I'd like to know how someone would handle the contractual obligations.
"Hey Pontiac dealer! Pontiac is going away. You can sell Chevy, you can give up and go away, or GM can go broke and you can sell nothing, THEN give up and go away. Which will it be?"
That covers the good faith effort to keep the contract, while also ensuring the health of the company (contracts are NOT suicide contracts, and any court seeing GM try to make a good faith effort to keep their side of the contract within their means will tell the dealer where to go).
The problem with the Olds debacle is that GM didn't replace it with anything. There was no good faith effort to provide product (like, say, from Saturn, DOH!) So GM took it in the wallet.
Yes, I agree! I think some brands need eliminated. Like the Pontiac G6, its current model, including the modified 09 model is completely dead! It is like beating a dead horse. It really has no more appeal when compared to newer, updated cars. There are a few other cars that are pretty much gone. Now, a few of their newer cars are a bit more up to code. This includes the new Malibu. But, others are still way behind. This will keep dragging them down, as each month goes by and one more car is not being moved. Its getting to be a bit stale of a market for GM.
Slimming down to their most premium cars will help them move forward. They keep coming out with new designs, concepts, more cars, but they still lack the solidness and refinement, because they seem to focus more on how many cars they have out, rather than quality.
But, with all of that said, I came from an 06 Accord to an 08 G6, yep, I know... anyway, the G6 is quieter, less squeaks in the interior. It seems to be a solid build. But, the Honda 4cyl engine blows the G6 4cyl engine right out of the water! Not competition. I hate the G6 4cyl engine! Hate the "4spd automatic". Horrible! I am still not used to it, a year later! BUT, Coming from a guy who never wanted this GM car, I am impressed with the value of the G6. I have grown to really like it. I have fun in it. Though, I will say, without all the features, leather, roof, xm, it would not be worth it for me. Its a car that really can't get by with just a base model.
I have a new appreciation of why one would get one of these cars, or a GM car. The features are nice, but lacks a bit of refinement. Engine is outdated when compared to the competition. After my G6 lease, would I consider getting another GM car? Probably not, but will have a bit more respect for them than I did before. Not much, considering what they are doing to us. The choices they are making.
Too each their own, some are big fans of brands than others. I am just not a big fan of GM. I am really a Honda guy, and I own an 08 VW too.
So when someone knows how to actually have a working plan to reduce the number of contracted dealership obligations without a bankruptcy allowing us to kill the contracts and redevelop the way we'd like to be.
My guess that would require a lawyer. I believe these dealer contracts are subject to state franchise laws which are hard to break if not impossible without lots of $$ to buy them out. My only guess would be the bankruptcy court would be the only way to get out of them.
I see now that bankruptcy would allow GM to restart and I guarantee you wouldn't be complaining about multiple versions of the same car in the new GM that's the working part after bankruptcy. But remember that multiple versions of similar products exist on the shelves at Kroger and at the local Toyota stores, so marketing against yourself increases sales. But that was the past and it is gone; now the future.
I don't have a problem with multiple versions of the same vehicle if done properly w/o to much overlap with similar pricing. GM has been slowly improving in this area, but IMO they are still creating vehicles that are more likely to compete with existing brands instead of the competition. The Saturn Aura is not selling and doesn't seem to be stealing sales from the Accord or Camry. Really no reason to buy it over a Malibu when the Malibu is better looking and probably has pricing that under cuts it. Why bother except to give product to Saturn which is all but dead. Why buy an Outlook when you you can get a Traverse or Acadia that have dealers everywhere? The same thing is not going to happen at Toyota unless that person can afford to spend $10k plus extra, then it's not such a bad thing. IMO Toyota has very little overlap in the same price range.
I've not seen much evidence that someone who is shopping a Camry is going to be cross shopping an ES350. Same with a Highlander vs a Lexus RX (I'm guessing they are on the same platform. They are incompletely different price points appealing to different types of customers. Same with the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX. They appeal to two different types of consumers and they look and drive very different from each other. GM doesn't need 4 similar SUV's to compete with a Highlander/RX or Pilot/ MDX. Two would do it and I think they could make them even more competitive by only concentrating their efforts on two models.
Nissan probably has done the best at differentiating products based of a platform. Their FM platform is the basis for the Z, G, EX, and FX, all completely different vehicles that I would be very surprised if they do much cannibalizing.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is at this point in time, GM just doesn't have the money or enough new product to properly feed Pontiac, Saturn, Chevy, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac. IMO, at least 2 need to go.
I don't believe GMC makes some one buy a GM product over a Ford, Dodge or to a lessor extent Toyota and Nissan. Instead it takes a sale from Chevy or Cadillac and only gives the Buick/Pontiac dealers a truck and some more SUVs to sell. That costs resources that I'd like to see data to determine if it actually pays off.
>I believe these dealer contracts are subject to state franchise laws which are hard to break if not impossible without lots of $$ to buy them out.
Amen. How much did dissolving Olds system cost?
>I've not seen much evidence that someone who is shopping a Camry is going to be cross shopping an ES350. Same with a Highlander vs a Lexus RX (I'm guessing they are on the same platform. They are incompletely different price points appealing to different types of customers. Same with the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX. They appeal to two different types of consumers
I have seen people shopping the versions of the same car such as the Camry ES350. Lady I used to work with bought one over a Camry.
>That costs resources that I'd like to see data to determine if it actually pays off.
One of my points is that the system of 5 model lines used to pay off because there was some differentiation. I recall comparing Olds and Pontaic and Buick of the various intermediates years ago and finding their pricing was almost identical when the same features and options were in the cars, exclusive of powertrain offerings. That's where the lack of differentiation led to the rebadging criticisms. Early on I'm sure it paid off, but as UAW and factory costs increased, I suspect it did NOT pay off--hence we are where we are. I do not have numbers.
So how do we get rid of dealers short of the government's bad economy killing them due to no buyers along with whatever is someone's other favorite reasons on which to blame no buyers? It doesn't work to just say, "Here, have a Chevy to sell." That doesn't even make sense in a business world.
can you name anything specific? For example, many hondas and toyotas in the parking lot at my job have the paint falling off the plastic wheel covers. The trunk hinges on the Honda are 50 year old technology.
