selector tho!
I think you may be forgetting that the big banks were in a financial disaster as well, so getting the financing to restructure under a normal BK may well have been impossible. I believe that's the reason the gov bought stock instead of the preferred guaranteed loan route normally employed.
And what if there were a "boycott", and what if it were tremendously successful? What good would that have done? Ford and Chrysler could not have possibly absorbed 250,000 or so workers + whatever suppliers also tanked. Plus, Ford and Chrysler couldn't possibly ramp up to cover the GM market, and so foreign competition steps right in on that.
Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
Not quite getting it why you're bringing up this hot button allegation again. As far as telling others here on the board what they are to say or to believe, I don't think it is a requirement of the Rules of the Road that someone believe and post in a specific belief manner. Specifically, I don't believe anyone has to post that they like things about the imports just to satisfy a forum requirement.
As for me, I have had good experiences with the GM vehicles which I have owned and with the dealers. I just crossed 200,000 mi on my leSabre and the other has 165,000 mi. Why should I praise Hondas? I have never had a transmission problem in my GMs. I will continue to post about my good track record with GM.
If your goal is to alleviate bias in posts made and to effect an affirmative action campaign for equality in posting brand balance, I can suggest certain other forums here where the primary posts are about foreign brands. Just send your email to my user name at yahoo period com and I'll share my evaluation of posting in certain forums.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Just having Barra say "no more crappy cars" means GM is probably 80% of the way to improvement. That's an excellent and important thing to hear the CEO saying. Congratulations to her.