Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This should be good for a laugh. Didn't California approve each of the cars for sale? or do federal laws supercede?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For the most part nothing goes wrong with the Japan makes all around. The interiors look new at ten years of age. I would prefer a car with a quality interior and exterior. Warranty should 5 year 60K bumper to bumper, and 10 year, 100K for the power train, if GM is going to truly has as good as the best coverage in America.
An expensive transmission fix may be more into the $4K to $6K+ levels. German and Swede cars are pretty costly. I am thinking some Japan luxo cars, like the Lexus and Infinity may into that range. Now that would really hurt. Cheapest to repair, like ya said would be the Chevy and Fords. A fox body Mustang is pretty cheap to repair tranny wise. Varies from car model to model, such as the BMWZ3 and Z4 may be totally different in transmission cost of repairs. Over the years, the Corvette went for not bad to pretty darn expensive for repairs. Ah the beauty of high tech.
...Surely, if you are losing money on every car you sell, as G.M. is, cutting car prices still further in order to boost sales doesn’t make any sense. It’s like the old Borsht-belt joke about the haberdasher who lost money on every hat he made but figured he’d make up the difference on volume. The economically rational thing for G.M. to do would be to restructure, and sell fewer cars at a higher profit margin...
This should settle some of the past arguments about "make it up on volume".
I also assume you meant, I've written to Outside that allowing any auto ads is INconsistent with their editorial position.
The same point is made by Jane Holtz Kay in her 1997 book Asphalt Nation, which I just picked up at a used book store. The book is anathema to car enthusiasts, and I don't necessarily subscribe to her views. More here. Kind of ironic that the two junked cars on the book cover are a Saab and Volvo, and even more ironic is the fact that the Volvo 240 looks like the one I used to have, being a 2-door even (not the same color though).
She states that outdoor/bicycling publications should treat car ads just like cigarette ads, considering all the environmental harm cars do. She also cites a European study showing that car manufacturing alone (before the vehicle is driven even a single mile) contributes something like 35% of each vehicle's individual harm to the environment.
This got me to thinking -- doesn't ALL manufacturing (and all mining, oil drilling, transport, and refining, food processing, and even farming) cause environmental harm to one degree or another?
Yes. Meant to say inconsistent. Sorry for the typo.
This got me to thinking -- doesn't ALL manufacturing (and all mining, oil drilling, transport, and refining, food processing, and even farming) cause environmental harm to one degree or another?
With the possible exception of ocean shipping, I do not think there is any industry as environmental harmful. From the initial manufacturing process, through their actual use autos are unrivaled in environmental stress. Add in the need to make buildings to store autos, highways to drive autos, off road damage to sensitive eco-systems, etc., and you have an unrivaled mess.
Is it any wonder that I am not too keen on GM/Ford products? I know, it could happen to any car (one of my friend's 2001 Mercedes C class needs about $5,000 of assorted repairs now, seems outrageous to me
Loren
Mercury needs to ditch that tribar thing yesterday in favor of something that looks like something.
Speaking of logos, does anyone else get mixed up between the Toyota and Mazda logos? Sometimes I see what looks like a Toyoya grill ornament in my rear view mirror, only to find it is a Mazda when it goes by.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I get them confused often. Since no one else every pointed it out, I just chalked it up to me being a goof. :shades:
To keep it simple and short, you have the fixed costs at a certain amount ($$$), like setup time and the like. So that's going to always be there, unless you gain efficiencies in processing, set-up, fixturingm then your fixed cost can go down, but it will still be there. But your variable comes in with the assembly, the putting together of the components, the parts, materials, any shortages, stops, whatever. But what you and many others fail to realize is that since GM wasn't selling any product at the particular price point for a certain vehicle, they:
were stalled in the market, which cost them money;
have inventory levels through the roof, which cost them money;
lowered the price via incentives, which cost money;
offered 0% interest, which cost money;
damn near gave away the vehicles, which cost money.
You can not make money selling your everyday, bread and butter cars on volume, because you are constantly losing money selling at a lower price. Also, as your example illustrated, your break-even point is now extended. So instead of having a break-even point of say 10K sold, your break even is now 25K, 35K. If you couldn't get rid of the product at the one price/break-even point, then that means you didn't know your market, what they wanted, was willing to pay / accept. Also, it doesn't necessarily mean that by lowering your price point you make up it to the new break even point. That "make it up on volume" game is just that, a game. Unfortunately I've seen this too many times and the end results are always the same - sinking profit & and market share and the requisite "It worked in school and in the screw factory I used to work at".
Socal, if you're out there, here we go again. Rock, go find Socala4.
(Sorry for the sidetrack host)
Maybe it's not the right forum for this, but why do you say Toyota bragging about it's "green-ness" is a bunch of hooey?
