Yep. GM had the same type of Advertising and Political type Spins right up until hours before they declared bankruptcy. Go back to 2008 and look how different spokesmen for GM were spinning a positive future for GM. I'd read 1 story of their CEO in Congress begging for loans, on the same day GM spokesmen were proclaiming that they were poised to launch Earth-shattering new products, open highly automated factories, be #1 in J.D. Powers, blah, blah, blah... It was the ultimate corporate schizophrenia.
Even now the New GM touts its progress and profits, yet still hasn't taken the training-wheels off and paid back the pre-BK government bailouts, paid the government full price for its shares, or even started paying full income tax (have all those phony income tax credits for years to come).
How's GM Volt sales? Have they reached 3,000 yet? and how many of those were to the government or some corporate entity?
That sounds like maintenance "or lack thereof" issues to me.
Your probably redlining that BMW more in one month than you did the Caddy or Lincoln in their whole lives;
This is really funny; excuses after excuses. This time, you are making assumptions about me, so I know for sure they are all false.
I'm a hands-on engineer; I can fix vast majority of the problems in cars, mechanical or electronics. I love my cars and take better care of them more than you can imagine. I own a high tech electronics company and I know how to design high performance and high reliability products inside out.
I also love driving, and I drive equally hard on all of them.
How do you get by each day in real life? Are you living in an imaginary world? Don't you bump your head onto walls in reality? Does your boss or wife tolerant your made-up excuses like this? You should be in the "Big Bang Theory" shows. jk....
Is it really low though? what was the low for the stock price of the previous B.G. GM stock?
Well, for anyone who rode it all the way to the end, it went to zero and became nothing more than a tax writeoff.
I had some GM stock back around 2005/2006, but bailed before things got rocky. Saw two quarters of 50 cent/share dividends, and four quarters of 25 cent/share. I just about broke even when I sold it.
I forget now why, exactly I sold it. I can't remember if I was getting a bad vibe about GM, or if I simply found something that looked more promising?
Don't get so defensive. We like your input! How else can we get GM to improve without sound improvements in engineering? They are improving despite the lingering viruses from Old GM.
Here's one for you...I always said Toyota and Honda have gotten GM-Disease and now, the Honda recall sounds like an exact diagnosis:
The Japanese automaker told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it has been investigating the issue for several years. In September 2008, it received three claims of bearing breakage in the United States and began investigating. It received other complaints worldwide and changed its bearing supplier in late 2009.
Let's knock off the personal stuff and stick to talk about GM please.
"General Motors Co. president of North America Mark Reuss said he believes GM is well-positioned to continue an ongoing momentum highlighted by the company’s announcement Thursday it earned $2.5 billion in net income in the second quarter. He reiterated that GM is not changing its full-year Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of sales (SAAR) projection of approximately 13 million light vehicle sales for 2011, but added, “we’ve seen some wild things happen,” in the first half of the year and there’s nothing to prevent other unpredictable events that could potentially affect full-year SAAR."
i think the amount of ppl posting selective negative attention about GM in this particular forum, greatly out weighs the ppl posting Postive attention imo.
Why are you surprised there are so many negative comments? It's the only auto company that went from 50% market-share to < 20%, and has gone bankrupt in the last few years. Of course there are many negative issues buried within those facts!
And I am a person who's first 2 vehicles years ago were Chevies (a '71 Malibu w/350, and a '72 Nova V-6). I've bought 4 new GM vehicles over the years - a '94 Corsica, a '98 Camaro V-6, an '00 Silverado, and an '01 Firebird Formula. So I think I've given them more than my fair share of business, to rightfully rip them for squandering their treasure, and then playing the poor- child-shows-up-on-the-doorstep-crying with the government saps.
If GM will be in business in 2020 with above a 10% market-share, you can bet it was due to 1 or more bailouts that they'll need.
When a USA company fails to the extent of GM and disappointing so many past customers, I would not expect the Star Spangled Banner to play reflecting the recent trends of the GM government-backed life support business.
Agreed they are producing products that are immensely improved the last couple of years. That doesn't mean we forget the last 100 years thrown away to failure. Those failed products are still lurking around out there....
I had a brake line corrode thru in my Buick at 14 yrs, 181k miles. It's a parked outside vehicle and it was my 'drive it on salted road days' car for 6 years. The replacement 24 inch line was $8.00 at any auto parts store and an hour labor. Mine went out at a stop sign after I had completely stopped already.
