Volt dancers lame and amateurish and hurts image of Chevrolet/GM. If they want dancing, GM advertising group maybe could have gotten permission to have the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders instead. That would have been fine.
Looks like the same overpaid underworked marketing/PR bozos at work who created the GM singers who were seen at an auto show out here several years ago. It was comical then...this one is just bizarre. It's hard to believe that is real and not some kind of parody, like a SNL commercial. I want to laugh at it, but I am kind of in shock, as I suspect it is serious.
Not to resurrect this topic, but if both Chrysler and GM had failed, Ford would have also failed. We should have let Chrysler liquidate, though. It amazes me how bad their financial situation was.
Not to resurrect this topic, but if both Chrysler and GM had failed, Ford would have also failed.
Well somebody would be producing the vehicles that the consumer wants when the dust settles. Whatever company or companies' names existed after the failures, the auto factories here in the U.S. would have been bought and put into production by somebody. The scenario where the auto industry and its suppliers collapse, never ever to produce a single vehicle again, is a fallacy invented by those who wanted to protect their vested interests and the status quo. It was and is a ridiculous argument to think that others could not buy the suppliers and auto factories and restart them. It is a story pushed to the uneducated masses that somehow the U.S. consumer demand for 10 million vehicles simply goes away, and that perfectly good factories would not be resold and instead just shuttered.
We should have let Chrysler liquidate, though.
We do agree there. I would have offered $100 more than Fiat did, which was nothing. :P I'd like to know how to get these sweetheart deals! I'd think the government would have to fairly auction off Chrysler, rather than just giving it away! These deals certainly are unethical and if there are kickbacks and campaign doantions, they are illegal.
Congrats Andre on your new purchase! Looks like a great car, and hope it brings miles of smiles. You saved a ton of money by buying used, and it's the same model year as your former Intrepid.
Thanks. I'm happy with the car so far, but then I just took delivery last nite, and I doubt if it's seen 25 miles since my name got put on the title! I had wanted to go with something newer, and was hoping to try something different, but this Park Ave just seemed too good to pass up! I've always liked these things, too. I know Buick started getting a bit of an old fogey image, but for me at least, the Park Ave was able to mostly escape that. Even if the previous owner of my car was 65! :P Well, okay, she was only 55 when she bought it!
Yep, it's an Ultra. The more I look at it an nitpick, the more I'm finding little things wrong with it. But honestly, I think you'd find that with any used car. One thing I just noticed today, for example, is the previous owner must have ridden the pedals really funny, because the brake pedal is worn in the upper left corner, but decent otherwise. And the carpet is worn just to the right of the gas pedal, as if she tended to have her foot resting up against the center hump, with just part of it onthe gas pedal.
I'm still impressed at how silent the interior is, though. I haven't been able to get a squeak or rattle out of it yet.
Many times bingo-chips get stuck to women's shoes in that age-bracket. I've heard of that pedal-wear pattern on many Buicks and Oldsmobiles.
Sincerely though you made a decent choice; the Park Avenue is a very decent car; always liked the 3.8L in my '98 Camaro - couldn't argue with 35 mpg highway.
Changing topic: Anyone here see the pictures and specs of the 2011 Hyundai Sonata from the LA Auto Show? I'd say with that power from a 4 cyl., it's below $20K price, its high mpg, and its longer warranties that it will be stealing market-share from everyone.
I'm not so crazy about the looks of the Hyundai Sonata from some angles, but maybe it'll look better in person? Looks aside though, it seems to be a very impressive car.
Oh, baby got its first rattle today. I looked around and found a shuffleboard puck that had been sliding around under the passenger seat! :P All kidding aside, though, the rattle seemed to be coming from where the seatbelt's shoulder strap goes into the seat. I took it down a bumpy back road this morning and could hear a faint rattle. On the test drive, it probably wasn't there, because I had a friend in the passenger seat.
I looked around and found a shuffleboard puck that had been sliding around under the passenger seat! :P
LOL, you might also find a red hat under the seat too. Those types of rattles are going to happen on a 9-10 year car. My Expedition has developed some squeaks in the base of the drivers seat. It's very annoying. I drove my wife's GP last night (it was cold out) and the squeaks have really started to develop the closer it gets to 60k miles.
At least the P/A having a fairly soft suspension, it does help to keep rattles away.
"Summers, according to people familiar with his thinking, saw bankruptcy as likely for both companies. Rattner, who wasn't familiar with the industry, soon began to share that view. Both saw GM and Chrysler as larded with debt and UAW contracts they could no longer sustain.
The companies' viability plans only hardened their view of how much change Detroit needed.
"They were delusional," Rattner said. "They were just more of the same. You could spend five minutes with them to know we weren't going to accept them, and we were clearly going to want more."
Good article Steve. I think this supports my argument that the various groups in GM lived like sailors on shore-leave. They had too many workers, paid themselves too much and too many benefits, and bled GM bit by bit. From the article:
"When he was a union rep back in the 1970s, Flint and surrounding Genesee County boasted 79,000 hourly GM workers, many households with two GM incomes and the second-highest per-capita consumer spending in the nation."
It is also delusional to think your company is not going to lose it's business and wealth, when others in the world are making the same or better products for less pay and benefits.
