> you'd seek reviewers that would give GM more favorable reviews?
Those would unbiased reviews rather than Road&Track, Car&Driver, Motorweek, who have an interest in cars that are race capable or are out of the price range or interest of 90% of the US car buyers.
I have looked at the Sonata and it's a little cramped and the option packages aren't available on the models I'd want to buy.
It's too bad you haven't had a Malibu to compare in the rentals. GM cut back sales to rentals to improve their image, so there may not be as many available.
As for the Accords, how does the road noise and ride strike you? Loud? Harsh?
Have any of the Accords been V6s with the VCM? There is a discussion of complaints about its having roughness and being irritating to drivers as it cycles?
>the recent Chevy Impala rental with the 4-speed auto was perfectly smooth.
Those would unbiased reviews rather than Road&Track, Car&Driver, Motorweek, who have an interest in cars that are race capable or are out of the price range or interest of 90% of the US car buyers.
You realize most people define "unbiased" as "favoring the car that I like" right? And of course any review that doesn't agree with them is of course biased?
Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, Automobile, Edmunds, ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, etc tend to be pretty fair in the reviews I've read. And yeah, sometimes they review supercars too...hey, I like to read about supercars: so do a lot of car fans. I take it they're all biased because they like so few GM cars?
Then again, maybe they're reflecting the vies of the market, which also seems to like few GM cars? So few that GM had to go bankrupt?
Yeah, the Impala has a smooth 4-speed. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the market wants. The market wants 5 and 6 speed autos, or CVTs. The market wants cars with better fuel economy. The market wants actual hybrids rather than "mild" hybrids.
The market also doesn't seem to want GM, otherwise they wouldn't be in BK. GM has to find a way to be wanted by the market. Going around telling the market "You're an idiot for wanting those other guys, you really want us" doesn't get very far, and isn't a real bright idea to begin with. The market decides what it wants and needs, and a successful company tries to fill that need, and do the best job possible at it.
Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to secure a new Malibu rental. The Accord rentals have always been the 4-cylinder, and the road noise and ride is typical Honda - more road noise than I would like, but a firm suspension - which I do like. I find the suspension in the Camry and Sonata too soft.
Although the Chevy Impala's 4-speed auto was extremely smooth, and the throttle responsive, it's V6 delivered poorer fuel economy with the 4-speed than what I've experienced over exactly the same itinerary with a new Ford Taurus rental with its V6 with the 6-speed auto - but, this is expected given the gearing (Impala: 25.5MPG, and Taurus: 29MPG).
I drove a new Chevrolet Impala and it does drive really smooth. My problem with the Impala is the improved but still austere interior and the anonymous styling that looks like a return of the Lumina or a fat Accord. Sad that the smaller and supposedly downscale Malibu is a nicer car.
The Impala should really be like the Crown Vic...fleet only. They use it for cop cars, cabs, and rentals a lot. Selling it retail isn't really helping...if there has to be a fleet car, dedicate one model to it and don't sell it retail, this way consumers won't be complaining about diluted resale value (plus you don't have to deal with a bunch of option packages.)
You realize most people define "unbiased" as "favoring the car that I like" right? And of course any review that doesn't agree with them is of course biased?
That is a good point. Please realize that these reviewers test hundreds of cars a year, the average person might get to drive 3 or 4 in a decade. I know a lot of GM fanboys who call "bias" at the slightest critical point a reviewer makes of their product.
I would not buy a car just based on what is in the magazine, I always do a comprehensive 1 hour test drive over different roads before considering a product. Some of it interstate, some backroads. I want a car that is competant in both realms before I lay down any money.
As for my friends Lemko and imidazol97] if you two fellows truly believe that the Hydramtic 4 speed and the 3.8 pushrod engine are the pinnicle of human automotive engineering achievement, that GM cannot possibly improve its cars performance in any meaningful way, well I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.
As it is, I pretty much agree there. They also shouldn't call it an Impala. Call it a Biscayne. I really really want the next Impala to be based on what was the G8. There's a car worthy of the Impala name. Also, make it look like an Impala - SIX PROPER TAILLIGHTS for one!
I know a lot of GM fanboys who call "bias" at the slightest critical point a reviewer makes of their product.