I'm not arguing, but I'm curious what facts make you say that. Or what gives you that impression.
am honestly interested, and am not trying to bait you into an argument, I promise
----
Given the amount of natural resources that autos consume, it's hard to argue that any car company is "green"
but assuming cars are a necessary evil (which is true, depending on how you define it - I would argue that we all need a car, but that we don't all need to drive 200 miles/ week, for example), if one car company dumps manufacturing waste in the river and the other doesn't, isn't the other company "greener" than the first? (I'm not saying GM dumps crap in the river. I'm exploring the issue of "green-ness")
>If you don't like the anti-car argument, then focus on >that. Don't try to lead us down some BS rathole. You are >wasting our time with that garbage.
The discussion topic is supposed to be Styling Saving GM. Instead of trying to bully me into accepting your argument with phrases like
>then focus on that. Don't try to lead us down some BS rathole.
to make the topic something different, let's go back to Styling. Start with Lucerne.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Now back slightly off topic: why do you say Toyota bragging about it's "green-ness" is a bunch of hooey?
Let me give a shot at what's likely to come. Toyota makes a big deal (and rightly so IMO about its hybrid technology). But at the same time, they sell a lot of large SUVs and pickups in the US, including the 4Runner, Sequoia, Land Cruiser, Tundra, and Lexus GX 470. Gas savers on the one hand vs. gas guzzlers on the other.
Of course, it's not all that different from the Chevy ad line "9 out 10 cars we make get 30 mpg or more on the highway." Never mind the city mpg, and never mind the tons of Silverados, Tahoes, and Suburbans we also sell.
It is possible, as in all things possible, that GM has the better cars than Hyundai, but warranty? It is spelled out in black and white, the warranty is longer with Hyundai. Love 'em or leave'em.... maybe ignore them, the Korean cars have the warranty. Appears to be an all new car, coming out of an all new plant to. What a revolution. Brand new Sonatas and Azeras. For Hyundai bragging rights, I would say they could boast of warranty and new product. New engines, new assembly lines, and hopefully no new problems.
-Loren
So anyway...here's a good styling issue. Will GM shorten its design cycles a bit now? For some time they've been up there with Mercedes in letting their designs run a very long time before replacement. Sadly for GM, they don't have a knack for clean timeless designs like Mercedes and often the mediocrity or even pure dreck withers on the vine for far too long. Will GMs new future include quicker reskins?
Ok, so GM's warranty is fully transferable, but the point is the b-to-b is still only 3/36 on the bread-and-butter makes.
Maybe because they know that no one will keep their car for more than 5 years, or at least very few will.
Maybe the rest of the car will fall apart before 5 years so no one will make claims on the drive train.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I get them confused often. Since no one else every pointed it out, I just chalked it up to me being a goof.
Thank goodness, I'm not the only one.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I have seen a few Eclipse and Evo's. Not many Mitsu. car sightings though. Must be selling in low numbers in CA.
-Loren
First, I think a car company making the claim stretches the concept of green.
Second, green is a lot more than your product. Toyota has some high mileage cars - and some humongo trucks and sedans and off roaders (off roaders are the ultimate anti-green. Not only do they pollute, but they are used by nuts to tear up ultra-sensitive terrain such as the desert and prairie).
Toyota has some efficient factories. But it is in no way the leader. In fact, GM even with its pile of outmoded facilities to slowly close has one factory that gets its fuel from methane released from a land fill and several others - Lansing, Lordstown and the one in Ontario that were cited for LEED efficiency. Honda, Daimler and VW also have some well regarded facilities. In sum, there is nothing special about Toyota's factories.
Third, Toyota ships a lot of product to a lot of place. Ocean freight is the a number one bogey in the pollution world. One ship emits carbon equal to thousands of cars. Freighters constantly dump fuel, effulent and other trash in the ocean. And, perhaps worse of all, they carry critters from places where they belong to places where they do not. Exotic species completly unbalance eco-systems all over the world.
Exotic species do not just hurt nature. In Chicago, zebra mussels (from Russia, I believe) clog water intakes and costs millions to eliminate. Here in New York, trees are being cut down because of some insect that made its way over here.
Toyota has to overlook a lot of stuff to claim it is green. I don't think that is right.
I don't think much of those ads either. Nevertheless, GM does not place two page ads in enviromentally oriented magazines saying what a friend of the earth they are.
In fact, GM's Outside ads play up that their trucks are good for going to remote places -- even though driving off road is something Outside chastises from time to time.
People want cars, greatly styled if they can get them.
Maybe you should have said "we also offer" for the free public to choose.
2. a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work: "GM Styling"
3. to design or arrange in accordance with a given or new style: "GM Styling"
4. to bring into conformity with a specific style or give a specific style to: "GM Styling"
Several off-topic posts have been removed from this discussion. Posts involving any of the aforementioned definitions of "styling" that are specifically related to GM are, as always, welcomed and encouraged. Any future posts not relevant to the subject of this discussion will be removed without notice.
Please stay on topic folks, for the benefit of all Edmunds forum members and thanks to those of you who have maintained your focus on the topic at hand. We appreciate your cooperation in helping to maintain these forums as a useful resource for everyone!