My Silverado sits right in the middle of the so called problem group of vehicles. Sad to say but that Silverado has a little corrosion on the silver painted steel rim of the full size spare. Salt water can destroy stainless steel with silver plating in just a few hundred hours.
Funny about how the union played such a large part of the GM failure and then was rewarded and the debt holders were told to pound sand. Obama has rewarded his UAW supporters nicely. I'd like to see GM succeed and get back to being a top US revenue generator. 13 million vehicles this year is a nice start. BO will throw support to them until 2012 or 2016. I see them having 21% market share by 2012. America has been waiting for it's own small cars and they have arrived. High fleet sales are payback for the union support, not a bad reflection on the desirability of the cars. The cars will catch on. We only hear the bad stories on here. For every bad story, there are hundreds of good ones for GM and Ford.
"General Motors Co. president of North America Mark Reuss said he believes GM is well-positioned to continue an ongoing public relations momentum highlighted by the company’s announcement Thursday it earned $2.5 billion in net income in the second quarter, after accounting for government tax breaks. These numbers are not GAAP, just like the previous earnings numbers. He reiterated that GM is not changing its overly optimistic projections (to keep stock price propped up) for full-year Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of sales (SAAR) projection of approximately 13 million light vehicle sales for 2011, but added, “we’ve seen some wild things happen we had an overly optimistic projection,” in the first half of the year and there’s nothing to prevent other unpredictable events that could potentially affect full-year SAAR."
Agreed they are producing products that are immensely improved the last couple of years. That doesn't mean we forget the last 100 years thrown away to failure.
100? GM's downward spiral started in the mid to late-70s, due to the oil crisis and the surge of fuel-efficient imports that started entering this country. That's 35 or so years in my book. 100 is a little silly, don't you think?
The spin from us "negative" posters are reflecting the past history that everyone SHOULD agree they deserve...but somehow, some let them slide??
I'll agree that this past few decades of GM's history isn't a highlight reel, and they've gotten what they deserve by declaring bankruptcy and admitting their failure.
But by no means am I letting them "slide".
I've seen first-hand the new product that's been hitting their showrooms, including the Malibu, Equinox, Cruze, and the CTS, and I wouldn't be in support of anyone buying any of them if I didn't believe that their products have vastly improved, and is now comparable to anything else out there.
"GM's downward spiral started in the mid to late-70s, due to the oil crisisthe lack of any competitive fuel-efficient cars and the surge of fuel-efficient imports that started entering this country. sudden existence of competent competitors that caught them with their pants down."
If I wanted to fix my posts, I can, and I will. What you post is YOUR opinion, not mine, and if I don't share that opinion, then I surely don't want someone else "fixing" it for me.
I had to swap out the original alternator on the '98 Astro today. Just the interior engine cowl is an hour plus to remove and replace. The old alt. tested bad at Autozone. 13.5 years is a good life out of an alternator. I put a new Delphi one in. I also put in a new plastic vacuum line that controls the a/c ducting in while I had it open. In previous years, a 90 degree day wouldn't be the coolest day in a month and get me out there fixing cars like today did.
If I wanted to fix my posts, I can, and I will. What you post is YOUR opinion, not mine, and if I don't share that opinion, then I surely don't want someone else "fixing" it for me.
This is a forum. We share opinions. In my case I reworded the quote as another point of view might see it. Sorry if you don't see the technique as humorous, which was the intent. Why don't we both chill a bit?
I would have loved to have been around during the heyday of the 50's and 60's myself. I'd still like to find a Nova II project car someday when I have the time and knowledge to do so.
And probably my favorite GM of all time would have to be the 67' GTO followed by a split window Vette. Since then the only GM I've ever considered desirable was the 05'-06' GTO and the Saturn Sky Redline (which turned out to be a major disappointment).
i think the amount of ppl posting selective negative attention about GM in this particular forum, greatly out weighs the ppl posting Postive attention imo
Sadly you're right, but that doesn't means we have to insult Toyota or Honda to make GM look better. There is good news from GM, no spin necessary. If you've noticed, I tend to share it when I see it first, including several links last week.
i think the amount of ppl posting selective negative attention about GM in this particular forum, greatly out weighs the ppl posting Postive attention imo.