Well somebody would be producing the vehicles that the consumer wants when the dust settles. Whatever company or companies' names existed after the failures, the auto factories here in the U.S. would have been bought and put into production by somebody. The scenario where the auto industry and its suppliers collapse, never ever to produce a single vehicle again, is a fallacy invented by those who wanted to protect their vested interests and the status quo. It was and is a ridiculous argument to think that others could not buy the suppliers and auto factories and restart them. It is a story pushed to the uneducated masses that somehow the U.S. consumer demand for 10 million vehicles simply goes away, and that perfectly good factories would not be resold and instead just shuttered.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But you also have to remember where we were at that point: we had already lost about 3 million jobs with no end in sight; there was still talk of nationalizing the banks; and the Dow Jones was still falling.
Also not having an American car company would have done a number on some folks. If GM is back on its feet by summer, people will forget about their bankruptcy. We have short memories in this country.
we had already lost about 3 million jobs with no end in sight; there was still talk of nationalizing the banks; and the Dow Jones was still falling.
So you think it was better to minimize short-term "pain", in favor of the long-term "pain" that occurs by adding billions of debt? The government should not have given GM or Chrysler any $. What they should have done is had the courts expedite a bankruptcy and liquidation sale if necessary. 1 Week. The factories close on a Fri. The next Mon an auction is held where the assets are sold off to private enterprises. The workers are offered to keep their jobs at the new employer that week. The factories are reopened the week after. Chrysler might have been bought by Berkshire Hathaway, and Bill Gates could have written a check for part of GM. A lot of people would have been interested in picking up GM when its bookvalue was but $1-2B last year. Heck you might have had all the remaining companies like Toyota, Honda, Ford buying 1 or 2 of the GM and Chrysler plants.
There is no reason the GM and Chrysler names could not have come down and been replaced in short-order, using extraordinary government powers, which they already have given themselves under the Patriot Act.
The government could have held a Barrett-Jackson auction on GM's and Chrysler's assets rather than on individual cars.
I'm still rather peeved about how it is legal for our elected officials to decide to bailout Chrysler, and then just GIVE IT AWAY to Fiat! :mad: Doesn't anyone see a major problem with an official giving billions of dollars away to a person or corporation that they choose to! Doesn't the government have to openly sell an asset to the highest bidder? Did I miss that auction or bidding?
Giving Chrysler and GM $ was never simply about keeping them open; it was about protecting the UAW, Ceberus, and the other wealthy and powerful in the auto industry. This was done unfairly as it denies the outsiders to the auto industry the chance to enter the business. It would be just as unfair if the government decided Walmart was too big to fail, and gave them a bunch of $, at the expense of all the other stores and mom and pop businesses who were trying to play by the rules and compete.
What Chrysler and GM got was unfair. Just like it was unfair to bailout the losers on Wall Street; and just like almost any other bailout is unfair. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in life. It is not up to the government to take everyone's $ and selectively decide who can never lose!
The argument is hilarious.... the bailout should have never been done, period, the end.
Now we will see the free market work despite the aid. Does anyone see the handwriting on the wall? it's all about the best car delivered the most efficiently
May the best car win!
Toyota, Honda, BMW/Mercedes/Audi, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, etc, etc. :shades:
The 2011 Acadia Denali takes over for its trucky sibling with a more sophisticated city exterior that includes standard 20-inch wheels, dual-chrome exhaust tips and shining honeycomb grill. :P
The next generation Malibu will share a front-drive vehicle platform with the 2010 Buick LaCrosse and 2011 Regal
.....A mockup of the car was displayed at the preview. All of the sheet metal is new. Lutz said he's particularly fond of a chrome strip that surrounds the side glass.
“Nothing adds perceived value to a car faster than that chrome surround around the side glass because it is a hallmark of German and Japanese luxury products,” said Lutz. The high end Malibu also will have chrome door handles and other similar touches.
“If you skimp on $50 of chrome, you are reducing the customer's perceived value of the car by $500 of $600,” he said
Lutz said all of GM's future cars will have a chrome strip surrounding the side window glass. The lone exception is the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze. It was too late in the product plan to make the change.
Ummmm, so will they be focusing on REAL value in future, or just on PERCEIVED value? Because I sure think they would do well to start with real value. Pasting some chrome on the sides of all their cars isn't going to do that. And that crap is always peeling off and looking ugly by year six and seven anyway, which does nothing to improve their perceived durability.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Wait...I thought the domestics yanked all the chrome off the cars in the first place because that's what the Germans and Japanese were doing? So if they put the chrome back on the cars because that's what the Germans and Japanese are doing, aren't they STILL playing catch-up?
New models usually sell well for the first 6 months - 1 year. Remember how popular Chrysler's 300C was when it first came out? I think they were selling MSRP and above. The Charger and Challenger's are "popular". The new Ram is popular. Where did that get Chrysler?
Where did the initially popular G6, then G8, and Solstice get Pontiac? Gross mismanagement, and high costs will overwhelm the effect of decent product.
Maybe the discussions here focus too much on product-comparisions; when the real deciding factor is the way an organization operates?
