You do not need a "competition crushing" product line up to stay in business. Those words would mean that only one company would stay in business. US seems to have room for over 10 companies. Consumers want choice and your idea of "competition crushing" may not be the same for someone else. Of course a big part of it is that they do have a "competition crushing" line up of trucks and SUV's. GM's gamble to bring ahead the SUV's worked even when the gas prices went thru the roof and the media again got it wrong and lambasted GM for it.
Numbers are very real. In fact they are too good for GM. They have more cutting to do and profits make it hard. GM would be a lot worse off today (maybe even going bankrupt) if last year was a break even year. They could never have gotten rid of underutilized plants and people (salary and union). They could never have gotten some kind of health care relief. Too see how bad it is look at Chrylser. Because they are not losing gobs of money the union will not give them the same concessions as GM/Ford. It will happen but only until losses occur (maybe after this quarters results). Then again maybe they are so pissed at being owned by the germans they may let the germans figure out some other way of making money. Heck the union could buy back Chrylser and run it themselves and prove everyone wrong about "management".
I am not saying that the work force was the only problem. It was only part of it. As the video showed GM has made many other changes to become profitable and their product line up is so much better than it was 2 years ago.
I do not need the hype to know what is going on. I do not believe most of what the media and "experts" say because they are wrong and only making remarks based on what other "experts" said.
Offered buyouts to thousands of overpaid workers and replaced them with new and lower cost workers
GM has not "replaced" any workers. Yes there are a few temps while they move around the workers but there are not thousands. There are plenty of folks in job banks waiting to be moved. And this is only temporary. Soon enough the plants will have been consolidated and they will be back to an older work force that will be around for awhile. GM does not have a 2 stage work force like Delphi is looking at. They may in the future but not now.
Also GM still has not received any cash from the GMAC deal yet. It is coming.
Fuel prices did not give them any relief in the first two qtrs. They actually were very high, only in the last month has there been relief and 3rd qtr profits will be hardly effected by the low cost of gas now.
Fuel prices did not give them any relief in the first two qtrs. They actually were very high, only in the last month has there been relief and 3rd qtr profits will be hardly effected by the low cost of gas now.
OK, if not crushing, then even marginally superior. GM still doesn't have a Camcord (or a Civrolla), although the new Saturn might be progressive. The other similar cars don't do it. Still too much marginal material out there. Cobalt looks old already, does anyone actually buy a Malibu?
Numbers are numbers. After recent corporate history, I am always leery. Books can be cooked in more ways than food. I need more time to believe stories. Come back in a couple years.
Compared to 2 years ago, yeah things look better...no more prehistoric Cadavalier, painfully clunky Impala, overcladded Ponchos, oooold Buicks, etc. For that, I give credit.
I'm not celebrating at all, but am happier than I was a few months ago. GM, has alot of work to get done and it's ashame somebody like myself couldn't be in control of product.
GM still doesn't have a Camcord (or a Civrolla), although the new Saturn might be progressive.
Aura looks like a winner. Yeah we needs a civic-rolla.
does anyone actually buy a Malibu? Well the "new" Malibu might just be the new Carolla. I actually like it. :surprise: The Colbalt is in desperate need of a makeover.
bought a Malibu Maxx. Grandma calls it a "Maxi", which to me conjures up images of something designed for Mr. Monthly Visitor! :P
I remember being pleasantly surprised by the '04 Malibu when it first came out, but it just seemed to get really old, really fast. I don't think it's a horrible car, but simply an okay car that's not good enough in today's market. If forced to choose, I think the only cars in its class that I'd pick the Malibu over would be the Stratus/Sebring, which are due to be replaced, and the Mitsubishi Galant.
And it's not the pushrod engine that turns me off to the Malibu, it's just the car itself!
I am kinda curious to see the Saturn Aura, though. It looks promising, at least.
With that Malibu, that chrome bar across the front was just awkward awkard awkard. I'ts been toned down alot but what were they thinking?
I remember when it came out, one of the GM execs was questioned about the bland styling and replied that nobody was doing anything too exciting in the class... REALLY???
