They are rated on things like quality and many other things before a new car is assigned to them.
I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone at GM knows what quality is, the definition of quality must be unknown over at GM. Since they are incompetent and unqualified to be rating things on quality, they need to rely on other sources to rate quality for them so they can improve. Looking at their market share decrease is one way to gauge it. The other (which they have been doing for the past few years, and it's working) is to listen to what Consumer Reports has to say.
Now that's a qualified view on quality. GM looking at quality is similar to a fox rating the quality of the security to your hen house.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Not to mention, your link is from fully one year ago. How many more Toyotas have been recalled since then?
Do you really think one year makes a significant difference? After decades upon decades of vehicle manufacturing, I don't think one year will ever tip the scales much.
GM's sales slide doesn't look like a cliff that happened in one year. It was a steady decline, looks more like a rolling hill on the downward slope.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Buick is elegant, understated yet distinctive, powerful and mature."GM is sticking with the idea, though. Buick executives say that about 40% of buyers taking delivery on a new Buick these days are trading in a non-GM car to get one. "That means we are turning heads," Fortune.
How does oblivion to the past 12 months help? Another recall in the news is Hundai.
I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone at GM knows what quality is, the definition of quality must be unknown over at GM. Since they are incompetent and unqualified to be rating things on quality, they need to rely on other sources to rate quality for them so they can improve. Looking at their market share decrease is one way to gauge it. The other (which they have been doing for the past few years, and it's working) is to listen to what Consumer Reports has to say.
Well, andres3 has spoken, and in no uncertain terms, so it must be so...alert the media.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
GM had huge recalls in 1971 and 1981. Toyota did not. Please, for my edification, can you enlighten us as to what GM and Toyota's sales in the U.S. were in those two years? Maybe then we can get a good idea of how large a recall is or isn't.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I believe 50K of those jobs were created by McDonald's; remember that headline? The jobs that are being created today are mainly not the type that someone is going to buy a $30K car from.
And if people are buying vehicles based on whether they feel confident, or on speculating (that's basically what the stock market is), then we're on rather shaky ground.
People had better prepare for an economy that is going to be minus several hundred billion $'s of spending per year by the feds, when this Debt ceiling issue is resolved. And when the states and local governments get done cutting, let's see how "confident" people feel then.
My best advice for people. Go buy either a lightly used or a new economy car in the $10K - $15K price range, that gets 35+ mpg.
I swear, Ford has the worst luck with fuel tanks, it seems. Once upon a time, just about every car they built had something called a "drop in" gas tank, where the upper part of the tank doubled as the trunk floor. It saved a few seconds of time on the assembly line, and probably a few cents per car as well, compared to a tank that was strapped underneath the trunk floor, like most of them in those days. But it didn't take much of a rear-end collision to make them leak. It was worse in the small cars like the Falcons and Mustangs, but all cars, through the midsized, fullsized, and even the big luxury Lincolns had them.
Then, there was that barbeque that seats four, the Pinto. Then, I remember the Ford Explorer getting the nickname "Exploder". And I'm sure there's a few other examples I'm missing. And now, they're having trouble keeping the gas tanks strapped under their trucks!
Maybe they need to start subcontracting out for fuel tanks! :P
Here is some perspective for you. The '70's began the long decline to utter failure.
The 1971 Chevrolet Vega was GM's launch into the new subcompact class to compete against the import's increasing market share. Problems associated with its innovative aluminum engine led to the model's discontinuation after seven model years in 1977. During the late 1970s, GM would initiate a wave of downsizing starting with the Chevrolet Caprice which was reborn into what was the size of the Chevrolet Chevelle, the Malibu would be the size of the Nova, and the Nova was replaced by the troubled front-wheel drive Chevrolet Citation. In 1976, Chevrolet came out with the rear-wheel drive sub compact Chevette.
While GM maintained its world leadership in revenue and market share throughout the 1960s to 1980s, it was product controversy that plagued the company in this period. It seemed that, in every decade, a major mass-production product line was launched with defects of one type or another showing up early in their life cycle. And, in each case, improvements were eventually made to mitigate the problems, but the resulting improved product ended up failing in the marketplace as its negative reputation overshadowed its ultimate excellence.