I think what you meant to say is that:
The amount of negative material and facts surrounding GM greatly outweights the amount of positive material and facts about GM.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
due to the oil crisis and the surge of fuel-efficient imports that started entering this country.
LOL! You are kidding right?
I would say that the decline of GM had more to do with their OWN decision to make crappy cars and try and sell them for super overly inflated high prices while having lousy warranties, that they often didn't stand behind.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I would say that the decline of GM had more to do with their OWN decision to make crappy cars and try and sell them for super overly inflated high prices while having lousy warranties, that they often didn't stand behind.
How come they can't match the best warranty in the business? Why don't they match BMW service/maintenance for Caddy??
Simple questions.
Here's another. How could off-shore companies beat GM in efficiency AND quality which destroyed their market share? Was the oil crisis only in the US???? Did those foreign companies have technology far beyond the reaches of the USA????????? Surely, you can't blame GM for their failures, can you?
It must of been some higher energy from those elite foreign manufacturers that destroyed GM. :confuse:
I would say that the decline of GM had more to do with their OWN decision to make crappy cars and try and sell them for super overly inflated high prices while having lousy warranties, that they often didn't stand behind.
GM would build products of questionable quality from time to time over the years, but so did Ford, Chrysler, the independents, and yes, even the put-on-a-pedestal Japanese. However, it really didn't catch up to GM until the first oil embargo in 1974.
When the federal gov't started threatening those CAFE requirements, GM's fleet average was the worst of the Big Three, at something like 11.6 mpg combined. However, it's not that GM cars were necessarily less efficient than their Ford or Mopar counterparts, but rather GM's most popular models tended to be big, thirsty cars.
Chrysler didn't have a subcompact car in those days, unless you counted the captive imports like the Dodge Colt and Plymouth Cricket, but their compact Dart/Valiant/Duster were wildly popular and fairly efficient. Meanwhile, the mid- and full-sized cars were pretty thirsty, but didn't sell very well, so there weren't enough of them to really sink Chrysler's fleet average.
Ford had better success with its bigger cars, but also had greater small car coverage, with the likes of the subcompact Pinto/Bobcat and Mustang II. And their compact Maverick/Comet and Granada/Monarch were decent sellers.
However, while GM had good success with its small cars like the Vega and Monza and such, overwhelmingly, their strength was in mid- and full-sized cars. And in compact cars such as the Nova, in many years the only V-8 option above the 6 was a 350, whereas Ford had the 302 and Mopar the 318.
So, GM had the most to lose when tighter fuel economy regs loomed on the horizon. As a result, they were the most radical when it came to redesigning their cars, and taking chances with things such as under-sized engines, too-small transmissions, issuing new full-sized cars that were actually smaller and lighter than existing midsized cars, etc.
Still, GM did well in those years. Ford and Chrysler were fast running out of money to come up with truly competitive products, and even traditionally reliable components started having higher failure rates, as quality control became more inconsistent. So, while GM had its issues, so did Ford and Chrysler. And while the Japanese were starting to really clean up in the small car area, the American masses overwhelmingly preferred their big V-8 cars.
The 1980's is what really started doing GM in. Because of more stringent fuel economy regs, they were forced to start building cars that were smaller and smaller, and competing more directly with the Japanese.
You could say Japan got lucky - in the late 70s the Big 3 got caught with a fleet that wasn't really compatible with the two OPEC crises, and they kept trying to adapt their cars while the Japanese introduced smaller, more efficient cars that were well suited to the island nation back home, and therefore perfect for the times.
As a kid I remember my dad waiting in line for gas in his 8mpg Buick, then asking him why he didn't get one of those Tercels from the 30-something MPG commercials.
In the 80s I think the big 3 dragged their feet. They were reluctant to go with FI, then multi-valve heads, OHCs, and later VVT, instead falling back on the "no replacement for displacement" mantra. I respected the venerable 3.8l V6 but let's face it - they were behind the times on the tech front.
I'm excited to see some GM models today, like the Equinox, making DI standard, well ahead of the CR-V and RAV4. Kia only now is adding DI to the Sorento's 4 cylinder, so GM pioneered for quite a while in that segment.
Equinox is selling well. I doubt that's a coincidence.