I don't have to. I work in Cambridge, MA. Everyone has internet so they can research cars before buying them. There is one Equinox in the parking lot (talk about cheap interior) and that is it. I have been in a few Cobalts before and everything feels like it is going to snap off. Seats have cheap fabric, trims are loose, ans the rear axle hops all over the place. Also I don't think the trunk hinges on the Cobalt are rocket science either. The only reason GM sold so much is because of the employee pricing program. Something else telling, when GM announce the G5, they didn't release any pictures. They knew they had a stinker. "Pontiac's new 2007 G5 made its debut at...a convent? Not surprisingly, photos were not released." -Edmunds Two more things: -The Cobalt is the last in Consumer Reports ratings for small cars -If the Cobalt is such a great car, why would GM drop the nameplate for Cruz
"The Cobalt falls short of the best small cars. Its 2.2-liter engine is spirited but noisy and relatively thirsty. Drivers can expect just 24 mpg overall. The ride is relatively comfortable, but handling isn't agile. The steering is too light at low speeds. The rear seat is not roomy, even by small-car standards" -Consumer Reports
Maybe there's another solution without becoming an Obama slave with money from Uncle for a long,, long time.
it's called bankruptcy. Which is something a certain pro-free-market (ROTFLMAO) President wanted to make REAL sure happened on someone else's watch rather than his, even though his Congress said '"no."
>President wanted to make REAL sure happened on someone else's watch rather than his, even though his Congress said '"no."
Since you're going political, he smoothed them over so the Expert on the Economy could apply his blessings and save them. If the predecessor were to have forced the point by doing nothing, he would have been roundly criticized for not having done the right thing by saving the company for the incoming el presidente.
Since you're going political, he smoothed them over so the Expert on the Economy could apply his blessings and save them. If the predecessor were to have forced the point by doing nothing, he would have been roundly criticized for not having done the right thing by saving the company for the incoming el presidente.
He was in a no-win situation (not that he could have won a win-win situation either)...now he's criticized for kicking the can down the road...as well as helping to waste x billions of dollars when, as it turns out, bankruptcy was necessary anyway. After he said he wouldn't do it, and Congress had to do it, thereby shoveling the whole load on the other party...oops, didn't quite work, so sorry, stupid, but not THAT stupid.
My main point was the hypocrisy. Which I never get tired of seeing. And those political gerbils in Washington never seem to get tired of showing us. :shades:
Mr. de-regulation and free markets unilaterally giving a bailout to a private company when the socialist communists in Congress insisted on letting the free market do it's thing. If that isn't classic Washington hypocrisy at its finest, nothing is.
I have seen people shopping the versions of the same car such as the Camry ES350. Lady I used to work with bought one over a Camry.
I'd say that's exactly what Toyota wants. Getting another $5-10k out of a customer is great for the bottom line and you don't have the Lexus dealer trying to compete with the Toyota dealer on price. I'd say most people fully expect to pay more for a Lexus than a Toyota.
With the Lambda quadruplets, they are all in similar price ranges and you give the customer an incentive to shop several of your brands against each other. Same with the cars based off the Epsilon platform. From the sales numbers I've seen, ever since the Malibu redesign, G6 and Aura sales have tanked and I don't think GM achieved the goal of taking any market share back.
>achieved the goal of taking any market share back
Not with all the talk of bankruptcy and people saying there would be no warranty and people would be stuck unable to get parts for their car if the company were gone to bankruptcy heaven.
Not with all the negative things continually posted by some people with not real regard for what the vehicles sold are like.
You mentioned you'll have a G6. I hope it's given a real world comparison of practical value. I have to think back a few years talking with the service manager at the local dealership and he commented how some people use the cars only for transportation and pay not attention to service intervals for anything until there's a problem.
Not with all the talk of bankruptcy and people saying there would be no warranty and people would be stuck unable to get parts for their car if the company were gone to bankruptcy heaven.
I was referring to pre-sales crash when the new Malibu was first released.
You mentioned you'll have a G6. I hope it's given a real world comparison of practical value. I have to think back a few years talking with the service manager at the local dealership and he commented how some people use the cars only for transportation and pay not attention to service intervals for anything until there's a problem.
Well I'm not exited about it, but I hope we like it better than the GrandPrix. Regardless my wife won't have it to long as her employer leases cars for two years and someone has already had this one for a little while. I'd guess it's been in the fleet less than a year, so she won't have it more than 12-18 mos. That said, I'll get plenty of chances to drive it and I'll give it a fair shake.
If the predecessor were to have forced the point by doing nothing, he would have been roundly criticized for not having done the right thing by saving the company for the incoming el presidente.
Bush seemed to be an idiot in office for 8 years and never seemed to do anything right. He was criticized for everything he did, and rightly so.
Yes, he would have been criticized for letting GM and Chrysler fail, but at least that would have been the "RIGHT" thing to do, regardless of forthcoming criticism from uber socialists and GM/Chrysler supporters.
GM and Chrysler should not have been saved, and if Bush had done the right thing, Obama wouldn't have to waste his precious time and resources dealing with the problem of GM and Chrysler right now.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
What disappointed me with Bush right at the end (as opposed to the previous 7-1/2 years disappointment) was that all of a sudden when the right thing to do was stick to his free market principles he suddenly abandoned them, kicking the can down the road for Obama. Certainly made it look like he wasn't so much in favor of free markets as he was keeping the folks at the top of the financial pyramid on top.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Refinement. Nice subjective word. Just what is this refinement supposed to be? Is it what each favorite sports team has that the other teams are lacking when guys talk sports on Monday morning?
Well, after driving many different GM vehicles over the years, that is exactly the type of response I'd expect to hear from GM management.
Perhaps those who don't have the "refinement" gene are those who like GM cars?