I'll keep reminding you of the reasons why the quality was poor, the recalls were high and the market share went down.
And, in each case, improvements were eventually made to mitigate the problems, but the resulting improved product ended up failing in the marketplace as its negative reputation overshadowed its ultimate excellence.
This is an interesting, and I think true, statement. I am able to admit that. But unless you owned the first one or two model years of every product they're talking about, you wouldn't be having epic failures in thirty years of ownership.
I notice you're a fan of Hyundai. Hyundai quality was absolutely the bottom-of-the-barrel into the early '00's. Yes, it has improved...as has GM's. Why does Hyundai always get a complete free pass from you? Not a wiseguy question, but I think a logical one.
I'm a notorious cheapskate. There is no way I would buy a brand for 30 years if it were sucking dollars out of my wallet. Guess I've somehow avoided buying the first one or two model years of every new model. I'm not a trendy guy anyway...hence my enjoyment of current GM's and old Studebakers.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
"General Motors announced Tuesday it will invest $2 billion in 17 U.S. plants in eight mostly Midwestern states, aimed at boosting fuel economy in its vehicles. The investment will create or save more than 4,000 jobs, GM CEO Dan Akerson announced at the automaker’s transmission plant in Toledo, Ohio (above), where GM will spend $204 million to upgrade the plant to build fuel-efficient eight-speed transmissions, retaining 240 jobs. “This is not our last investment in America that’s going to be announced,” Akerson told the cheering crowd in Toledo, where GM has been producing vehicle parts since 1916. “We’re committed to investing in the infrastructure of this company and manufacturing jobs in the United States.”
I am glad you admit that by the time GM gets it right, the lights have been out for a long time and the crowds have all gone...well, to the competition.
Yes Kia/Hyundai made junk up until the mid 2000's. The reason I am a fan is because the company is getting it right at a better value than the D3. There is no free pass. All of the recalls are questions to quality for any manufacturer.
I would never knock anyone's preference for buying a GM or any other brand. I still believe to each his own. You live with what you buy and GM lost it's way and proves even the mighty can be destroyed by greed and arrogance.
Hyundai is hungry....GM is on a free ride from USA politics.
>This will somehow be spun into something negative on this forum.
Amen. This forum needs some direction.
Anyone new to the discussion tuning in and expecting to find rational discussion of GM's news, new models, and their market share will be sorely depressed by the negative view continually, repeatedly reviewed here for the 10,000th time.
New jobs at GM first go to the pool of laid-off U.S. workers. The UAW and GM periodically update that number and this afternoon said it numbers about 1,350. UAW Vice President Joe Ashton said all those workers would be back to work by September, “if not sooner.” So GM is expected to make new hires for at least some of the 4,000 jobs announced today.
New hires would make about $14 an hour, roughly half of what their first-tier UAW counterparts make.
In Toledo, new equipment and workers will start coming to the plant this year, plant manager Joe Choate said. The majority of the 250 positions will be for new workers coming in to the plant, although possibly as transfers or laid-off employees coming back to work, he said.
Including the 4,000 new jobs, GM has promised to add or retain about 13,000 jobs since its 2009 bankruptcy. The hiring has come along with profitability: GM last week posted its fifth-straight quarterly profit.
Looks like they are on a new trend that is finally paying off.
The UAW is still hoping GM will agree to add more jobs during contract negotiations this summer, Ashton said. In particular, he said, he’s still hoping GM will agree to reopen the assembly plants in Spring Hill, Tenn., and Janesville, Wis., and keep a compact truck plant in Shreveport, La., from closing.
“We’re not looking to make sacrifices,” Ashton said. “We’ve made them."
I will reserve any negative comment. Hopefully the greed lesson has been learned from repeated history for the 10,000th time.
“We’re not looking to make sacrifices,” Ashton said. “We’ve made them."