Let's be frank: there are Honda fanboys, Toyota fanboys, Mazda fanboys (raises hand) etc who do the same thing. :shades:
As for my friends Lemko and imidazol97] if you two fellows truly believe that the Hydramtic 4 speed and the 3.8 pushrod engine are the pinnicle of human automotive engineering achievement, that GM cannot possibly improve its cars performance in any meaningful way, well I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.
Lemko understands reality, he just hates it, and misses his old Buicks. :shades: Personally, I think if he's feeling nostalgic, he should try a Mercury Grand Marquis and he'll feel right at home in his couch...er, car.
I don't know what's up with imidazol97, maybe he just loves GM. They HAVE built some good products, after all; the problem is that they've built a lot more BAD ones recently, and some really don't like to admit to that (including, unfortunately, GM itself).
Hey, at least 62vette isn't around anymore. Poor guy. :shades:
I don't think they're the pinnacle of anything, but they work and they're reliable. The AK-47 is hardly the finest rifle ever made, but it's dependable. You can throw a handful of sand into the breech and it'll still fire whereas an M-16 would have to be thoroughly stripped and cleaned.
It's fine if someone wants to label a magazine "biased" because they pan a GM car....but then don't EVER go quoting that same magazine when they praise a GM car. That is completely inconsistent with the accusation of bias.
The magazine people actually laugh when they are accused of "bias" or "taking bribes". Most of them are eager to see a domestic product trounce an expensive import because it makes great copy and guarantees a strong response.
It just doesn't happen very often.
I totally agree with a previous poster, that the Japanese "edge" is really about "doing their homework".
The Japanese have rarely (just once in a while) released a new model prematurely, with bugs. They usually "get it right the first time out".
GM seems to hire its customers to do the R&D for them.
I heard that what we consider a "new" Japanese model is actually several years old before it gets to the NA market. They work out all the bugs in their home market before releasing it here.
Good point but the Japanese are even less tolerant of fit and finish and reliability issues than we are. I'd imagine that a company in Japan would have to put out a pretty good product for the home market.
You remember how in the 1980s every US car had to be repainted in order to even sell in Japan (not that they sold very many, that's true).
It just doesn't realize how bad off it is. If it was bad before with the old leaders can you imagine how it will be run now that the government is allowed to put it's 2 cents in? Unless they make a miracle turn around we have just bought 60 percent of a rotting corps. Ditch the UAW and start all over with new products and a new direction and maybe it has a chance. But once the next contract comes due the UAW will put a fork in what is left.
TIMGT5 - you've been a great addition to this board and in particular your plans for GM are very well thought out. Thanks for contributing to the discourse!
Now that the compliment is out of the way I need to disagree with this comment:
What are going to do in the future when Hydrogen Fuel Cars become the norm?
I just don't see it. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a fuel, as it does not exist pure in nature (at least on earth). To work on conversion you need an expensive infrastructure and that energy has to come from somewhere (fossil fuels, etc). Hydrogen also has low energy density relative to fossil fuels.
Those would unbiased reviews rather than Road&Track, Car&Driver, Motorweek, who have an interest in cars that are race capable or are out of the price range or interest of 90% of the US car buyers.
Like Consumer Reports? They don't have an interest in race car driving, and have even given very good reviews to some GM vehicles. But they say that the cars that test well (CTS, Malibu, Acadia/etc.) have poor reliability and the cars that test more poorly in being up to date and refined have better reliability. GM has a ways to go and denying it won't save them. The market doesn't believe the products are there yet, certainly not enough to support even a 20% market share, which is why it has been declining for years. What we feel in this forum isn't going to change that.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount "technological status" as a significant marketing factor.
In reality, perhaps there isn't much difference between a plain old iron pushrod engine under the hood, versus a shiny, alloy, twin-cam motor with fancy headers, but in "perception", one is more desirable to the buyer than the other.
Many car buyers in America are just like car buyers everywhere--they want "the next new thing".
I don't think GM has done a very good job of providing that.
Hydrogen cars will not happen over night or even in the next decade. It took almost 40 years to go from tiny experimental rockets, to putting a spacecraft on the moon. I have talked to chemist I know that thinks we could have affordable hydrogen cars and a supporting infrastructure by mid century at best.
I respect your opinion as you share it with many here and elsewhere.
Many car buyers in America are just like car buyers everywhere--they want "the next new thing".
I don't think GM has done a very good job of providing that
I would refine your statement a bit to say that GM works in 2 directions, they spend years ignoring new tech and plod along in the same direction until a crisis hits, then they rush the latest tech out 2 fast.
