Because the chances of getting a reliable car from GM is like the chances of getting a wild card in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Asian nameplates such as Honda :shades: or Toyota :shades: simply don't have this FLAKY reputation.
I call GM :lemon: cars junk based on my experience with them (e.g. buttons on instrument panel are made of not only cheap plastic but hollow plastic, so that holes get punched in them over time from regular use )
No one has addressed why GM won't improve the quality of their vehicles. They still use cheap plastic in the CTS. (I haven't seen the 2008) The CTS should have never had cheap plastic in it. And their technology is behind the times.
Have you seen the interior of a their Chevy Cavalier? ewwww. And take a look at the review I wrote regarding a Chevrolet Impala I rented 2 weekends ago. Ridiculous and gross.
I don't label Toyota's cars as junk, cause my experience has been very good with them. _____________________________
by rockylee Apr 11, 2007 (4:40 pm) Replying to: mediapusher (Apr 11, 2007 4:36 pm)
LOL, well why should one have to pick a different model because they can't get it right ? You wouldn't give that fair assessment torwards GM, vehicles if their were known failures with a particular part. You would generalize and lump that particular model as GM junk.
I've not had to replace or repair a transmission on my LeSabres, 150K, 150K, 50K. So replacing a transmission on a Corolla at 160K certainly doesn't look good to me.
>And take a look at the review I wrote regarding a Chevrolet Impala I rented 2 weekends ago.
Read the reviews I wrote of the two Accords in the showroom at a local Honda dealer. Rough and plain, no soft touch plastics other than back of armrest, seats hard like lawn chairs, side bolsters too narrow--and I didn't even experience the rough ride this time (did that in 03 when shopping).
The Cadillac Escalades are also built in Canada. How's that for buying "American"?
Canada is America, as is Mexico. Some of the folks get offended when you go there and say you are American. My trucks and Suburban were all built in North America. They were and are all equally well built.
If you had read my other post it was not referring to all Toyotas. Only those that have been reported here on Edmund's with problems that the dealers seem unable to resolve. Also the problems seem to be getting more frequent with the last 5 model years, from Toyota. Maybe they are resting on their laurels or growing too fast.
Hopefully Cadillac and GM are learning from their mistakes and will continue their current turnaround.
From the looks of that article Toyota's success looks more like learning which Congressmen to lobby. One of the statements that caught my attention was the fact that Toyota has not built any icons. I would say the early Land Cruisers might qualify as icons. I know they bring big bucks if they are not rusted away. I would buy an old one. Though the engines were crap. Very poor quality copies of the Chevy 6.
I second that sentiment. Toyota's very first truck was... A copy of the Jeep for the Japanese military. Right after WWII. Ever since then, they've been the #2 off-road choice behind Jeep.
If you go off-roading, you see - Jeeps, Toyotas, some GM and Ford, and... pretty much nothing else. The old engines aside, they are worth every penny. My old 4-Runner that I use as my commuter-box has 340K miles and 20 years on it. And it would probably manage to eek its way up at least half of the Rubicon Trial despite its age.(pretty much stock except for a reinforced racing clutch)
If I were to buy a new 4x4, the Tacoma or 4-Runner would be at the top of the list right behind a Wrangler Unlimited.
P.S. The very first modern SUV ever made... Toyota. They started the whole craze. (sure the Surburban existed, but it was a tank - way too big to appeal to most people)
Lastly - let's see... a few Toyota icons: Supra. Celica. 4-Runner Land Cruiser 2000 GT(I'd LOVE to own one) Prius(love it or hate it, it's an icon)
I guess we have a very different view of icons. To me an icon in the automotive world is a vehicle that becomes more valuable after 20-30-50 years. The Land Cruisers can claim that distinction for Toyota. I cannot think of any icons built by the Japanese besides the LC and Datsun Patrol. Which by the way was superior to the Land Cruiser when they first hit our shores. My first choice in 1964 was the Jeep, then the Patrol. The Land Cruiser was the least expensive. I paid $2400 cash for it. Today a clean original late 1960s LC will bring $15k or more.
The 2000 GT is collectible. Never really in a league with the competition. If they were really that great they would have sold more than they did in the States. The only reason they bring big money today is the fact that less than 100 ever came to the USA. Give me a 911 any day.