That quote scares me a little bit I guess they have to say things like that. As long as they realize that what they had a few years ago isn't coming back this is good news all around. They are building a sustainable company then.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Those kind of jobs won't even afford one food and shelter, that is unless one dumpster dives behind the Mickey Dee's after the shift is over and plans to sleep in the men's room toilet stall overnight.
Whoa! They were still using the "drop-in" tank as late as the 1990s Ford Explorer? One cool idea Ford had that is no longer with us is the center-fill gas tank. It's a PITA to try to pull up to the pump one side or the other, especially when some jabroni faces his vehicle the opposite way one would normally approach the pump.
I dunno. I broke the rule of not buying the first year of a new model in November 1993 when I took delivery of a new 1994 Cadillac DeVille in Carmine Red with a Parchment leather interior. It was an all-new design and I drove it trouble-free for the next 8 years when I traded it for a new 2002 Cadilac Seville STS.
I notice he mentioned the 1980 Chevrolet Citation. Well, my buddy's family bought one of the first Citations in April 1979. He drove that car through high school, college, graduate school, and onto the first two years of his marriage and the purchase of his first house. The car had over 195K+ miles on it and looked like it went through WWII, but it made it! This guy currently has a Corvette and a hybrid Tahoe. I guess that Citation didn't turn him off GM!
I miss the center-fill fuel filler location too, Andre. Both my Studebakers have it, and most of our Chevys had it, hidden behind the license plate, 'til the advent of front-wheel-drive, it seemed (not that there's a rational correlation). Much-more convenient, not to mention cleaner-looking.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I remember people waiting six months to get the Citation they ordered. I know a guy who had an '82 4-door 4-cyl. with 5-speed Citation that he used as a 'mule' basically, 'til about ten years ago. It looked decent and he said he got good service out of it. I know there were issues, but you know how the media makes things....badder-than-average, sure, but now every one was supposed to be a death trap or something. Sheesh. When something is touted as either great or awful, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I had a Citation - a 1983 X11, 2.8L V6 and 4 speed manual trans. I do not believe that it was ever available with a 5 speed... - Ray Only one issue with that one . . .
Doesn't suprise me that early 80's Chevy's were 4 speed manuals. I remember early 80's Honda's like my Parents '82 Accord Sedan touting right by the name Accord the Emblem 5-SPEED. Like having 5 manual gears was such a big deal they had to put a moniker on the car.
Now I understand why it was such a big deal, as the domestics were still stuck on 4. Kind of like how Honda was using 5 gears on their automatics while the domestics were still stuck on 3 (Neon) or 4 in the the early 2000's.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Kind of like how Honda was using 5 gears on their automatics while the domestics were still stuck on 3 (Neon) or 4 in the the early 2000's.
That's all changed now. MOST GM and Ford products have 6-speed Autos, while Honda (and Chrysler) still has the 5-speed autos (and are getting demerits from auto journalists because of 'em).
In another 10 years, I'm sure that 8-speeds or CVTs will be the norm, and anything else with fewer gears, or (gasp!) a manual, will be considered obsolete.
In another 10 years, I'm sure that 8-speeds or CVTs will be the norm, and anything else with fewer gears, or (gasp!) a manual, will be considered obsolete.
it'll be a sad, sad day when that happens... :sick:
Whoa! They were still using the "drop-in" tank as late as the 1990s Ford Explorer?
Nah, the "drop-in" gas tank was ancient history by then, but the '90's Explorer had some other issue. Can't remember what it was, though. I read somewhere that Ford stopped using the drop-in gas tank in 1971. Not sure what the last car to use it was, though? Maybe the 1970 Mustang/Cougar and Falcon?
The '79-81 full-sized Mopars also had the fuel filler in back. In the St. Regis, Newport, and Gran Fury it was behind the license plate, while in the New Yorker there was a false section of taillight that flipped up.
most of our Chevys had it, hidden behind the license plate, 'til the advent of front-wheel-drive, it seemed
Most, if not all, FWD cars have the gas tank moved ahead of the rear axle, under the back seat, and the spare tire now resides under the trunk floor in that spot where the tank used to be. So that's most likely the reason they moved the fuel filler to one side or the other.