When there is merit in a design and GM does well, that's great news, because it will encourage them to innovate, rather than RESIST innovation, which they seemed to do quite well for decades.
>There is good news from GM, no spin necessary. If you've noticed, I tend to share it when I see it first,
Yes, you did that.
>negative greatly out-weighs the ppl posting Positive attention
Indeed. This discussion had a different name a few years back and it was changed to a more positive name to effect a more balanced view of GM rather than inviting a lot of repeating negative posts. However, that name change didn't bring about a more reasonable posting tone.
>doesn't means we have to insult Toyota or Honda to make GM look better.
Actually, the two are not related. As I read in forums in those discussions, I find repeated blasts at GM. I love it when people buy those cars because they hate GM and find themselves with sludge, runaway computer controls, bad brakes, bad transmissions, VCM that's acting badly--not because I dislike the people, but because of their naiveté and the constant image from the media (reference Lutz's book Bean Counters and Carguys) had them believing they were buying the invincible vehicle. When they have problems, such as their Odyssey transmissions (hasn't Honda had transmission problems for two decades now?), they now swear they'll never buy another.
>GM look better
Several posts back I wrote that I don't go to Kia forums to constantly deride their model which many, many people are finding perfectly suitable, as does Ow. Someone then posted that I posted in a toyota problem discussion, toyota on the Mend or the earlier title, that a friend's Corolla sounds cheap. That's not the Kia discussion. And it is a problem discussion about toyota's problems which started in 2002. And her Corolla still sounds cheap with the cooling fans coming on and off sitting idling and the front bumper, which was loose a few months after she bought it, still comes unsnapped (yes unsnapped on the side) where the clips just snap together to the rest of the car like a Lego set.
I think it's up to the hosts to reign in the negativity. The GM problems of the past were repeated touted in the media at the same time they praised the foreign companies for having only a few car models which had small engines and good gas mileage. That's all the foreign companies had. The GM company had a wide variety of larger vehicles including trucks. It was a matured company. It's like the old line department store and a new one offering store coming to town: the new store has such a great selection of the one type of item they carry. Duh, it's because it's a one line store, such as the foreign companies were as they fed the small car market that GM, F, C were not feeding.
Read Lutz's book to see all the problems that developed within GM's structure. It explains why so many things went awry in GM's lineup. The bully UAW was not their only problem. They needed a setup where one person was able to look at a car and say, yes or no, on whether that car was to be sold. That person needed to be a Carguy; instead they had executives like greeting card company people who weren't accountable based on the final sales outcomes.
Those executives were only responsible for getting check marks on their score sheet in getting the car through the design process which determined their bonuses--they held NO accountability if it didn't sell. A system of accountability like that must have been designed by someone in our federal government to work so poorly!
Even I could have done better at looking at a car to sell into a specific class and decide yes it will sell or no it won't. And there are several posters in discussions here, including ateixeira, who would have looked at some of those 80s and 90s cars and said, "No." They would have said what had to be changed, improved, eliminated, etc., to make that vehicle worth wasting money to produce.
But then there was the problem of keeping factories working because of agreements with UAW that employment and production at certain buildings would remain for certain lengths of time at certain levels. Ridiculous. If a plant's not capable of producing a vehicle on its production line, rebuild or move production to a plant capable of assembling that vehicle.
In addition to Lutz's book, I would also recommend the book "60 to 0: An Inside Look at the Collapse of General Motors - and the Detroit Auto Industry".
Good historical perspective on the Big 3, with emphasis on GM. Goes back to the 20's and 30's and the rise of GM, the postwar years when GM held more than 50% of the total market, and the decline starting in the 70's, where poor product decisions, external events (oil crises of the 70's) and an inability to keep pace with the competition led to the decline of the company and the Chapter 11 filing.
A reporter is interested in learning your opinion about whether Lincoln is a luxury brand. Please email pr@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, August 11, 2011 with your opinion on the matter, and your experience with Lincoln.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Hate to burst your bubble, but VW has had DI for a number or years now, and the competitor to the Equinox, the Toureg, you guessed it, has DI, so GM is not a pioneer here.
Excellent post. I think GM has gotten religion and is catching up in the CAR MARKET. Let's see if they can continue to build winners like the Cruze and Malibu.
My current problem with GM is the continuing Impala. I can not understand the reasoning for NOT making massive changes now to this old/boring design.