I think there is a difference between "significant" and "iconic", even though a car can be both. Look at the 1987 winner-the Dodge Dakota-an excellent choice, as it change the landscape for compact trucks forever, just as the Taurus did a year earlier for sedans. But the true all star for 1987 would be the Buick GNX. THAT is a vehicle that is lusted after today-an ICON-something the Dakota is not.
Big difference, Steve, as gagrice was talking ICONS.
A friend of mine has a 1980 Toyota Land Cruiser. I like it a lot better than the plush soccer-mommy mobile the current Land Cruiser has become. Why couldn't the FJ be more like his '80 model rather than the ersatz retro-vehicle it is?
Wasn't there a Studebaker called the Land Cruiser?
As for icons, the Datsun 240Z is about the only one I can readily think of from a Japanese make. Maybe the early Honda S2000.
Toyota is rolling over everyone like a freight train is the point. Whatever they are doing, everyone should do it. True, once you are on top you can only go down---the risk of success is always there. Toyota will be #1 automaker in the world pretty soon. That doesn't come from making lousy cars, that's for sure.
One thing Cadillac could copy from Harley is to use more foreign parts and technology to boost reliability and credibility even further. Harley V-rods now use Japanese carbs and shocks, Italian ignition, Porsche-designed engine and (gasp) French influenced fuel injection. And it performs well as an "American icon", too. Pretty slick hat trick if you ask me.
No reason Cadillac couldn't improve its products with more global cooperation while still retaining a completely American character. Harley stands as a perfect example.
Sure it does! Absolutely!! I know this predates the article you referenced, but from 1955 until 1966 Caddilac produced a limited edition convertible known as the Fleetwood Eldorado Biarritz. Also, Don't forget that the first postwar designs by Bill Mitchell in 1948(1946-47 were gussied up '41's) Started the tailfin craze. Try and touch a '59 Fleetwood Eldo Biarritz for under $100K? BTW Bill Mitchell also designed the '63 Riviera, The car that saved Buick. Now, you'll probably tell me "too far back-what have they done for me lately"? True, but remember this; back in the '50's, GM began marketing the DeVille lineup that was the backbone of their sales for 45 yrs as a car that us blue collar workers aspired to own when we retire. This worked until the late '80's when "lesser cars" from ALL makes started including luxury items (ps, pw, pdl, ac, cruise,etc.) that were historically found on luxury models. That put pressure on Caddy to come up w/ a "plan B". I believe that to be the Seville. Since it's inception, until it was renamed the STS a few years back, I don't believe it has been very competitive, especially since the market for such cars has been heated up by the Japanese. Todays DTS think of it as the stainless steel version of your refrigerator, and not a top of the line Viking.
I agree with the 240Z cars. Not sure if they bring big bucks. If Edmund's had extended the list into the 1950s you would see some Cadillacs I am sure. I think the late 50s Caddy convertibles are bringing 6 figures at auction.
Toyota is rolling over everyone like a freight train is the point
Yes, they are. However, if they don't take GM over this year or next, I don't forsee it happening at all, PROVIDED (insert big if here) GM's future models (Malibu, CTS, Impala, Camaro, and Enclave) are as good as their show car counterparts have been acclaimed to be.
Ironically I probably wouldn't remember if it was a 240 or a 260/280Z something if a close friend hadn't gone deep in car payment debt to get a yellow one when they came out and I rode shotgun in one a lot.
Better suited for the Dumb car names and GM's "Must Keep" Names discussions, but when y'all say DeVille or Fleetwood, I sort of know what you are referring to.
I haven't connected the STS, SRX, SLX with the car bodies yet and likely won't unless I win one.
Well I hope they are markedly improved over previous versions of these cars. The last Malibu I drove was not world-class (2006) by a long shot, and of coure the last generation Camaro was pretty fast but pretty shoddy. I've heard the CTS is pretty good, so that might be a good foundation for the next gen improvements.
Yes, a resounding victory in the automotive press with new models would do GM a world of good right now, and by extension, boost Cadillac's image as well.
Whether Toyota gets to be #1 in the world is sort of irrelevant. More important is its market share in the US, which is growing.