If so it appears a majority of people have the gene. :P
Despite all the effort spent criticizing GM cars as junk or not wanted, I'm sure some poster here has an MBA and can explain how to void the contractual agreements with various dealers. If there's a Chevy dealer with a contract, they want product to sell. If there's a Pontiac dealer on the other side of town, they want product and remember, they have a contract too. Then there's the Oldsmobile (whoops we got rid of them--that was expensive wasn't it, negating all those contracts to buy the dealer owners out. Then we have the buick dealers to satisfy. They also have contracts. Then there are the Cadillac dealers, who should be pretty pleased with the product they have. And we have the GMC dealers; guess what, they have contracts too
Very good points. Two ideas:
As I suggested in a post about six months ago when the current level of disaster was only theoretical, if you were going to keep all of GM's brands due to contract agreements, and GM wasn't in imminent danger of bankruptcy, GM could make all models as Chevys and REBADGE some of those Chevys to provide product to the other makes. By "rebadge" I mean MAKE THE EXACT SAME VEHICLE IN ALL RESPECTS except change the badges and emblems. So other dealers get product but GM doesn't have to make different interiors, body panels, taillights, etc. You could even run the same commercials and ads, just change the names. Then the Pontiac, Buick, GMC, and Saturn marketing and design departments could be fired and you save a ton of $$ without voiding the dealer contracts for your Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, etc., dealers.
That means you can get rid of the Acadia, the Torrent, the G3, the G6, 9-7x, etc.
The other option is the one that's going to happen - bankruptcy can void contracts.
I'm half way into my MBA. It is really simple. You kiss the president's but so that when you go into bankruptcy these contracts are voided and state franchisee taxes are nullified. Simple as pie. Why do you think Fritz keeps saying bankruptcy is an option. He is no dummy. He sees the writing on the wall. Revenue wise, Chevy, GMC, Cadillac and Buick are the only things that should be left.
"..... You kiss the president's but so that when you go into bankruptcy these contracts are voided and state franchisee taxes are nullified. Simple as pie."
What do you think the public perception is going to be when all these contracts are voided, yet some of the biggest bondholders get made whole on OUR dime?
What do you think the public perception is going to be when all these contracts are voided, yet some of the biggest bondholders get made whole on OUR dime?
Rotten. But they'll still exist. And the public having a rotten opinion of you can be (theoretically recovered from. The public having no opinion of you because you no longer exist is a different story.
>Bush seemed to be an idiot in office for 8 years and never seemed to do anything right. He was criticized for everything he did, and rightly so.
You've got to quit believing everything the way the US media wants you to see it. They spent 8 years criticising Bush for things that they won't critique BO for. Bias. Surely not... :grin
Of course I thought Clintons were the most narcistic we could have, but BO has exceeded that with his world tour. Listen to his answer to the question in Britain as to who's to blame for the financial problems around the world, US, US and Britain, OR Germany and France. 2 minutes 30 seconds of babble.
Is there a campaign promise he hasn't broken? Lobbyists in government? Honest taxpayers in positions? And on and on. He's criticized and rightly so. The least qualified we've had as president, even considering farmer, nuclear sub guy Carter. At least he had experience as a governor.
Having BO in charge of GM and AIG is community organizer in charge of the chicken house.
What do you think the public perception is going to be when all these contracts are voided, yet some of the biggest bondholders get made whole on OUR dime?
It's not quite that black and white; the bondholders will NOT be whole, they will lose quite a bit. The dealers, however, have been getting screwed for a long time. The smarter ones have already picked up a foreign nameplate or two. But sure, the whole situation is pretty rotten.
As far as the UAW, their contracts may be voided but if they would give more concessions they might be able to preserve more.
".....the bondholders will NOT be whole, they will lose quite a bit."
Au contraire. According to Karl Denninger of the market ticker, this is a scenario that could happen:
".....The government has provided a history now that says that if you are a holder of CDS written by AIG, you will get 100 cents on the dollar, even if the notes don't default. In addition that 100 cents is above what you would normally get even if there IS a default, because normally you have to tender the defaulted bond or the payout is limited by the recovery, and recovery on a defaulted bond is almost never zero.
So in this case the winning play, if you're a big bondholder, is to tell GM to suck eggs; you'll get paid 100 cents on your CDS even though AIG has no money, because the taxpayer will make you whole on those CDS, even if the bonds have a recovery in bankruptcy.
In other words you could conceivably get more than 100 cents if you hold those bonds - so long as you also hold a CDS as a hedge.
It must be nice to be able to screw the taxpayer for more than a 100% payout, right?"
I'm sure there will be plenty of bondholders that will get the screws put to them as well as the UAW. But as for the rest, it's disgusting.
Too bad nobody who owns one can back CR up on any of that. There is a consensus of 42 Malibu reviews that rave about the Malibu and many of them put it at the top overall. You throw CR BS at me and will then tell me the other reviews are all wrong? My 3850 lb 4.3 V6 Sonoma gets 24 overall and my 3750 lb 3.8L gets 27 overall. The last 2.2 L Cavalier I drove got me 45 mpg. It was a rental with 7500 miles on it a long time ago. You CR 24 mpg figure is relatively innacurate. The car is 91% of the size, weight, and power of the Accord, overall, and almost everyone who HAS a G5 is enjoying it. Within 25 miles of me, there are 52 '07 and newer used civics for sale and only 28 used G5's for sale. If Civic is all that, why did so many dump them?
I'm sure there will be plenty of bondholders that will get the screws put to them as well as the UAW. But as for the rest, it's disgusting.
Definitely agree that rewarding the guilty and penalizing the innocent is not the right way to send incentives.
I heard an analogy lately - the owner of the bar has given the drinkers credit, and they kept borrowing and reselling debt to each other until one of them defaulted. It caused the whole group to default and be demonstrated insolvent. The bar owner has decided to tax the non-drinkers to make up for the losses. :mad:
You throw CR BS at me and will then tell me the other reviews are all wrong?
"Best Models of the Year in 10 Categories.... Chevrolet Avalanche - This full-sized crew cab is one of the most versatile and comfortable pickups we've tested. Its unified bed and cab helps give it a solid feel and a comfortable, quiet ride....Reliability better than average."
Is that CR BS? Or are you just denying the CR reports you don't like?
Within 25 miles of me, there are 52 '07 and newer used civics for sale and only 28 used G5's for sale. If Civic is all that, why did so many dump them?