And with the advent of the independent rear suspension, most RWD cars have the gas tank ahead of the rear axle, as well. The only holdout I can think of is the Ford Panther body, which has the gas tank, in a vertical shape, sandwiched between the rear axle and the deep well of the trunk. It's mounted far enough forward that a fuel filler at the back of the car wouldn't work, either.
Interesting. I always thought the center fill was eliminated due to a "safety issue" to address rear collisions.
I wonder what the last cars were to have the fuel filler behind the license plate? 1996 Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood, maybe?
I have a feeling that if these cars stayed in production, eventually the feds would have forced them to move the fuel tank somewhere else. I remember they made GM do that with the Pontiac GTO revival a few years ago. The Aussie Holden Monaro, I believe, had the tank strapped on under the trunk, just like RWD cars had done for eons, but when the GTO came to America, the tank was relocated inside the trunk, over the top of the rear axle.
So I don't think it was the fuel filler itself being a safety issue, but moreso the location of the tank.
I'd imagine some of those older side-fill tanks weren't so safe, either. For instance, with my '68 Dart and '57 DeSoto, the filler tube actually went inside the trunk, down through the floor, into the tank. In a serious enough accident, I could see that tube getting torn, and fuel getting in the trunk. Not as bad as one of those "drop in" gas tanks, but it could still be a concern. At least with the filler behind the license plate, the tube never actually went inside the trunk.
>Interesting. I always thought the center fill was eliminated due to a "safety issue" to address rear collisions.
I had a woman driver hit my 70 Mustang with the center rear filled. I thanked my lucky stars I had less than a quarter tank of fuel. Like in many rear collisions, she knocked my car forward and then hit me again. Fuel could have sloshed to the top to the cap or the cap have been knocked off and on the second impact sparks could have ignited the fuel.
To go from a 3 spd to a 4 spd is a 33% jump in mpg. 4 spd to 6 spd is a 3% jump. 6 spd to 8 spd would seem to be another 3% jump in mpg. Performance sees a bigger gain with more gears. All highway numbers would see bigger differences. My 6 spd Malibu recently got 37 avg for a 75 mile mostly hwy loop, staying under 65 mph.
I sat in a new Regal yesterday. It felt the same size as my Malibu. It was priced almost $6k more but had turbo, sunroof, nav, leather, alloys, -18 tires, and a much nicer interior. It did not have remote start. Probably not affordable to recent new McD's hires.
To go from a 3 spd to a 4 spd is a 33% jump in mpg. 4 spd to 6 spd is a 3% jump. 6 spd to 8 spd would seem to be another 3% jump in mpg. Performance sees a bigger gain with more gears. All highway numbers would see bigger differences
I don't think the gains are going to be that big. I can get 20-21 mpg out of my '79 New Yorker out on the highway, with its 360-2bbl, 3-speed automatic, and 2.45:1 axle. Giving it a 4-speed automatic isn't going to suddenly make it get 26-27 mpg. You can only gear a car so tall before it stalls out, or so short before it over-revs, so all additional gears do is fill in the gaps in the middle. And each additional gear is a diminishing return.
My '79 Chrysler could probably get by with a 2-speed automatic. If you floor it from a standstill, it'll hold first gear to about 55 mph. Let off of the gas at that point, and before you know it, it's in 3rd. If you keep stomping on it, I think it'll hold second until around 70-75 mph.
In my Chrysler, if they had gone to a 4-speed overdrive, they probably would have given it a quicker axle ratio, like a 2.76:1, 2.94:1, or even a 3.23:1, and then the overdrive gear would cut that ratio by around 30-33%. But, it would be so gutless in overdrive, that the slightest load situation would make it downshift.
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had a 2.73:1 axle and 4-speed automatic, and when it went into overdrive, it didn't have much power, and would downshift at the drop of a pin. Unless you got it up to around 85 mph, where the engine would finally rev fast enough to get back into its peak power range.