In the late 70's when GM was losing market share to the imports because of fuel effciency issues, they rushed cars like the Chevette and Citation out there without proper development and got their asses handed to them by the imports.
In the last three years GM has suddenly realized that it needed to match the technology of the Germans and Japanese so they quickly rushed out a 6 speed auto (somehow the Ford version is much less problamatic) In time these issues will be rectified but as was said earlier that public seems to end up as Beta testers for their cars.
In the late 70's when GM was losing market share to the imports because of fuel effciency issues, they rushed cars like the Chevette and Citation out there without proper development and got their asses handed to them by the imports.
In the last three years GM has suddenly realized that it needed to match the technology of the Germans and Japanese so they quickly rushed out a 6 speed auto (somehow the Ford version is much less problamatic) In time these issues will be rectified but as was said earlier that public seems to end up as Beta testers for their cars.
Great summary.
GM seems more of a manufacturer than a designer of cars. They don't seem to do design all that well - lots of older technology and when they do new technology they either aim the wrong way (mild hybrid, two-mode hybrid, Volt - heck, their ENTIRE overly complex hybrid program!) or have lots of problems.
I wouldn't count on the hydrogen. It's more like a battery to this point...takes just as much energy to make it if not more. For hydrogen cars to be effective it has to be close to 1:1. Then you could use electricity from all sources to make the hydrogen, then put it in the car.
One of the things people like about oil is it takes less energy to produce than it generates. We need to find something like that. If GM could do THAT, they could write their own ticket. But their track record isn't so hot on new propulsion tech, is it?
Whoa, isn't the title here "What if you were in charge of GM?".
Guys, isn't part of the answer "better leadership, leading from the front, getting close to the customer, no more free cars (and car washes ) to the execs, everybody has to buy their own car from a dealer and have it dealer maintained, hire a more a diversified management staff, not just upper midwestern white guys, blowing up the management silos", etc.?
Small example Rick Wagoner would still be President of GM if he didn't live in a bubble and take one of the GM jets to DC to testify. He would have had enough sense to know that packing his 6 guys into a Hybrid Suburban and driving all nite from Detroit would have won the day (and been a good time for the guys).
Based on the lack of quality of my 2002 Impala - latest failure is a blown head gasket at 50K - I have a suggestion. GM should stop concentrating on getting the headlights to turn on and off automatically and try building an engine that does not tear itself apart at 1/4 the mileage it should attain.
Based on the lack of quality of my 2002 Impala - latest failure is a blown head gasket at 50K - I have a suggestion. GM should stop concentrating on getting the headlights to turn on and off automatically and try building an engine that does not tear itself apart at 1/4 the mileage it should attain.
Good point. I would get some strategy. No dilution due to branding. No dilution due to 3 kinds of hybrids, all worse than the Prius. Instead of diluting with rebadges, stay focused. GM's history is the history of multiplying mediocrity. Contrast that with Honda - stay smaller, focus, don't try to be everything to everybody, focus on quality (although I think they are struggling a bit with that of late).
So for GM,
0 - get a strategy. Focus! 1 - they should dump Buick everywhere except China 2 - they should only sell commercial trucks at GMC. No overlaps with Chevy or Buick 3 - as mentioned above, REALLY focus on a few great engines. Focus on a high quality interior. Focus on refined controls. Focus on reliability. Keep improving the cars through a monitoring program - anything that fails early or reliably, fix the part and apply it to the production models.
Guys, isn't part of the answer "better leadership, leading from the front, getting close to the customer, no more free cars (and car washes ) to the execs, everybody has to buy their own car from a dealer and have it dealer maintained, hire a more a diversified management staff, not just upper midwestern white guys, blowing up the management silos", etc.?
You raise a good point about leading by example here. I think to be honest Rick was more of a fall guy than anything else, a convient target of anger. Granted the jet thing was arrogant, but under his leadership GM did produce a larger array of more competative cars than they had previously (malibu, C6 Vette, CTS etc..) so he had at least pointed GM in right direction. GM was a huge ship and it takes a lot to turn it arround.
I want to give you a different take on the diverstiy issue you raised. One of GM's problems in the past is that too many people who get to the top of company are from finance and accounting. There need to be more people on the Board of Directors coming up from engineering. Every Honda President has been promoted from the engineering division and it shows in much of what they offer the customer.
They should also ban Dex-Cool as the anti-freeze/coolant used in GM vehicles, and use only G-05 type coolant (analogous to the Mercedes-Benz formulation). If you have aluminum alloy parts in your engine, and most engines are either totally aluminum-based now - or at the very least the cylinder heads - you want to use G-05 phosphate-free coolant. Take a look at any aluminum part, even the thermostat housing on an engine using Dex-Cool, or the old Prestone "Green Stuff." If you see a white oxide build up around the thermostat, you've got a problem.
Dex-Cool is most likely the cause of your head gasket failure, as well as many other documented cooling system failures in GM engines.
Nope! I was only interested in Buick sales as a whole not individual models. The fact that GM consciously reduced the number of vehicles in the Buick lineup is even more telling that they felt there was too little difference between the Century, LeSabre, Regal, Park Avenue, etc.
By reducing Buick's models, they also reduced their visibility in the public's eye. I don't think Buick is going to ever reach 400k sales again. 200k is a stretch unless they dump a bunch into the rentals.
As was mentioned by another member, GM makes money in every market except the North American market. NO reason GM can't continue to sell Buicks in China. It's not like they have the same Buicks as we do.
I dunno. If the North American Buicks were as lavish as the Chinese ones, I think Buick would have a very strong presence. I saw pictures of what a Chinese LaCrosse looks like. Who the heck needs a Cadillac? The Chinese LaCrosse would shame a Lexus.
I've rented a few Saturn Aura which are the paternal twin to the Malibu. I was very disappointed with the fuel mileage. I expected better fuel economy from the 6 speed auto. It drove nice on the highway but reminded you it was a 4 cylinder in town with a bunch of excessive shifting and throttle lag. to be honest, most midsize, 4 cylinder cars behave this way driving around town.
I asked this question a while ago (probably two years) when the D3 were beginning to have their problems and were contemplating bringing their overseas cars here to the US.
Why are the better cars for GM (and Ford) built for the overseas markets and not for the US?
Not-quite-so-short-answer: those really nice Buicks, Opels, etc. also come with a really nice price tag and come in configurations (size, powertrains) that the average American car buyer would demand a significant discount for as compensation. So, we're basically cheap %^#%^$%s, and get offered cheap %#%#^%$ cars.
Let me take a stab at your question if I may and it is more complicated than you think.
One thing that Europe does very well is maintain its highways and surface streets. Drive through Germany and you will not see the potholed, cratered roads that you see too frequently in America. The Autobahn for example is 3X thicker than any interstate in America and its surface is glass smooth.
The result is that companies like Audi, BMW, Mercedes, et al, can focus much more intensley on their vehicle's driving dynamics. Where as the D3 had to concentrate on islolation and a absorbatant ride. The American versions of the German iron are actually "dumbed down" for our roads. On the super smooth autobahn surfaces everything rides well, even normally stiff cars here feel like lincoln town cars there. So any car with uncertainty in its motion, lack of body control, and float are rejected by European buyers.
Also with gas north of 5 bucks a gallon a premium is placed on fuel efficiency. So the Euro middle class go for high mileage, compact cars. Often compacts there are sold with a lot of luxury features that until recently just began appearing here (Leather, navi, power seats, high end stereos etc) in that class of car.
In order to compete in those markets GM, Ford and Chrysler have had to adapt and produce cars that were well engineered with a much higher level of perfomance than seen in NA. The European buyes are much more demanding about quality engineering and driving dynamics than your typical Americans, hence the greater emphaisis on quality and driving ability.
This is an excellent post. You are spot on as to the European highways and surface streets. Theirs' put our roads to shame, with the possible exception of some of the roadways in France - hence the long suspension travel in most French vehicles.
Although the USA is currently the only superpower in the world, some aspects of our country are trending toward 3rd world status.
"General Motors execs obviously won't admit it, but clearly politics played a part in their decision to build future small cars in Michigan instead of Tennessee. "
In other GM news, "General Motors North America President Troy Clarke said the automaker has yet to find a model that is suitable to build at the GM-Toyota joint venture plant in California, New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. "
They've shed costs, but ultimately it is about product. They don't have enough product at high enough quality to sustain more than (IMHO) 25%-33% of their previous market share. Not good.
As a buisness case this is a very bad move. As I said before the only way GM can build a competative "B" class car would be to manufacture it in a place with very low labor costs, whatever they roll out of there will lose them millions of dollars.
Keep in mind that 15 years of Cavaliers never made them a dime, its sole reason for exisitance was CAFE, if were a purely business decision that model would have either been built offshore or not at all. Same goes with the Ford Escort.
If GM is forced down this path, history will repeat itself.
Not-quite-so-short-answer: those really nice Buicks, Opels, etc. also come with a really nice price tag and come in configurations (size, powertrains) that the average American car buyer would demand a significant discount for as compensation. So, we're basically cheap %^#%^$%s, and get offered cheap %#%#^%$ cars.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. BMW and MB don't have trouble charging a lot of $$ for luxurious cars. Buick name is just too tarnished in this country to pay that kind of money. Sort of like VW trying the Phateon. Why don't they bring those Chinese Buicks here and call them Caddys?
One thing that Europe does very well is maintain its highways and surface streets. Drive through Germany and you will not see the potholed, cratered roads that you see too frequently in America. The Autobahn for example is 3X thicker than any interstate in America and its surface is glass smooth.
The result is that companies like Audi, BMW, Mercedes, et al, can focus much more intensley on their vehicle's driving dynamics. Where as the D3 had to concentrate on islolation and a absorbatant ride. The American versions of the German iron are actually "dumbed down" for our roads. On the super smooth autobahn surfaces everything rides well, even normally stiff cars here feel like lincoln town cars there. So any car with uncertainty in its motion, lack of body control, and float are rejected by European buyers.
I don't really buy that, as there are also a LOT more cobblestone streets in Europe and the MBs, BMWs, Audis, do just fine there, too.
".....As a buisness case this is a very bad move. As I said before the only way GM can build a competative "B" class car would be to manufacture it in a place with very low labor costs, whatever they roll out of there will lose them millions of dollars. "
Now, how is this possible when Toyota builds their Corrolla on a Union assembly line in a state with some of the highest taxes in the country (California)? Do they not make money on these cars???
Most of these city streets you refer to are driven on at very low speeds are closed off to automotive traffice altogether, but do a little research you find that Most German cars are set up firmer for the home market than here.
And yes the Autobahn is far superior in construction to any public road we have in the US.
With a rapidly crumbling infrastructure and $1000 speeding tickets in some states for going only 20 over the posted speed limit (just outside DC for instance) , I suspect that pretty soon we'll all be driving 4 cylinder tanks upholstered in foam rubber. Hey, sounds like Detroit in the 80s all over again! :P
While the Freemont CA plant is unionized, it operates much more as a Toyota plant than a GM plant, the workers there make less in wages and benetits than their counterparts in MI do. Also that plant is more automated than plants GM and Ford have in MI (thank the UAW for that). So the overall cost of production is lower. It also helps that the plant is located in a costal state with easier access to Japan for shipping preassmbled components without a lot of extra OTR trucking.
The Corolla, Matix and Vibe are not classified as "B" cars. Toyota's B car is the Yaris, which is built overseas, GM's B car is the Chevy Aveo which is a rebadged Daweoo from South Korea, other cars in the B class are the Fit, The Versa, The Smart, and the upcoming Festiva from Ford, these cars slot below traditional compacts such as the Corolla, Civic, Sentra and Cobalt.
If anyone has information otherwise please correct me, but I have read that GM needs at least 17K-18K at retail on any car made in Michigan to break even.
With a rapidly crumbling infrastructure and $1000 speeding tickets in some states for going only 20 over the posted speed limit (just outside DC for instance) , I suspect that pretty soon we'll all be driving 4 cylinder tanks upholstered in foam rubber. Hey, sounds like Detroit in the 80s all over again!
Considering that fellow in the white house wants to run the domestic car industry I am afraid your scenario could happen. I guess the majority of my fellow voters decided that freedom was worth less than the pie in the sky promise of a secure nanny state, sorry to get political on you guys.
Comments
Those would unbiased reviews rather than Road&Track, Car&Driver, Motorweek, who have an interest in cars that are race capable or are out of the price range or interest of 90% of the US car buyers.
To emphasize my point read the post #598 ..
Or here's another post sounding realistic about a rental Camry link title
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It's too bad you haven't had a Malibu to compare in the rentals. GM cut back sales to rentals to improve their image, so there may not be as many available.
As for the Accords, how does the road noise and ride strike you? Loud? Harsh?
Have any of the Accords been V6s with the VCM? There is a discussion of complaints about its having roughness and being irritating to drivers as it cycles?
