By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
This is the core problem. The "improvements" are simply taking too long. GM is too big. By the time they realize that a product needs to be updated, dropped, or replaced, the competition is already WAY ahead of them. I will maintain that the product planners at GM work in a vacuum. "I'm happy with my products, so everyone else should be as well" seems to be the prevailing mantra over at the RenCen.
The way business is conducted has become more efficient by changes in everything from union work rules to leading edge technology integration.
Nobody else on the Planet Earth would make this statement other than a manager at General Motors. "Union Work Rules" don't make cars that people want to buy, and neither does "Leading Edge Technology Integration". Onstar is neat, but too expensive for the "average joe" customer who is GM's bread and butter. For $15 a month, they'll take satellite radio instead thanksverymuch.
Anyone who perceives GM as being critical of their customers doesn't know about the pride and spirit that is typically taken as a natural attitude of the GM work force.
Except at this point, you're working from false pride. Your cars need help, your suppliers need help, your divisional structure needs help, and your company is in real trouble. At this point, you have nothing to take pride in.
If you are indeed a GM manager, you need to wake up and start affecting real change within your company - when you start making competitive cars and turning a profit, THEN you will have earned the right to be prideful. Just don't lose sight of the "big picture", and become complacent if and when this happens. Otherwise it's 2005 all over again, and you will get eaten alive in the marketplace.
My intent here was not to flame you, but if you are indeed a GM manager, your attitude is part of the reason your company is circling the toilet bowl. You drank too much of the GM Kool-Aid.
Typical American perception:
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
I don’t like American cars. I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer Japanese products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Reality:
I don like (insert your job here). I just don’t think the quality is up to par. I prefer (insert any up and coming Asian country here) products, the quality is much better for the money.
American Future:
I don like (i.e. Walmart). I just don’t think the pay is up to par. I preferred (i.e. GeneralMotors, Bethlehem Steel, etc.) wages, the pay was much better for my labor.
Transplants jobs mean nothing, Transplants vehicles built here mean nothing. Buy GM, buy Ford because they are not (insert derided transplant country here)
A wonderful world it would be with everyone driving Pintos and Vegas because there was no other CHOICE...
Funny he'd select Pintos and Vegas - the very worst domestic cars from over 30 years ago. There were plenty more choices from domestic makes back then and now.
BTW, I picked those because do you actually believe the two domestic brands would put the efforts into building the best product if there were no competition? Hence the Vega and Pinto reference since they WERE so bad, but at the time the Asian imports reputation wasn't as strong as it is today. That's all.
GM and Ford are the one's getting pounded first! By the time Asian and Indian (India) companies figure out a way to compete with YOUR job, Ford and GM will have figured out a way to survive, at a much smaller size of course. Five years from now will be reading threads with Ford and GM employees telling us how much better it is now that India and Korea are supplying YOUR product and/or service.
If they can do it better than me then I have to improve and do it better than they or move on to something that they can't do at all. It's always been a moving target.
I have no problem with that.
ARLINGTON, VA — Crashworthiness evaluations for seven new or redesigned midsize car models reflect performance in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's front, side, and rear impact tests. The models include three moderately priced cars — Ford Fusion, Hyundai Sonata, and Pontiac G6. The other four models are luxury/near luxury cars — Acura TSX, BMW 3 series, Infiniti G35, and Lexus IS.
The best overall performers are the BMW 3 series and Lexus IS, which earned the silver 'Top Safety Pick' designation for good performance in the Institute's front and side crash tests plus acceptable ratings for their seat/head restraint designs in rear tests. The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags, earned the lowest overall ratings. It's the only car in this group that didn't earn a good rating in the frontal test. It earned a poor rating in the side test and a marginal rating for rear crash protection.
"Nearly every car now earns good ratings in our frontal test," says Institute president Adrian Lund. "The Fusion is acceptable, which isn't a bad result, but it's not competitive with other cars in its class. Based on this car's side and rear evaluations along with its acceptable frontal rating, the Fusion is the lowest rated moderately priced midsize car we've evaluated."
'The Ford Fusion, tested without its optional side airbags,' Huh??
Safety is one of the most basic decisions that are 'buy/no buy' for consumers. Who could have possibly screwed up this design and allowed the IIHS to test the Fusion in the manner it did? The Fusion/Milan is the heart of Ford's auto strategy and now it has a stake in its heart. It's beyond stupid.
With this it's fire everyone involved and send a janitor to the plant in Hermosillo and put a padlock on the gate or the next headline will be:
"Entire production of Hermosillo plant intended for fleet sales"
Were there some posts here previously about cutting costs and producing 2nd rate vehilces ( primarily intended for the used car market? ) while trying to pass them off as worldclass to retail buyers here.
For example, the G6 looked promising. But no manual in the 4 cylinder engine and the V6 engine has pushrods. Coming from a steady diet of OHC engines and manual transmissions, I can't see myself buying a car with a 2 valve per cylinder engine.