Good points. There will always be pent up demand for a new and improved model from any maker, even the Suzuki Kisashi has been getting some attention :P
Even Government Motors best car in 3 decades, well regarded by the media and buying public, the Pontiac G8 has 6500 dollars on the hood right now... It had it's moments in the sun and now it's glimmer has worn off.
What sort of impact are these new vehicles having on the older models. For instance, the Equinox may be selling well, but what sort of impact has its success had on GM's clones the Saturn Vue and Pontiac Torrent? The Lacrosse is close in size and price to the Lucerne, have sales of those tanked? I bet the Camaro success comes from the years away from the segment and the pent up demand from mullets who anxiously awaited its return. What happens when those people get theirs? Etc, etc, etc...
Yes, that is very true. Seems to me right now, that it is too early to tell if GM's newer products will either be "long term" or Short term". Based on GM history just like before the new models will become just yet another car that quickly loses its appeal. Mostly, because they build it, and then forget about it sooner or later. They built the G6 and later forgot about it. But, still want it on the lot. Now, Pontiac is dead.
GM in my opinion does not seem to be showing an attempt to improve their appeal. A new look is not going completely convince the buyer, it is the approach to the structure and economics of their company that is going to appeal to them at this time. Are they spending money on the right things, is this a want or a need for the general people. The commercials alone are placed in a way where people are not taking them seriously, it does not seem that they are owning up to their issues, rather stating that they never had issues, they have been doing right since day 1. The commercials alone are degrading to the company and really show no true points for me to buy GM over another brand.
However, I will admit, that my 08 G6 is built pretty well, and certainly more quiet than my 06 Accord I had. But, lacks the engine quality by a long shot. The features are awesome, but that is ALL its got going for it.
People want to see ownership and initiative within the company, not placement of blame or denial. Until then, GM will certainly fall yet again. I would much rather have the Honda lawn mower than to own a GM car again. lol GM, your kidding right?=
So you think it was better to minimize short-term "pain", in favor of the long-term "pain" that occurs by adding billions of debt? The government should not have given GM or Chrysler any $. What they should have done is had the courts expedite a bankruptcy and liquidation sale if necessary. 1 Week. The factories close on a Fri. The next Mon an auction is held where the assets are sold off to private enterprises. The workers are offered to keep their jobs at the new employer that week. The factories are reopened the week after. Chrysler might have been bought by Berkshire Hathaway, and Bill Gates could have written a check for part of GM. A lot of people would have been interested in picking up GM when its bookvalue was but $1-2B last year. Heck you might have had all the remaining companies like Toyota, Honda, Ford buying 1 or 2 of the GM and Chrysler plants.
Again, you are forgetting where we were economically at the time. No credit was available and Toyota, Honda, etc were reporting their first ever yearly losses. Investing in plants or buying GM brands were the furthest thing from their minds and absolutely makes no sense. Don't you think Berkshire hathaway saw what happened to Cerberus? Why would any investor buy into the auto industry esp. back in Feb. 2009? Also Chrysler literally traveled around the world looking for partners. Once everyone saw the shape they were in, they all declined. Nissan was close to pulling the trigger but wised up. they should have liquidated but that is wishful thinking.
I agree that what GM and esp. Chrylser received was unfair. But let's be clear, Chrysler and GM came to the government begging for help on Nov. 19, 2008 not the other way around like some people think it happened (remember we have short memories in the country). Giving these companies the money was about jobs and nothing else. Does it make sense? Nope. But the government did not have the luxury of inaction like you and I have. GM will likely make it as long as they concentrate on profits and not market share; Chrysler will be gone by the end of 2010.
Agree on Wall Street but at least we are getting the money back. I hope they come through on their promises to help small businesses next year.
>Agree on Wall Street but at least we are getting the money back. I hope they come through on their promises to help small businesses next year.
I thought the 900 billion (almost 1 trillion) pork and little bit of stimulus bill was to help get all that loan money flowing. The TARP program was to help the banks who had overrun their security ratio start making loans to individuals and to businesses, then. But they didn't do it. Instead they are worried about funneling huge bonuses to highly overpaid executives. So they have been motivated to pay back the loans rather than having put that money to work making loans to stimulate the trickle down economy. Loans to companies make jobs. Instead we got no loans and no jobs.
How are these banks so righteous and you criticize the auto companies for having received help. The auto companies make jobs.
Even Government Motors best car in 3 decades, well regarded by the media and buying public, the Pontiac G8 has 6500 dollars on the hood right now... It had it's moments in the sun and now it's glimmer has worn off.
Wish I hadn't heard about that $6500...now I'm going to have second thoughts about my 2000 Park Ave! :P
if GM is doing good, it's only short term if GM is doing good, it's only a few models if most GM models are doing good, there are a few that are not if a GM car is great, it is too expensive if a non GM car is too expensive, it has better than GM quality if I had a great experience with a GM, I was lucky because I was the only one If my GM held up, I pamperd it If it was car of the year, the judges were biased I could go on with at least 100 more.
I was pretty darn upset when they started pulling all the brightwork off cars. They were all starting to look taxi plain. By the time the 2001 Buick Century came around, it made a 1964 Biscayne look like a 1958 Buick Limited. I'm glad to see automakers putting chrome back on cars, so pile it on! Yeah, baby, yeah! :shades:
Sheesh! Darned if you do, darned if you don't! You did the smart thing. Who needs a car payment in this economy? Look at it this way, now you have more money for a concours quality restoration of that DeSoto! Can't wait to see it next year!