Take the largest Chevy - add a 4-pot turbo and e-assist to achieve 300 HP and 35 mpg highway....anything to spiff up this dinosaur! :confuse:
I can not understand the reasoning for NOT making massive changes now to this old/boring design.
Probably cash - only so much available for all the different launches, meanwhile Impala provides steady cash flow through fleet sales. Based on the new Malibu, I'm expecting good things out of the '14 Impala when it finally arrives.
Probably cash - only so much available for all the different launches, meanwhile Impala provides steady cash flow through fleet sales.
That's what I was thinking, too. Plus, the Impala is a fairly durable, sturdy design that lends itself fairly well to taxi and police use. Maybe not as well as the Crown Vic did, but certainly better than the likes of the Malibu.
Plus, since they have the Impala to dump into rental fleets and such, maybe that helps keep them from over-producing Malibus and dumping the excess into fleets, which would then cheapen that nameplate.
At least GM is dumping the old 3.5/3.9 pushrod and 4-speed automatic combo, and going with a standard 3.6 DOHC/6-speed in the Impala for 2012. That might cure some of its ills, although it might also affect the durable/cheap-to-fix factor a bit, as well.
It's interesting to look at the old fitzmall people to tell what's hot. The Cruze is selling for close to list while the Malibu and Impala are deeply discounted.
I understand the Impala completely. I guess the Malibu is simply that the new one is on the way and somehow makes the old one long in the tooth - which it certainly isn't.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Comments
Even now the New GM touts its progress and profits, yet still hasn't taken the training-wheels off and paid back the pre-BK government bailouts, paid the government full price for its shares, or even started paying full income tax (have all those phony income tax credits for years to come).
How's GM Volt sales? Have they reached 3,000 yet? and how many of those were to the government or some corporate entity?
Not quite as of July 31:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/08/03/nissan-leaf-still-holding-sales-edge-over-che- vy-volt/
Malibu had a good sales month, then Equinox had a good month, this is all good news that doesn't need Spin, let's just tell it like it is.
I think GM will continue to improve for a very simple reason - the new products are better than the old ones.
Cruze > Cobalt
New Equinox >>> old Equinox
etc.
2 months ad counting. Funny how Akerson "put the lights out at Lincoln" while Caddy dales are down. Buick isn't blowing away
BMW, Audi and Merc will continue to clean Caddie's clock.
Regarding the July 2011 sector sales, here's the top 20 cars July/YoY/YTD '11
Rank
Car
Status
Jul-11
Jul-10
Year-To-Date
#1
Toyota Camry
↑ 27,016 35,058 174,485
#2
Chevrolet Cruze/Cobalt
↓ 24,669 7339 148,455
#3
Nissan Altima
↑ 21,340 18,275 153,182
#4
Hyundai Sonata
↑ 20,884 17,886 135,898
#5
Chevrolet Malibu
↓ 19,529 20,458 142,312
#6
Ford Fusion
↓ 19,318 17,406 151,004
#7
Honda Accord
↑ 18,308 25,386 155,454
#8
Toyota Corolla/Matrix
↔
17,577 27,345 154,324
#9
Volkswagen Jetta
↑ 15,713 10,413 107,465
#10
Hyundai Elantra
↓ 15,181 18,215 118,482
#11
Ford Focus
↓ 14,889 15,417 112,913
#12
Honda Civic
↓ 14,006 23,231 141,577
#13
Kia Soul
↑10,131 8020 65,118
#14
Mazda 3
↑9288970560,832
#15
Nissan Sentra
↑8730 9712 73,860
#16
BMW 3-Series
↔ 8640 8897 52,502
#17
Subaru Outback
↑ 8373 9030 59,612
#18
Toyota Prius
↑ 7907 14,102 74,427
#19
Chevrolet Camaro
↔ 7671 7486 56,432
#20
Kia Forte
↔ 7560 6885 50,582
Regards,
OW
Go 2012 'Vette! :shades:
Regards,
OW
Your probably redlining that BMW more in one month than you did the Caddy or Lincoln in their whole lives;
This is really funny; excuses after excuses. This time, you are making assumptions about me, so I know for sure they are all false.
I'm a hands-on engineer; I can fix vast majority of the problems in cars, mechanical or electronics. I love my cars and take better care of them more than you can imagine. I own a high tech electronics company and I know how to design high performance and high reliability products inside out.