Given that the Civic sells far more than double the number of G5's, why are proportionately more G5 owners dumping them?
i'd start a no-nonsense sales campaign, you can bet there wouldn't be any rebate-coupon-cashbax nonsense,and i'd require truth,justice,& the american whay. you could bank on some fatcats going home to their recliners,and there'd be solidarity for the crew that gave it an honest days work. this country needs a tune-up,and with some team building,and back2basic approach. put the dogs out,unplug the headphones,and make the products affordable,dependable,and sell without the hype. i bought a g.m.c.with the 'KEEP AMERICA ROLLING" SALES CAMPAIGN ,after 9/11 and another in 2007,so i've been doing my part,to keep us in the game. tell your friends to BUY AMERICAN. it's a way of life,and our economic future depends on it. by the way,the G.M.- SEGWAY isn't what i think we need to reduce greenhouse gas,or bring us into the electric forefront. let's think INSIDE the box. have a good day.
The last 2.2 L Cavalier I drove got me 45 mpg. It was a rental with 7500 miles on it a long time ago. You CR 24 mpg figure is relatively innacurate.
One rental experience is irrelevant. If you think the average Cavalier got 45 mpg, then GM should stop working on the Volt and just bring back the Cavalier. It was such a great car! LOL. BTW, 2 weeks ago I drove my 07 Expedition to Kansas City which is about 350 miles. I set the cruise at 85mph and got 19.5 mpg. I guess it might important to add that I had a 20-30mph tail wind. If I drove it 45mph all day long it would easily get 22-24mpg, who needs a hybrid Tahoe.
My 3850 lb 4.3 V6 Sonoma gets 24 overall and my 3750 lb 3.8L gets 27 overall. You must drive 100% hwy at 50mph because I've never gotten more than 27mpg out of my wife's 3800 powered Grand Prix and overall it manages about 22 mpg.
You CR 24 mpg figure is relatively innacurate. The car is 91% of the size, weight, and power of the Accord, overall, and almost everyone who HAS a G5 is enjoying it.
In my experience with multiple vehicles over the past 10 years (my wife gets a brand new company car every 18-24 mos.) CR's fuel economy ratings are almost dead on with just about every one of our vehicles GM or otherwise.
Within 25 miles of me, there are 52 '07 and newer used civics for sale and only 28 used G5's for sale. If Civic is all that, why did so many dump them?
Considering Honda probably sell 10x as many Civics as those lowly G5's that's really not a surprise. Also IMHO anyone who appreciates a G5 obviously doesn't have very high standards.
You read that wrong. It is showing how the government has treated AIG favorably compared to GM. The Government is protecting AIG's bondholders and saying under that precedent they would protect GM bondholders. And does it make sense to protect GM dealers that are not selling cars?
I doubt that there are 28 G5's for sale in your area. Maybe Cobalts, but GM has barely sold any G5's. You can defend the Cobalt/G5 all you want, but I don't think that Edmund's, CR, JD Power can all be wrong. I don't think that sales figures can all be wrong.
As Edmund's so eloquently put it in their latest review of the Cobalt: "We'd like to say that all these shortcomings are petty nitpicks that should be overlooked for the price and economy that's gained with the 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LS XFE, but the price isn't that compelling and the economy proved elusive. In this burgeoning era where small cars are now offered with some or all the features and conveniences previously found on cars farther up the ladder, the Chevy Cobalt is behind the times if the XFE is any measure." -Edmunds
Let's make this easy...can anyone find (not write, FIND) a GOOD review of the Cobalt from a professional car writer/reviewer? Web-based, car-magazine, whatever?
In no offense, I noticed you drove an Astro-van. Speaks much of your judgment. As listed in the 10 cars that killed Detroit by US News: Chevrolet Astro. While Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda were refining their minivans in the 1990s and coming up with innovations like hideaway seats and electric sliding doors, GM was offering an old, truck-based van gussied up with carpeting and cupholders. "It showed GM's repeated failure to market competitive products based on styling and packaging," says Tom Libby of J. D. Power & Associates. The Astro drove like a bread truck, and consumers noticed. It also earned the worst safety ratings in its class. Before long, GM was effectively out of the minivan segment. No biggie—those were just mainstream American families the automaker decided to ignore. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/14/10-cars-that-sank-detroit.html
Your right, but GM creates soo much artificial competition. The 9-3, Astra, G5, and Malibu all drive on the same platform and have the same incentives. Besides styling you can say they are the same car. You can go to four separate dealerships and have leverage within the GM product line. It is extremely inefficient and hurts GM's bottom line. :sick:
I want GM to survive, but as a company making cars I want and not on taxpayer life support. I want a Corvette that doesn't have a Cobalt steering wheel. :P Is that too much to ask for?
You can go to four separate dealerships and have leverage within the GM product line. It is extremely inefficient and hurts GM's bottom line
Everyone seems to realize that except for GM and their designated cheerleaders. They're the WORST at competing with themselves. That's something even CHRYSLER got away from (usually Chrysler and Dodge are under the same roof, same with Ford and Mercury). GM just doesn't seem to get that their 12 brands, or 8 brands, or whatever, are weighing the company down like an anchor.
Instead they see the ability to claim "Most Hybrids," and "Most models over 30 MPG" because all of the rebadging allows them to claim Aveo and G3 as different models, Cobalt and G5 as separate models, Malibu, G6, and Aura as different models, Equinox, Torrent, and Terrain as different models...suddenly instead of 4 models like a logical car company, they have 10! Wow, isn't that great!?! :sick:
If I was them I'd just drop Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, and Hummer. Saab's already gone (Swedish BK). All dealers become Chevy/Buick/Cadillac or they can go suck eggs. And then I'd try to figure out how to retire Buick in the US and make them either Chevys or Caddys. Buick (and Lemko, heh) can stay in China. :shades:
I've often thought GM first needs to concentrate on making a bread and butter car such as the Malibu that would far exceed Toyota's Camry in all measures, especially quality and long term reliability. Such an exceptional vehicle would improve their resale value and the overall perception of the GM brand.
Forget about losing focus on quality and reliability by adding a multitude of special interest cars that have limited appeal such as Camaro, etc. The problem with GM is the smart money doesn't look there or to any other American car as a good buy because of their poor resale value and inherent reliability problems. Look at the latest Consumer Reports auto issue where GM and others have a boat load of "worse than average" black dots while the Toyota and other imports have red dots. This pathetic pattern has been obvious and going on for decades. Where has Wagoner had his head?