I really don't get this. Is it that if GM doesn't get it's asking price they'd rather take nothing? If someone offers $20M, or $5M, or $1M for Saab GM isn't going to take it? Isn't it better to take $1M, than $0? If not then I guess the IRS shouldn't worry if I pay $0/yr instead of $10K/year in taxes.
Think about this whole process of winding down these divisions. With all the advertising these companies do, has anyone ever seen mention of how to get GM's or the governments attention you'd be interested? Was their notices in the Wall St. Journal? On the U.S. Treasury's website? Where is the process spelled-out, such that I as a taxpayer and owner could see how these sales processes works?
Even though Buick piled more chrome on than Oldsmobile did for 1958, somehow, I think the Buick managed to look more tasteful (or is it, less tasteless?) than the Olds did that year.
Yes, it did. Buick had a right to opulance: it was "almost" a Cadillac. It was a professional's car, doctor, lawyer, indian chief (well maybe the Indian Chief would prefer a Pontiac Chieftain).
On the other hand, the Olds had to fit somewhere in between Pontiac and Buick as an eye-catcher trying to sell cars.
That gridwork on the side of the Olds needs music notes on it to look like a music teacher's chalkboard.
Yeah, I know financially I probably did the right thing. I think I'm starting to go through a little "buyer's remorse" right now though. Not that I'm dissatisfied with the Park Ave...not by a long shot. But, you know, that feeling you get, second-guessing yourself, after you just made a really big purchase? It'll fade, with time though. And I'd get that same second-guessing feeling, no matter what I ended up buying.
I don't remember seeing that model. Thanks for posting. New one!
Those Exclamation Points, all 15 of them on the rear panel, are different than the solid chrome in the previous Buick. Those hash marks are overkill. But that's what cars were then--exaggeration of a style.
I actually thought this was a Cadillac mislabeled in the Buick pictures... I guess that makes my point that Buick was allowed exaggeration because it was almost a CAdillac.
Again, you are forgetting where we were economically at the time. No credit was available and Toyota, Honda, etc were reporting their first ever yearly losses.
I think you're not aware that there are many companies and individuals around the world that have several billion $'s in accounts at any given time. You're confusing the ability to get new credit, with the fact that people already have trillions of $'s of ealth which require NO new credit. Google the list of billionaires in the world, and go take a look at how much cash the largest corporations in the world are sitting on. There were hundreds of potential buyers when GM's stock was worth only $1B. And if they soldoff GM in bits, there would have been many more.
Investing in plants or buying GM brands were the furthest thing from their minds and absolutely makes no sense.
Don't you think Berkshire hathaway saw what happened to Cerberus?
Yes because Cerberus decided to buy Chrysler and run Chrysler as Chrysler, with the same old methods, contracts, and product. If Chrysler was dissolved, there would be no UAW contracts, no dealer contracts, replace the management and Berkshire Hathaway could run the factories to make a profit. UNDERSTAND - people did not want to buy Chrysler because of all their debt, contracts, and other negative contracts had. People would have bought the physical assets of a former Chrysler. But the U.S. government never let former-Chrysler or former-GM occur.
If you need another example, say you've lost your exec. GM job and need to get rid of what you own. I'm willing to bid on your house and cars, and use them when your gone. I'm not necessarily interested in your house, if I have to pickup the pension of your former butler, keep your 2 maids employed because they have a contract with you, or financially assume your debts. I want your house and car, not your workers and contracts, nor your past and future obligations. I want to start my own life in the house and car, and not be involved with whatever you spent or agreed to in the past.
Also Chrysler literally traveled around the world looking for partners. Once everyone saw the shape they were in, they all declined.
Right, because no one wants Chrysler being Chrysler. But Chrysler's plants and assets do not need to be run as Chrysler. Chrysler needs to die completely. No more. Just like if you have a failing Pakistani restaurant, dissolve your corporation, I buy the building and equipment at auction and open an Italian restaurant next week. Maybe I'll offer jobs to your former workers, but they may have to take a paycut and work harder, so I won't go bankrupt like you.
That gridwork on the side of the Olds needs music notes on it to look like a music teacher's chalkboard.
Actually, some Ford stylist did that. I think his name was Alex Tremulis? He took a picture of a '58 Olds and drew some music notes on it, as a satire. There was also a joke going around about how the '58 Olds came to be. Supposedly in those days, when the stylists decided what chrome to put on a car, they would look at a drawing of a totally chrome-less car, and there were transparency overlays with just the chrome, that they could put over the picture to see how it would look. Well, supposedly two of those overlays got stuck together, and when it was shown to the stylists, they said "That's it! Go to production!!" :P
How are these banks so righteous and you criticize the auto companies for having received help. The auto companies make jobs.
The *foreign nameplate* auto companies have been making jobs. The *US nameplate* companies have been destroying jobs for quite a while, especially when you factor in the suppliers, dealers, and other parts of the supply chain.
The banks created jobs until it became apparent that it was all a house of cards.
How are these banks so righteous and you criticize the auto companies for having received help.