I also love driving, and I drive equally hard on all of them.
How do you get by each day in real life? Are you living in an imaginary world? Don't you bump your head onto walls in reality? Does your boss or wife tolerant your made-up excuses like this? You should be in the "Big Bang Theory" shows. jk....
Well, for anyone who rode it all the way to the end, it went to zero and became nothing more than a tax writeoff.
I had some GM stock back around 2005/2006, but bailed before things got rocky. Saw two quarters of 50 cent/share dividends, and four quarters of 25 cent/share. I just about broke even when I sold it.
I forget now why, exactly I sold it. I can't remember if I was getting a bad vibe about GM, or if I simply found something that looked more promising?
No; I did not miss it; I only go after the big ones. The Ford's 1 m is too small comparing to Honda's 2.5 m this time and Toyota's 20 m in 2 years.
Here's one for you...I always said Toyota and Honda have gotten GM-Disease and now, the Honda recall sounds like an exact diagnosis:
The Japanese automaker told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it has been investigating the issue for several years. In September 2008, it received three claims of bearing breakage in the United States and began investigating. It received other complaints worldwide and changed its bearing supplier in late 2009.
Honda will begin to notify owners on Aug. 31
From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110805/AUTO01/108050393/Honda-to-recall-2.5M-vehicl- - es-worldwide-for-stalls--shifting-problems#ixzz1UBP4BkU8
Real slow, Honda, REAL SLOW!
I assume I'll get a notice in the mail in September but my '08 CR-V is perfect so far. :surprise:
Regards,
OW
I can fix vast majority of the problems in cars, mechanical or electronics
A little arrogant, no?
"General Motors Co. president of North America Mark Reuss said he believes GM is well-positioned to continue an ongoing momentum highlighted by the company’s announcement Thursday it earned $2.5 billion in net income in the second quarter. He reiterated that GM is not changing its full-year Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of sales (SAAR) projection of approximately 13 million light vehicle sales for 2011, but added, “we’ve seen some wild things happen,” in the first half of the year and there’s nothing to prevent other unpredictable events that could potentially affect full-year SAAR."
As GM Banks $2.5 Billion, N.A. Boss Eyes More (AutoObserver)
And I am a person who's first 2 vehicles years ago were Chevies (a '71 Malibu w/350, and a '72 Nova V-6). I've bought 4 new GM vehicles over the years - a '94 Corsica, a '98 Camaro V-6, an '00 Silverado, and an '01 Firebird Formula. So I think I've given them more than my fair share of business, to rightfully rip them for squandering their treasure, and then playing the poor- child-shows-up-on-the-doorstep-crying with the government saps.
If GM will be in business in 2020 with above a 10% market-share, you can bet it was due to 1 or more bailouts that they'll need.
Agreed they are producing products that are immensely improved the last couple of years. That doesn't mean we forget the last 100 years thrown away to failure. Those failed products are still lurking around out there....
Regards,
OW
The spin from us "negative" posters are reflecting the past history that everyone SHOULD agree they deserve...but somehow, some let them slide??
The competition will burn the bad business practices out or it'll be curtains No. 2. :shades:
Regards,
OW
My Silverado sits right in the middle of the so called problem group of vehicles. Sad to say but that Silverado has a little corrosion on the silver painted steel rim of the full size spare. Salt water can destroy stainless steel with silver plating in just a few hundred hours.
"General Motors Co. president of North America Mark Reuss said he believes GM is well-positioned to continue an ongoing public relations momentum highlighted by the company’s announcement Thursday it earned $2.5 billion in net income in the second quarter, after accounting for government tax breaks. These numbers are not GAAP, just like the previous earnings numbers. He reiterated that GM is not changing its overly optimistic projections (to keep stock price propped up) for full-year Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate of sales (SAAR) projection of approximately 13 million light vehicle sales for 2011, but added, “
we’ve seen some wild things happenwe had an overly optimistic projection,” in the first half of the year and there’s nothing to prevent other unpredictable events that could potentially affect full-year SAAR."Trying to find for exactly reasons you stated pertaining to incentives .
100? GM's downward spiral started in the mid to late-70s, due to the oil crisis and the surge of fuel-efficient imports that started entering this country. That's 35 or so years in my book. 100 is a little silly, don't you think?