Eltonron
Host- Automotive News & Views
Oh, c'mon eltonron. We answered this BASIC question about 6 months ago.
Topic Question: Will Styling Save GM?
Topic Answer: Styling, and styling alone, will NOT save GM. GM must address (and IS addressing) a number of other issues to be saved.
If you insist that we stick to a discussion that narrow, this silly thead could have ended about 10,000 posts ago.
You want us to stick to the straight and narrow about STYLING? What about the equally important aspect of the initial question: "SAVE". Just restricting all posts to "GM Styling" is (IMO) shortsighted. Equally pertinent (or perhaps even MORE pertinent) would be discussions of ALL THE OTHER items related to the "SAVING" of GM.
In other words, as long as what is being discussed concerns what is wrong (and right) about GM, and how that issue is being addressed (or preserved) should be considered on-topic material. After all, the main thrust of the original question was (IMO) "what can save GM".
-Loren
P.S. GM needs to fix the flying car problem. I see the phenomena occurring in their ads. I for one, like to keep my cars in contact with the ground. Maybe it is covered in the 5 year warranty :P
radio or sound system is 3 years/36000
paint is 3 years/36000
battery 3 years
A/C is 1 year
belts, brakes ... 1 year/12000
Perhaps as metallurgy improves along with better supplemental protection devices, auto makers will go back to the lower sill look. Until then, no one is going to risk low side impact ratings.
-Loren
Maybe high sills have something to do with side impact crash protection. If not, would also like to see a return to lower sills, low cowl, large windows all around and great visibility. One car that GM might want to study/copy that had these attributes in spades is the 91-93 Accord. That car had elegant styling. Clean, simple, functional. It will be a classic or special-interest years from now.
If the car has a decent arm rest, then the too tall doors are a little less of an issue though I may never get use to driving a bathtub.
-Loren
I think it's completely a styling trend kicked off by the Chrysler 300.
I'm not sure exactly when the trend toward higher window sills started, but I'd say probably around 1997. I think that year stricter side impact protection regulations went into place. That year's Century/Regal/Grand Prix had higher sills than the older W- and A-bodies they replaced. GM might have seen this trend coming as early as 1995, as the Lumina was restyled that year and was a bit higher in the sill line. And then the 2000 Impala was higher still. The '97 Malibu also had a higher sill than the Corsica it replaced.
I agree, that model Accord was an excellent designed car, and I prefer it to the newer model.
Big windows, low window sills, you can see all the fenders while driving.
Since there are many 5 star rated vehicles with large windows, I don't think manufacturers need lots of steel and tiny windows to meet safety tests.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Recently, the 2005 Volkswagen Jetta earned good ratings in both frontal offset and side impact crash tests conducted by the IIHS. The Jetta is the first vehicle to earn the top rating of good in every individual measurement category (injury measures, head protection and structural design) of the Institute's side-impact test.
This car was designated a 'best pick' for side crash protection, and also is a good performer for frontal crash protection, IIHS reports.
"The new Jetta was the first vehicle to ace our side impact test," says Institute president Brian O'Neill. "It's the best performer among midsize inexpensive cars. Its structural performance was better than the second- and third-best models, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. This new Jetta design shows what manufacturers can do to improve occupant protection in serious side impacts when cars are hit by taller and heavier SUVs and pickup trucks."
Mercedes C Class, BMW 3 Series, Accord, Camry are examples of cars with good sized windows and that also get pretty good crash test ratings. By the way, to GM's credit, Cobalt rates high for a smaller car...glad to see GM considers this important.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
10 years 100K is light years beyond 5 years 100K. GM is saying our cars don't last even if you baby them and only drive them 10K miles per year.
The more rational response to Hyundai's warranties - and the reason GM stayed away from extending theirs - is that Hyundai is telling the market it makes junk, but don't worry, we will fix it.
Apparently you believe in and play that game, more power to you. And I bet you sit around and wonder at the end of the day where your profits are, why you still have losses despite the fact you made more product to "make it up on volume". Too bad all that product you made didn't sell or you had to sell it at an incredibly low price.
To stay on topic, GM doesn't have any bread & butter styling leaders to help bring people into their dealerships. So in order to sell the vehicles they have to offer incentives, 0% financing, employee pricing, whatever to move the product. So to keep it simple for you, they are selling the vehicles for less money. With me so far? So if they are selling the vehicles for less money, how are they making it up on volume? Knowing you, you'll make the statement "Well, GM wasn't selling them so by lowering the price, they were able to sell the cars. Hence, they were making money." The only problem with that is they are NOT making the profit they should/could be making, nor hitting the original break even point, and chancing they'll never hit that break even point. Understand genius? You should have learned that obtaining your master's in engineering.
So the question becomes: Why not style/make something the market wants and sell the product at a good price to hit your profit points in the first place?
This is the catch-all forum about GM's troubles. The title ought to be changed to "What will it take to save GM?"
Then we can continue to discuss warranties, managerial savvy, relations with the UAW, build quality, reliability, pricing, AND styling.
-Loren