If you read all my comments, I chastised everyone who ran their companies/industries into the ground and then instead of facing the music ,begged and received a bailout. The banks paying back the $, was the 1st decent thing they've done. So don't represent me as saying 1 act made them "righteous". Your misinterpretation, not my words.
I thought the 900 billion (almost 1 trillion) pork and little bit of stimulus bill was to help get all that loan money flowing.
There's a lot of stupid and/or greedy people involved in this - bankers and politicians. The government created and allowed this system, because the wealthy and powerful (politicians) benefit. Then when the system reaches crisis they simply hit the taxpayer to infuse more borrowed money. And the result of all this is that a PRECEDENT has been set. So next time private corporations are bailed out, we'll all just say "that's okay, it was done before". :mad:
Maybe you should consider whether it would have been worse if the banking system collapsed, or the auto industry and general economy collapsed; and people got really mad and marched on Washington in the millions, and started over with a new much smaller, simpler government?
I think you mis-read my post. I don't find the banks righteous, I find them appalling and greedy. Unfortunately everyone needs them. I didn't agree with TARP but recognize without it, our banking system would have collapsed. I found the past practices of home mortgages....unbelievable (nicest word I can think of). But I also blame the consumer as well. At some point you have to educate yourself and/or recognize what you can or can't afford.
I believed we should have helped GM but not Chrysler. Chrysler should have been forced to liquidate or sell off their brands esp. since their owner Cerberus gave up on them. I'm glad the government made GM revise their plans. They needed a dose of reality. We've all talked at length about this.
Credit is flowing...for those who are qualified. So many people took huge hits either with job loss, adjustable mortgage rates, foreclosures, etc. that it is hard to see that money is flowing. I just purchased a used car in June (financed) and re-financed my house last month. My wife and I have solid credit scores but not perfect. Banks had to get their own house in order. It takes time. It's only been a year. I agree that loans need to be made available to small businesses to help with the economic turnaround. this is the next big hurdle. I just hope they keep their promise to increase loans next year.
Maybe you should consider whether it would have been worse if the banking system collapsed, or the auto industry and general economy collapsed; and people got really mad and marched on Washington in the millions, and started over with a new much smaller, simpler government?
Calm down, kernick. Remember Santa Claus is watching.....
You better watch out; you better not cry; you better not shout, I'm telling you why.....
Well we have a lot more socialism and tyranny then when the Tea got dumped in Boston Harbor.
Between auto-maker bailouts, TARP, the economic stimulus, possible mandated health-coverage (which maybe a handful of people know what's in any of the 2,000 page proposals), and the possible interference of the EPA into every facet of our lives since they can now regulate CO2, I'm feeling like I'm being forced to pick up the soap. :mad:
But your right it's Xmas and s I should be happy that I'm not among the 10% unemployed, who are paying the cost of the destruction of our economy by the rich and powerful creating a government that has laws and programs for their own benefit! :mad: Just give me my Mc'D's burgers and HD-cable, and back to being a happy sheep. :sick:
Comments
Well, I at least that's confirmation the stimulus has created 4 new jobs!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/markets-mainmenu-45/1290
Not to resurrect this topic, but if both Chrysler and GM had failed, Ford would have also failed. We should have let Chrysler liquidate, though. It amazes me how bad their financial situation was.
Plus 0.454 billion to Tesla, a FOAl company (Friend Of Al).
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Well somebody would be producing the vehicles that the consumer wants when the dust settles. Whatever company or companies' names existed after the failures, the auto factories here in the U.S. would have been bought and put into production by somebody. The scenario where the auto industry and its suppliers collapse, never ever to produce a single vehicle again, is a fallacy invented by those who wanted to protect their vested interests and the status quo. It was and is a ridiculous argument to think that others could not buy the suppliers and auto factories and restart them. It is a story pushed to the uneducated masses that somehow the U.S. consumer demand for 10 million vehicles simply goes away, and that perfectly good factories would not be resold and instead just shuttered.
We should have let Chrysler liquidate, though.
We do agree there. I would have offered $100 more than Fiat did, which was nothing. :P I'd like to know how to get these sweetheart deals! I'd think the government would have to fairly auction off Chrysler, rather than just giving it away! These deals certainly are unethical and if there are kickbacks and campaign doantions, they are illegal.
Thanks. I'm happy with the car so far, but then I just took delivery last nite, and I doubt if it's seen 25 miles since my name got put on the title! I had wanted to go with something newer, and was hoping to try something different, but this Park Ave just seemed too good to pass up! I've always liked these things, too. I know Buick started getting a bit of an old fogey image, but for me at least, the Park Ave was able to mostly escape that. Even if the previous owner of my car was 65! :P Well, okay, she was only 55 when she bought it!
I'm still impressed at how silent the interior is, though. I haven't been able to get a squeak or rattle out of it yet.
Sincerely though you made a decent choice; the Park Avenue is a very decent car; always liked the 3.8L in my '98 Camaro - couldn't argue with 35 mpg highway.
Changing topic: Anyone here see the pictures and specs of the 2011 Hyundai Sonata from the LA Auto Show? I'd say with that power from a 4 cyl., it's below $20K price, its high mpg, and its longer warranties that it will be stealing market-share from everyone.
