General Motors discussions

sls002

As someone pointed out somewhere back a few posts ago, the W-body is now an old design. I think that the current models are the last production models for that platform. I also think that the G-bodies (DTS & Lucerne) are probably the last for that platform. So, probably GM will have significantly better (or maybe not) replacements sometime in the future. Current buyers are stuck with whats available. I suspect that GM will have a nicer selection of vehicles in about 5 years.

andre1969

I was looking at new cars, and wanted to check out a Fusion. The salesman saw me pull up in my Intrepid though, so I'm guessing he really thought I needed a 500, and tried to push it too hard. I ended up telling him that I just don't like it...to me it's like a VW Passat for old people! :P

That being said, it does look like the 500 is very well built, and the interior is nicely appointed. Even if it does have cheap hard plastic in it, they're getting much better with regards to coloring and texture, so it looks nicer at least. And the car isn't ugly, not by a long shot. But to me it's just too much of a wallflower, I guess.

I think the 3.0 is okay as a base engine in the 500. After all, Chrysler's only putting 2.7's in the 300 and Chevy's putting 3.5's in the Impala, so as a base engine it's adequate. But it definitely needs a better optional engine.

xrunner2

I just shake my head in amazement that someone at Ford actually thought that using this engine as the only option was a good idea. Sure the new six speed and CVT help performance, but it can't hide how unrefined this engine is.

Don't know how wiling that Honda, Toyota or Nissan might be. But, Ford should try to get some amount of engines from them. They should ask for 5-10 year old designs, because Honda/Toyota/Nissan would want to keep their competitive advantage in current engine design. It would be a win/win for Ford and Honda/Toyota/Nissan. Ford would get good engines, Honda/Toyota/Nissan would make extra profit and help to keep a competitor healthy.

timothyaw

I have a very hard time understanding why GM and most but not all domestic manufacturers not have remote fuel door openers on their cars? It's such a simple thing. Almost ALL foreign cars have them, even the cheap models. The domestic cars either have the "lip" where you pull it open which look ugly or the indention where you slide your finger in there to open it. The foreign cars have that the remote fuel door openers have a "clean" look to them. No interruption in the sheetmetal. Just another example of how the big 3 cheap out on their cars.

imidazol97

I don't see the value of the remote opener, especially if it breaks, sticks, doesn't work one day.

andre1969

I'm guessing it's just a cost-cutting move? FWIW, I had a 1988 LeBaron turbo coupe that had a remote fuel filler door, so the domestics did have them at one time. I'm so used to cars NOT having them, that I see it as a non-issue.

If you want a truly clean look, the way GM used to do it (some Chryslers and perhaps Fords did, too), was really cool, the way they'd put the fuel filler under the license plate. Of course, nowadays most cars have the gas tank mounted under the back seat, ahead of the rear axle, so that's just not feasible anymore. Plus, the whole trunk area of most modern cars has been softened these days to become a crumple zone, and most cars don't have much rear overhang these days anyway, so it's probably not too safe to have a gas tank out behind the rear axle anymore.

lemko

My 2002 Cadillac Seville STS and even my 1988 Buick Park Avenue have the remote fuel door openers. Heck, the Park Ave has quite an elaborate manual overide in the trunk if the remote opener button, (located in the glovebox) fails. Shoot, most cars today have only a flimsy cable as a manual overide.

andre1969

it's just the cheaper cars that don't have the remote filler. For instance, my Intrepid doesn't. Now that I think about it, I don't know if my uncle's '03 Corolla does, as I've never had to put gas in it.

lweiss

I had a 1994 Ford Taurus that had a remote filler gauge that broke (must have been just a cable pull) at about 9 years old- was going to cost $200 to fix it- so I bought a $1 small screwdriver and kept it in the trunk every time we needed gas- worked perfectly!!! But other than that, I kept the Taurus for about 118K miles- a good runner, and it was hit numerous times (my 3 teenage kids learned to drive on it)- and it held up LOTS better than some of the little VW's and small Asian cars that hit it! (Something to be learned here?0

martian

The VEGA-brightest star in the GM universe? Actually the Vega was a sad story for all involved-it was the late Ed Cole's brainchild..of how to build a small car with minimal labor. firts, the engine: it was a cast aluminum block, designed to work without steel cylinder liners. The idea was a good one, but the execution failed. It was a n aluminum-silicon alloy-after boring the cylinders, the walls were given an acid etch-this expose the silicon particles, which the iron-plated aluminum cylinders rode on. Unfortunately, the head was cast iron-and the mismatch meant that the gaskets woulf frequently blow. Also, if the wrong coolant was added, the aluminum block would corrode, and sludge would block the radiator, resulting in a warped head and blown engine. The body was designed to be assembled with minimum labor-and a new bplant was built (Lordstown OH). Unfortunately, they forgot to train the workers, who frequently forgot to attach seats, trim, steering wheels, etc. The net result was a car that was unreliable and cost GM millions in recalls. I have a feeling that with a bit more work, the engine's problems could have been overcome-but the japanese managed to make quiet, high revvving, reliable 4 cylinder engines in cast iron-why didn't GM just COPY the damn things?

lemko

...became the model of how NOT to build a car. That, plus there was plenty of animosity between labor and management after the bitter 1970 strike. You might as well have had the Hatfields and McCoys working in the same plant alongside each other.

imidazol97

I think they built a high security prison in Lordstown instead.

chuck1959

Almost ALL foreign cars have them, even the cheap models.

Really even my 2004 Kia Rio Cinco has one!

chicagodrive1

You don't even need a remote opener. Mercedes doesn't have a "lip", you just push one end and the door pops out. The look is clean. GM must have a warehouse full of these parts and won't do anything until they'll used each one. Plus, bean counter mentality is: if it aint broke don't fix it. Sugar and siphoning must no longer an issue.

Remember those awful turn signal stalks from the 80-90s? I think the last one went into some '98 Astro van.

Another common design feature of GM cars is the bright silver trunk key hole...planted right where the brand badge should be. It's a little thing, but cheapens the image.

imidazol97

Some of the criticisms seem rather unimportant to me. A keyhole for the trunk is for a key to enter. If it's not behind a badge?... so what difference does it make. A few cars have eliminated the key in the trunk, haven't they. Is that what you want?

We don't have sugar in gas tanks in our area. Where do you live?

Siphoning doesn't occur in our garage and I haven't seen a report of siphoning gasoline in decades in this area.

Turn signal stalks... multifunction? Cars have them and they serve as turn signal switches, windshield wiper switches, cruise control switches. They are utilitarian and they are appliances. Cars should have them.

62vetteefp

Siphoning doesn't occur in our garage and I haven't seen a report of siphoning gasoline in decades in this area.

Siphoning not possible anymore. There is a ball in the pipe that a hose cannot get by.

habitat1

Richard Moore, Treasure of North Carolina, was interviewed this morning at 6:45 a.m. on CNBC. Moore is generally respected as one of the best state Treasurer's in the country. North Carolina's treasury happens to have 10+ million shares of GM, or about $220 million worth of stock.

Mr. Moore is a also a life long Democrat and strong supporter of rank and file workers. Here is how he summed up his assessment and advice:

1. "Number one problem - GM makes BAD products." He repeated this often, without any political restraint. And it's not "styling" alone. It's a fundamentally inferior product, given the dynamic marketplace and competition. "In the last 20 years, Honda and Toyota have moved ahead at full speed, GM has loafed, at best, along in terms of engineering and product quality. I ask my friends and staff if they would consider buying a GM product and get almost no affirmative responses."

2. Current financial situation was fully predictable. Health care costs are not a sudden surprise. Nor are pension costs. "What planet has Rick Waggoner been living on, if he is surprised by the current financial crisis"? GM managemetn had years of surpluses to prepare for this event and they blew it.

3. UAW shares a lot of blame. When GM made a few billion in profit a few years back, everyone wanted their piece. UAW workers were already among the very highest paid semi-skilled and unskilled jobs in the US. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.

4. Draconian measures ARE needed to fix GM and they are needed now. Design and engineer good products. Cut the workforce dramatically and increase efficiency. Accept reduced market share as a fact of life. Cut the dividend (this from a 10 million share shareholder). Fire Waggoner - he had his chance and this is not a position where trial and error (along with apparant blindness) is permitted.

I am not sure my outlook on GM is any more optimistic after watching Mr. Moore's interview. But I am a bit more optimistic that a Democrat, put in the position of a shareholder, can put aside traditional party alliances and be a tough critic of GM's sloppiness and greediness, up and down the ranks.

reddogs

Just when it seemed things couldn't get worse for General Motors Corp., they did, as the embattled automaker said Thursday it lost a total of $4.8 billion in just the last three months of 2005. Ford and GM have said they would close plants and cut tens of thousands of jobs.
Competition, particularly from companies based in Asia, soaring health care and pension expenses and production costs have increased financial pressures on the unionized companies. How do they get out of this hole they have dug for themselves and get their market share back.

Well, yesterday President Bush comes in and said General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. should develop more appealing products using technology rather than look to Washington for help with their heavy pension burdens. The president hinted that he would take a dim view of a government bailout of the top two U.S. automakers even though they had not asked for it so far. As far as any pre-emptive action, Bush said, "I think it's very important for the market to function." which dint leave any doubt he was against it, or felt they need to work it out themselves as he felt optimistic about the companies' long term prospects.

Both GM and Ford have dropped hints they would welcome government help in areas such as coping with rising health care and pensions which is having a detrimental affect on their bottom line. The President however, suggested that one way automakers could make more appealing products was to promote cars using alternative fuels.The President said that U.S. automakers could find new market share in the competition to sell vehicles that run on alternative fuels. As these automobile manufacturers compete for market share they should use technology and alternative fuels to make the cars mores appealing for consumers looking for fuel effeciency, and they also will be helping America become less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

Can GM and Ford save their plummeting market share and come up with cars specifically built
to run on alternative fuels, and with a price and design that makes it appealing to the American consumer?Is it worth the investment in R & D and what type of alternative fuels would be the best bet to get buyers into the showroom, I think that is the most important question of all. Is it doable?

xrunner2

Fire Waggoner - he had his chance and this is not a position where trial and error (along with apparant blindness) is permitted.

I am not sure my outlook on GM is any more optimistic after watching Mr. Moore's interview.

GM Board should spend whatever it takes and get the Nissan/Renault CEO. Also, wonder if Roger Penske could be tempted with job.

sls002

I don't think that GM makes "bad" products. I think that the competition makes better products for the same price. Basically GM products are priced too high for what one gets. For example, the Buicks that compete with the top of the line Camry or Avalon do not have interiors that compare. Buick's automatic transmissions are still 4 speed units while Toyota is using 5 speed units. Once GM moves to the 6 speed transmission, Toyota will be behind, but GM won't move quickly and Toyota will probably match them.

martian

.the GM top management is totally clueless. how did it get this way? For starters, all of the top management have not been car men-they are generally drawn from the ranks of corporate accounting, etc. There hasn't beena car guy at the helm since the days of ed Cole. So these guys take their chauffered limousines to work every day, in the GM building and are oblivious to the deacy. And why shouldn't they be? They have a board of directors who keep approving their massive salaries and bonus package-life is good for those on the 10th floor of the GM building. Only thing is..investors like Kirk kirkorian are starting to demand performance-gee, is that so bad?
If GM continues on with the same upper management, they will be in Chapter 11 within 2 years. Wjhat GM needs is for savvy investors like Kirkorian to appoint a totally new team from outside to repair this wreck. GM is too big and too important to let those idiots sink it!

imidazol97

It's always nice when a politician has a microphone and can explain how things should have been done. Remember the "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

Why didn't this guy get on the GM board 10 years ago and turn them onto the right path?

He wouldn't be planning to run for a higher office, would he?

dieselone

Once GM moves to the 6 speed transmission, Toyota will be behind, but GM won't move quickly and Toyota will probably match them.

Your not kidding. I've read about the '07 Camry and styling aside it looks like another winner. It will be on sale around March. When is GM going to have their 6speed transaxle ready? I doubt by March and who knows when the Impala will actually receive it.

A 268hp/246ft-lbs v6 rated at 22/31 mpg shames the 240hp/242ft-lbs 3.9 19/27 mpg rating in the Impala and also will be offered with a 6speed auto.

A Hybrid model will also be offered along with a 4cyl. model with a 5speed trans.

While the Impala redesign is a huge improvement over the old model, it looks like they will be trumped once again. The Impala may certainly keep the GM faithfull happy, but I don't see how it will lure Camry buyers w/o much lower prices that GM can't afford.

sls002

The FWD six speed automatic is going to appear initially on the 2007 Saturn Aura. I think that the six speed will slowly appear on other GM FWD models after that. As far as the Impala goes, I think that GM may be seriously considering a move to RWD, I don't know. I think the pushrod 3.9 is a decent engine, but the DOHC 3.6 is not outstanding for horsepower. I think that some additional tuning could make a difference.

I do think that GM needs to redo the midsize and full (large) size lineup. Making them RWD would move them into a different market than the Toyota's.

PF_Flyer

I've edited the title of this one to make it a bit more concise and keep it to a single line.

Carry on!

mirth

Let's take a look:

Deisal: Pros: mature tech, many gas stations have it, can be developed profitably. Cons: more expensive than gas, most of it is derived from petroleum vs. bio (so still dependant on foreign oil), more emissions (although improving quickly).

Natural gas: Honda has a natural gas car and provides owners with a fueling device to hook up at their house. Pros: Cheaper than gas, no more visits to the station. Cons: Company likely losing money on it (likely will improve over time), natural gas still coming from foreign oil, new tech maintenance/reliability issues.

E85: Pros: mostly not made from oil, cheaper than gas because of gov't subsidies. Cons: Almost no stations carry it outside of Minnesota.

Hybrids: Pros: use less gas, fewer emissions. Cons: more expensive to buy, companies make very little or no money on them (likely will improve over time), new tech maintenance/reliability issues, still dependent on foreign oil.

Hydrogen: Pros: no gas used, no emissions. Cons: very few consumers have $1 million available to buy one - still 10-20 years away from real usage.

IMHO, I think the best bets right now are biodeisal and E85 if we really want to reduce our foreign oil dependency, with hybrids as a more realistic backup until we can develop a better infrastructure for delivering biodeisal and E85.

plekto

GMs days are numbered. The data all suggests that they will not innovate. They will not massively restructure. They will not do what is necessarry.

They will die unless a real miracle happens.

My first change I would make in any business if I was a CEO - would be to put out a notice that we are no longer accepting ANY hires if they have a MBA of any kind. Every business that I've seen that hires its middle management based upon MBAs instead of promoting people from below eventually stagnates and falls apart. That they have to teach ethics classes to these near wastes of office space is enough to make anyone worry.

Anyone can learn how to be a manager if they know the product and are able to think. GM needs to fire 50% of its management, including the entire board of directors and CEO and replace most of them with people with engineering degrees. People who can actually think their way out of a problem.

It works this way for many aerospace firms and last I checked, while they have their share of simmilar problems, so far, none has been unable to react to major difficulties.

GM? I don't see how they can survive. There's just no will to gut and rebuild as long as they keep getting paid to do nothing to dit in meetings.

martian

..the GM management is TOO inbred! These are people who have spent 25-30 years at GM, and don't KNOW or CARE how it is done outside GM. For example: GM has a pricing problem (ca 1980) so they decide to build totally automatic factories (replace the workers). Only the robots didn't work, cost a fortune to maintain, were not productive. did GM do a self-evaluation and figure what went wrong 9and how to fix it)? No-they just cheapened the product to pay for the mistakes. Comes 1995 or so-GM makes HUGE profits from SUVs (Cheap to make, just cheap bodies mounted on old truch chassis). Does GM plow profits back into their car lines? Nope-its paid out in bonuses. Now (2004) gasoline hits $3.80/gallon-SUV market dries up-what does GM do? Launches new line of gas hogging SUVs! Including most wasteful vehicle on the planent (Hummer line).
So sorry, even an MBA from Podunk U. isn't quite that stupid!!

62vetteefp

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-01-26-lucerne_x.htm

imidazol97

Very fairly done article. He addresses the prejudices and institutionlized biases:
"To properly regard Lucerne, we need to address three prejudices.

• Detroit models have inferior quality.

Get over that one, folks, especially in this case. Buick outscores Toyota, Honda and some other highly regarded brands in J.D. Power and Associates' surveys.

Power's 2005 tally of things gone wrong the first 90 days of ownership showed the Buick brand was fourth, behind Lexus, Jaguar and BMW and ahead of Cadillac, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota.

Buick also places fourth in Power's 2005 study of problems with 3-year-old vehicles behind Lexus, Porsche and Lincoln.

• Toyota can do no wrong.

Get over that one, too. The 2005 Avalon was recalled last year, its first on the market, because somebody forgot to weld the steering mechanism together on some cars, meaning the driver might not be able to steer, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The auto industry, in its frenzy of cost-cutting that's become corner-cutting, has sunk back into the first-year bugs of the old days, so Lucerne could have some teething problems, too. So far, though, NHTSA files show no complaints, investigations or recalls involving Lucerne, on sale since October.

• Buicks are fogey cars.

Man, are you out of touch. No, Buick's not a young, hip brand like Scion. But it has a high-performance heritage that is decades old and is being renewed in Lucerne. There's even a sports Lucerne model, CXS, that has bigger wheels, tires and brakes than the others and a firmer suspension for more agile handling."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

lweiss

I attended the Washington, DC Auto Show this past week- worth the admission price just to see all the cars in one place without a sales guy following you around. And the Washington area is maybe not your normal market (GM has less than 15% market share here, Ford also lower), but all of the action (yet again) seemed to be in the Asian manufacturers- and the new Hyundai Azura (or something, it is a step up from the Sonata) drew big crowds, but not as big as the new Toyota Camry and and Lexus/Acura areas- and Volvo is very big in this part of the country also). The GM area was sad in a way, not much interest except in their crossovers like the Torrent. The same can be said for Ford, but Chrysler's 300 is a big exception- very popular around here. And what's with those portholes on the Buick Lucerne?

lemko

...on the Lucerne! I wish they'd bring back the bold chrome sweepspear to go with them! Heck, I feel like buying some portholes for the old Park Ave! I've seen aftermarket ones on other cars!

habitat1

Seems like we've got some very articulate GM promoters at USA today trying to use thier writing skills to increase market share for GM.

They need to "get over" the fact that the consumer has spoken with their pocketbooks. And this isn't a conspiracy of "prejudices and institutional biases". I don't march with 2,000 of my closest friends past the Buick dealer in unison and into the Porsche, Lexus, Toyota and Honda dealerships. We all get there on our own. No conspiracy or institutional bias. Just a discerning eye that can distiguish between real quality and GM's wishful thinking.

62vetteefp

Seems like we've got some very articulate GM promoters at USA today trying to use thier writing skills to increase market share for GM.

Healey is a well respected automotive journalist. Not a GM promoter to just promote GM. Per his column below you can see is recommending other than GM most of the time. It was actually quite amazing to see him like the Lucerne.

http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20040116001/tscript.htm

dieselone

And I hate them... Go figure Lemko, you say white and I say black.

I understand why GM is using them, but I just hate stick on stuff that's not functional. I've seen a few Lucerne's and I think they are sharp and that the portholes distract from the clean lines. Obviously, that is my opinion and meaningless, since this car is not marketed to me, nor am I interested in a Lucerne/DTS/Avalon type of car.

02gmcdenali

Styling will not save them. The first company to bring diesel to full/midsize SUV's will make huge profits. I would trade my 02 Denali in ASAP for a new Diesel powered Tahoe. Who would not want a full size 4x4 SUV that can tow better and get 25MPG during everyday driving or a midsize diesel sedan that has almost 300Lb of torque and gets close to 50MPG?

dieselone

No doubt. I too would buy a diesel Suburban in a heartbeat. On Ford's media site, they have introduced the 2007 Expedition and Expedition EL. They look nice, but I was disapointed that diesel was not mentioned.

habitat1

Healey is a well respected automotive journalist.

So where does the conspiracy theory about "prejudices and institutional biases" come from? Hell, if anything, GM has benefitted from the sentiment - especially among the WWII generation - that we should buy American even if the product is inferior to Japanese imports. If it wasn't for that "bias", GM would have even LESS market share than it currently does.

GM deserves every bit of the negative reputation it has earned over the last several decades, all on its own merits (or lack thereof).

02gmcdenali

Check this out:
http://www.fourwheeler.com/featuredvehicles/129_0407_suburban/

a quote for the article "Bill reports an honest 20 mpg on local rural roads and recently towed a 24-foot trailer cross-country with 16mpg economy."

"It cranks out the full 300 hp and 520 lb-ft." Imagine how efficient a "mini" duramax would be in a 1500 suburban/tahoe.

I struggle to get 16mpg NOT towing a trailer. Towing I'm lucky to get 13mpg. Seems to me like we are getting the shaft from the car companies. C'mon GM earn my business and the business of so many others, be the first to bring diesel to the light duty market!!

dieselone

Wow,

I read that article. That guy is obviously talented. I still don't understand why GM/Ford aren't doing this.

16mpg towing a 24 foot box trailer is incredible. I rarely get that in my Suburban just cruising at 70 w/o towing.

rockylee

Do any of you think the U.S. domestic manufactures showings at the autoshow were better than the others ????.....overall :shades:

I've been gone a while. nice to see everyone

Rocky

xrunner2

GM has benefitted from the sentiment - especially among the WWII generation - that we should buy American even if the product is inferior to Japanese imports.

They will be out of marketplace in next decade. Then what?

carlisimo

There's still a very strong Buy American sentiment. It's present on these boards. On the other hand, there's also a Buy Japanese faction, and a Buy German group too. The Koreans have a very vocal fan as well.

Those buyers are hard to conquest, especially when it comes to segments with a lot of choices (so niche/halo vehicles are a good conquesting tool). The domestics will have to live with their rightly-earned reputation for at least another decade; they have to hold out for at least that long without falling behind.

imidazol97

I started noticing keyholes this evening. It's terrible the way those manufacturers don't hide the key openings. The Accord had it right in the middle of the red lens for the taillight! The Mercedes had a round key opening just in the middle of the trunk metal-a 320 or 230 was the model, one of t he baby wanna-be-a-Mercedes when I grown up cars.

Should I keep looking for more of those awful manufacturers that put keys holes--it's not GM.

imidazol97

Since Mr. Healey's reviews aren't worth much I guess we can diminish the value of his Avalon review?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-02-10-avalon_x.htm

"Close to perfect" is the title.

But he's using his writing skills to promote Toyota; he probably owns stock in the company. ROFLOL.

And the LaCrosse was only "LaCrosse a step in right direction for Buick." Not a glowing review, and not a total condemnation.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2004-11-11-buick-lacrosse_x.h- tm

Impala was good, but then he's using those articulate writing skills to promote GM, while not overwhelmingly above Accord and Camry.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2005-09-15-impala_x.htm

Enough. Enough. One good review and USAToday is off the hook.

golfnut5

Iweiss,

I attended a car show in PA this week and found there was much interest in Asian makers and all high enders (Lexus/Acura/MB) but little interest in GM or Ford. One thing that has not changed and that is the cheap looking plastic in most GM and Ford vehicles. It seems like every time GM and Ford come out with a new model it still looks a model year behind everybody else. It really is sad and we own a GM vehicle. I wish them luck, but it does not look good. :sick:

gogogodzilla

I'll say this... I will consider any auto maker when I'm test driving for a new car.

That is... providing they have a car that fits my wants and needs (and budget).

As it stands, I want a small hatchback with good handling and strong horsepower/torque for about $18-23,000.

And as I see it, there aren't very many choices out there for that.

Last year's Honda Civic Si, VW GTI, Mazda3, Toyota Matrix XRS, Pontiac Vibe GT... well, that's about all there is.

As you can see, US automakers have only ONE model for me to look at.

And the Vibe GT/Toyota Matrix is severely lacking in the torque and handling department. (at least, to me)

So, there really isn't anything for me coming out of Detroit.

Yet you'll probably find the 'Buy American' crowd calling for my head because I won't just settle for whatever US automakers feel like making.

plekto

The problem is, that MBAs GET that stupid very quickly and have no ability to escape groupthink, let along actually do real engineering or design themselves.

They went to school to work for someone else in a corporate environment. And not much else, so you get the sitation most large corporations face. Business as usual, with the same bad results.

mylar202as

The very title of this message board says all you need to know about the problem with GM. GM is looking to styling to save them because they know they can't compete based on quality and resale value. They know this so they have to make buyers buy based on looks and incentives, not quality. I'm not saying this is a bad plan but it is what it is. Also people in this forum keep bringing up JD Powers study showing that Cadillac and Buick are right on par with Toyota. While this may be true those people seem to forget that the rest of GM's cars finish much lower than Toyota in the same study. These "crappy" divisions outsell GM's "good" divisions about 10-1. So for every "good Buick or Cadillac" GM sells they also sell 10 industry average or lower cars. Why? So taken as a whole company GM finishes much lower than Toyota. Just because GM can make a good Cadillac doesn't mean people should buy Cobalts expecting quality. And unfortunately GM needs to sell a lot more Cobalts than Cadillacs to come back.

imidazol97

So a car company that's more than 14 above the industry average for defects per 100 vehicles on inital quality isn't doing it's job, right?

That would be Scion at 134.

Or how about the car company doing 24 points below the best which is Lexus. That's awful right! Toyota.

Or how about 9 points above industry average of 118. Chevrolet. Are they awful. That might include pickup trucks as well? How about the Scion at 134.

And at 7 or 8 points below Toyota we have Honda. Bad performance? And Buick and Cadillac at 100 and 104 make 118 look pretty good?

But really as an analyst said all of the values have improved. The differences among the cars have shrunk in the number of defects. It doesn't matter as much as it did.

Seven years earlier the average was 179 vs 118 currently. A great improvement for all.