Getting 37 mpg out of your Malibu is pretty impressive, though. I borrowed my uncle's '03 Corolla once, and on a trip only got something like 37.8 mpg, and I was babying it.
Anyone new to the discussion tuning in and expecting to find rational discussion of GM's news, new models, and their market share will be sorely depressed by the negative view continually, repeatedly reviewed here for the 10,000th time.
And we've seen mentions of Honda transmissions and Toyota sludge how many times from some *ahem* posters?
You surely won't see those mentioned in those particular cars' forums half to the extent they're mentioned here, and only for balance. You surely can admit that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
There are just more GM recalls because they sell more cars, right?
GM is recalling 4,674 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon compact pickup trucks from the 2011 model year because the windshield wipers may become inoperative, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In the affected vehicles, the wipers’ motor crank arm nut may loosen if the wipers are operated with a build-up of snow or ice or if the wipers are turned on with a dry windshield. If the nut is loosened enough, the wipers could stop working. This could reduce driver visibility and increase the risk of a crash.
The recall is expected to begin this month. Dealerships will secure the nut free of charge. For more info, owners can call Chevrolet at 800-630-2438, GMC at 866-996-9463 or NHTSA’s vehicle safety hotline at 888-327-4236.
I don't make 'em or report 'em...and I surely won't buy 'em until they get far better.
Translation - GM forgot to put a lock-washer on the nut.
It's a 10 cent fix, folks. Or a drop of loc-tite, which is my guess as to how GM is "securing" it. Hardly worthy of a major angst-fest as if it were a safety issue.
No one is saying that GM doesn't have recalls. You only mention them while glossing over the foreign manufacturers.
I also love how everyone says "(Fill in the blank) cars are as American as any other since they build here", yet notice which manufacturers are the most-affected (not the only ones affected) by the disasters in Japan.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Let's factually report no. of cars recalled by manufacturer in the past couple of years. I'm not talking about 1971 or 1981. I'm talking the past couple of years. I think we all know what the outcome will be. No spinning that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
No one is saying the Asians don't have recalls. Just that GM is not all better now that it's 2 years into bailout mode. Demons still lurk and blindly supporting GM will hurt one way or another AFAIC.
I'll change my tune when thane facts speak for themselves. I've always said Toyota got GM Disease. It is suffering through that now. They need to reinvent their objectives and engineer better products just like GM.
Guess who will reap market share (considering the Japan Disaster effect) at a higher relative rate than the D3?
Toyota has taken the crown since then but there is nothing stopping them from handing it back. They have the money to right their ship just like Government motors did (thanks to taxpayers)
Boy, now there's an understatement. In the most recent period, Toyota is the recall leader.
Incidentally, I'm not into Hyundais or Toyotas so I don't post on their forums. Wish we saw more self-control of that nature by certain others here. But, hey, it's a free country, even though some love nothing better than to whine about it.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Comments
I'm sorry, but there's no way anyone at GM knows what quality is, the definition of quality must be unknown over at GM. Since they are incompetent and unqualified to be rating things on quality, they need to rely on other sources to rate quality for them so they can improve. Looking at their market share decrease is one way to gauge it. The other (which they have been doing for the past few years, and it's working) is to listen to what Consumer Reports has to say.
Now that's a qualified view on quality. GM looking at quality is similar to a fox rating the quality of the security to your hen house.
Do you really think one year makes a significant difference? After decades upon decades of vehicle manufacturing, I don't think one year will ever tip the scales much.
GM's sales slide doesn't look like a cliff that happened in one year. It was a steady decline, looks more like a rolling hill on the downward slope.
Just like Toyota can't take away the gas pedal recall, you can't ERASE GM's poor quality over the generations, although this will be tried.
The Mark of Failure is hard to forget, don't you agree?
I've also posted that some of their newer products POST 2008 are much improved but to claim World Class Standard is pretty funny. :P
Regards,
OW
How does oblivion to the past 12 months help?
Another recall in the news is Hundai.
Well, andres3 has spoken, and in no uncertain terms, so it must be so...alert the media.