Oh, baby got its first rattle today. I looked around and found a shuffleboard puck that had been sliding around under the passenger seat! :P All kidding aside, though, the rattle seemed to be coming from where the seatbelt's shoulder strap goes into the seat. I took it down a bumpy back road this morning and could hear a faint rattle. On the test drive, it probably wasn't there, because I had a friend in the passenger seat.
LOL, you might also find a red hat under the seat too. Those types of rattles are going to happen on a 9-10 year car. My Expedition has developed some squeaks in the base of the drivers seat. It's very annoying. I drove my wife's GP last night (it was cold out) and the squeaks have really started to develop the closer it gets to 60k miles.
At least the P/A having a fairly soft suspension, it does help to keep rattles away.
"Summers, according to people familiar with his thinking, saw bankruptcy as likely for both companies. Rattner, who wasn't familiar with the industry, soon began to share that view. Both saw GM and Chrysler as larded with debt and UAW contracts they could no longer sustain.
The companies' viability plans only hardened their view of how much change Detroit needed.
"They were delusional," Rattner said. "They were just more of the same. You could spend five minutes with them to know we weren't going to accept them, and we were clearly going to want more."
Rattner on GM, Chrysler turnaround plans: 'They were delusional' (Detroit Free Press)
Regards,
OW
"When he was a union rep back in the 1970s, Flint and surrounding Genesee County boasted 79,000 hourly GM workers, many households with two GM incomes and the second-highest per-capita consumer spending in the nation."
It is also delusional to think your company is not going to lose it's business and wealth, when others in the world are making the same or better products for less pay and benefits.
I agree with most of what you are saying. But you also have to remember where we were at that point: we had already lost about 3 million jobs with no end in sight; there was still talk of nationalizing the banks; and the Dow Jones was still falling.
Also not having an American car company would have done a number on some folks. If GM is back on its feet by summer, people will forget about their bankruptcy. We have short memories in this country.
So you think it was better to minimize short-term "pain", in favor of the long-term "pain" that occurs by adding billions of debt? The government should not have given GM or Chrysler any $. What they should have done is had the courts expedite a bankruptcy and liquidation sale if necessary. 1 Week. The factories close on a Fri. The next Mon an auction is held where the assets are sold off to private enterprises. The workers are offered to keep their jobs at the new employer that week. The factories are reopened the week after. Chrysler might have been bought by Berkshire Hathaway, and Bill Gates could have written a check for part of GM. A lot of people would have been interested in picking up GM when its bookvalue was but $1-2B last year. Heck you might have had all the remaining companies like Toyota, Honda, Ford buying 1 or 2 of the GM and Chrysler plants.
There is no reason the GM and Chrysler names could not have come down and been replaced in short-order, using extraordinary government powers, which they already have given themselves under the Patriot Act.
The government could have held a Barrett-Jackson auction on GM's and Chrysler's assets rather than on individual cars.
I'm still rather peeved about how it is legal for our elected officials to decide to bailout Chrysler, and then just GIVE IT AWAY to Fiat! :mad: Doesn't anyone see a major problem with an official giving billions of dollars away to a person or corporation that they choose to! Doesn't the government have to openly sell an asset to the highest bidder? Did I miss that auction or bidding?
Giving Chrysler and GM $ was never simply about keeping them open; it was about protecting the UAW, Ceberus, and the other wealthy and powerful in the auto industry. This was done unfairly as it denies the outsiders to the auto industry the chance to enter the business. It would be just as unfair if the government decided Walmart was too big to fail, and gave them a bunch of $, at the expense of all the other stores and mom and pop businesses who were trying to play by the rules and compete.
What Chrysler and GM got was unfair. Just like it was unfair to bailout the losers on Wall Street; and just like almost any other bailout is unfair. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in life. It is not up to the government to take everyone's $ and selectively decide who can never lose!
Now we will see the free market work despite the aid. Does anyone see the handwriting on the wall? it's all about the best car delivered the most efficiently
May the best car win!
Toyota, Honda, BMW/Mercedes/Audi, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, etc, etc. :shades:
Regards,
OW
The 2011 Acadia Denali takes over for its trucky sibling with a more sophisticated city exterior that includes standard 20-inch wheels, dual-chrome exhaust tips and shining honeycomb grill. :P
May the Best Car Win!
Regards,
OW
The next generation Malibu will share a front-drive vehicle platform with the 2010 Buick LaCrosse and 2011 Regal
.....A mockup of the car was displayed at the preview. All of the sheet metal is new. Lutz said he's particularly fond of a chrome strip that surrounds the side glass.
“Nothing adds perceived value to a car faster than that chrome surround around the side glass because it is a hallmark of German and Japanese luxury products,” said Lutz. The high end Malibu also will have chrome door handles and other similar touches.
“If you skimp on $50 of chrome, you are reducing the customer's perceived value of the car by $500 of $600,” he said
Lutz said all of GM's future cars will have a chrome strip surrounding the side window glass. The lone exception is the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze. It was too late in the product plan to make the change.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20091217/CARNEWS/912179997
Ummmm, so will they be focusing on REAL value in future, or just on PERCEIVED value? Because I sure think they would do well to start with real value. Pasting some chrome on the sides of all their cars isn't going to do that. And that crap is always peeling off and looking ugly by year six and seven anyway, which does nothing to improve their perceived durability.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Take away all excuses not to buy a GM?? Take the $50 in trim cash and get better parts!