What's your beef with the Galant? It always looked like a Pontiac interpretation of an Altima but it didn't strike me as a bad car and there are some seriously good deals on it. I'd take it over a Bu.
Where did the massive debt go? Where are the new cars people would be buying to make a huge difference in sales? Have all those retired people gone now - moved them to Canada? Gas, now that Fall is here, has fallen in price. Maybe fools are basing their SUV buys on $2.75 gas instead of possible $4 or more gas some day. GM makes loads of money no doubt on those expensive SUVs. Would rather have a fine Bimmer for the price people pay for those behemoth and boring trucks/SUVs, but yeah, I don't require massive carrying space. As far as I can see, little has changed in the cars, and warranties.
If it is true that GM is saved, it was never in trouble. -Loren
I was thinking of raising that styling issue...the dopey chrome bar on the front that gave the Malibu in particular a weird fish face. It might kinda work on a truck, but not on a car. I remember this was to become a Chevy corporate styling theme, but it died off pretty quickly. Where do these designers come from? Thankfully the crack supply ran out and the front end normalized a little.
IMO the Galant is kind of awkward, a little thick and heavy handed. The previous version looked better.
Best take a look at the financials of the three first. Take a look at what products are a good match to a World using expensive gasoline. Compare which have new products, with more new ones on the way -- not cosmetic changes, but rather new product. Look at the true bottom line profit. Which companies have cars with decent resale value. Look closely at the product. Would you buy a Tacoma truck or a Colorado or Ranger?
I would say that a stumble for Honda may be the cab-forward design of the Civic, though they are selling OK, and the transmission problems of the Camry. It is one of those games which it is up to Honda and Toyota to lose, rather than GM to win. It is possible they could screw up. GM has a shot at making a good solid car line for North America, but I do believe most all of it, other than say the CTS and Solstice/Sky and maybe the Aura, will have to be changed. Real new cars. American cars. It is possible the US built cars which look like the Opel and Holdens will be a success --- but all things are possible. Still think a best bet is make GM American cars again. For the gas saving car lines, they do need some hatches no doubt, and those may indeed be the Opel and Daewoo carry overs.
Saw a Daweo for around $15K+ which is pretty close to what a discounted Sonata would be. Why not go for twice the car and warranty, if you want a Korean make? Now a sub-$14K Cobalt may make more sense. -Loren
Problem with the " American Revolution " is that most of the new cars are from or inspired by Euro designs, or Aussie born cars. And what is the revolt about? Has Japan taken over? Maybe they meant Evolution. I guess the Solstice and Sky look pretty new. Don't beat the competition on the road, but they look like they could And the Corvette is only a couple years old, and looks a bit new. Still kinda like the C5 more. I think the C5 had a better initial quality number - not sure. The C5 was one winning machine on the track. Good to see American companies interested in racing. -Loren
I remember being pleasantly surprised by the '04 Malibu when it first came out, but it just seemed to get really old, really fast.
I had the same reaction, but agree with you that it's gone stale very fast. Guess the public agrees, because sales are off quite a bit year to date. Of course, some sales may have been siphoned off by the Cobalt or Impala, both of which are up.
If forced to choose, I think the only cars in its class that I'd pick the Malibu over would be the Stratus/Sebring, which are due to be replaced, and the Mitsubishi Galant.
I agree also, but maybe not for the same reasons. Before I bought my '04 Camry, I looked at the midsize competition. The ones that stood out as hideous were the Stratus and the Galant, because of their cheap, cheap interiors with hard plastic everywhere. The Galant was the ES model (the sales leader), and the Stratus was an SXT. I suppose it didn't help that both cars I looked at had black interiors. IMO, even the much-maligned Altima interior seemed nicer.
It's certainly an evolution, and a positive one. Not a revolution. I see the previous Impala, for example, as a banal cheap looking design. The new one is bland, but decent enough. And we all recall the bad old days....my brother had a white Lumina Euro, cheesy trim and a horrible exhaust note rolled into one package. That Vette has made some gains in quality, too.
andre1969: I remember being pleasantly surprised by the '04 Malibu when it first came out, but it just seemed to get really old, really fast.