>the recent Chevy Impala rental with the 4-speed auto was perfectly smooth.
Aren't they great?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You realize most people define "unbiased" as "favoring the car that I like" right? And of course any review that doesn't agree with them is of course biased?
Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motor Trend, Automobile, Edmunds, ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, etc tend to be pretty fair in the reviews I've read. And yeah, sometimes they review supercars too...hey, I like to read about supercars: so do a lot of car fans. I take it they're all biased because they like so few GM cars?
Then again, maybe they're reflecting the vies of the market, which also seems to like few GM cars? So few that GM had to go bankrupt?
Yeah, the Impala has a smooth 4-speed. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be what the market wants. The market wants 5 and 6 speed autos, or CVTs. The market wants cars with better fuel economy. The market wants actual hybrids rather than "mild" hybrids.
The market also doesn't seem to want GM, otherwise they wouldn't be in BK. GM has to find a way to be wanted by the market. Going around telling the market "You're an idiot for wanting those other guys, you really want us" doesn't get very far, and isn't a real bright idea to begin with. The market decides what it wants and needs, and a successful company tries to fill that need, and do the best job possible at it.
Although the Chevy Impala's 4-speed auto was extremely smooth, and the throttle responsive, it's V6 delivered poorer fuel economy with the 4-speed than what I've experienced over exactly the same itinerary with a new Ford Taurus rental with its V6 with the 6-speed auto - but, this is expected given the gearing (Impala: 25.5MPG, and Taurus: 29MPG).
That is a good point. Please realize that these reviewers test hundreds of cars a year, the average person might get to drive 3 or 4 in a decade. I know a lot of GM fanboys who call "bias" at the slightest critical point a reviewer makes of their product.
I would not buy a car just based on what is in the magazine, I always do a comprehensive 1 hour test drive over different roads before considering a product. Some of it interstate, some backroads. I want a car that is competant in both realms before I lay down any money.
As for my friends Lemko and imidazol97] if you two fellows truly believe that the Hydramtic 4 speed and the 3.8 pushrod engine are the pinnicle of human automotive engineering achievement, that GM cannot possibly improve its cars performance in any meaningful way, well I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.
Let's be frank: there are Honda fanboys, Toyota fanboys, Mazda fanboys (raises hand) etc who do the same thing. :shades:
As for my friends Lemko and imidazol97] if you two fellows truly believe that the Hydramtic 4 speed and the 3.8 pushrod engine are the pinnicle of human automotive engineering achievement, that GM cannot possibly improve its cars performance in any meaningful way, well I am not going to try to convince you otherwise.
Lemko understands reality, he just hates it, and misses his old Buicks. :shades: Personally, I think if he's feeling nostalgic, he should try a Mercury Grand Marquis and he'll feel right at home in his couch...er, car.
I don't know what's up with imidazol97, maybe he just loves GM. They HAVE built some good products, after all; the problem is that they've built a lot more BAD ones recently, and some really don't like to admit to that (including, unfortunately, GM itself).
Hey, at least 62vette isn't around anymore. Poor guy. :shades:
ROTFLMAO! :shades: I knew it!
The magazine people actually laugh when they are accused of "bias" or "taking bribes". Most of them are eager to see a domestic product trounce an expensive import because it makes great copy and guarantees a strong response.
It just doesn't happen very often.
I totally agree with a previous poster, that the Japanese "edge" is really about "doing their homework".
The Japanese have rarely (just once in a while) released a new model prematurely, with bugs. They usually "get it right the first time out".
GM seems to hire its customers to do the R&D for them.
You remember how in the 1980s every US car had to be repainted in order to even sell in Japan (not that they sold very many, that's true).
Now that the compliment is out of the way I need to disagree with this comment:
What are going to do in the future when Hydrogen Fuel Cars become the norm?
I just don't see it. Hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a fuel, as it does not exist pure in nature (at least on earth). To work on conversion you need an expensive infrastructure and that energy has to come from somewhere (fossil fuels, etc). Hydrogen also has low energy density relative to fossil fuels.
Like Consumer Reports? They don't have an interest in race car driving, and have even given very good reviews to some GM vehicles. But they say that the cars that test well (CTS, Malibu, Acadia/etc.) have poor reliability and the cars that test more poorly in being up to date and refined have better reliability. GM has a ways to go and denying it won't save them. The market doesn't believe the products are there yet, certainly not enough to support even a 20% market share, which is why it has been declining for years. What we feel in this forum isn't going to change that.
In reality, perhaps there isn't much difference between a plain old iron pushrod engine under the hood, versus a shiny, alloy, twin-cam motor with fancy headers, but in "perception", one is more desirable to the buyer than the other.
Many car buyers in America are just like car buyers everywhere--they want "the next new thing".
I don't think GM has done a very good job of providing that.
Hydrogen cars will not happen over night or even in the next decade. It took almost 40 years to go from tiny experimental rockets, to putting a spacecraft on the moon. I have talked to chemist I know that thinks we could have affordable hydrogen cars and a supporting infrastructure by mid century at best.
I respect your opinion as you share it with many here and elsewhere.
I don't think GM has done a very good job of providing that
I would refine your statement a bit to say that GM works in 2 directions, they spend years ignoring new tech and plod along in the same direction until a crisis hits, then they rush the latest tech out 2 fast.
In the late 70's when GM was losing market share to the imports because of fuel effciency issues, they rushed cars like the Chevette and Citation out there without proper development and got their asses handed to them by the imports.
In the last three years GM has suddenly realized that it needed to match the technology of the Germans and Japanese so they quickly rushed out a 6 speed auto (somehow the Ford version is much less problamatic) In time these issues will be rectified but as was said earlier that public seems to end up as Beta testers for their cars.
In the last three years GM has suddenly realized that it needed to match the technology of the Germans and Japanese so they quickly rushed out a 6 speed auto (somehow the Ford version is much less problamatic) In time these issues will be rectified but as was said earlier that public seems to end up as Beta testers for their cars.
Great summary.
GM seems more of a manufacturer than a designer of cars. They don't seem to do design all that well - lots of older technology and when they do new technology they either aim the wrong way (mild hybrid, two-mode hybrid, Volt - heck, their ENTIRE overly complex hybrid program!) or have lots of problems.
One of the things people like about oil is it takes less energy to produce than it generates. We need to find something like that. If GM could do THAT, they could write their own ticket. But their track record isn't so hot on new propulsion tech, is it?
Why is she just your girlfriend? Marry her. Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Guys, isn't part of the answer "better leadership, leading from the front, getting close to the customer, no more free cars (and car washes ) to the execs, everybody has to buy their own car from a dealer and have it dealer maintained, hire a more a diversified management staff, not just upper midwestern white guys, blowing up the management silos", etc.?
Small example Rick Wagoner would still be President of GM if he didn't live in a bubble and take one of the GM jets to DC to testify. He would have had enough sense to know that packing his 6 guys into a Hybrid Suburban and driving all nite from Detroit would have won the day (and been a good time for the guys).
Two, leadership alone won't unseat the deeply ingrained corporate culture at GM.
Oh, and diversification just for the sake of diversification is also not good. Why not just hire a bunch of people who are qualified as a first step?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Good point. I would get some strategy. No dilution due to branding. No dilution due to 3 kinds of hybrids, all worse than the Prius. Instead of diluting with rebadges, stay focused. GM's history is the history of multiplying mediocrity. Contrast that with Honda - stay smaller, focus, don't try to be everything to everybody, focus on quality (although I think they are struggling a bit with that of late).
So for GM,
0 - get a strategy. Focus!
1 - they should dump Buick everywhere except China
2 - they should only sell commercial trucks at GMC. No overlaps with Chevy or Buick
3 - as mentioned above, REALLY focus on a few great engines. Focus on a high quality interior. Focus on refined controls. Focus on reliability. Keep improving the cars through a monitoring program - anything that fails early or reliably, fix the part and apply it to the production models.
You raise a good point about leading by example here. I think to be honest Rick was more of a fall guy than anything else, a convient target of anger. Granted the jet thing was arrogant, but under his leadership GM did produce a larger array of more competative cars than they had previously (malibu, C6 Vette, CTS etc..) so he had at least pointed GM in right direction. GM was a huge ship and it takes a lot to turn it arround.
I want to give you a different take on the diverstiy issue you raised. One of GM's problems in the past is that too many people who get to the top of company are from finance and accounting. There need to be more people on the Board of Directors coming up from engineering. Every Honda President has been promoted from the engineering division and it shows in much of what they offer the customer.
Dex-Cool is most likely the cause of your head gasket failure, as well as many other documented cooling system failures in GM engines.
As was mentioned by another member, GM makes money in every market except the North American market. NO reason GM can't continue to sell Buicks in China. It's not like they have the same Buicks as we do.
Why are the better cars for GM (and Ford) built for the overseas markets and not for the US?
Those Buicks should be here in the US
Something like this might happen:
Some assembly required -- makes you wonder how many flat packs it would take to get something like that home.
Yes, I know that's a VW Golf that is disassembled in the above picture. I'm just sayin'.
Not-quite-so-short-answer: those really nice Buicks, Opels, etc. also come with a really nice price tag and come in configurations (size, powertrains) that the average American car buyer would demand a significant discount for as compensation. So, we're basically cheap %^#%^$%s, and get offered cheap %#%#^%$ cars.
One thing that Europe does very well is maintain its highways and surface streets. Drive through Germany and you will not see the potholed, cratered roads that you see too frequently in America. The Autobahn for example is 3X thicker than any interstate in America and its surface is glass smooth.
The result is that companies like Audi, BMW, Mercedes, et al, can focus much more intensley on their vehicle's driving dynamics. Where as the D3 had to concentrate on islolation and a absorbatant ride. The American versions of the German iron are actually "dumbed down" for our roads. On the super smooth autobahn surfaces everything rides well, even normally stiff cars here feel like lincoln town cars there.
So any car with uncertainty in its motion, lack of body control, and float are rejected by European buyers.
Also with gas north of 5 bucks a gallon a premium is placed on fuel efficiency. So the Euro middle class go for high mileage, compact cars. Often compacts there are sold with a lot of luxury features that until recently just began appearing here (Leather, navi, power seats, high end stereos etc) in that class of car.
In order to compete in those markets GM, Ford and Chrysler have had to adapt and produce cars that were well engineered with a much higher level of perfomance than seen in NA. The European buyes are much more demanding about quality engineering and driving dynamics than your typical Americans, hence the greater emphaisis on quality and driving ability.
Although the USA is currently the only superpower in the world, some aspects of our country are trending toward 3rd world status.
Maybe Corker Should Have Corked It
GM To Announce Michigan Gets Its Small Car Plant
In other GM news, "General Motors North America President Troy Clarke said the automaker has yet to find a model that is suitable to build at the GM-Toyota joint venture plant in California, New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. "
Nada For NUMMI, So Far
Finally, the HUMMER sale is in doubt and GM To Close Louisiana Truck Plant. (AutoObserver for all links)
Keep in mind that 15 years of Cavaliers never made them a dime, its sole reason for exisitance was CAFE, if were a purely business decision that model would have either been built offshore or not at all. Same goes with the Ford Escort.
If GM is forced down this path, history will repeat itself.
Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. BMW and MB don't have trouble charging a lot of $$ for luxurious cars. Buick name is just too tarnished in this country to pay that kind of money. Sort of like VW trying the Phateon. Why don't they bring those Chinese Buicks here and call them Caddys?
The result is that companies like Audi, BMW, Mercedes, et al, can focus much more intensley on their vehicle's driving dynamics. Where as the D3 had to concentrate on islolation and a absorbatant ride. The American versions of the German iron are actually "dumbed down" for our roads. On the super smooth autobahn surfaces everything rides well, even normally stiff cars here feel like lincoln town cars there.
So any car with uncertainty in its motion, lack of body control, and float are rejected by European buyers.
I don't really buy that, as there are also a LOT more cobblestone streets in Europe and the MBs, BMWs, Audis, do just fine there, too.
Now, how is this possible when Toyota builds their Corrolla on a Union assembly line in a state with some of the highest taxes in the country (California)? Do they not make money on these cars???
And yes the Autobahn is far superior in construction to any public road we have in the US.
The Corolla, Matix and Vibe are not classified as "B" cars. Toyota's B car is the Yaris, which is built overseas, GM's B car is the Chevy Aveo which is a rebadged Daweoo from South Korea, other cars in the B class are the Fit, The Versa, The Smart, and the upcoming Festiva from Ford, these cars slot below traditional compacts such as the Corolla, Civic, Sentra and Cobalt.
If anyone has information otherwise please correct me, but I have read that GM needs at least 17K-18K at retail on any car made in Michigan to break even.
Considering that fellow in the white house wants to run the domestic car industry I am afraid your scenario could happen. I guess the majority of my fellow voters decided that freedom was worth less than the pie in the sky promise of a secure nanny state, sorry to get political on you guys.