Where do they get these guys? :confuse:
May the Best Car Win!
Regards,
Wayne
Toyota, Honda, BMW/Mercedes/Audi, Nissan, Hyundai, Subaru, etc, etc. "
In case you haven't noticed, the new GM models are selling.
Where did the initially popular G6, then G8, and Solstice get Pontiac? Gross mismanagement, and high costs will overwhelm the effect of decent product.
Maybe the discussions here focus too much on product-comparisions; when the real deciding factor is the way an organization operates?
Even Government Motors best car in 3 decades, well regarded by the media and buying public, the Pontiac G8 has 6500 dollars on the hood right now... It had it's moments in the sun and now it's glimmer has worn off.
GM in my opinion does not seem to be showing an attempt to improve their appeal. A new look is not going completely convince the buyer, it is the approach to the structure and economics of their company that is going to appeal to them at this time. Are they spending money on the right things, is this a want or a need for the general people. The commercials alone are placed in a way where people are not taking them seriously, it does not seem that they are owning up to their issues, rather stating that they never had issues, they have been doing right since day 1. The commercials alone are degrading to the company and really show no true points for me to buy GM over another brand.
However, I will admit, that my 08 G6 is built pretty well, and certainly more quiet than my 06 Accord I had. But, lacks the engine quality by a long shot. The features are awesome, but that is ALL its got going for it.
People want to see ownership and initiative within the company, not placement of blame or denial. Until then, GM will certainly fall yet again. I would much rather have the Honda lawn mower than to own a GM car again. lol GM, your kidding right?=
Again, you are forgetting where we were economically at the time. No credit was available and Toyota, Honda, etc were reporting their first ever yearly losses. Investing in plants or buying GM brands were the furthest thing from their minds and absolutely makes no sense. Don't you think Berkshire hathaway saw what happened to Cerberus? Why would any investor buy into the auto industry esp. back in Feb. 2009? Also Chrysler literally traveled around the world looking for partners. Once everyone saw the shape they were in, they all declined. Nissan was close to pulling the trigger but wised up. they should have liquidated but that is wishful thinking.
I agree that what GM and esp. Chrylser received was unfair. But let's be clear, Chrysler and GM came to the government begging for help on Nov. 19, 2008 not the other way around like some people think it happened (remember we have short memories in the country). Giving these companies the money was about jobs and nothing else. Does it make sense? Nope. But the government did not have the luxury of inaction like you and I have. GM will likely make it as long as they concentrate on profits and not market share; Chrysler will be gone by the end of 2010.
Agree on Wall Street but at least we are getting the money back. I hope they come through on their promises to help small businesses next year.
Good debate but let's get back to the present.
There will be some great deals on Saab soon.
I thought the 900 billion (almost 1 trillion) pork and little bit of stimulus bill was to help get all that loan money flowing. The TARP program was to help the banks who had overrun their security ratio start making loans to individuals and to businesses, then. But they didn't do it. Instead they are worried about funneling huge bonuses to highly overpaid executives. So they have been motivated to pay back the loans rather than having put that money to work making loans to stimulate the trickle down economy. Loans to companies make jobs. Instead we got no loans and no jobs.
How are these banks so righteous and you criticize the auto companies for having received help. The auto companies make jobs.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Wish I hadn't heard about that $6500...now I'm going to have second thoughts about my 2000 Park Ave! :P
if GM is doing good, it's only a few models
if most GM models are doing good, there are a few that are not
if a GM car is great, it is too expensive
if a non GM car is too expensive, it has better than GM quality
if I had a great experience with a GM, I was lucky because I was the only one
If my GM held up, I pamperd it
If it was car of the year, the judges were biased
I could go on with at least 100 more.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/saab-to-be-wound-down-as-deal-talks-end-2009-12- -18
Think about this whole process of winding down these divisions. With all the advertising these companies do, has anyone ever seen mention of how to get GM's or the governments attention you'd be interested? Was their notices in the Wall St. Journal? On the U.S. Treasury's website? Where is the process spelled-out, such that I as a taxpayer and owner could see how these sales processes works?
As a fellow Buick guy, let me offer this example of exuberance in Chrome.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Of course, the 1958 Buick Limited is more my style. I absolutely LOVE this car!
Yes, it did. Buick had a right to opulance: it was "almost" a Cadillac. It was a professional's car, doctor, lawyer, indian chief (well maybe the Indian Chief would prefer a Pontiac Chieftain).
On the other hand, the Olds had to fit somewhere in between Pontiac and Buick as an eye-catcher trying to sell cars.
That gridwork on the side of the Olds needs music notes on it to look like a music teacher's chalkboard.
Those were the days.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Those Exclamation Points, all 15 of them on the rear panel, are different than the solid chrome in the previous Buick. Those hash marks are overkill. But that's what cars were then--exaggeration of a style.
I actually thought this was a Cadillac mislabeled in the Buick pictures... I guess that makes my point that Buick was allowed exaggeration because it was almost a CAdillac.