I'll agree that this past few decades of GM's history isn't a highlight reel, and they've gotten what they deserve by declaring bankruptcy and admitting their failure.
But by no means am I letting them "slide".
I've seen first-hand the new product that's been hitting their showrooms, including the Malibu, Equinox, Cruze, and the CTS, and I wouldn't be in support of anyone buying any of them if I didn't believe that their products have vastly improved, and is now comparable to anything else out there.
"GM's downward spiral started in the mid to late-70s, due to
the oil crisisthe lack of any competitive fuel-efficient cars and thesurge of fuel-efficient imports that started entering this country. sudden existence of competent competitors that caught them with their pants down."This is a forum. We share opinions. In my case I reworded the quote as another point of view might see it. Sorry if you don't see the technique as humorous, which was the intent. Why don't we both chill a bit?
I even like Mazdas.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Gross...
I've not looked at one or driven one, but it seems that it's a blast to drive. Just not the type of car I need at this time.
And probably my favorite GM of all time would have to be the 67' GTO followed by a split window Vette. Since then the only GM I've ever considered desirable was the 05'-06' GTO and the Saturn Sky Redline (which turned out to be a major disappointment).
Sadly you're right, but that doesn't means we have to insult Toyota or Honda to make GM look better. There is good news from GM, no spin necessary. If you've noticed, I tend to share it when I see it first, including several links last week.
Automotive News publishes that, but it's a subscription-only site.
Oddly if you Google it, you'll often find links to charts of theirs on other automotive sites. Then you can see it.
Here's a related story but they don't share a link to the full chart:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110620/OEM01/306209963/1117- -
Hint: libraries tend to have AN.
I think what you meant to say is that:
The amount of negative material and facts surrounding GM greatly outweights the amount of positive material and facts about GM.
LOL! You are kidding right?
I would say that the decline of GM had more to do with their OWN decision to make crappy cars and try and sell them for super overly inflated high prices while having lousy warranties, that they often didn't stand behind.
How come they can't match the best warranty in the business? Why don't they match BMW service/maintenance for Caddy??
Simple questions.
Here's another. How could off-shore companies beat GM in efficiency AND quality which destroyed their market share? Was the oil crisis only in the US???? Did those foreign companies have technology far beyond the reaches of the USA????????? Surely, you can't blame GM for their
It must of been some higher energy from those elite foreign manufacturers that destroyed GM. :confuse:
Regards,
OW
GM would build products of questionable quality from time to time over the years, but so did Ford, Chrysler, the independents, and yes, even the put-on-a-pedestal Japanese. However, it really didn't catch up to GM until the first oil embargo in 1974.
When the federal gov't started threatening those CAFE requirements, GM's fleet average was the worst of the Big Three, at something like 11.6 mpg combined. However, it's not that GM cars were necessarily less efficient than their Ford or Mopar counterparts, but rather GM's most popular models tended to be big, thirsty cars.
Chrysler didn't have a subcompact car in those days, unless you counted the captive imports like the Dodge Colt and Plymouth Cricket, but their compact Dart/Valiant/Duster were wildly popular and fairly efficient. Meanwhile, the mid- and full-sized cars were pretty thirsty, but didn't sell very well, so there weren't enough of them to really sink Chrysler's fleet average.
Ford had better success with its bigger cars, but also had greater small car coverage, with the likes of the subcompact Pinto/Bobcat and Mustang II. And their compact Maverick/Comet and Granada/Monarch were decent sellers.
However, while GM had good success with its small cars like the Vega and Monza and such, overwhelmingly, their strength was in mid- and full-sized cars. And in compact cars such as the Nova, in many years the only V-8 option above the 6 was a 350, whereas Ford had the 302 and Mopar the 318.
So, GM had the most to lose when tighter fuel economy regs loomed on the horizon. As a result, they were the most radical when it came to redesigning their cars, and taking chances with things such as under-sized engines, too-small transmissions, issuing new full-sized cars that were actually smaller and lighter than existing midsized cars, etc.
Still, GM did well in those years. Ford and Chrysler were fast running out of money to come up with truly competitive products, and even traditionally reliable components started having higher failure rates, as quality control became more inconsistent. So, while GM had its issues, so did Ford and Chrysler. And while the Japanese were starting to really clean up in the small car area, the American masses overwhelmingly preferred their big V-8 cars.