Nobody else can be Toyota (not even Honda), that's why everyone envies them. Nobody else can be Google, not even MS...
One thing Cadillac could copy from Harley is to use more foreign parts and technology to boost reliability and credibility even further.
Ford built supercar GT to showcase its wondrous technology. Only problem was its frame cracked. I read Ford should've bought some super hi-strength steel from this Japanese supplier, but chose not to, probably to cut costs.
Harley stands as a perfect example.
I'm always puzzled by the analogy. Essentially Harley builds antique cycles that it can sell at very high prices in very limited numbers. But don't ask them to run with modern Yamahas and Bugattis. On those motorcycle GP's shown on Speed, you never see any Harleys.
If Caddy wants to be Rolls back in the 50's, build antique autos for very high prices, Harley might be a good example. But if Caddy wants to run with BMW and Infiniti, Harley holds no lesson whatsoever!
Is a pretty good analogy. Harley doesn't run with the Japanese bikes... but that hasn't kept it from increasing market share very nicely, thank you!
In 1988 Kawasaki was the third-largest brand, holding 13.9 percent of the market. By 1995 Kawasaki actually gained market share but was in fourth place among the six major brands, with 14.1 percent of the market. Yamaha was the third-largest player, holding 15.2 percent of the market in 1995, and Suzuki accounted for 13.2 percent of new motorcycle sales. German manufacturer BMW, with 1.6 percent of the total, was sixth among the top brands. Harley-Davidson, fifth in 1988 with 9.4 percent of the market, experienced an 11-point market-share increase over four years, moving into second place in the early 1990s. In 1995 Harley-Davidson still held second place, with 23.3 percent of the market.
Even if GM as a whole brand can pull off bieng standard for the world again, it has a problem...
As soon as its cars, profitability and market share start comming back up to a point where they can start to pay off there HUGE outstanding debts and recouperate, the Unions will demand more money, healthcare, and benefits. What will GM do?
Its a much weaker GM than in the 50's and 60's. It cannot afford this sort of thing.
THe cars GM has today, and especially those comming out are good, really good. THe problem is the unions, and GM's long term situation.
Now, i heard there was some bill that would basically end non-union employment in the US, and our friends at the communist side of the istle promised to push it through. In that case, even toyota is screwed.
But GM will go first, and Toyota alwayse has Japan.
GM needs to stop trying to make each and every line of cars a full lineup. They need to niche-ify themselves so that each brand covers a specific segment.
For instance, Cadillac.(funny how that comes up - lol) - the CTS is and should be their smallest car. The next step down is actually Saab, which makes their small BTS in Europe(and sells terribly btw - less than 10K total to date, I think). So they keep Saab for the entry-level market.
Buick has gone from 4-5 cars to two sedans and soon, by the looks of it, one SUV. Good for GM - trimming the fat, since nobody wants a tiny Buick when a perfectly good Pontiac will suffice.
Honda and Toyota try hard to have as little overlap as possible and in some cases, just ignores a segment if they can't compete. Large trucks for a long time, for instance. Honda still doesn't have one. Toyota can't make enough Tundras to fill their demand by comparison. Of course, this gives GM and Ford fits, but competition is good since it forces them to improve, and Ford and GM are about as stodgy and slow to react as it gets.
P.S. I'd take a Vulcan 750 over a Harley anyday. More reliable, smoother ride, and half the cost. But whatever Harley has going for it - I can't fault them. Their marketing is nearly perfect and there are loads of happy customers.
My point was more that every time Gm tries to make a small car, they tend to fail at it. They just don't understand it on a fundamental level or something.
So... just ignore that market and let Toyota or whomever build the econoboxes(which basically make no real profit anyways compared to SUVs and luxury cars).
when it comes to making profitable small cars, GM is hopeless. That's the one area where there is no doubt whatsoever that Toyota trounces GM. Thankfully, this is not Cadillac's arena, so Cad doesn't have to worry about fighting it out in that market relying on GM to see them through. If Cadillac can continue to cherry-pick those parts of GM technology that might serve them (like magna-ride) and continue stay away from GM's notorious bad habits, that would be great.