GM biggest embarrassment should be when it looks at Hyundai. They are producing a great product now. And growing by leaps and bounds overcoming the spotty past reliability. The largest automaker in the world should be ashamed.
The Subaru Legacy beats all of them, earning Gold, vs. only Silver for the BMW 3 and the Lexus IS. So safety is very affordable after all.
-juice
PS Legacy is made in the USA, in Lafayette, Indiana
Even if they get the side airbags, they will still be among the worst in frontal crashes. They just won't be "poor" in side impacts anymore.
There are plenty of people that still would prefer not to pay for it, even though the evidence that they provide an extra layer of safety is pretty substantial.
-juice
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
You're confusing crash test safety with quality and popularity.
I just took a look through their website and couldn't find that press release. I did note that the 500/Montego (equipped with the optional side airbags) received "gold" status.....as did the Honda Civic, Saab 9-3, and Suburu Legacy.
I like the outside of the Malibu Maxx. But the interior and engine choices are sub-par.
The Fusion looks like thay gaffed on the safety aspect.
The Focus was introduced and promtly recalled.
The Cobalt has a non-independent rear suspension. But then so does the Corolla. That's a consideration for many "sporty car" minded buyers though.
It's always something though.
So maybe Ford has been doing a few things right. It would be nice if they'd do it right in cars that people WANT to buy!
This specifically is about the Fusion which is the state of the art family sedan for Ma and Pa America which replaces their most basic auto the midsized Taurus/Sable.
My indictment is that this vehicle should not ever have been put in a position of failing. It should be, has to be, bulletproof in order to regain the original Taurus sizzle.
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
It's the designers, product managers, safety engineers, plant managers, etc which have to bear the brunt of this. It's inexcusable for such a high profile vehicle.
'Oh SAB are optional, so we'll have better results next year' Why was this vehicle tested without SAB? Yes they are optional so why not provide a vehicle for testing with this option and make your vehicle look good?
And to be indicted by the IIHS for being mediocre in frontal impacts when every bozo auto maker in the world knows how to make an auto with 'Good' frontal impacts is the real 'crime' here. It's not a legal crime... it's a business crime. It's the heart of Ford's auto strategy. How can you not get it right?
That is a fine post, worthy of reading by the executives of FoMoCo.
Unfortunately, I'm sure that there have got to be some Big 2.5 apologists out there who will, once again, blame the customer.
The adage that "The customer is always right" is a basic fast of business, that must be properly understood. It doesn't necessarily mean that the customer has more accurate data or always makes the best decision for himself; it means that the customer's objectives have to be satisfied and exceeded if you want his money. Don't do what the customer wants, and you won't be getting his cash.
The customer is not forced to buy from any one provider, and it is up to each business to serve his needs and to win his trust. The company can cry about this fact all it likes, but if doesn't address, it will be the one paying for it, not the custoer.
A: Because IIHS tests vehicles with base equipment, this is their protocol. They test vehicles with optional equipment if and only if the manufacturer agrees to provide more vehicles for testing. In this case Ford did so, so Fusion was tested with and without SAB.
-juice
My sarcastic point is: If it were really that important, then the Five Hundred would be the best selling car on the road! Obviously, it’s not that important. Power and styling is more of a factor than the safest EVER tested. It can’t be so important for the Fusion, if it’s not that important when it comes to the Five Hundred!
My point, and in answer to Kevmo's post also, is why the heck wasn't the Fusion w/ SAB's provided to the IIHS at the time of testing? A vehicle this important just can't have an albatross hanging around it's neck on a site like the IIHS without something to balance it out like a Good rating w/ SAB's.
This is management's fault. The product managers have to be aware of the importance of testing like this in a buyer's mind.
Now the mediocre frontal test results is a company-wide failure. For that there is no excuse. The Fusion is at the very bottom of the list of all midsized autos tested.
And not to bash just Ford... ditto Stratus/Sebring, they are second from the bottom. What are these people thinking?
So, apparently all of you American brand trashers are lining up to buy one of those two cars!
Has anyone under 50 years old, actually bought a 500? The 500 makes the Camry downright exciting. I don't think Ford is winning over many younger folks with the 500 design.
Wonder why Ford did not pursue their "Forty-nine" 2001 black color show car for production? I believe that it had outstanding reception by the public at auto shows. Instead, they give us milquetoast 500. That 49 would have captured some foreign brand buyers for its excitement level just like the Chrysler 300.
"What you can't replace me, my mommy and daddy paid good money for this degree"
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Buddy of mine is 31 YO, and bought a Five Hundred Limited last year. It's a nice, smooth ride. Not my cup of tea, but like most people he's not really an auto "enthusiast".
Rocky
As for the 500, I don't think there's anything really "wrong" about its styling. It's not ugly. It performs adequately, but just needs a stronger optional engine. It's roomy. Gets decent fuel economy. Seems to have nice interior quality. And can be had for a decent price. But it just does nothing to stir the soul, or arouse even the least little bit of excitement. About the best way I can describe it is a VW Passat for the blue haired set!