Link to original, larger picture of this beauty.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think you're not aware that there are many companies and individuals around the world that have several billion $'s in accounts at any given time. You're confusing the ability to get new credit, with the fact that people already have trillions of $'s of ealth which require NO new credit. Google the list of billionaires in the world, and go take a look at how much cash the largest corporations in the world are sitting on. There were hundreds of potential buyers when GM's stock was worth only $1B. And if they soldoff GM in bits, there would have been many more.
Investing in plants or buying GM brands were the furthest thing from their minds and absolutely makes no sense.
Don't you think Berkshire hathaway saw what happened to Cerberus?
Yes because Cerberus decided to buy Chrysler and run Chrysler as Chrysler, with the same old methods, contracts, and product. If Chrysler was dissolved, there would be no UAW contracts, no dealer contracts, replace the management and Berkshire Hathaway could run the factories to make a profit. UNDERSTAND - people did not want to buy Chrysler because of all their debt, contracts, and other negative contracts had. People would have bought the physical assets of a former Chrysler. But the U.S. government never let former-Chrysler or former-GM occur.
If you need another example, say you've lost your exec. GM job and need to get rid of what you own. I'm willing to bid on your house and cars, and use them when your gone. I'm not necessarily interested in your house, if I have to pickup the pension of your former butler, keep your 2 maids employed because they have a contract with you, or financially assume your debts. I want your house and car, not your workers and contracts, nor your past and future obligations. I want to start my own life in the house and car, and not be involved with whatever you spent or agreed to in the past.
Also Chrysler literally traveled around the world looking for partners. Once everyone saw the shape they were in, they all declined.
Right, because no one wants Chrysler being Chrysler. But Chrysler's plants and assets do not need to be run as Chrysler. Chrysler needs to die completely. No more. Just like if you have a failing Pakistani restaurant, dissolve your corporation, I buy the building and equipment at auction and open an Italian restaurant next week. Maybe I'll offer jobs to your former workers, but they may have to take a paycut and work harder, so I won't go bankrupt like you.
Actually, some Ford stylist did that. I think his name was Alex Tremulis? He took a picture of a '58 Olds and drew some music notes on it, as a satire. There was also a joke going around about how the '58 Olds came to be. Supposedly in those days, when the stylists decided what chrome to put on a car, they would look at a drawing of a totally chrome-less car, and there were transparency overlays with just the chrome, that they could put over the picture to see how it would look. Well, supposedly two of those overlays got stuck together, and when it was shown to the stylists, they said "That's it! Go to production!!" :P
The *foreign nameplate* auto companies have been making jobs. The *US nameplate* companies have been destroying jobs for quite a while, especially when you factor in the suppliers, dealers, and other parts of the supply chain.
The banks created jobs until it became apparent that it was all a house of cards.
If you read all my comments, I chastised everyone who ran their companies/industries into the ground and then instead of facing the music ,begged and received a bailout. The banks paying back the $, was the 1st decent thing they've done. So don't represent me as saying 1 act made them "righteous". Your misinterpretation, not my words.
I thought the 900 billion (almost 1 trillion) pork and little bit of stimulus bill was to help get all that loan money flowing.
There's a lot of stupid and/or greedy people involved in this - bankers and politicians. The government created and allowed this system, because the wealthy and powerful (politicians) benefit. Then when the system reaches crisis they simply hit the taxpayer to infuse more borrowed money. And the result of all this is that a PRECEDENT has been set. So next time private corporations are bailed out, we'll all just say "that's okay, it was done before". :mad:
Maybe you should consider whether it would have been worse if the banking system collapsed, or the auto industry and general economy collapsed; and people got really mad and marched on Washington in the millions, and started over with a new much smaller, simpler government?
I believed we should have helped GM but not Chrysler. Chrysler should have been forced to liquidate or sell off their brands esp. since their owner Cerberus gave up on them. I'm glad the government made GM revise their plans. They needed a dose of reality. We've all talked at length about this.
Credit is flowing...for those who are qualified. So many people took huge hits either with job loss, adjustable mortgage rates, foreclosures, etc. that it is hard to see that money is flowing. I just purchased a used car in June (financed) and re-financed my house last month. My wife and I have solid credit scores but not perfect. Banks had to get their own house in order. It takes time. It's only been a year. I agree that loans need to be made available to small businesses to help with the economic turnaround. this is the next big hurdle. I just hope they keep their promise to increase loans next year.
Calm down, kernick. Remember Santa Claus is watching.....
You better watch out; you better not cry; you better not shout, I'm telling you why.....
Between auto-maker bailouts, TARP, the economic stimulus, possible mandated health-coverage (which maybe a handful of people know what's in any of the 2,000 page proposals), and the possible interference of the EPA into every facet of our lives since they can now regulate CO2, I'm feeling like I'm being forced to pick up the soap. :mad:
But your right it's Xmas and s I should be happy that I'm not among the 10% unemployed, who are paying the cost of the destruction of our economy by the rich and powerful creating a government that has laws and programs for their own benefit! :mad: Just give me my Mc'D's burgers and HD-cable, and back to being a happy sheep. :sick:
If GM vehicles and business model were that good, they would not have gone bankrupt. :lemon:
Regards,
OW