Unfortunately, Cadillac has to rely on GM marketing strategy, which isn't so good right now...but still, better than it used to be, when there was no marketing strategy.
when it comes to making profitable small cars, GM is hopeless
I wouldn't call the Cobalt hopeless. Granted, it's not where the Corolla or Civic are, yet it's not a Vega by any means. The Ecotec engine is a highly regarded engine. In it's day, the Chevette was a decent little car (even better when someone stuffed a 350 in it ). I think anything smaller than these can't be marketed for JUST the US, as the market for those subcompacts isn't that big here.
My point was more that every time Gm tries to make a small car, they tend to fail at it. They just don't understand it on a fundamental level or something.
I hear you there. Cavalier, Aveo, Metro: all pretty sub-par. The only small car Chevy ever had that was done right was the Prizm which was (gasp) really a Toyota. That said, they've come a very long way with the cobalt. I'd actually consider it if I needed a basic econobox.
So... just ignore that market and let Toyota or whomever build the econoboxes(which basically make no real profit anyways compared to SUVs and luxury cars).
If gas keeps going up, that huge markup on SUV's will no longer cut it. They'll have to put up incentives out the ying-yang to sell to anyone who doesn't HAVE to have one (construction/delivery/people who have to tow). As for hitting the Luxury cars, I don't think GM has it's game up to that level yet.
Is the Cobalt ecotech the same engine that goes in the upgraded HHR? The LE5 option? I test drove one and that engine is kinda rough.
But you know, GM's small car do seem to get a little better every time. Still can't get the arrow in the bullseye, but at least they are hitting the tree trunk and the ground near the target area.
Gee, the more I think about GM products, the better Cadillac and Corvette look. Talk about two jewels in an otherwise rhinestone crown. :P
I'm not sure about the engine. As far as styling, I don't think that GM has been gradually improving. Even though I prefer small cars, GM hasn't built a small car I'd even consider in my lifetime. The Cobalt really blew me away. It's light years away from the Cavalier.
It's not as good as the new Civic (especially the Si), but it's about 90% or more.
With all the different badge engineering and platform engineering going on with those particular models GM might just maybe generate a tiny profit when spread out over all the models.
It is probably very, very tiny though and when they have to add extra incentives to those models that tiny profit is wiped out.
Congress, along with GW, are going to put the final nail into GM's coffin with these CAFE standards. If you ever wanted to own a Cadillac, you better get a copy in the near future as I now believe Cadillac, let alone GM, will not be around in the not to distant future as Lutz, is waving the white flag by canceling the RWD Zeta's we were going to see and make GM, profitable once again. The CAFE standards will hurt GM, the most as they were going to be the biggest makers of powerful RWD automobiles. The CAFE, cancels the RWD Zeta DTS for Cadillac, and its sister the 2011 Buick RWD Lucerne. God only knows how many cool RWD cars will be lost.
Toyota didn't start any SUV craze. There were several SUV's including the IH Scout in the late 1950's, and in the 1960's I believe it was 1965 that the Ford Bronco came out followed by the Jimmy and Blazer in 1969. Jeep also had the Jeepster and of course there are the Rovers and other foreign offerings.
Don't blame the gubbmint. Blame GM North America's lack of strategic product planning. Even the 2+ ton RWD Impala could get good mileage with a muti-valve, direct-injection pushrod coupled to the dual-mode hybrid 6-speed auto. A weight reduction and reskinning for a sub .30 cd would also help. Lutz is not the guy to get this done, though.
Government to GM: Improve your mpg!
Lutz:
Buying Public to GM: pay the price for your lack of vision!
What's sub-par about the Aveo? It does well in the right ups and gets as good or better mileage that some other sub-compacts. Nice room, ride, handling, and descent mileage.
Yes it was an EcoTech but I am not sure why it would be rough. I have driven a few of these and the engine was smooth, vibration free, quiet. There is both 2.2 & 2.4 engines.
Unlike the Cavaliar I am sure they make money on the Cobalt, G5, and HHR though a small amount compared to the non-unionized Japanese plants. It costs GM almost $3,500 a car in employee wages, health insurance so profitability is not much on a small low priced car.