Rocky
If I wanted a big, roomy (although I find them to be lacking in front legroom) car at a budget price, I'd consider one. But I'd just be willing to pay a bit more for something that excites me a bit more...like a Charger/300 or Lucerne!
Rocky
I seriously doubt that the average customer cares anything about whether a car is RWD or FWD.
There are some niches in which it does matter, but most average Joes and Janes probably barely know whether or not their current cars are RWD, let alone intend to shop for it for their next purchase. In any case, you end up with less interior space with RWD, which is probably more important to your average consumer than the ability to generate oversteer.
(RWD-Lincoln Town Car 80's) I've driven both and felt the RWD boat was easier to manage.
Rocky
If they prefer the handling of one car over another based on a test drive, then I would imagine that they'll pick the one that they like best, regardless of whether it has RWD. They just buy the one that they like.
The real everyday problem with having FWD on more powerful cars that the average Joe might find annoying is torque steer. With increasing horsepower being the current trend, I would expect there to be more RWD cars provided so that Joe could avoid being put off by torque steer. But does Joe know that this is a byproduct of FWD, and does it cause him to deliberately seek out RWD? My guess is, probably not.
Would agree about boat size cars and RWD being best setup. But, there are some small and mid-size FWD cars that will outperform RWD similar weight/hp cars.
There are probably many buyers (non-automotive enthusiasts) of FWD cars that don't realize the drive configuration of their car.
FWD has a number of advantages over RWD including better utilization of space and traction for those living in snowy climes. I would rather have a larger amount of FWD (or AWD) vehicles on the road on snowy/icy days than RWD vehicles. Better for safety. Also, if one is not interested in max acceleration, dragging at traffic lights, 7/10 driving on interstate ramps, etc., then FWD is fine.
On American cars, I have a relative that has a first gen Chrysler Concord and is thinking of a new car. He has looked at new Chrysler 300 and does not like its space utilization nor the lack of outward visibility. The old Concord has superior window area and driver has great outward visibility. Understand that Chrysler 300 has good styling and a wow factor, but did DC make a mistake in replacing Concord/Intrepid with cars that are heavier?
Since then, I've never had any trouble getting around in the winter with various RWD cars...'68 Dart, '79 Newport, '85 LeSabre (although I got it stuck on ice once), '89 Gran Fury, '85 Silverado. Heck, this last snowstorm we had in February, where we got about 12-13 inches, my '85 Silverado, with its aging, dry-rotting Firestone Wilderness tires (just had them replaced, so no safety lectures, please
I'd say my biggest complaints about the 300/Charger are that the center spot of the back seat is not as comfy as my Intrepid, and the trunks are smaller. I think the 300's trunk is 15.6 cubic feet, while the Charger's is 16.2? In contrast, the old 300M was something like 16.7, while the Intrepid was 18.4 and the Concorde around 18.8. I think the first-gen LH cars only had 16 cubic foot trunks, though.
On the plus side though, even though published measures say otherwise, the Charger/300 feels like it has more legroom up front to me. And I think visibility out the front is actually a bit BETTER, because I can finally see the hood of the car again! Now, visibility on the first-gen LH cars was pretty good, much better than the second-gen, and I think they started thickening up the roof pillars on the '98-04 as well.
I don't know if replacing the LH cars with a heavier car is necessarily a bad thing, as all cars seem to be getting heavier these days. And fuel economy doesn't seem to have suffered much. I think the 3.5 actually gets a slightly better EPA rating in the LX cars than the LH! Now the 2.7 economy went down a bit, but that engine has no place in a car this size, especially mated up to heavier RWD mechanicals.
All in all, I'd say the 300/Charger has about as much useable space as the old 1989 Gran Fury I used to have. So it would be enough for my needs.
Have traction control on two of our vehicles and snow tires still provide significant improvement in traction.
There have been articles in R&T, C&D over time extolling the virtues of "dedicated" snow tires at 4 corners for superior winter traction. Snow tires are made in same sizes and aspect ratios as "all-season" tires that come with most cars. But, best thing to do if getting snow tires is get them mounted on spare set of rims and get smaller footprint while keeping same rolling circumference.
On one of our cars, we went from 45 aspect to 50, kept same circumference and reduced footprint for better snow/ice traction.
All-season tires cannot hold a candle to dedicated snows in snow/ice. Every once in a while we will be surprised by early snow in Nov and have all-season tires on car. This is when one can really understand the shortcomings of all-seasons in snow/ice in that you have first hand knowledge of differences between the two types.
BTW- I agree with both you and xrunner there are definite advantages to owning a FWD car. Most of us get some snow and thus FWD is better than RWD. Also FWD performance is getting really good. However I disagree with you that your avg. Joe doesn't know the difference of his car being FWD or RWD. My Gawd my non-enthusiast grandmother knows which wheels power her car.
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky