Regardless of how you look at it, thousands of dollars added per vehicle for "legacy costs" makes no business sense, at least in the long term.
GM, for years (Thanks to Roger Smith) refused to pay on it's pension obligations and healthcare obligations and took money that could of funded these obligations and potentially been self supporting and blew it on wasteful projects like buying bad car company's and engineering cars like the Cimmaron, Catera, Corsica, Aztek, etc, etc, etc, in the 70's, 80's, 90's. General Motors past mangement made some blunders I feel. I think selling DirecTV was a bad decision as it was a constant cash flow. I also never understood why GM, never got into the airplane manufactoring business 40-50 years ago and could of owned it's own airline and perhaps won some government contracts over the years. GM, should of diversified it's portfolio better and bought industry's with constant cashflows like communication company's, liquor/beer company's. This is why General Electric was so successful because they diversified their portfolio so well and didn't have to depend on just one sector to make all their bacon.
The bottom line is the Pensions are fully paid and I think GM, is way ahead of schedule so that is taken care of. The healthcare costs is the main issue with so many retirees. This is why you will see the big 3 basically openly support democrats with campaign contributions in 2008' to get national healthcare past. I don't remember which poster it was that made the comment/post if the Big 3 put $500 million behind a politician running for president for healthcare reform it would be money well spent to save tens of billions in future costs. The Unions and Big 3 have the money and solidarity to flex those large biceps. I know Lutz, has went on the record of saying who he's going to support next election. I think Dubya's attitude of you guys quit whining and take care of it yourself made some in the ivory towers at the Detroit HQ's very upset and the big 3 will get even next election and will get billions in alternative energy grants from the next prez. I think I saw $15 million was proposed for allocation to the automakers for alternative energy. Wagoner, should of got up on National TV and said to Dubya, what do you want us to do with this large pot of money ? Buy a value meal for our employees :confuse:
So yeah no body can predict the future but people like Roger Smith single handedly ruined GM. I can't believe this slime ball was allowed to stay CEO for so long. :mad: Wagoner, is like a god compared to him and it's taken years for him to fix Roger's blunders.
Sounds like you need to decide whether you want a full-size truck or a sport sedan...
Yup, it's a hard choice. The wife wants the truck and I want the car. I told her if gas goes up again to $3.00+ a gallon you will blame me for not buying the car.
The best way to stop the Japanese is to not let 'em get started. Why would a Camry/Accord/Tacoma/Civic/Odyssey driver come back?
There are some who are not brand loyal, especially among the Honda/Toyota crowd. If GM can build cars that compete better in reliability/long term ownership costs, those who look for cheapest cost to own may come back. Some already have (after comparing the price of used Taurus and Camry).
There's also people who buy based on looks. The trendy set if you will. The Solstice and PT cruisers are example. Their look attracted a lot of people who would have otherwise bought Japanese.
Also, there are lots of holes in Honda/Toyota lineups. Although atm I'll always buy a Honda/Toyota if I can, I'm currently driving a Ford. Why? The Japanese didn't build RWD sports car that wasn't a convertible. The result, I bought a mustang. Had GM had a better reliability rating on the Trans AM, I would have bought it in a minute.
I also agree that GM needs to keep their eyes on their dealers. I don't know how much they can actually do with the number of dealers and all of them being privately owned. When I'm shopping, I feel like I'm buying a dealer as well. If my local dealer has poor sales or service, I'll switch brands rather than drive 30 minutes out of my way every time I have a problem. The experience I had at the closest Ford SVT dealer was so poor, I almost didn't buy one. I ended up buying used at carmax. My second choice was Subaru. Then I looked online and saw that same Ford dealer was also my local Subaru dealer.
Heck, my taste in cars has always been consistent. I always wanted a big full-frame RWD V-8 American car as far back as I can remember. Back in high school, everybody I knew wanted a muscle car. Usually only girls drove the little economy cars. My girlfriend of the time had excellent taste - she had a mint-condition 1969 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham.
Even my current girlfriend drove a 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 back then. She went to a high school in an upscale suburb where girls would get a Mercedes 190 or a 3-Series Bimmer for their Sweet Sixteen. Heck, I'd have ignored all those spoiled little princesses and thought my girlfriend was cool for having a '66 Galaxie instead!
Oh, I'm waiting for that 2011 DTS. My Seville will be quite old by then. I would've liked it by 2010. Well, I'd rather see them wait and do it right than rush it into production full of bugs. Will they have a big RWD Buick by then?
I consider Roger Smith one of the 20th Century's worst monsters. I hope he goes to the same place reserved for guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Saddam Hussein.
> to get the taste of the Aztek out of everyone's mouth.
I hope you're not serious. You have seen the Element? the Xb!!!?
The one thing that lowers credibility in my eyes more than "I had a 1982 X mobile and it was in the shop 200 times during the 5 months before I..." is when someone invokes the Aztek. I don't find them awful in context of their time and use. They were different than the Rendezvous. I probably would buy a used one before a used Xb or element.
Some of your ideas would help. It's easy to review and critique the past. I used to listen to overweight, under conditioned men explain on Monday morning how the coach and players should have done in the game the night before. These same people couldn't run 30 yards at full speed without a heart attack, but they knew everything about how it SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
Now the should have been is healthcare benefits and retirement benefits and healthcare were over promised with no exceptions for mitigating circumstances--like huge increases in cost or decreases in income from US operations.
Toyota has managed their image with help from proponents, so far. They are upping their advertising as to their "belonging to America" in this area. If they can pull it off in conservative Cincinnati, they can do it anywhere.
...was cerainly a homely vehicle, but next to an Element it looks as sexy as a Ferrari. That doesn't mean the Aztek was a bad vehicle. I recall a girl who traded her VW Beetle for a new Aztek. Apparently, she loves the vehicle. However, the Aztek hasn't been manufactured for several years. Everybody seems to forget about Toyota's recent flop - the Echo.
I see no difference between the Echo and the Chevy Aveo. Or a current Yaris for that matter... The Aztec was a mess. The Element at least is functional.
I really believe that he ran a great ship onto the rocks and then started drilling holes in the hull. His job in hell is going to working the Vega customer complaint counter with Stalin as his boss.
But Rockylee and I differ on national health care. I have a very good health care plan (albeit my contribution to the cost is considerably larger than a UAW worker's). I also have experience with national health care, having lived in a foreign country with NHC for several years. I tell you this so you'll know my bias before I make my argument.
Here are the faults with NHC that I see:
1. The level of care that you will receive though NHC is NOT the level of care you get now. Barracks bays full of beds. TV's with coin slots in them. In some (otherwise very civilized) countries, you're expected to bring your own sheets or buy them. In the country I lived in (with a higher per capita income than America) there was a kitchen at one end of the ward - all but the most basic food was extra. Your relatives come and cook for you or bring you food, unless you want to pay for 'upgrade' hospital fare.
2. No financial savings to any middle class individual. Think about it: you are paying for more people,and the money has to come from somewhere - so instead of paying your insurance company, you pay the government. AND because you are supporting more people you get less for the same contribution.
3. You end up with insurance plans anyhow, as anybody who can afford it is going to have an insurance plan so they can go to a private clinic rather than a public hospital ward. This means that the middle class pays even more for their health care than they do now, if they want to maintain their current level of care.
4. Don't think that only individual taxpayers will carry the burden; taxes on manufacturers go up too. This simply shifts their financial burden from their individually negotiated health care plans to the same level of burden in taxes. So manufacturing costs don't go down much, if at all, and in some cases, go up. Every election year, business taxes will rise as politicians promise more and better health care, but refuse to put the cost burden on the voter. So... the companies pay.
So - more expense to individuals for the same or less health care. The same expense for most companies, or a slight reduction for those with elaborate no-contribution plans like GM and Ford.
Now, back to cars.
If I were GM, I'd be UPGRADING the interior in the Aura right now even as it rolls down the production line. Why? It's great already, you say. Well, Saturn has a car with great press. Let's make sure that the cars that get into consumer hands make a fabulous impression on consumers. Have the dealers calling all those who bought the car and pampering them - "Scratched ashtray, sir? Bring it in and we'll replace it!".
Make the Aura the kind of car and car-buying experience that people will brag to their friends about.... take them out to the parking lot to show them the car. Get that word of mouth going.
Saturn has the dealer set up to show off GM's customer service potential....
Oh - and the Aztek - glad you like it. Too bad you didn't buy one while you had the chance... Here's ar a couple of educated opinions on why the Aztek matters. It wasn't just that it was ugly. It was that it showed exactly how disfunctional GM management had become.
"There are loads of folks that buy Japanese branded cars, such as me, that have no desire to see GM and Ford go down the tubes. I would love to see them turn it around and agree that GM is closer to doing it than Ford. I think both will make it.
It's been longer than 5-10 years - more like 20 but it didn't show as badly.
I'd love to feel good buying an American car. Were the Fusion built in the USA it would be close to what we are talking about. Getting caught between an American built Honda (I have two) and a Mexican build American brand (I've had one) is an odd choice. Getting an American built American branded vehicle can be a trick in some markets - like minivans."
Your entire post follows my thinking to the last letter!!!!
(And I even have two American built Honda's now, and I have previously owned a Mexican built American brand.)
Unionization of the Japanese factories inside the U.S. may happen, but it'll be decades before they find themselves in the same situation as the Big 3.
Article in WSJ this week said that Democrat Congress is thinking of changing law about union elections. They may want current secret ballots to be open. Wonder what Toyota reps in Toyota plant States are saying to the Congress people about this. If this change were to happen, workers would feel intimidated to vote for the union. A unionized Toyota would seem to help GM in its challenge from Toyota for sales supremacy. More of a level playing field in that Toyota would then get bogged down with union issues and increased costs.
I would think negotiated would be the better word. They've been doing it for a long time as well in a few plants. Why that haven't expanded that is beyond me. GM has more power vs. the UAW than it has every had because of their fragile situation. Back when Chrysler was against the wall under Iacocca he negotiated the famous "I don't have any jobs at $18 dollars an hour but I have thousands of them at $14 an hour." Gm could equally say "we have no jobs without "groups/teams" but we have loads with them."
I sure hope you don't see open ballot elections. Secret ballots are essential to any honest election process.
Difference between the Element/Xb and the Aztek. The Element and Xb function. The Aztek had spotty reliability to go with that awful mug.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
was a mess, style-wise, but I thought it was pretty functional. Pretty roomy inside and versatile, all in a package that wasn't too huge or gasoline-hungry. Kind of an early attempt at an Equinox-like vehicle.
And, as much of a mess as the Aztek was, in many ways I think it was a trendsetter with automotive styles. Prior to the Aztek, car shapes usually had a coherence to them, as if one group or committee had a say-so in the overall design of the car. But since the introduction of the Aztek, we've seen many more examples of car designs that are clashy, with fronts, rears, and mid-sections that seem as if they were designed by different groups that had no idea what each other was doing, and then lumped together.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the Aztek bracing us for this type of stuff, nobody would be able to look at the latest Honda CR-V, or the new Acura MDX, with a straight face.
I don't think the number of brands is relevant to market share. In the 50's Chrysler had 5 brands (Plymouth, Dodge, Desoto, Chrysler and Imperial), while Ford had 3 (Edsel was a late 50's try at getting a 4th), but Ford's share of the market was much larger than Chryslers, and smaller than GM's.
GM's market share was much larger than it should have been had all things been equal. Of course, things are really never equal. Toyota's current success is due to their having done things right, and they are getting more of the market share. Right now Toyota has their fair share of the US market, while GM has more than their fair share. This is based on dividing up the market into 6 15% shares and the left over 10% goes to the automakers in the bottom 7 through whatever ranking.
The basic problem is that customers will never view the automakers as equals, so one maker will dominate the market, while the rest will fall into lower ranks. GM's number one rank for so long has not been due to its having more brands, but due more to its making a large number of different vehicles that have all sold well enough. By different I do not mean for example the current Impala, Grand Prix and LaCrosse, which are the same basic vehicle.
The STS's rear seat shoulder room is less than the front seat, which was part of what holderguy was getting at. The basic problem is that while an inch or so may not seem like much, when it comes to space, at some point smaller does mean that seating three across is no longer really possible.
The latest Motor Trend has sent someone to test the Commodore and they seem to think that the Pontiac will be a very nice car. I have also read that the North American Zeta platform design will have some differences that will make them better for the US market.
Does the double A control arms compare to the sigma suspension design? I think that this makes sense and means that the zeta platform may compare well to the sigma, at least for handling.
"Honestly, if it wasn't for the Aztek bracing us for this type of stuff, nobody would be able to look at the latest Honda CR-V, or the new Acura MDX, with a straight face."
Give that man a cigar! Couldn't have said it better.
Funny story - I was at the NY Auto Show after the Aztek was out but before the Rendezvous had hit the market. Pontiac, to their credit, had a bunch of Azteks there - all set up differently - one with the tent up and such. I went over to the Buick folks and they had a Rendezvous which indeed is easier on the eyes. I asked if it would have the tent option and they distanced themselves in a hurry trying to point out how teh Rendezvous was not an Aztek. Didn't share a bit of sheet metal. I went off laughing. Couldn't help it.
Once they brought in the decladding folks the looks of the Aztek greatly improved but, like the Edsel before it, the damage had already been done.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I don't think the number of brands is relevant to market share. In the 50's Chrysler had 5 brands (Plymouth, Dodge, Desoto, Chrysler and Imperial), while Ford had 3 (Edsel was a late 50's try at getting a 4th), but Ford's share of the market was much larger than Chryslers, and smaller than GM's.
I think more important than the number of brands you have, is how well you cover the whole market and keep up on the latest trends. Back in the 1950's, the middle-priced market started to boom, and Ford was considered weak in that market. While GM had Pontiac, Olds, and Buick and Chrysler had Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, all Ford had was Mercury.
By the time Ford came out with Edsel, suddenly it was 1958, the country was in a recession, the auto industry had just come off of three strong sales years, and the once booming middle-priced market was retreating even more quickly than it had boomed.
Back in the 50's though, it seemed like the various brands pretty much kept in their own price range, without too much overlap. It seemed that there was no market for a Chevy that was too nice, because that's what a Buick, Olds, or Pontiac was for. One exception, though, might have been Buick. Buick had some really strong sales years in the mid 50's, offering a wide price range of cars. The Special was priced close to a V-8 Bel Air, while the Roadmaster was approaching Cadillac territory.
In later years though, this type of overlap became much more common, and it made some of the weaker divisions redundant. For example, what had been a DeSoto was essentially replaced by the lower-end Chryslers. And once the Chevy Caprice and Ford LTD came out, they made plenty of much more upscale cars redundant.
And nowadays, where you once had several different brands, you can pretty much accomplish the same thing by just having one brand with a bunch of different trim levels.
Good point. But I think you forgot the Subaru Tribeca! It's a shame DUI is illegal because most sane people would need a pair of beer goggles to approach that equivalent of the blind date with a "great personality."
Nah, my impressions are based on styling both interior and exterior. High beltline, awkward dual-glass hatch, Narrow profile with undersized 15 inch rims and high sidewall tires, typical cheap GM cheap interior, etc. The thing was a mess to look at. And the Rendezvous was no looker either for that matter. How they managed to fit a 3rd row in that setup was baffling.
But I do recall the 185hp 3.4 that powered that puppy had the refinement of a Briggs and Stratton tractor. Slow, coarse, noisy and wheezing. I had the opportunity to experience that marvel of engineering in an ex-girlfriends Pontiac Grand MA that I drove to college with her in.
Or maybe I just get my opinions from the Problems and Solutions boards here on Edmunds...
I think that keeping up with (or inventing) the trend is critical. Somehow Toyota and Honda seem to have hit the current trend fairly close. GM seems to be off the mark. I think a big part of any company hitting the trends right is having someone who knows whats happening. This is an art, and not everyone is good.
I think GM's 5 divisions always had overlap. But in the early 50's Chevy was a six cylinder car only. Buick's were straight eights. In the 60's the differences were somewhat less distinctive, and the compact cars made a mess out of the whole lineup.
Got the 3rd row in with some good engineering. Not a bad place to sit.
Honestly, the only 3rd row seat I can think of in recent memory that I sat in which was comfortable was in a Ford Excursion! But for the most part, I don't think 3rd row seats are designed with 6'3" adults in mind, anyway!
I didn't find the Rendezvous's styling to my liking, but I thought it was better than the Aztek. I think the biggest problem is that since it was based on a minivan, it had kind of a high, ungainly look to it. But there was only so much they could do with it for a reasonable amount of money. If they went much further, they would've just been better off designing a whole new platform.
IIRC, the Rendezvous actually had a fairly nice interior. Nobody was going to mistake it for the best Japan or Europe had to offer, but I still remember it as being a fairly decent effort.
Rendezvous looks like an elephant or something like that, to me lots of unhappy angles for a car, and it looked too tall. Not quite the braille styling of the Aztek, but not a looker.
Here's a big flaw in the design of both cars - the wheels were too small. In these days of idiotically large wheels, these two rigs had undersized rims.
Yes they will have a RWD Lucerne, Velite Sedan, LaCrosse from what I understand. I hope the Velite gets made in to a hard top convertible 2 door the following spring.
Future Vehicle line up at Buick:
#1 2008' Buick Enclave
#2 2011' Buick Lucerne RWD
#3 2010' Buick Velite Sedan/2010 or 2011 spring of 2011' a Buick Velite Hard Top Convertible? :shades:
#4 2009- Buick LaCrosse? or will it be replaced by the 2010' Velite Sedan?
Perhaps all will have the new "Ultra" V8 in them or at least available and lets not forget the Twin Turbo 3.6 "High Feature" making 400-450 horspower being available also. These cars with these engines and buick attention to detail could finally be the Wooden Stake that punctures the hearts out of Lincoln, and leaves stab wounds on Lexus product portfolio.
Article in WSJ this week said that Democrat Congress is thinking of changing law about union elections. They may want current secret ballots to be open. Wonder what Toyota reps in Toyota plant States are saying to the Congress people about this. If this change were to happen, workers would feel intimidated to vote for the union.
Thank-God Congress is getting it right. The secret ballot box has more potential for scandals than our national elections. If people had to be either for or against on the spot and publicly announce they are in or out then all problems would be solve. Of course company's like Toyota, would try to fire the people that raised their hand at some point but once that happens then the UAW or another union can file a lawsuit on the harrassed employees behalf for doing something leagally a right to him.
"allowed"? - A very telling word and sad commentary. This is only about 30-40 years "behind" Japanese management/worker procedures.
Well their was union resistance in Japan, to adopt these new building methods but the japanese promised if they went to this new building method the company would secure their jobs as they would be more profitable thus the union agreed to it. Now 30-40 years later the Japanese, back-stabbed their loyal countrymen and started exporting jobs to america and abroad because they were paying for employees childrens schools, company owned doctor clinics, stores, you name it toyota had it in their village for their employees. They had company sponsored activity's for family's of their workers and on top of paying their employees very well it just got real expensive and the hatchet militant men became a little more capitalistic and lobbyed the Japanese government to reduce domestic content laws to the point where the majority of their car could be off-shored to the America's. The UAW were like [non-permissible content removed] Cats compared to the Japanese union and thus is why the Japanese wanted to move to the non-union bible belts of the south where the philosphy still reigns for many that believe their company will take care of them. :confuse:
Gm could equally say "we have no jobs without "groups/teams" but we have loads with them."
I can promise you this will happen next contract. My family says it coming and the UAW, is going to support it. GM, has made promises to the UAW, they will build new modern facility's here in the U.S. if they adopt these new work groups. The workers benefit because they aren't doing the same job over and over again causing injury's like carpal tunnel. So while there might be less bee's per plant their could more plants meaning more bees in the future.
I sure hope you don't see open ballot elections. Secret ballots are essential to any honest election process.
No because honesty is thrown out the window. Your co-worker lies to ya and says I supported to vote in the union and if you could see his vote he voted against it because while he might want the union in at the plant he/she fears they will be targeted by management if the plant didn't have enough votes to get the union through. I welcome the change and maybe holding some people's honesty to the fire will tell you were they really stand.
Ain't gonna happen. Not in a country that holds secret ballots sacred. You heard it here.
I expect that GM and the UAW will be very cooperative with each other, with the UAW doing virtually all the conceding. It had to happen. The current model is not sustainable.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
rockylee: can promise you this will happen next contract. My family says it coming and the UAW, is going to support it. GM, has made promises to the UAW, they will build new modern facility's here in the U.S. if they adopt these new work groups. The workers benefit because they aren't doing the same job over and over again causing injury's like carpal tunnel. So while there might be less bee's per plant their could more plants meaning more bees in the future.
I hope so, for GM's sale.
rockylee: No because honesty is thrown out the window. Your co-worker lies to ya and says I supported to vote in the union and if you could see his vote he voted against it because while he might want the union in at the plant he/she fears they will be targeted by management if the plant didn't have enough votes to get the union through. I welcome the change and maybe holding some people's honesty to the fire will tell you were they really stand.
No. "Election fraud" does not involve one voter lying to another about his or her vote. To give some examples of true election fraud:
1. Stuffing the ballot box to ensure the outcome. 2. Having ineligible voters vote. 3. Bribing voters to vote a certain way.
Please note the absence of, "Not telling others truthfully how I voted (or plan to vote) in the election."
How one person votes is nobody else's business. If a person lies when asked the question, I would suggest that is because it's nobody else's business how another person votes in ANY election, union or otherwise. If others are obnoxious enough to ask that person, they deserve a lie in response. I don't even tell my family how I vote in general elections.
"Where another person stands" on whether to vote in the union is not your business, or the business of anyone else, and he or she has no obligation to make that choice in public.
You are way off-point. The whole discussion was making non-union plants have to have open ballots when a vote to join a labor union is done. Non of this secretcy.
In a union like when voting on by-laws or to elect union officers each person has to sign in gets a blank ballot and then can vote via circling or writing in the answer. The votes go into a locked ballot box and representatives stay after the union meeting and count up the votes and it either passes, he/she gets elected, or doesn't.
How one person votes is nobody else's business. If a person lies when asked the question, I would suggest that is because it's nobody else's business how another person votes in ANY election, union or otherwise. If others are obnoxious enough to ask that person, they deserve a lie in response. I don't even tell my family how I vote in general elections.
"Where another person stands" on whether to vote in the union is not your business, or the business of anyone else, and he or she has no obligation to make that choice in public.
It is my business because my future is on the line. I can handle disagreement a lot easier than someone looking into your eyes and lieing to you. All I have to say is Man-Up. I can respect that even if I think your wrong. I don't like complainers that want change and when push comes to shove to get it they are cowards and get scared. :mad:
But you have no legal right to know how a person voted on whether or not to form a union.
You think a secret election is rife with fraud? You should see what goes on in those open auditorium raise your hand elections. I was at one of those (not for a union). The crowd was stacked but the folks putting forth proposals did not know that. There were loads of people who had been given incentives to appear. They were instructed that whenever the guy in the pink tie touches his nose on his left side put your hand up.
Yeah. That's how I want to decide elections. Heck, I'd have a better chance with a Florida touch screen!
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
rockylee: It is my business because my future is on the line.
No, it's not. One could say the same thing about many presidential elections - our entire country's future is on the line - and no one is suggesting that we eliminate the secret ballot for those.
rockylee: I can handle disagreement a lot easier than someone looking into your eyes and lieing to you.
Your ability to handle disagreement with co-workers, and your fear of being lied to by said co-workers, are irrelevant, and certainly not worth the abandonment of secret ballots.
You'll just have to handle disagreement in your own way, and get over the fact that someone may lie to you about how he or she is planning to vote.
rockylee: I don't like complainers that want change and when push comes to shove to get it they are cowards and get scared.
What you like or dislike is irrelevant, and why people vote a certain way or change their mind is none of your business. People have the right to change their minds or hide their choices from co-workers, and if anyone who can't handle it, that's tough. You have no right to know how they are planning to vote.
Wasn't the Fifth Avenue one of those cars which constantly driffted to left or right due to a play in the center steering. 184K miles in one would seem to be an eternity. -Loren
I don't remember it doing that but maybe I'm having selective memory......
I used to hate Fords that would drift left and right if your hands so much as thought about moving on the wheel. Those were sixties - seventies full size RWD. My dad had three or four of them at different times.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Will there be a Buick in 2010 may be the question??? Sales are slipping, and there is nothing too exciting. Gas pricing will be up to $3.50 within a few months. I think TM and HMC stock will likely rise. Looks like Aura is gaining a bit in sale, but is it at the expence of G6 and other GM cars. And what of the new Malibu? Will this net more sales or a shift from Aura sales? I must say, the Aura is not a bad little car. I got a better deal on a Honda SEV6 however, and after driving in some 1,300 miles now, I am glad I did not make the Aura deal. Simply a smooth engine and overall car. As for Fords, same thing, as in better cars now, but still a couple of notches below Honda / Toyota.
Can GM hold off Toyota? Doesn't matter. Can they continue without bankruptcy may be the question. Or why don't they make cars which do not have to compete one on one with Japan makes, as in RWD cars with American styling. The other battles are lost, and it is time to consider not losing the whole war. -Loren
DETROIT - Chrysler Group said on Friday it would recall over 489,000 vehicles, including recent models of the Jeep Liberty, Dodge Durango and its all-new Dodge Avenger sedan.
The recall was the second such action by Chrysler in two weeks. In late February, the No. 4 U.S. automaker recalled almost 51,000 vehicles to reprogram software for anti-lock brakes.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
GM, for years (Thanks to Roger Smith) refused to pay on it's pension obligations and healthcare obligations and took money that could of funded these obligations and potentially been self supporting and blew it on wasteful projects like buying bad car company's and engineering cars like the Cimmaron, Catera, Corsica, Aztek, etc, etc, etc, in the 70's, 80's, 90's. General Motors past mangement made some blunders I feel. I think selling DirecTV was a bad decision as it was a constant cash flow. I also never understood why GM, never got into the airplane manufactoring business 40-50 years ago and could of owned it's own airline and perhaps won some government contracts over the years. GM, should of diversified it's portfolio better and bought industry's with constant cashflows like communication company's, liquor/beer company's. This is why General Electric was so successful because they diversified their portfolio so well and didn't have to depend on just one sector to make all their bacon.
The bottom line is the Pensions are fully paid and I think GM, is way ahead of schedule so that is taken care of. The healthcare costs is the main issue with so many retirees. This is why you will see the big 3 basically openly support democrats with campaign contributions in 2008' to get national healthcare past. I don't remember which poster it was that made the comment/post if the Big 3 put $500 million behind a politician running for president for healthcare reform it would be money well spent to save tens of billions in future costs. The Unions and Big 3 have the money and solidarity to flex those large biceps. I know Lutz, has went on the record of saying who he's going to support next election.
So yeah no body can predict the future but people like Roger Smith single handedly ruined GM. I can't believe this slime ball was allowed to stay CEO for so long. :mad:
Wagoner, is like a god compared to him and it's taken years for him to fix Roger's blunders.
Rocky
Yup, it's a hard choice. The wife wants the truck and I want the car. I told her if gas goes up again to $3.00+ a gallon you will blame me for not buying the car.
Rocky
There are some who are not brand loyal, especially among the Honda/Toyota crowd. If GM can build cars that compete better in reliability/long term ownership costs, those who look for cheapest cost to own may come back. Some already have (after comparing the price of used Taurus and Camry).
There's also people who buy based on looks. The trendy set if you will. The Solstice and PT cruisers are example. Their look attracted a lot of people who would have otherwise bought Japanese.
Also, there are lots of holes in Honda/Toyota lineups. Although atm I'll always buy a Honda/Toyota if I can, I'm currently driving a Ford. Why? The Japanese didn't build RWD sports car that wasn't a convertible. The result, I bought a mustang. Had GM had a better reliability rating on the Trans AM, I would have bought it in a minute.
I also agree that GM needs to keep their eyes on their dealers. I don't know how much they can actually do with the number of dealers and all of them being privately owned. When I'm shopping, I feel like I'm buying a dealer as well. If my local dealer has poor sales or service, I'll switch brands rather than drive 30 minutes out of my way every time I have a problem. The experience I had at the closest Ford SVT dealer was so poor, I almost didn't buy one. I ended up buying used at carmax. My second choice was Subaru. Then I looked online and saw that same Ford dealer was also my local Subaru dealer.
Even my current girlfriend drove a 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 back then. She went to a high school in an upscale suburb where girls would get a Mercedes 190 or a 3-Series Bimmer for their Sweet Sixteen. Heck, I'd have ignored all those spoiled little princesses and thought my girlfriend was cool for having a '66 Galaxie instead!
I hope you're not serious. You have seen the Element? the Xb!!!?
The one thing that lowers credibility in my eyes more than "I had a 1982 X mobile and it was in the shop 200 times during the 5 months before I..." is when someone invokes the Aztek. I don't find them awful in context of their time and use. They were different than the Rendezvous. I probably would buy a used one before a used Xb or element.
Some of your ideas would help. It's easy to review and critique the past. I used to listen to overweight, under conditioned men explain on Monday morning how the coach and players should have done in the game the night before. These same people couldn't run 30 yards at full speed without a heart attack, but they knew everything about how it SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.
Now the should have been is healthcare benefits and retirement benefits and healthcare were over promised with no exceptions for mitigating circumstances--like huge increases in cost or decreases in income from US operations.
Toyota has managed their image with help from proponents, so far. They are upping their advertising as to their "belonging to America" in this area. If they can pull it off in conservative Cincinnati, they can do it anywhere.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Aztec was a mess. The Element at least is functional.
But Rockylee and I differ on national health care. I have a very good health care plan (albeit my contribution to the cost is considerably larger than a UAW worker's). I also have experience with national health care, having lived in a foreign country with NHC for several years. I tell you this so you'll know my bias before I make my argument.
Here are the faults with NHC that I see:
1. The level of care that you will receive though NHC is NOT the level of care you get now. Barracks bays full of beds. TV's with coin slots in them. In some (otherwise very civilized) countries, you're expected to bring your own sheets or buy them. In the country I lived in (with a higher per capita income than America) there was a kitchen at one end of the ward - all but the most basic food was extra. Your relatives come and cook for you or bring you food, unless you want to pay for 'upgrade' hospital fare.
2. No financial savings to any middle class individual. Think about it: you are paying for more people,and the money has to come from somewhere - so instead of paying your insurance company, you pay the government. AND because you are supporting more people you get less for the same contribution.
3. You end up with insurance plans anyhow, as anybody who can afford it is going to have an insurance plan so they can go to a private clinic rather than a public hospital ward. This means that the middle class pays even more for their health care than they do now, if they want to maintain their current level of care.
4. Don't think that only individual taxpayers will carry the burden; taxes on manufacturers go up too. This simply shifts their financial burden from their individually negotiated health care plans to the same level of burden in taxes. So manufacturing costs don't go down much, if at all, and in some cases, go up. Every election year, business taxes will rise as politicians promise more and better health care, but refuse to put the cost burden on the voter. So... the companies pay.
So - more expense to individuals for the same or less health care. The same expense for most companies, or a slight reduction for those with elaborate no-contribution plans like GM and Ford.
Now, back to cars.
If I were GM, I'd be UPGRADING the interior in the Aura right now even as it rolls down the production line. Why? It's great already, you say. Well, Saturn has a car with great press. Let's make sure that the cars that get into consumer hands make a fabulous impression on consumers. Have the dealers calling all those who bought the car and pampering them - "Scratched ashtray, sir? Bring it in and we'll replace it!".
Make the Aura the kind of car and car-buying experience that people will brag to their friends about.... take them out to the parking lot to show them the car. Get that word of mouth going.
Saturn has the dealer set up to show off GM's customer service potential....
Oh - and the Aztek - glad you like it. Too bad you didn't buy one while you had the chance... Here's ar a couple of educated opinions on why the Aztek matters. It wasn't just that it was ugly. It was that it showed exactly how disfunctional GM management had become.
The Aztek - Business Week
Legend of the Aztek
Having used up two month's worth of electrons in two posts.... I'm going back to lurking.
See ya round the 'net. :shades:
It's been longer than 5-10 years - more like 20 but it didn't show as badly.
I'd love to feel good buying an American car. Were the Fusion built in the USA it would be close to what we are talking about. Getting caught between an American built Honda (I have two) and a Mexican build American brand (I've had one) is an odd choice. Getting an American built American branded vehicle can be a trick in some markets - like minivans."
Your entire post follows my thinking to the last letter!!!!
(And I even have two American built Honda's now, and I have previously owned a Mexican built American brand.)
Article in WSJ this week said that Democrat Congress is thinking of changing law about union elections. They may want current secret ballots to be open. Wonder what Toyota reps in Toyota plant States are saying to the Congress people about this. If this change were to happen, workers would feel intimidated to vote for the union. A unionized Toyota would seem to help GM in its challenge from Toyota for sales supremacy. More of a level playing field in that Toyota would then get bogged down with union issues and increased costs.
"allowed"? - A very telling word and sad commentary. This is only about 30-40 years "behind" Japanese management/worker procedures.
Have you driven one?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I sure hope you don't see open ballot elections. Secret ballots are essential to any honest election process.
Difference between the Element/Xb and the Aztek. The Element and Xb function. The Aztek had spotty reliability to go with that awful mug.
And, as much of a mess as the Aztek was, in many ways I think it was a trendsetter with automotive styles. Prior to the Aztek, car shapes usually had a coherence to them, as if one group or committee had a say-so in the overall design of the car. But since the introduction of the Aztek, we've seen many more examples of car designs that are clashy, with fronts, rears, and mid-sections that seem as if they were designed by different groups that had no idea what each other was doing, and then lumped together.
Honestly, if it wasn't for the Aztek bracing us for this type of stuff, nobody would be able to look at the latest Honda CR-V, or the new Acura MDX, with a straight face.
GM's market share was much larger than it should have been had all things been equal. Of course, things are really never equal. Toyota's current success is due to their having done things right, and they are getting more of the market share. Right now Toyota has their fair share of the US market, while GM has more than their fair share. This is based on dividing up the market into 6 15% shares and the left over 10% goes to the automakers in the bottom 7 through whatever ranking.
The basic problem is that customers will never view the automakers as equals, so one maker will dominate the market, while the rest will fall into lower ranks. GM's number one rank for so long has not been due to its having more brands, but due more to its making a large number of different vehicles that have all sold well enough. By different I do not mean for example the current Impala, Grand Prix and LaCrosse, which are the same basic vehicle.
The latest Motor Trend has sent someone to test the Commodore and they seem to think that the Pontiac will be a very nice car. I have also read that the North American Zeta platform design will have some differences that will make them better for the US market.
Give that man a cigar! Couldn't have said it better.
Funny story - I was at the NY Auto Show after the Aztek was out but before the Rendezvous had hit the market. Pontiac, to their credit, had a bunch of Azteks there - all set up differently - one with the tent up and such. I went over to the Buick folks and they had a Rendezvous which indeed is easier on the eyes. I asked if it would have the tent option and they distanced themselves in a hurry trying to point out how teh Rendezvous was not an Aztek. Didn't share a bit of sheet metal. I went off laughing. Couldn't help it.
Once they brought in the decladding folks the looks of the Aztek greatly improved but, like the Edsel before it, the damage had already been done.
I think more important than the number of brands you have, is how well you cover the whole market and keep up on the latest trends. Back in the 1950's, the middle-priced market started to boom, and Ford was considered weak in that market. While GM had Pontiac, Olds, and Buick and Chrysler had Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler, all Ford had was Mercury.
By the time Ford came out with Edsel, suddenly it was 1958, the country was in a recession, the auto industry had just come off of three strong sales years, and the once booming middle-priced market was retreating even more quickly than it had boomed.
Back in the 50's though, it seemed like the various brands pretty much kept in their own price range, without too much overlap. It seemed that there was no market for a Chevy that was too nice, because that's what a Buick, Olds, or Pontiac was for. One exception, though, might have been Buick. Buick had some really strong sales years in the mid 50's, offering a wide price range of cars. The Special was priced close to a V-8 Bel Air, while the Roadmaster was approaching Cadillac territory.
In later years though, this type of overlap became much more common, and it made some of the weaker divisions redundant. For example, what had been a DeSoto was essentially replaced by the lower-end Chryslers. And once the Chevy Caprice and Ford LTD came out, they made plenty of much more upscale cars redundant.
And nowadays, where you once had several different brands, you can pretty much accomplish the same thing by just having one brand with a bunch of different trim levels.
Yes, I did manage to forget the Tribeca. Took years of therapy to block that one from my memory. :P
But I do recall the 185hp 3.4 that powered that puppy had the refinement of a Briggs and Stratton tractor. Slow, coarse, noisy and wheezing. I had the opportunity to experience that marvel of engineering in an ex-girlfriends Pontiac Grand MA that I drove to college with her in.
Or maybe I just get my opinions from the Problems and Solutions boards here on Edmunds...
Cladding still was there, just body colored.
Now we can get into styling opinions!!
Rendezvous is a very handsome vehicle. Very nice looking IMO and many others.
Got the 3rd row in with some good engineering. Not a bad place to sit.
Andre - based on appeance at least the Tribeca is a good thing to forget. No wonder Subaru is on yet another five year plan.
I think GM's 5 divisions always had overlap. But in the early 50's Chevy was a six cylinder car only. Buick's were straight eights. In the 60's the differences were somewhat less distinctive, and the compact cars made a mess out of the whole lineup.
Honestly, the only 3rd row seat I can think of in recent memory that I sat in which was comfortable was in a Ford Excursion! But for the most part, I don't think 3rd row seats are designed with 6'3" adults in mind, anyway!
I didn't find the Rendezvous's styling to my liking, but I thought it was better than the Aztek. I think the biggest problem is that since it was based on a minivan, it had kind of a high, ungainly look to it. But there was only so much they could do with it for a reasonable amount of money. If they went much further, they would've just been better off designing a whole new platform.
IIRC, the Rendezvous actually had a fairly nice interior. Nobody was going to mistake it for the best Japan or Europe had to offer, but I still remember it as being a fairly decent effort.
Here's a big flaw in the design of both cars - the wheels were too small. In these days of idiotically large wheels, these two rigs had undersized rims.
Yes they will have a RWD Lucerne, Velite Sedan, LaCrosse from what I understand. I hope the Velite gets made in to a hard top convertible 2 door the following spring.
Future Vehicle line up at Buick:
#1 2008' Buick Enclave
#2 2011' Buick Lucerne RWD
#3 2010' Buick Velite Sedan/2010 or 2011 spring of 2011' a
Buick Velite Hard Top Convertible? :shades:
#4 2009- Buick LaCrosse? or will it be replaced by the
2010' Velite Sedan?
Perhaps all will have the new "Ultra" V8 in them or at least available and lets not forget the Twin Turbo 3.6 "High Feature" making 400-450 horspower being available also. These cars with these engines and buick attention to detail could finally be the Wooden Stake that punctures the hearts out of Lincoln, and leaves stab wounds on Lexus product portfolio.
Rocky
Thank-God Congress is getting it right. The secret ballot box has more potential for scandals than our national elections. If people had to be either for or against on the spot and publicly announce they are in or out then all problems would be solve. Of course company's like Toyota, would try to fire the people that raised their hand at some point but once that happens then the UAW or another union can file a lawsuit on the harrassed employees behalf for doing something leagally a right to him.
Thank-you once again 110th Congress.
Rocky
Rocky
Well their was union resistance in Japan, to adopt these new building methods but the japanese promised if they went to this new building method the company would secure their jobs as they would be more profitable thus the union agreed to it. Now 30-40 years later the Japanese, back-stabbed their loyal countrymen and started exporting jobs to america and abroad because they were paying for employees childrens schools, company owned doctor clinics, stores, you name it toyota had it in their village for their employees. They had company sponsored activity's for family's of their workers and on top of paying their employees very well it just got real expensive and the hatchet militant men became a little more capitalistic and lobbyed the Japanese government to reduce domestic content laws to the point where the majority of their car could be off-shored to the America's. The UAW were like [non-permissible content removed] Cats compared to the Japanese union and thus is why the Japanese wanted to move to the non-union bible belts of the south where the philosphy still reigns for many that believe their company will take care of them. :confuse:
Rocky
Rocky
I can promise you this will happen next contract. My family says it coming and the UAW, is going to support it. GM, has made promises to the UAW, they will build new modern facility's here in the U.S. if they adopt these new work groups. The workers benefit because they aren't doing the same job over and over again causing injury's like carpal tunnel. So while there might be less bee's per plant their could more plants meaning more bees in the future.
I sure hope you don't see open ballot elections. Secret ballots are essential to any honest election process.
No because honesty is thrown out the window. Your co-worker lies to ya and says I supported to vote in the union and if you could see his vote he voted against it because while he might want the union in at the plant he/she fears they will be targeted by management if the plant didn't have enough votes to get the union through. I welcome the change and maybe holding some people's honesty to the fire will tell you were they really stand.
Rocky
I expect that GM and the UAW will be very cooperative with each other, with the UAW doing virtually all the conceding. It had to happen. The current model is not sustainable.
I hope so, for GM's sale.
rockylee: No because honesty is thrown out the window. Your co-worker lies to ya and says I supported to vote in the union and if you could see his vote he voted against it because while he might want the union in at the plant he/she fears they will be targeted by management if the plant didn't have enough votes to get the union through. I welcome the change and maybe holding some people's honesty to the fire will tell you were they really stand.
No. "Election fraud" does not involve one voter lying to another about his or her vote. To give some examples of true election fraud:
1. Stuffing the ballot box to ensure the outcome.
2. Having ineligible voters vote.
3. Bribing voters to vote a certain way.
Please note the absence of, "Not telling others truthfully how I voted (or plan to vote) in the election."
How one person votes is nobody else's business. If a person lies when asked the question, I would suggest that is because it's nobody else's business how another person votes in ANY election, union or otherwise. If others are obnoxious enough to ask that person, they deserve a lie in response. I don't even tell my family how I vote in general elections.
"Where another person stands" on whether to vote in the union is not your business, or the business of anyone else, and he or she has no obligation to make that choice in public.
In a union like when voting on by-laws or to elect union officers each person has to sign in gets a blank ballot and then can vote via circling or writing in the answer. The votes go into a locked ballot box and representatives stay after the union meeting and count up the votes and it either passes, he/she gets elected, or doesn't.
Rocky
"Where another person stands" on whether to vote in the union is not your business, or the business of anyone else, and he or she has no obligation to make that choice in public.
It is my business because my future is on the line. I can handle disagreement a lot easier than someone looking into your eyes and lieing to you. All I have to say is Man-Up. I can respect that even if I think your wrong. I don't like complainers that want change and when push comes to shove to get it they are cowards and get scared. :mad:
Rocky
You think a secret election is rife with fraud? You should see what goes on in those open auditorium raise your hand elections. I was at one of those (not for a union). The crowd was stacked but the folks putting forth proposals did not know that. There were loads of people who had been given incentives to appear. They were instructed that whenever the guy in the pink tie touches his nose on his left side put your hand up.
Yeah. That's how I want to decide elections. Heck, I'd have a better chance with a Florida touch screen!
Rocky
No, it's not. One could say the same thing about many presidential elections - our entire country's future is on the line - and no one is suggesting that we eliminate the secret ballot for those.
rockylee: I can handle disagreement a lot easier than someone looking into your eyes and lieing to you.
Your ability to handle disagreement with co-workers, and your fear of being lied to by said co-workers, are irrelevant, and certainly not worth the abandonment of secret ballots.
You'll just have to handle disagreement in your own way, and get over the fact that someone may lie to you about how he or she is planning to vote.
rockylee: I don't like complainers that want change and when push comes to shove to get it they are cowards and get scared.
What you like or dislike is irrelevant, and why people vote a certain way or change their mind is none of your business. People have the right to change their minds or hide their choices from co-workers, and if anyone who can't handle it, that's tough. You have no right to know how they are planning to vote.
-Loren
I used to hate Fords that would drift left and right if your hands so much as thought about moving on the wheel. Those were sixties - seventies full size RWD. My dad had three or four of them at different times.
Sales are slipping, and there is nothing too exciting. Gas pricing will be up to $3.50 within a few months. I think TM and HMC stock will likely rise. Looks like Aura is gaining a bit in sale, but is it at the expence of G6 and other GM cars. And what of the new Malibu? Will this net more sales or a shift from Aura sales? I must say, the Aura is not a bad little car. I got a better deal on a Honda SEV6 however, and after driving in some 1,300 miles now, I am glad I did not make the Aura deal. Simply a smooth engine and overall car. As for Fords, same thing, as in better cars now, but still a couple of notches below Honda / Toyota.
Can GM hold off Toyota? Doesn't matter. Can they continue without bankruptcy may be the question. Or why don't they make cars which do not have to compete one on one with Japan makes, as in RWD cars with American styling. The other battles are lost, and it is time to consider not losing the whole war.
-Loren
Honda is doing well for EVERY model in their lineup! Consistent stellar quality! Hooray for Honda! Toyota better watch out!
The recall was the second such action by Chrysler in two weeks. In late February, the No. 4 U.S. automaker recalled almost 51,000 vehicles to reprogram software for anti-lock brakes.