I've been buying GM cars for years and I often asked myself why, because they are known for and I've experienced their reliability problems, especially on the electronics. I think their electronics are crap and under-engineered. Most frustrating is that a defective or design component problem that first appears in the first model year will never be corrected or redesigned throughout that 5-7 year model run. That is pxss poor management prioritizing and that is why Wagoner had to go.
Instead the customer has to experience a breakdown or an inconvenience and have it fixed under warranty or after warranty on their own nickel. Obviously they fail to use warranty repair patterns to identify and proactively fix these flaws and components on the fly to prevent future problems. If the quality control engineers talked to any dealer repair technician they could soon find out many weak links. Maybe they talk but never do anything to fix it.
Oh well I'm just ranting and beating a dead horse. I went to what was called General Motors Institute (engineering) many years ago but never got involved in the auto industry, thank God.
".....My 3850 lb 4.3 V6 Sonoma gets 24 overall and my 3750 lb 3.8L gets 27 overall. You must drive 100% hwy at 50mph because I've never gotten more than 27mpg out of my wife's 3800 powered Grand Prix and overall it manages about 22 mpg."
I'm sorry, but YOU must be doing something wrong. In all the long trips I have taken in my Park Av Ultra, I have NEVER gotten less than 30 mpg. This is with about 650 lbs of people and 4 pieces of luggage. Now, I DON'T do 75, as I'll frighten my wussified wife, but keep it between 58-70, mostly between 60-65. My uncle had the same exact car, and driving down to Fla w/ my UN-wussified aunt at 75-80, he would get 29 mpg
'proportionately' is the new G5 death? Did you forget Indiana is a top 5 state in D3 auto jobs and we also commute the farthest ,on avg, of all states?
CR looked at that category and thought long and hard. Asking... what Japanese or Korean truck is like an Avalanche? They came up empty so they gave a category with tiny volume to the D3. There were still objections around the table but it was decided to throw GM a little bone by a 5-4 vote, (even though the runner up was also D3).
Considering Honda probably sell 10x as many Civics as those lowly G5's that's really not a surprise. Also IMHO anyone who appreciates a G5 obviously doesn't have very high standards.
What gives you the right to set standards for thousands of G5 buyers? Some people like the G5 because it weighs 450 lbs more than the civic, giving it the feel of a more solid car. Those who switched from civic to accord know what an extra 600 lbs does. Judging the competitors against each other these days is splitting hairs.
If I believed all CR numbers, I'd be driving a civic. You know I don't get CR so I don't know what mileage I should get but on long trips 65-70 mph all interstate, my 3800 got over 30mpg. Grand Prix is geared different, turns higher revs, different aero. I got 27 max in one of them.
You just go on thinking that If I switched from a 4.3 3850 lb truck to a 2.2 liter 2990 lb G5, I'd end up with no improvement from the relatively thirsty 24 mpg overall that CR got. After all, CR said it.
Some people like the G5 because it weighs 450 lbs more than the civic, giving it the feel of a more solid car.
And also giving it a worse power/weight ratio than either Civic or Accord. This I could actually put up with, if the fuel economy was a little better, but it's not. Nor is it heavy because of added structural strength...it's heavy because of cheaper, heavier materials. Good for cost savings, bad for power/weight ratio and fuel economy.
Look, you're not going to justify Cobalt/G5 existence to anyone. Not when GM themselves know and admit that it's a dog. Small cars have never been a high priority for them, because they can't make money on cheap ones, and they continue to believe that no one wants a premium compact. I guess all those Mini buyers, Mazda3 buyers, Civic buyers, Rabbit buyers...all imaginary.
Comments
"Hey Pontiac dealer! Pontiac is going away. You can sell Chevy, you can give up and go away, or GM can go broke and you can sell nothing, THEN give up and go away. Which will it be?"
That covers the good faith effort to keep the contract, while also ensuring the health of the company (contracts are NOT suicide contracts, and any court seeing GM try to make a good faith effort to keep their side of the contract within their means will tell the dealer where to go).
The problem with the Olds debacle is that GM didn't replace it with anything. There was no good faith effort to provide product (like, say, from Saturn, DOH!) So GM took it in the wallet.
Slimming down to their most premium cars will help them move forward. They keep coming out with new designs, concepts, more cars, but they still lack the solidness and refinement, because they seem to focus more on how many cars they have out, rather than quality.
But, with all of that said, I came from an 06 Accord to an 08 G6, yep, I know... anyway, the G6 is quieter, less squeaks in the interior. It seems to be a solid build. But, the Honda 4cyl engine blows the G6 4cyl engine right out of the water! Not competition. I hate the G6 4cyl engine! Hate the "4spd automatic". Horrible! I am still not used to it, a year later! BUT, Coming from a guy who never wanted this GM car, I am impressed with the value of the G6. I have grown to really like it. I have fun in it. Though, I will say, without all the features, leather, roof, xm, it would not be worth it for me. Its a car that really can't get by with just a base model.
I have a new appreciation of why one would get one of these cars, or a GM car. The features are nice, but lacks a bit of refinement. Engine is outdated when compared to the competition. After my G6 lease, would I consider getting another GM car? Probably not, but will have a bit more respect for them than I did before. Not much, considering what they are doing to us. The choices they are making.
Too each their own, some are big fans of brands than others. I am just not a big fan of GM. I am really a Honda guy, and I own an 08 VW too.
My guess that would require a lawyer. I believe these dealer contracts are subject to state franchise laws which are hard to break if not impossible without lots of $$ to buy them out. My only guess would be the bankruptcy court would be the only way to get out of them.
I see now that bankruptcy would allow GM to restart and I guarantee you wouldn't be complaining about multiple versions of the same car in the new GM that's the working part after bankruptcy. But remember that multiple versions of similar products exist on the shelves at Kroger and at the local Toyota stores, so marketing against yourself increases sales. But that was the past and it is gone; now the future.
I don't have a problem with multiple versions of the same vehicle if done properly w/o to much overlap with similar pricing. GM has been slowly improving in this area, but IMO they are still creating vehicles that are more likely to compete with existing brands instead of the competition. The Saturn Aura is not selling and doesn't seem to be stealing sales from the Accord or Camry. Really no reason to buy it over a Malibu when the Malibu is better looking and probably has pricing that under cuts it. Why bother except to give product to Saturn which is all but dead. Why buy an Outlook when you you can get a Traverse or Acadia that have dealers everywhere? The same thing is not going to happen at Toyota unless that person can afford to spend $10k plus extra, then it's not such a bad thing. IMO Toyota has very little overlap in the same price range.
I've not seen much evidence that someone who is shopping a Camry is going to be cross shopping an ES350. Same with a Highlander vs a Lexus RX (I'm guessing they are on the same platform. They are incompletely different price points appealing to different types of customers. Same with the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX. They appeal to two different types of consumers and they look and drive very different from each other. GM doesn't need 4 similar SUV's to compete with a Highlander/RX or Pilot/ MDX. Two would do it and I think they could make them even more competitive by only concentrating their efforts on two models.
Nissan probably has done the best at differentiating products based of a platform. Their FM platform is the basis for the Z, G, EX, and FX, all completely different vehicles that I would be very surprised if they do much cannibalizing.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is at this point in time, GM just doesn't have the money or enough new product to properly feed Pontiac, Saturn, Chevy, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac. IMO, at least 2 need to go.
I don't believe GMC makes some one buy a GM product over a Ford, Dodge or to a lessor extent Toyota and Nissan. Instead it takes a sale from Chevy or Cadillac and only gives the Buick/Pontiac dealers a truck and some more SUVs to sell. That costs resources that I'd like to see data to determine if it actually pays off.
Amen. How much did dissolving Olds system cost?
>I've not seen much evidence that someone who is shopping a Camry is going to be cross shopping an ES350. Same with a Highlander vs a Lexus RX (I'm guessing they are on the same platform. They are incompletely different price points appealing to different types of customers. Same with the Honda Pilot and Acura MDX. They appeal to two different types of consumers
I have seen people shopping the versions of the same car such as the Camry ES350. Lady I used to work with bought one over a Camry.
>That costs resources that I'd like to see data to determine if it actually pays off.
One of my points is that the system of 5 model lines used to pay off because there was some differentiation. I recall comparing Olds and Pontaic and Buick of the various intermediates years ago and finding their pricing was almost identical when the same features and options were in the cars, exclusive of powertrain offerings. That's where the lack of differentiation led to the rebadging criticisms. Early on I'm sure it paid off, but as UAW and factory costs increased, I suspect it did NOT pay off--hence we are where we are. I do not have numbers.
So how do we get rid of dealers short of the government's bad economy killing them due to no buyers along with whatever is someone's other favorite reasons on which to blame no buyers? It doesn't work to just say, "Here, have a Chevy to sell." That doesn't even make sense in a business world.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
GM is fighting back in the PR wars:
GM and Segway Want to Turn You Into a Pod Person
The only reason GM sold so much is because of the employee pricing program. Something else telling, when GM announce the G5, they didn't release any pictures. They knew they had a stinker.
"Pontiac's new 2007 G5 made its debut at...a convent? Not surprisingly, photos were not released." -Edmunds
Two more things:
-The Cobalt is the last in Consumer Reports ratings for small cars
-If the Cobalt is such a great car, why would GM drop the nameplate for Cruz
We agree on the degree. Maybe there's another solution without becoming an Obama slave with money from Uncle for a long,, long time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
it's called bankruptcy. Which is something a certain pro-free-market (ROTFLMAO) President wanted to make REAL sure happened on someone else's watch rather than his, even though his Congress said '"no."
Since you're going political, he smoothed them over so the Expert on the Economy could apply his blessings and save them. If the predecessor were to have forced the point by doing nothing, he would have been roundly criticized for not having done the right thing by saving the company for the incoming el presidente.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
He was in a no-win situation (not that he could have won a win-win situation either)...now he's criticized for kicking the can down the road...as well as helping to waste x billions of dollars when, as it turns out, bankruptcy was necessary anyway. After he said he wouldn't do it, and Congress had to do it, thereby shoveling the whole load on the other party...oops, didn't quite work, so sorry, stupid, but not THAT stupid.
My main point was the hypocrisy. Which I never get tired of seeing. And those political gerbils in Washington never seem to get tired of showing us. :shades:
Mr. de-regulation and free markets unilaterally giving a bailout to a private company when the socialist communists in Congress insisted on letting the free market do it's thing. If that isn't classic Washington hypocrisy at its finest, nothing is.
I'd say that's exactly what Toyota wants. Getting another $5-10k out of a customer is great for the bottom line and you don't have the Lexus dealer trying to compete with the Toyota dealer on price. I'd say most people fully expect to pay more for a Lexus than a Toyota.
With the Lambda quadruplets, they are all in similar price ranges and you give the customer an incentive to shop several of your brands against each other. Same with the cars based off the Epsilon platform. From the sales numbers I've seen, ever since the Malibu redesign, G6 and Aura sales have tanked and I don't think GM achieved the goal of taking any market share back.
Not with all the talk of bankruptcy and people saying there would be no warranty and people would be stuck unable to get parts for their car if the company were gone to bankruptcy heaven.
Not with all the negative things continually posted by some people with not real regard for what the vehicles sold are like.
You mentioned you'll have a G6. I hope it's given a real world comparison of practical value. I have to think back a few years talking with the service manager at the local dealership and he commented how some people use the cars only for transportation and pay not attention to service intervals for anything until there's a problem.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was referring to pre-sales crash when the new Malibu was first released.
You mentioned you'll have a G6. I hope it's given a real world comparison of practical value. I have to think back a few years talking with the service manager at the local dealership and he commented how some people use the cars only for transportation and pay not attention to service intervals for anything until there's a problem.
Well I'm not exited about it, but I hope we like it better than the GrandPrix. Regardless my wife won't have it to long as her employer leases cars for two years and someone has already had this one for a little while. I'd guess it's been in the fleet less than a year, so she won't have it more than 12-18 mos. That said, I'll get plenty of chances to drive it and I'll give it a fair shake.
Bush seemed to be an idiot in office for 8 years and never seemed to do anything right. He was criticized for everything he did, and rightly so.
Yes, he would have been criticized for letting GM and Chrysler fail, but at least that would have been the "RIGHT" thing to do, regardless of forthcoming criticism from uber socialists and GM/Chrysler supporters.
GM and Chrysler should not have been saved, and if Bush had done the right thing, Obama wouldn't have to waste his precious time and resources dealing with the problem of GM and Chrysler right now.
Well, after driving many different GM vehicles over the years, that is exactly the type of response I'd expect to hear from GM management.
Perhaps those who don't have the "refinement" gene are those who like GM cars?
If so it appears a majority of people have the gene. :P
Very good points. Two ideas:
As I suggested in a post about six months ago when the current level of disaster was only theoretical, if you were going to keep all of GM's brands due to contract agreements, and GM wasn't in imminent danger of bankruptcy, GM could make all models as Chevys and REBADGE some of those Chevys to provide product to the other makes. By "rebadge" I mean MAKE THE EXACT SAME VEHICLE IN ALL RESPECTS except change the badges and emblems. So other dealers get product but GM doesn't have to make different interiors, body panels, taillights, etc. You could even run the same commercials and ads, just change the names. Then the Pontiac, Buick, GMC, and Saturn marketing and design departments could be fired and you save a ton of $$ without voiding the dealer contracts for your Saturn, Buick, Pontiac, etc., dealers.
That means you can get rid of the Acadia, the Torrent, the G3, the G6, 9-7x, etc.
The other option is the one that's going to happen - bankruptcy can void contracts.
Revenue wise, Chevy, GMC, Cadillac and Buick are the only things that should be left.
What do you think the public perception is going to be when all these contracts are voided, yet some of the biggest bondholders get made whole on OUR dime?
Rotten. But they'll still exist. And the public having a rotten opinion of you can be (theoretically recovered from. The public having no opinion of you because you no longer exist is a different story.
You've got to quit believing everything the way the US media wants you to see it. They spent 8 years criticising Bush for things that they won't critique BO for. Bias. Surely not... :grin
Of course I thought Clintons were the most narcistic we could have, but BO has exceeded that with his world tour. Listen to his answer to the question in Britain as to who's to blame for the financial problems around the world, US, US and Britain, OR Germany and France. 2 minutes 30 seconds of babble.
Is there a campaign promise he hasn't broken? Lobbyists in government? Honest taxpayers in positions? And on and on. He's criticized and rightly so. The least qualified we've had as president, even considering farmer, nuclear sub guy Carter. At least he had experience as a governor.
Having BO in charge of GM and AIG is community organizer in charge of the chicken house.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's not quite that black and white; the bondholders will NOT be whole, they will lose quite a bit. The dealers, however, have been getting screwed for a long time. The smarter ones have already picked up a foreign nameplate or two. But sure, the whole situation is pretty rotten.
As far as the UAW, their contracts may be voided but if they would give more concessions they might be able to preserve more.
Au contraire. According to Karl Denninger of the market ticker, this is a scenario that could happen:
".....The government has provided a history now that says that if you are a holder of CDS written by AIG, you will get 100 cents on the dollar, even if the notes don't default. In addition that 100 cents is above what you would normally get even if there IS a default, because normally you have to tender the defaulted bond or the payout is limited by the recovery, and recovery on a defaulted bond is almost never zero.
So in this case the winning play, if you're a big bondholder, is to tell GM to suck eggs; you'll get paid 100 cents on your CDS even though AIG has no money, because the taxpayer will make you whole on those CDS, even if the bonds have a recovery in bankruptcy.
In other words you could conceivably get more than 100 cents if you hold those bonds - so long as you also hold a CDS as a hedge.
It must be nice to be able to screw the taxpayer for more than a 100% payout, right?"
I'm sure there will be plenty of bondholders that will get the screws put to them as well as the UAW. But as for the rest, it's disgusting.
Definitely agree that rewarding the guilty and penalizing the innocent is not the right way to send incentives.
I heard an analogy lately - the owner of the bar has given the drinkers credit, and they kept borrowing and reselling debt to each other until one of them defaulted. It caused the whole group to default and be demonstrated insolvent. The bar owner has decided to tax the non-drinkers to make up for the losses. :mad:
"Best Models of the Year in 10 Categories.... Chevrolet Avalanche - This full-sized crew cab is one of the most versatile and comfortable pickups we've tested. Its unified bed and cab helps give it a solid feel and a comfortable, quiet ride....Reliability better than average."
Is that CR BS? Or are you just denying the CR reports you don't like?
Within 25 miles of me, there are 52 '07 and newer used civics for sale and only 28 used G5's for sale. If Civic is all that, why did so many dump them?
Given that the Civic sells far more than double the number of G5's, why are proportionately more G5 owners dumping them?
One rental experience is irrelevant. If you think the average Cavalier got 45 mpg, then GM should stop working on the Volt and just bring back the Cavalier. It was such a great car! LOL. BTW, 2 weeks ago I drove my 07 Expedition to Kansas City which is about 350 miles. I set the cruise at 85mph and got 19.5 mpg. I guess it might important to add that I had a 20-30mph tail wind. If I drove it 45mph all day long it would easily get 22-24mpg, who needs a hybrid Tahoe.
My 3850 lb 4.3 V6 Sonoma gets 24 overall and my 3750 lb 3.8L gets 27 overall. You must drive 100% hwy at 50mph because I've never gotten more than 27mpg out of my wife's 3800 powered Grand Prix and overall it manages about 22 mpg.
You CR 24 mpg figure is relatively innacurate. The car is 91% of the size, weight, and power of the Accord, overall, and almost everyone who HAS a G5 is enjoying it.
In my experience with multiple vehicles over the past 10 years (my wife gets a brand new company car every 18-24 mos.) CR's fuel economy ratings are almost dead on with just about every one of our vehicles GM or otherwise.
Within 25 miles of me, there are 52 '07 and newer used civics for sale and only 28 used G5's for sale. If Civic is all that, why did so many dump them?
Considering Honda probably sell 10x as many Civics as those lowly G5's that's really not a surprise. Also IMHO anyone who appreciates a G5 obviously doesn't have very high standards.
And does it make sense to protect GM dealers that are not selling cars?
You know, it actually might...is it their fault that GM sends them junk and expects them to sell it?
You can defend the Cobalt/G5 all you want, but I don't think that Edmund's, CR, JD Power can all be wrong. I don't think that sales figures can all be wrong.