But how much was the initial cost of your car? Mine cost $7000.00 ___________________________________ reference text::::: by imidazol97 Apr 11, 2007 (5:04 pm) Replying to: aldw (Apr 11, 2007 3:59 pm)
I've not had to replace or repair a transmission on my LeSabres, 150K, 150K, 50K. So replacing a transmission on a Corolla at 160K certainly doesn't look good to me.
Then maybe they need to stop hiring union workers and change the structure of their work force.
Our economy can no longer sustain union labor. Unions are what got GM into this mess in the first place. That's why they produce cars that scream cheap, no matter what the price point
If Unions hadn't gotten greedy it would be different. ___________________ reference text: by poncho167 Apr 13, 2007 (2:35 pm) Replying to: cooterbfd (Apr 13, 2007 8:27 am)
Unlike the Cavaliar I am sure they make money on the Cobalt, G5, and HHR though a small amount compared to the non-unionized Japanese plants. It costs GM almost $3,500 a car in employee wages, health insurance so profitability is not much on a small low priced car.
Pletko, as far as I know, GM outsources the manufacturing of most of the small cars you see with their nameplate on them.
For example: The Chevrolet Aveo is made in South Korea. The Geo Prizm/Chevrolet Prizm were just cosmetically engineered Toyota Corollas. They rolled off the same factory line in Fremont, California. They succeeded in messin' up one of Australia's Holden cars, otherwise known as the "new" Pontiac GTO (What a joke), let's hope they don't do the same with the new Holden car (Pontiac G8) I don't know where the Cobalt is made, but I doubt if they make that either.I think the Cobalt is a Korean car too. I think they make the Cavalier, I don't know.
I agree. They fail at it because it costs them more to make a small car than what the car is worth at retail when you factor in their ridiculous overhead and liability. They should stick to making what they know best, and that is "land barges" like the DTS and SUVs ____________________________ reference text:::::: My point was more that every time Gm tries to make a small car, they tend to fail at it. They just don't understand it on a fundamental level or something.
The only way GM is going to get out of this financial mess is if the get rid of union labor and I don't know how they're going to do that. Toyota and Honda don't use union labor do they? And their employees look pretty happy to me, why? Because their cars sell themselves
Are you blind? Toyota has plenty of icons. What do you call the Toyota Corolla, Camry, Land Cruiser, Toyota 4 Runner truck?
The Corolla has been so successful, GM asked Toyota to make some for them under contract as Geo Prizms and Chevrolet Prizms, and the Corolla has sold more than 30million units since it's inception in the 1960's
Why is having fake wood trim so important to you? Those kinds of things aren't important to people who like and buy Hondas or BMW's. I've heard the same thing from one of my friends who always buys American (he's pushing 70 years of age) He said the interior of Asian cars is too plain. You guys like style over substance. Fancy interior trim detracts your eyes from what you should be looking at --- THE ROAD. That's why the interior of BMW's don't look fancy either
And not all of us are built like Humpty Dumpty. Seats with support are not uncomfortable to us that dont have butts as wide as a double door entry to a house.
The seats are hard like lawn chairs to keep you from falling asleep on long trips. Seats in cars aren't supposed to be like the interior of caskets (apparently what you like) ...very old fashioned
You can have your fake wood trim and recliner soft seats. As a driver I want good support with seats and non distracting trip
You know as well as I know, that when people say American in the U.S.A., they are talking about the U.S.A. and only want it to mean U.S.A. I'm not saying I condone this culture of terminology, but that's how it is.
I am well aware that "American" encompasses all of the regions you mentioned
Comments
Because the chances of getting a reliable car from GM is like the chances of getting a wild card in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Asian nameplates such as Honda :shades: or Toyota :shades: simply don't have this FLAKY reputation.
I call GM :lemon: cars junk based on my experience with them (e.g. buttons on instrument panel are made of not only cheap plastic but hollow plastic, so that holes get punched in them over time from regular use
No one has addressed why GM won't improve the quality of their vehicles. They still use cheap plastic in the CTS. (I haven't seen the 2008) The CTS should have never had cheap plastic in it. And their technology is behind the times.
Have you seen the interior of a their Chevy Cavalier? ewwww. And take a look at the review I wrote regarding a Chevrolet Impala I rented 2 weekends ago. Ridiculous and gross.