And if people are buying vehicles based on whether they feel confident, or on speculating (that's basically what the stock market is), then we're on rather shaky ground.
People had better prepare for an economy that is going to be minus several hundred billion $'s of spending per year by the feds, when this Debt ceiling issue is resolved. And when the states and local governments get done cutting, let's see how "confident" people feel then.
My best advice for people. Go buy either a lightly used or a new economy car in the $10K - $15K price range, that gets 35+ mpg.
Then, there was that barbeque that seats four, the Pinto. Then, I remember the Ford Explorer getting the nickname "Exploder". And I'm sure there's a few other examples I'm missing. And now, they're having trouble keeping the gas tanks strapped under their trucks!
Maybe they need to start subcontracting out for fuel tanks! :P
What? The forgot to put the y on their name? A chrome spelling error?
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The 1971 Chevrolet Vega was GM's launch into the new subcompact class to compete against the import's increasing market share. Problems associated with its innovative aluminum engine led to the model's discontinuation after seven model years in 1977. During the late 1970s, GM would initiate a wave of downsizing starting with the Chevrolet Caprice which was reborn into what was the size of the Chevrolet Chevelle, the Malibu would be the size of the Nova, and the Nova was replaced by the troubled front-wheel drive Chevrolet Citation. In 1976, Chevrolet came out with the rear-wheel drive sub compact Chevette.
While GM maintained its world leadership in revenue and market share throughout the 1960s to 1980s, it was product controversy that plagued the company in this period. It seemed that, in every decade, a major mass-production product line was launched with defects of one type or another showing up early in their life cycle. And, in each case, improvements were eventually made to mitigate the problems, but the resulting improved product ended up failing in the marketplace as its negative reputation overshadowed its ultimate excellence.
I'll keep reminding you of the reasons why the quality was poor, the recalls were high and the market share went down.
Regards,
OW
This is an interesting, and I think true, statement. I am able to admit that. But unless you owned the first one or two model years of every product they're talking about, you wouldn't be having epic failures in thirty years of ownership.
I notice you're a fan of Hyundai. Hyundai quality was absolutely the bottom-of-the-barrel into the early '00's. Yes, it has improved...as has GM's. Why does Hyundai always get a complete free pass from you? Not a wiseguy question, but I think a logical one.
I'm a notorious cheapskate. There is no way I would buy a brand for 30 years if it were sucking dollars out of my wallet. Guess I've somehow avoided buying the first one or two model years of every new model. I'm not a trendy guy anyway...hence my enjoyment of current GM's and old Studebakers.
GM To Invest $2B In Plants To Boost Fuel Economy (AutoObserver)
Yes Kia/Hyundai made junk up until the mid 2000's. The reason I am a fan is because the company is getting it right at a better value than the D3. There is no free pass. All of the recalls are questions to quality for any manufacturer.
I would never knock anyone's preference for buying a GM or any other brand. I still believe to each his own. You live with what you buy and GM lost it's way and proves even the mighty can be destroyed by greed and arrogance.
Hyundai is hungry....GM is on a free ride from USA politics.
Regards,
OW
Blasphemy! My tax dollars allowed this to happen! :P
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
Amen. This forum needs some direction.
Anyone new to the discussion tuning in and expecting to find rational discussion of GM's news, new models, and their market share will be sorely depressed by the negative view continually, repeatedly reviewed here for the 10,000th time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
New jobs at GM first go to the pool of laid-off U.S. workers. The UAW and GM periodically update that number and this afternoon said it numbers about 1,350. UAW Vice President Joe Ashton said all those workers would be back to work by September, “if not sooner.” So GM is expected to make new hires for at least some of the 4,000 jobs announced today.
New hires would make about $14 an hour, roughly half of what their first-tier UAW counterparts make.
In Toledo, new equipment and workers will start coming to the plant this year, plant manager Joe Choate said. The majority of the 250 positions will be for new workers coming in to the plant, although possibly as transfers or laid-off employees coming back to work, he said.