The Malibu looks as though GM benchmarked the previous generation Camry and Accord during the development process. Once the "newness" of the Malibu wore off, we stopped comparing it to the old Malibu and judged it against the competition. It became apparent that, while not a bad car, it was still a step or two behind the class leaders.
As for the Saturn Aura - I've seen a few at the dealers. It's definitely a step above the Malibu in fit-and-finish and styling.
Problem with the " American Revolution " is that most of the new cars are from or inspired by Euro designs, or Aussie born cars.
How long has that Revolution been going on? Haven't they had that ad campaign for a few years now?
Are the new trucks and SUVs the Revolution? Are the retirement cuts and buyouts the Revolution? Is the Malibu the Revolution? Maybe its the outsourcing of manufacturing - now THAT might be the American Revolution they're talking about! I can't seem to find the Revolution....perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place! :P
Not sure how many layers of managers have their rides. I thought GM is / has been laying off white collars left and right, with no buy-out offers. Even Wagoner's pay is very very low considering the number of employees and the amount of revenue he oversees (and his talent, IMHO). . . and had to take half-pay on top of that.
Not left and right but mostly thru attrition. However in the last 2 years they have bought out a number of salaried. (I am one) The first two years were completely voluntary and came with pay for a certain amount of time but w/o benefits. I got 2 years/ half pay. Those two years did go toward my pension also. This year however they forced out a number and they got better than me with benefits and pay. More is to come. GM is doing the best they can to downsize and also not let their ex employees starve.
A very heavy voice says things like "Best Coverage", "100,000 mile warranty". You also see a big "100,000 mile" pop up on your TV screen. And, then some fine prints at the bottom of the screen that say "5 year" and "Powertrain". This ad is not about re-styled cars, it's about re-styled deception. Is this GM's long road to redemption? No wonder that the road is long.
What's your beef with the Galant? It always looked like a Pontiac interpretation of an Altima but it didn't strike me as a bad car and there are some seriously good deals on it. I'd take it over a Bu.
I dunno, I think I've just always been leery of Mitsubishi in general. The styling of the Galant does turn me off though. I can't remember now what they were like inside. I know they're supposed to be pretty gutsy with their new 3.8 V-6. I liked the style of the previous Galant, but I thought it was a horrible car to sit in. Back in 2001 I went on a business trip with some co-workers. I got an '01 Malibu. One of my co-workers got a Galant. I was a bit jealous at first, because the Galant was a cooler looking car. Inside was horrible though. It had some nicer materials than the Malibu, as in more cloth covering the inside, but it still just had a cheap feel to it. And it was cramped. The only way I could fit in the back seat was to sit in the middle and spread my legs to an angle that's simply not natural for a man.
With the current Malibu, I do think it's fairly comfortable, but I don't like the feeling of its numb electric steering. And I don't like the style, although the '06 model is an improvement. Style-wise, I actually preferred the '97-03. It wasn't exciting, but I didn't think it was ugly either. Just kind of wallflowerish, I guess.
As for the timeframe when the '04 Malibu came out, I wouldn't exactly call a Camry or Accord exciting. I didn't like the styling of either one when they first came out, but they came to grow on me a bit, wheras with the Malibu it was more like it wore on me. However, I think an Altima has a bit of excitement in it, as does the Mazda6. And I do like the looks of the Stratus/Sebring sedans, mainly because they have a longer, lower, sleeker look, compared to the upright, stubby look of most midsized cars today. They just don't have the interior or engine to back up their good looks.
I believe Chevrolet's "revolution" started with the 2004 Super Bowl. It was used for all models except the Silverado, which kept "like a rock" for a while longer.
IIRC, there was a Dodge "rebellion" back in 1984. Does "join the Dodge rebellion" ring any bells? Do you think an Aries would have qualified as "rebellious," even in the context of that automotive era?
I do remember either Dodge or Chrysler Corp in general doing something in the 80's, though. When the Lancer/LeBaron GTS came out, they were targeting the European imports with it, and using the old song "Over Theeeeere....Over Theeeere..." And they were going to keep fighting "Until it's over over there!"
Although for some reason I'm picturing an ad campaign that had something about a revolution in it for the 80's FWD Daytona.
I stand corrected. So it was "rebellion" in the 60s, but I think you're right also about "revolution" for the Daytona and other Dodges in about 1984. Makes sense as the Daytona came out as an '84, correct?
If the ad provides all the details, then it is not deception.
Technically true, but still misleading IMO if "100,000 miles" is in big bold print, but "5 years" and "powertrain" is almost a footnote. (Just look at the ad immediately to your left.)
BTW, Hyundai has gotten away with TV commercials touting the 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty, without mentioning "powertrain" even in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. These were Hyundai Motor ads, not dealer ads. I always wondered how they got away with this.
And can you specifically show where Toyota calls itself green?
TOKYO — Toyota is aiming to sell 9.8 million vehicles globally in 2008, the company's president said Wednesday, as the Japanese auto maker quickens the pace to overtake General Motors as the world's biggest auto seller.
And can you specifically show where Toyota calls itself green?
I read the Economist Magazine, Bike, and Outside. In all three Toyota has been regularly running two full page ads touting themselves as a Green Company.
If you like, tonight when I go home I can give you issue and page number.
I've written to Outside that allowing any auto ads is consistent with their editorial position. They told me that they do not review the ads that way. At least the other Outside advertisers: Honda, Nissan, GM and Jeep stick to saying what good off road and travel vehicles they make. Toyota brags that it is saving the environment. That is bunk.
Toyota ads bragging about high fuel economy, and hyping up the hybrids and such. But to be fair, just about everybody out there will air ads bragging about fuel economy whenever gasoline prices are high.
Other than a couple computer glitches, the author is pretty impressed. This is not the same vehicle as the fuel cell Equinox. I believe this is the vehicle which will have a fuel cell for power and four electric engines attached to each wheel.
nb: When I was reading the article, I noticed a picture on CNN showing the Thai military crack down. Right next to one of the tanks was a Thai (does Isuzu make it?) version of the Canyon/Colorado. No commentary. Just thought it interesting.
Toyota ads bragging about high fuel economy, and hyping up the hybrids and such. But to be fair, just about everybody out there will air ads bragging about fuel economy whenever gasoline prices are high.
The ads I reference go well beyond fuel economy bragging to talk up Toyota's manufacturing to grave commitment to Green. All a bunch of hooey. But there it is.
I think that the general makes fairly solid engines and trannies. The issue isn't the engine conking out at 70k anymore but rather the rest of the car falling apart and nickel and diming you to death while the engine keeps running.
With my parents' 2 GM cars, they've both had premature issues that are not acceptable but would not be covered under the powertrain warranty. The warranty move without a serious extension of the bumper to bumper doesn't impress me too much.
Right next to one of the tanks was a Thai (does Isuzu make it?) version of the Canyon/Colorado.
Isuzu D-Max, made in Thailand along with the Ford Ranger that the rest of the world gets, Toyota Hi-Lux, and all the other compact pickups that aren't sold here anymore, with common-rail direct-injection turbodiesels all around.
The engines are the biggest potential expense if something goes horribly wrong. A reliable engine and a cheap to fix transmission are keys to gaining trust. It's what set Japan apart from the competition in the 80s. Mitsubishi, Toyota, and Honda powered engines that ran like a sewing machine - and lasted forever.
$3000-$3500 is the typical repair bill for a new Camry/Lexus 5-speed automatic.
$1200-$1800 is the typical bill for a GM 4 speed. $800 in parts if you install it yourself, btw.
One is hard but manageable. The other completely wrecks your household budget for months. It's just an apalling amount of money to spend on a single repair.
People can and do live with flaky switches, radios that don't work right(or just replace with a $150 aftermarket one), and so on, but when the engine blows up or it turns into a rock because the transmission fried and you can't afford the repairs, that you remember.
with common-rail direct-injection turbodiesels all around.
The perfect engine for small (and full size) pick ups. (and the Jeep Wrangler for that matter.
We need to get our regulatory frame work sorted out.
GM has nice diesels in cars in Europe but has to use a gas engine that gets 1/3rd of the mpgs in a pick up in the US. Daimler had to drop its diesel in the Jeep Liberty too.
A big 'what are they thinking?' to the regulators.
Comments
Numbers are very real. In fact they are too good for GM. They have more cutting to do and profits make it hard. GM would be a lot worse off today (maybe even going bankrupt) if last year was a break even year. They could never have gotten rid of underutilized plants and people (salary and union). They could never have gotten some kind of health care relief. Too see how bad it is look at Chrylser. Because they are not losing gobs of money the union will not give them the same concessions as GM/Ford. It will happen but only until losses occur (maybe after this quarters results). Then again maybe they are so pissed at being owned by the germans they may let the germans figure out some other way of making money. Heck the union could buy back Chrylser and run it themselves and prove everyone wrong about "management".
I am not saying that the work force was the only problem. It was only part of it. As the video showed GM has made many other changes to become profitable and their product line up is so much better than it was 2 years ago.
I do not need the hype to know what is going on. I do not believe most of what the media and "experts" say because they are wrong and only making remarks based on what other "experts" said.
Offered buyouts to thousands of overpaid workers and replaced them with new and lower cost workers
GM has not "replaced" any workers. Yes there are a few temps while they move around the workers but there are not thousands. There are plenty of folks in job banks waiting to be moved. And this is only temporary. Soon enough the plants will have been consolidated and they will be back to an older work force that will be around for awhile. GM does not have a 2 stage work force like Delphi is looking at. They may in the future but not now.
Also GM still has not received any cash from the GMAC deal yet. It is coming.
Fuel prices did not give them any relief in the first two qtrs. They actually were very high, only in the last month has there been relief and 3rd qtr profits will be hardly effected by the low cost of gas now.
Rocky
I will give kudos to GM for FINALLY bringing over their Euro material to replace some of the dumpy NA market-only stuff we've been forced to endure.
It's hard to look worse than Ford, and I think Daimler regrets 1998 more and more with each passing day.
That is a very good idea. Too bad union dues can't be used for corporate purchases
Rocky
4th quarter profits will look great though.
Rocky
Numbers are numbers. After recent corporate history, I am always leery. Books can be cooked in more ways than food. I need more time to believe stories. Come back in a couple years.
Compared to 2 years ago, yeah things look better...no more prehistoric Cadavalier, painfully clunky Impala, overcladded Ponchos, oooold Buicks, etc. For that, I give credit.
I'm not celebrating at all, but am happier than I was a few months ago. GM, has alot of work to get done and it's ashame somebody like myself couldn't be in control of product.
Rocky
Aura looks like a winner. Yeah we needs a civic-rolla.
does anyone actually buy a Malibu? Well the "new" Malibu might just be the new Carolla. I actually like it. :surprise:
The Colbalt is in desperate need of a makeover.
Rocky
I'd love to see the "American Revolution" campaign dropped too, it just annoys me.
I remember being pleasantly surprised by the '04 Malibu when it first came out, but it just seemed to get really old, really fast. I don't think it's a horrible car, but simply an okay car that's not good enough in today's market. If forced to choose, I think the only cars in its class that I'd pick the Malibu over would be the Stratus/Sebring, which are due to be replaced, and the Mitsubishi Galant.
And it's not the pushrod engine that turns me off to the Malibu, it's just the car itself!
I am kinda curious to see the Saturn Aura, though. It looks promising, at least.
I remember when it came out, one of the GM execs was questioned about the bland styling and replied that nobody was doing anything too exciting in the class... REALLY???
What's your beef with the Galant? It always looked like a Pontiac interpretation of an Altima but it didn't strike me as a bad car and there are some seriously good deals on it. I'd take it over a Bu.
If it is true that GM is saved, it was never in trouble.
-Loren
IMO the Galant is kind of awkward, a little thick and heavy handed. The previous version looked better.
I would say that a stumble for Honda may be the cab-forward design of the Civic, though they are selling OK, and the transmission problems of the Camry. It is one of those games which it is up to Honda and Toyota to lose, rather than GM to win. It is possible they could screw up. GM has a shot at making a good solid car line for North America, but I do believe most all of it, other than say the CTS and Solstice/Sky and maybe the Aura, will have to be changed. Real new cars. American cars. It is possible the US built cars which look like the Opel and Holdens will be a success --- but all things are possible. Still think a best bet is make GM American cars again. For the gas saving car lines, they do need some hatches no doubt, and those may indeed be the Opel and Daewoo carry overs.
Saw a Daweo for around $15K+ which is pretty close to what a discounted Sonata would be. Why not go for twice the car and warranty, if you want a Korean make? Now a sub-$14K Cobalt may make more sense.
-Loren
:P
-Loren
-Loren
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060828fa_fact
I had the same reaction, but agree with you that it's gone stale very fast. Guess the public agrees, because sales are off quite a bit year to date. Of course, some sales may have been siphoned off by the Cobalt or Impala, both of which are up.
If forced to choose, I think the only cars in its class that I'd pick the Malibu over would be the Stratus/Sebring, which are due to be replaced, and the Mitsubishi Galant.
I agree also, but maybe not for the same reasons. Before I bought my '04 Camry, I looked at the midsize competition. The ones that stood out as hideous were the Stratus and the Galant, because of their cheap, cheap interiors with hard plastic everywhere. The Galant was the ES model (the sales leader), and the Stratus was an SXT. I suppose it didn't help that both cars I looked at had black interiors. IMO, even the much-maligned Altima interior seemed nicer.
The Malibu looks as though GM benchmarked the previous generation Camry and Accord during the development process. Once the "newness" of the Malibu wore off, we stopped comparing it to the old Malibu and judged it against the competition. It became apparent that, while not a bad car, it was still a step or two behind the class leaders.
As for the Saturn Aura - I've seen a few at the dealers. It's definitely a step above the Malibu in fit-and-finish and styling.
How long has that Revolution been going on? Haven't they had that ad campaign for a few years now?
Are the new trucks and SUVs the Revolution? Are the retirement cuts and buyouts the Revolution? Is the Malibu the Revolution? Maybe its the outsourcing of manufacturing - now THAT might be the American Revolution they're talking about! I can't seem to find the Revolution....perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place! :P
Not left and right but mostly thru attrition. However in the last 2 years they have bought out a number of salaried. (I am one) The first two years were completely voluntary and came with pay for a certain amount of time but w/o benefits. I got 2 years/ half pay. Those two years did go toward my pension also. This year however they forced out a number and they got better than me with benefits and pay. More is to come. GM is doing the best they can to downsize and also not let their ex employees starve.
I dunno, I think I've just always been leery of Mitsubishi in general. The styling of the Galant does turn me off though. I can't remember now what they were like inside. I know they're supposed to be pretty gutsy with their new 3.8 V-6. I liked the style of the previous Galant, but I thought it was a horrible car to sit in. Back in 2001 I went on a business trip with some co-workers. I got an '01 Malibu. One of my co-workers got a Galant. I was a bit jealous at first, because the Galant was a cooler looking car. Inside was horrible though. It had some nicer materials than the Malibu, as in more cloth covering the inside, but it still just had a cheap feel to it. And it was cramped. The only way I could fit in the back seat was to sit in the middle and spread my legs to an angle that's simply not natural for a man.
With the current Malibu, I do think it's fairly comfortable, but I don't like the feeling of its numb electric steering. And I don't like the style, although the '06 model is an improvement. Style-wise, I actually preferred the '97-03. It wasn't exciting, but I didn't think it was ugly either. Just kind of wallflowerish, I guess.
As for the timeframe when the '04 Malibu came out, I wouldn't exactly call a Camry or Accord exciting. I didn't like the styling of either one when they first came out, but they came to grow on me a bit, wheras with the Malibu it was more like it wore on me. However, I think an Altima has a bit of excitement in it, as does the Mazda6. And I do like the looks of the Stratus/Sebring sedans, mainly because they have a longer, lower, sleeker look, compared to the upright, stubby look of most midsized cars today. They just don't have the interior or engine to back up their good looks.
IIRC, there was a Dodge "rebellion" back in 1984. Does "join the Dodge rebellion" ring any bells? Do you think an Aries would have qualified as "rebellious," even in the context of that automotive era?
I do remember either Dodge or Chrysler Corp in general doing something in the 80's, though. When the Lancer/LeBaron GTS came out, they were targeting the European imports with it, and using the old song "Over Theeeeere....Over Theeeere..." And they were going to keep fighting "Until it's over over there!"
Although for some reason I'm picturing an ad campaign that had something about a revolution in it for the 80's FWD Daytona.
On the other hand, Toyota calls itself a Green Company. Right.
Well, my Toyota stock has done pretty well for me. So they're "green" as in providing plenty of it!
Technically true, but still misleading IMO if "100,000 miles" is in big bold print, but "5 years" and "powertrain" is almost a footnote. (Just look at the ad immediately to your left.)
BTW, Hyundai has gotten away with TV commercials touting the 10-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranty, without mentioning "powertrain" even in tiny print at the bottom of the screen. These were Hyundai Motor ads, not dealer ads. I always wondered how they got away with this.
And can you specifically show where Toyota calls itself green?
TOKYO — Toyota is aiming to sell 9.8 million vehicles globally in 2008, the company's president said Wednesday, as the Japanese auto maker quickens the pace to overtake General Motors as the world's biggest auto seller.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I read the Economist Magazine, Bike, and Outside. In all three Toyota has been regularly running two full page ads touting themselves as a Green Company.
If you like, tonight when I go home I can give you issue and page number.
I've written to Outside that allowing any auto ads is consistent with their editorial position. They told me that they do not review the ads that way. At least the other Outside advertisers: Honda, Nissan, GM and Jeep stick to saying what good off road and travel vehicles they make. Toyota brags that it is saving the environment. That is bunk.
Looks like they carried that American Revolution stuff across the whole lineup.
I guess when you figure how far Chrysler bounced back just between 1980 and 1983, maybe it was kind of a revolution for them?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/02/8387510/index.- htm?postversion=2006092005
Other than a couple computer glitches, the author is pretty impressed. This is not the same vehicle as the fuel cell Equinox. I believe this is the vehicle which will have a fuel cell for power and four electric engines attached to each wheel.
nb: When I was reading the article, I noticed a picture on CNN showing the Thai military crack down. Right next to one of the tanks was a Thai (does Isuzu make it?) version of the Canyon/Colorado. No commentary. Just thought it interesting.
The ads I reference go well beyond fuel economy bragging to talk up Toyota's manufacturing to grave commitment to Green. All a bunch of hooey. But there it is.
With my parents' 2 GM cars, they've both had premature issues that are not acceptable but would not be covered under the powertrain warranty. The warranty move without a serious extension of the bumper to bumper doesn't impress me too much.
Isuzu D-Max, made in Thailand along with the Ford Ranger that the rest of the world gets, Toyota Hi-Lux, and all the other compact pickups that aren't sold here anymore, with common-rail direct-injection turbodiesels all around.
$3000-$3500 is the typical repair bill for a new Camry/Lexus 5-speed automatic.
$1200-$1800 is the typical bill for a GM 4 speed. $800 in parts if you install it yourself, btw.
One is hard but manageable. The other completely wrecks your household budget for months. It's just an apalling amount of money to spend on a single repair.
People can and do live with flaky switches, radios that don't work right(or just replace with a $150 aftermarket one), and so on, but when the engine blows up or it turns into a rock because the transmission fried and you can't afford the repairs, that you remember.
The perfect engine for small (and full size) pick ups. (and the Jeep Wrangler for that matter.
We need to get our regulatory frame work sorted out.
GM has nice diesels in cars in Europe but has to use a gas engine that gets 1/3rd of the mpgs in a pick up in the US. Daimler had to drop its diesel in the Jeep Liberty too.
A big 'what are they thinking?' to the regulators.