As Edmund's so eloquently put it in their latest review of the Cobalt:
"We'd like to say that all these shortcomings are petty nitpicks that should be overlooked for the price and economy that's gained with the 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt LS XFE, but the price isn't that compelling and the economy proved elusive. In this burgeoning era where small cars are now offered with some or all the features and conveniences previously found on cars farther up the ladder, the Chevy Cobalt is behind the times if the XFE is any measure." -Edmunds
I mean, they are getting rid of the name plate.
Oh and not by the GM PR department. :shades:
As listed in the 10 cars that killed Detroit by US News:
Chevrolet Astro. While Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda were refining their minivans in the 1990s and coming up with innovations like hideaway seats and electric sliding doors, GM was offering an old, truck-based van gussied up with carpeting and cupholders. "It showed GM's repeated failure to market competitive products based on styling and packaging," says Tom Libby of J. D. Power & Associates. The Astro drove like a bread truck, and consumers noticed. It also earned the worst safety ratings in its class. Before long, GM was effectively out of the minivan segment. No biggie—those were just mainstream American families the automaker decided to ignore.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/flowchart/2008/11/14/10-cars-that-sank-detroit.html
The 9-3, Astra, G5, and Malibu all drive on the same platform and have the same incentives. Besides styling you can say they are the same car.
You can go to four separate dealerships and have leverage within the GM product line. It is extremely inefficient and hurts GM's bottom line. :sick:
I want GM to survive, but as a company making cars I want and not on taxpayer life support. I want a Corvette that doesn't have a Cobalt steering wheel. :P Is that too much to ask for?
Everyone seems to realize that except for GM and their designated cheerleaders. They're the WORST at competing with themselves. That's something even CHRYSLER got away from (usually Chrysler and Dodge are under the same roof, same with Ford and Mercury). GM just doesn't seem to get that their 12 brands, or 8 brands, or whatever, are weighing the company down like an anchor.
Instead they see the ability to claim "Most Hybrids," and "Most models over 30 MPG" because all of the rebadging allows them to claim Aveo and G3 as different models, Cobalt and G5 as separate models, Malibu, G6, and Aura as different models, Equinox, Torrent, and Terrain as different models...suddenly instead of 4 models like a logical car company, they have 10! Wow, isn't that great!?! :sick:
If I was them I'd just drop Pontiac, Saturn, GMC, and Hummer. Saab's already gone (Swedish BK). All dealers become Chevy/Buick/Cadillac or they can go suck eggs. And then I'd try to figure out how to retire Buick in the US and make them either Chevys or Caddys. Buick (and Lemko, heh) can stay in China. :shades:
http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2009/04/07/pontiac-g3-the-reprise/
Of course I'm sure we will never know. But he seems uhhhh..... too busy to post.
Forget about losing focus on quality and reliability by adding a multitude of special interest cars that have limited appeal such as Camaro, etc. The problem with GM is the smart money doesn't look there or to any other American car as a good buy because of their poor resale value and inherent reliability problems. Look at the latest Consumer Reports auto issue where GM and others have a boat load of "worse than average" black dots while the Toyota and other imports have red dots. This pathetic pattern has been obvious and going on for decades. Where has Wagoner had his head?
I've been buying GM cars for years and I often asked myself why, because they are known for and I've experienced their reliability problems, especially on the electronics. I think their electronics are crap and under-engineered. Most frustrating is that a defective or design component problem that first appears in the first model year will never be corrected or redesigned throughout that 5-7 year model run. That is pxss poor management prioritizing and that is why Wagoner had to go.
Instead the customer has to experience a breakdown or an inconvenience and have it fixed under warranty or after warranty on their own nickel. Obviously they fail to use warranty repair patterns to identify and proactively fix these flaws and components on the fly to prevent future problems. If the quality control engineers talked to any dealer repair technician they could soon find out many weak links. Maybe they talk but never do anything to fix it.
Oh well I'm just ranting and beating a dead horse. I went to what was called General Motors Institute (engineering) many years ago but never got involved in the auto industry, thank God.
I'm sorry, but YOU must be doing something wrong. In all the long trips I have taken in my Park Av Ultra, I have NEVER gotten less than 30 mpg. This is with about 650 lbs of people and 4 pieces of luggage. Now, I DON'T do 75, as I'll frighten my wussified wife, but keep it between 58-70, mostly between 60-65. My uncle had the same exact car, and driving down to Fla w/ my UN-wussified aunt at 75-80, he would get 29 mpg
CR looked at that category and thought long and hard. Asking... what Japanese or Korean truck is like an Avalanche? They came up empty so they gave a category with tiny volume to the D3. There were still objections around the table but it was decided to throw GM a little bone by a 5-4 vote, (even though the runner up was also D3).
Considering Honda probably sell 10x as many Civics as those lowly G5's that's really not a surprise. Also IMHO anyone who appreciates a G5 obviously doesn't have very high standards.
What gives you the right to set standards for thousands of G5 buyers? Some people like the G5 because it weighs 450 lbs more than the civic, giving it the feel of a more solid car. Those who switched from civic to accord know what an extra 600 lbs does. Judging the competitors against each other these days is splitting hairs.
If I believed all CR numbers, I'd be driving a civic. You know I don't get CR so I don't know what mileage I should get but on long trips 65-70 mph all interstate, my 3800 got over 30mpg. Grand Prix is geared different, turns higher revs, different aero. I got 27 max in one of them.
You just go on thinking that If I switched from a 4.3 3850 lb truck to a 2.2 liter 2990 lb G5, I'd end up with no improvement from the relatively thirsty 24 mpg overall that CR got. After all, CR said it.
And also giving it a worse power/weight ratio than either Civic or Accord. This I could actually put up with, if the fuel economy was a little better, but it's not. Nor is it heavy because of added structural strength...it's heavy because of cheaper, heavier materials. Good for cost savings, bad for power/weight ratio and fuel economy.
Look, you're not going to justify Cobalt/G5 existence to anyone. Not when GM themselves know and admit that it's a dog. Small cars have never been a high priority for them, because they can't make money on cheap ones, and they continue to believe that no one wants a premium compact. I guess all those Mini buyers, Mazda3 buyers, Civic buyers, Rabbit buyers...all imaginary.