Including the 4,000 new jobs, GM has promised to add or retain about 13,000 jobs since its 2009 bankruptcy. The hiring has come along with profitability: GM last week posted its fifth-straight quarterly profit.
Looks like they are on a new trend that is finally paying off.
The UAW is still hoping GM will agree to add more jobs during contract negotiations this summer, Ashton said. In particular, he said, he’s still hoping GM will agree to reopen the assembly plants in Spring Hill, Tenn., and Janesville, Wis., and keep a compact truck plant in Shreveport, La., from closing.
“We’re not looking to make sacrifices,” Ashton said. “We’ve made them."
I will reserve any negative comment. Hopefully the greed lesson has been learned from repeated history for the 10,000th time.
Regards,
OW
That quote scares me a little bit I guess they have to say things like that. As long as they realize that what they had a few years ago isn't coming back this is good news all around. They are building a sustainable company then.
I notice he mentioned the 1980 Chevrolet Citation. Well, my buddy's family bought one of the first Citations in April 1979. He drove that car through high school, college, graduate school, and onto the first two years of his marriage and the purchase of his first house. The car had over 195K+ miles on it and looked like it went through WWII, but it made it! This guy currently has a Corvette and a hybrid Tahoe. I guess that Citation didn't turn him off GM!
I do not believe that it was ever available with a 5 speed...
- Ray
Only one issue with that one . . .
Now I understand why it was such a big deal, as the domestics were still stuck on 4. Kind of like how Honda was using 5 gears on their automatics while the domestics were still stuck on 3 (Neon) or 4 in the the early 2000's.
That's all changed now. MOST GM and Ford products have 6-speed Autos, while Honda (and Chrysler) still has the 5-speed autos (and are getting demerits from auto journalists because of 'em).
In another 10 years, I'm sure that 8-speeds or CVTs will be the norm, and anything else with fewer gears, or (gasp!) a manual, will be considered obsolete.
it'll be a sad, sad day when that happens... :sick:
Nah, the "drop-in" gas tank was ancient history by then, but the '90's Explorer had some other issue. Can't remember what it was, though. I read somewhere that Ford stopped using the drop-in gas tank in 1971. Not sure what the last car to use it was, though? Maybe the 1970 Mustang/Cougar and Falcon?
The '79-81 full-sized Mopars also had the fuel filler in back. In the St. Regis, Newport, and Gran Fury it was behind the license plate, while in the New Yorker there was a false section of taillight that flipped up.
Most, if not all, FWD cars have the gas tank moved ahead of the rear axle, under the back seat, and the spare tire now resides under the trunk floor in that spot where the tank used to be. So that's most likely the reason they moved the fuel filler to one side or the other.
And with the advent of the independent rear suspension, most RWD cars have the gas tank ahead of the rear axle, as well. The only holdout I can think of is the Ford Panther body, which has the gas tank, in a vertical shape, sandwiched between the rear axle and the deep well of the trunk. It's mounted far enough forward that a fuel filler at the back of the car wouldn't work, either.
I wonder what the last cars were to have the fuel filler behind the license plate? 1996 Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood, maybe?
I have a feeling that if these cars stayed in production, eventually the feds would have forced them to move the fuel tank somewhere else. I remember they made GM do that with the Pontiac GTO revival a few years ago. The Aussie Holden Monaro, I believe, had the tank strapped on under the trunk, just like RWD cars had done for eons, but when the GTO came to America, the tank was relocated inside the trunk, over the top of the rear axle.
So I don't think it was the fuel filler itself being a safety issue, but moreso the location of the tank.
I'd imagine some of those older side-fill tanks weren't so safe, either. For instance, with my '68 Dart and '57 DeSoto, the filler tube actually went inside the trunk, down through the floor, into the tank. In a serious enough accident, I could see that tube getting torn, and fuel getting in the trunk. Not as bad as one of those "drop in" gas tanks, but it could still be a concern. At least with the filler behind the license plate, the tube never actually went inside the trunk.
I had a woman driver hit my 70 Mustang with the center rear filled. I thanked my lucky stars I had less than a quarter tank of fuel. Like in many rear collisions, she knocked my car forward and then hit me again. Fuel could have sloshed to the top to the cap or the cap have been knocked off and on the second impact sparks could have ignited the fuel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I wonder if san 8 speed auto is cheaper to build than a CVT because I would think they'd kind of drive the same at that point?
I dunno, isn't a CVT actually fairly simple? Sort of like a belt with a pulley that adjusts to give you the ratio you need?
I sat in a new Regal yesterday. It felt the same size as my Malibu. It was priced almost $6k more but had turbo, sunroof, nav, leather, alloys, -18 tires, and a much nicer interior. It did not have remote start. Probably not affordable to recent new McD's hires.
I don't think the gains are going to be that big. I can get 20-21 mpg out of my '79 New Yorker out on the highway, with its 360-2bbl, 3-speed automatic, and 2.45:1 axle. Giving it a 4-speed automatic isn't going to suddenly make it get 26-27 mpg. You can only gear a car so tall before it stalls out, or so short before it over-revs, so all additional gears do is fill in the gaps in the middle. And each additional gear is a diminishing return.
My '79 Chrysler could probably get by with a 2-speed automatic. If you floor it from a standstill, it'll hold first gear to about 55 mph. Let off of the gas at that point, and before you know it, it's in 3rd. If you keep stomping on it, I think it'll hold second until around 70-75 mph.
In my Chrysler, if they had gone to a 4-speed overdrive, they probably would have given it a quicker axle ratio, like a 2.76:1, 2.94:1, or even a 3.23:1, and then the overdrive gear would cut that ratio by around 30-33%. But, it would be so gutless in overdrive, that the slightest load situation would make it downshift.
My grandmother's '85 LeSabre had a 2.73:1 axle and 4-speed automatic, and when it went into overdrive, it didn't have much power, and would downshift at the drop of a pin. Unless you got it up to around 85 mph, where the engine would finally rev fast enough to get back into its peak power range.
Getting 37 mpg out of your Malibu is pretty impressive, though. I borrowed my uncle's '03 Corolla once, and on a trip only got something like 37.8 mpg, and I was babying it.
And we've seen mentions of Honda transmissions and Toyota sludge how many times from some *ahem* posters?
GM is recalling 4,674 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon compact pickup trucks from the 2011 model year because the windshield wipers may become inoperative, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
In the affected vehicles, the wipers’ motor crank arm nut may loosen if the wipers are operated with a build-up of snow or ice or if the wipers are turned on with a dry windshield. If the nut is loosened enough, the wipers could stop working. This could reduce driver visibility and increase the risk of a crash.
The recall is expected to begin this month. Dealerships will secure the nut free of charge. For more info, owners can call Chevrolet at 800-630-2438, GMC at 866-996-9463 or NHTSA’s vehicle safety hotline at 888-327-4236.
I don't make 'em or report 'em...and I surely won't buy 'em until they get far better.
Regards,
OW
It's a 10 cent fix, folks. Or a drop of loc-tite, which is my guess as to how GM is "securing" it. Hardly worthy of a major angst-fest as if it were a safety issue.
I also love how everyone says "(Fill in the blank) cars are as American as any other since they build here", yet notice which manufacturers are the most-affected (not the only ones affected) by the disasters in Japan.
I'll change my tune when thane facts speak for themselves. I've always said Toyota got GM Disease. It is suffering through that now. They need to reinvent their objectives and engineer better products just like GM.
Guess who will reap market share (considering the Japan Disaster effect) at a higher relative rate than the D3?
Regards,
OW
That's an easy one!
FACTBOX-Ford, GM lead in U.S. auto recalls 2005-2009
Toyota has taken the crown since then but there is nothing stopping them from handing it back. They have the money to right their ship just like Government motors did (thanks to taxpayers)
Boy, now there's an understatement. In the most recent period, Toyota is the recall leader.
Incidentally, I'm not into Hyundais or Toyotas so I don't post on their forums. Wish we saw more self-control of that nature by certain others here. But, hey, it's a free country, even though some love nothing better than to whine about it.