I don't label Toyota's cars as junk, cause my experience has been very good with them.
_____________________________
by rockylee Apr 11, 2007 (4:40 pm)
Replying to: mediapusher (Apr 11, 2007 4:36 pm)
LOL, well why should one have to pick a different model because they can't get it right ? You wouldn't give that fair assessment torwards GM, vehicles if their were known failures with a particular part. You would generalize and lump that particular model as GM junk.
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
They don't make a Cavalier anymore.
>And take a look at the review I wrote regarding a Chevrolet Impala I rented 2 weekends ago.
Read the reviews I wrote of the two Accords in the showroom at a local Honda dealer. Rough and plain, no soft touch plastics other than back of armrest, seats hard like lawn chairs, side bolsters too narrow--and I didn't even experience the rough ride this time (did that in 03 when shopping).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Canada is America, as is Mexico. Some of the folks get offended when you go there and say you are American. My trucks and Suburban were all built in North America. They were and are all equally well built.
If you had read my other post it was not referring to all Toyotas. Only those that have been reported here on Edmund's with problems that the dealers seem unable to resolve. Also the problems seem to be getting more frequent with the last 5 model years, from Toyota. Maybe they are resting on their laurels or growing too fast.
Hopefully Cadillac and GM are learning from their mistakes and will continue their current turnaround.
If you go off-roading, you see - Jeeps, Toyotas, some GM and Ford, and... pretty much nothing else. The old engines aside, they are worth every penny. My old 4-Runner that I use as my commuter-box has 340K miles and 20 years on it. And it would probably manage to eek its way up at least half of the Rubicon Trial despite its age.(pretty much stock except for a reinforced racing clutch)
If I were to buy a new 4x4, the Tacoma or 4-Runner would be at the top of the list right behind a Wrangler Unlimited.
P.S. The very first modern SUV ever made... Toyota. They started the whole craze. (sure the Surburban existed, but it was a tank - way too big to appeal to most people)
Lastly - let's see... a few Toyota icons:
Supra.
Celica.
4-Runner
Land Cruiser
2000 GT(I'd LOVE to own one)
Prius(love it or hate it, it's an icon)
I'm sure I missed a few.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The 2000 GT is collectible. Never really in a league with the competition. If they were really that great they would have sold more than they did in the States. The only reason they bring big money today is the fact that less than 100 ever came to the USA. Give me a 911 any day.
Edmunds.com's Most Significant Vehicles, 1966-2006
Don't see a Caddy on the list but other GM rides are represented. I'm partial to the 1984 winner myself. :shades:
Big difference, Steve, as gagrice was talking ICONS.
Wasn't there a Studebaker called the Land Cruiser?
As for icons, the Datsun 240Z is about the only one I can readily think of from a Japanese make. Maybe the early Honda S2000.
The only iconic Caddy in my mind is pink and belonged to Gladys Presley. The '55 Fleetwood.
One thing Cadillac could copy from Harley is to use more foreign parts and technology to boost reliability and credibility even further. Harley V-rods now use Japanese carbs and shocks, Italian ignition, Porsche-designed engine and (gasp) French influenced fuel injection. And it performs well as an "American icon", too. Pretty slick hat trick if you ask me.
No reason Cadillac couldn't improve its products with more global cooperation while still retaining a completely American character. Harley stands as a perfect example.
Sure it does! Absolutely!! I know this predates the article you referenced, but from 1955 until 1966 Caddilac produced a limited edition convertible known as the Fleetwood Eldorado Biarritz. Also, Don't forget that the first postwar designs by Bill Mitchell in 1948(1946-47 were gussied up '41's) Started the tailfin craze. Try and touch a '59 Fleetwood Eldo Biarritz for under $100K? BTW Bill Mitchell also designed the '63 Riviera, The car that saved Buick. Now, you'll probably tell me "too far back-what have they done for me lately"? True, but remember this; back in the '50's, GM began marketing the DeVille lineup that was the backbone of their sales for 45 yrs as a car that us blue collar workers aspired to own when we retire. This worked until the late '80's when "lesser cars" from ALL makes started including luxury items (ps, pw, pdl, ac, cruise,etc.) that were historically found on luxury models. That put pressure on Caddy to come up w/ a "plan B". I believe that to be the Seville. Since it's inception, until it was renamed the STS a few years back, I don't believe it has been very competitive, especially since the market for such cars has been heated up by the Japanese. Todays DTS think of it as the stainless steel version of your refrigerator, and not a top of the line Viking.
Yes, they are. However, if they don't take GM over this year or next, I don't forsee it happening at all, PROVIDED (insert big if here) GM's future models (Malibu, CTS, Impala, Camaro, and Enclave) are as good as their show car counterparts have been acclaimed to be.
Better suited for the Dumb car names and GM's "Must Keep" Names discussions, but when y'all say DeVille or Fleetwood, I sort of know what you are referring to.
I haven't connected the STS, SRX, SLX with the car bodies yet and likely won't unless I win one.
Yes, a resounding victory in the automotive press with new models would do GM a world of good right now, and by extension, boost Cadillac's image as well.
Whether Toyota gets to be #1 in the world is sort of irrelevant. More important is its market share in the US, which is growing.
Nobody else can be Toyota (not even Honda), that's why everyone envies them. Nobody else can be Google, not even MS...
One thing Cadillac could copy from Harley is to use more foreign parts and technology to boost reliability and credibility even further.
Ford built supercar GT to showcase its wondrous technology. Only problem was its frame cracked. I read Ford should've bought some super hi-strength steel from this Japanese supplier, but chose not to, probably to cut costs.
Harley stands as a perfect example.
I'm always puzzled by the analogy. Essentially Harley builds antique cycles that it can sell at very high prices in very limited numbers. But don't ask them to run with modern Yamahas and Bugattis. On those motorcycle GP's shown on Speed, you never see any Harleys.
If Caddy wants to be Rolls back in the 50's, build antique autos for very high prices, Harley might be a good example. But if Caddy wants to run with BMW and Infiniti, Harley holds no lesson whatsoever!
In 1988 Kawasaki was the third-largest brand, holding 13.9 percent of the market. By 1995 Kawasaki actually gained market share but was in fourth place among the six major brands, with 14.1 percent of the market. Yamaha was the third-largest player, holding 15.2 percent of the market in 1995, and Suzuki accounted for 13.2 percent of new motorcycle sales. German manufacturer BMW, with 1.6 percent of the total, was sixth among the top brands. Harley-Davidson, fifth in 1988 with 9.4 percent of the market, experienced an 11-point market-share increase over four years, moving into second place in the early 1990s. In 1995 Harley-Davidson still held second place, with 23.3 percent of the market.
Motorcycle Info from Answers.com
As soon as its cars, profitability and market share start comming back up to a point where they can start to pay off there HUGE outstanding debts and recouperate, the Unions will demand more money, healthcare, and benefits. What will GM do?
Its a much weaker GM than in the 50's and 60's. It cannot afford this sort of thing.
THe cars GM has today, and especially those comming out are good, really good. THe problem is the unions, and GM's long term situation.
Now, i heard there was some bill that would basically end non-union employment in the US, and our friends at the communist side of the istle promised to push it through. In that case, even toyota is screwed.
But GM will go first, and Toyota alwayse has Japan.
This is the Virus I'm referring to.
For instance, Cadillac.(funny how that comes up - lol) - the CTS is and should be their smallest car. The next step down is actually Saab, which makes their small BTS in Europe(and sells terribly btw - less than 10K total to date, I think). So they keep Saab for the entry-level market.
Buick has gone from 4-5 cars to two sedans and soon, by the looks of it, one SUV. Good for GM - trimming the fat, since nobody wants a tiny Buick when a perfectly good Pontiac will suffice.
Honda and Toyota try hard to have as little overlap as possible and in some cases, just ignores a segment if they can't compete. Large trucks for a long time, for instance. Honda still doesn't have one. Toyota can't make enough Tundras to fill their demand by comparison. Of course, this gives GM and Ford fits, but competition is good since it forces them to improve, and Ford and GM are about as stodgy and slow to react as it gets.
P.S. I'd take a Vulcan 750 over a Harley anyday. More reliable, smoother ride, and half the cost. But whatever Harley has going for it - I can't fault them. Their marketing is nearly perfect and there are loads of happy customers.
So... just ignore that market and let Toyota or whomever build the econoboxes(which basically make no real profit anyways compared to SUVs and luxury cars).
Unfortunately, Cadillac has to rely on GM marketing strategy, which isn't so good right now...but still, better than it used to be, when there was no marketing strategy.
I wouldn't call the Cobalt hopeless. Granted, it's not where the Corolla or Civic are, yet it's not a Vega by any means. The Ecotec engine is a highly regarded engine. In it's day, the Chevette was a decent little car (even better when someone stuffed a 350 in it
I hear you there. Cavalier, Aveo, Metro: all pretty sub-par. The only small car Chevy ever had that was done right was the Prizm which was (gasp) really a Toyota. That said, they've come a very long way with the cobalt. I'd actually consider it if I needed a basic econobox.
So... just ignore that market and let Toyota or whomever build the econoboxes(which basically make no real profit anyways compared to SUVs and luxury cars).
If gas keeps going up, that huge markup on SUV's will no longer cut it. They'll have to put up incentives out the ying-yang to sell to anyone who doesn't HAVE to have one (construction/delivery/people who have to tow). As for hitting the Luxury cars, I don't think GM has it's game up to that level yet.
But you know, GM's small car do seem to get a little better every time. Still can't get the arrow in the bullseye, but at least they are hitting the tree trunk and the ground near the target area.
Gee, the more I think about GM products, the better Cadillac and Corvette look. Talk about two jewels in an otherwise rhinestone crown. :P
It's not as good as the new Civic (especially the Si), but it's about 90% or more.
It is probably very, very tiny though and when they have to add extra incentives to those models that tiny profit is wiped out.
Thanks alot government !!!! :sick:
Rocky
Cadillac has a pretty fine product right now so quite trying to discount it with your bias.
Government to GM: Improve your mpg!
Lutz:
Buying Public to GM: pay the price for your lack of vision!
___________________________________
reference text:::::
by imidazol97 Apr 11, 2007 (5:04 pm)
Replying to: aldw (Apr 11, 2007 3:59 pm)
I've not had to replace or repair a transmission on my LeSabres, 150K, 150K, 50K. So replacing a transmission on a Corolla at 160K certainly doesn't look good to me.
Our economy can no longer sustain union labor. Unions are what got GM into this mess in the first place. That's why they produce cars that scream cheap, no matter what the price point
If Unions hadn't gotten greedy it would be different.
___________________
reference text:
by poncho167 Apr 13, 2007 (2:35 pm)
Replying to: cooterbfd (Apr 13, 2007 8:27 am)
Unlike the Cavaliar I am sure they make money on the Cobalt, G5, and HHR though a small amount compared to the non-unionized Japanese plants. It costs GM almost $3,500 a car in employee wages, health insurance so profitability is not much on a small low priced car.
For example: The Chevrolet Aveo is made in South Korea. The Geo Prizm/Chevrolet Prizm were just cosmetically engineered Toyota Corollas. They rolled off the same factory line in Fremont, California. They succeeded in messin' up one of Australia's Holden cars, otherwise known as the "new" Pontiac GTO (What a joke), let's hope they don't do the same with the new Holden car (Pontiac G8) I don't know where the Cobalt is made, but I doubt if they make that either.I think the Cobalt is a Korean car too. I think they make the Cavalier, I don't know.
____________________________
reference text::::::
My point was more that every time Gm tries to make a small car, they tend to fail at it. They just don't understand it on a fundamental level or something.
The Corolla has been so successful, GM asked Toyota to make some for them under contract as Geo Prizms and Chevrolet Prizms, and the Corolla has sold more than 30million units since it's inception in the 1960's
And not all of us are built like Humpty Dumpty. Seats with support are not uncomfortable to us that dont have butts as wide as a double door entry to a house.
The seats are hard like lawn chairs to keep you from falling asleep on long trips. Seats in cars aren't supposed to be like the interior of caskets (apparently what you like) ...very old fashioned
You can have your fake wood trim and recliner soft seats. As a driver I want good support with seats and non distracting trip
I am well aware that "American" encompasses all of the regions you mentioned