The 1980's is what really started doing GM in. Because of more stringent fuel economy regs, they were forced to start building cars that were smaller and smaller, and competing more directly with the Japanese.
Didn't Caddy just introduce something like that? I believe so...
As a kid I remember my dad waiting in line for gas in his 8mpg Buick, then asking him why he didn't get one of those Tercels from the 30-something MPG commercials.
In the 80s I think the big 3 dragged their feet. They were reluctant to go with FI, then multi-valve heads, OHCs, and later VVT, instead falling back on the "no replacement for displacement" mantra. I respected the venerable 3.8l V6 but let's face it - they were behind the times on the tech front.
I'm excited to see some GM models today, like the Equinox, making DI standard, well ahead of the CR-V and RAV4. Kia only now is adding DI to the Sorento's 4 cylinder, so GM pioneered for quite a while in that segment.
Equinox is selling well. I doubt that's a coincidence.
When there is merit in a design and GM does well, that's great news, because it will encourage them to innovate, rather than RESIST innovation, which they seemed to do quite well for decades.
It was those nasty foreign companies who caused GM's demise, I tell ya! :P
Yes, you did that.
>negative greatly out-weighs the ppl posting Positive attention
Indeed. This discussion had a different name a few years back and it was changed to a more positive name to effect a more balanced view of GM rather than inviting a lot of repeating negative posts. However, that name change didn't bring about a more reasonable posting tone.
>doesn't means we have to insult Toyota or Honda to make GM look better.
Actually, the two are not related. As I read in forums in those discussions, I find repeated blasts at GM. I love it when people buy those cars because they hate GM and find themselves with sludge, runaway computer controls, bad brakes, bad transmissions, VCM that's acting badly--not because I dislike the people, but because of their naiveté and the constant image from the media (reference Lutz's book Bean Counters and Carguys) had them believing they were buying the invincible vehicle. When they have problems, such as their Odyssey transmissions (hasn't Honda had transmission problems for two decades now?), they now swear they'll never buy another.
>GM look better
Several posts back I wrote that I don't go to Kia forums to constantly deride their model which many, many people are finding perfectly suitable, as does Ow. Someone then posted that I posted in a toyota problem discussion, toyota on the Mend or the earlier title, that a friend's Corolla sounds cheap. That's not the Kia discussion. And it is a problem discussion about toyota's problems which started in 2002. And her Corolla still sounds cheap with the cooling fans coming on and off sitting idling and the front bumper, which was loose a few months after she bought it, still comes unsnapped (yes unsnapped on the side) where the clips just snap together to the rest of the car like a Lego set.
I think it's up to the hosts to reign in the negativity. The GM problems of the past were repeated touted in the media at the same time they praised the foreign companies for having only a few car models which had small engines and good gas mileage. That's all the foreign companies had. The GM company had a wide variety of larger vehicles including trucks. It was a matured company. It's like the old line department store and a new one offering store coming to town: the new store has such a great selection of the one type of item they carry. Duh, it's because it's a one line store, such as the foreign companies were as they fed the small car market that GM, F, C were not feeding.
Read Lutz's book to see all the problems that developed within GM's structure. It explains why so many things went awry in GM's lineup. The bully UAW was not their only problem. They needed a setup where one person was able to look at a car and say, yes or no, on whether that car was to be sold. That person needed to be a Carguy; instead they had executives like greeting card company people who weren't accountable based on the final sales outcomes.
Those executives were only responsible for getting check marks on their score sheet in getting the car through the design process which determined their bonuses--they held NO accountability if it didn't sell. A system of accountability like that must have been designed by someone in our federal government to work so poorly!
Even I could have done better at looking at a car to sell into a specific class and decide yes it will sell or no it won't. And there are several posters in discussions here, including ateixeira, who would have looked at some of those 80s and 90s cars and said, "No." They would have said what had to be changed, improved, eliminated, etc., to make that vehicle worth wasting money to produce.
But then there was the problem of keeping factories working because of agreements with UAW that employment and production at certain buildings would remain for certain lengths of time at certain levels. Ridiculous. If a plant's not capable of producing a vehicle on its production line, rebuild or move production to a plant capable of assembling that vehicle.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Good historical perspective on the Big 3, with emphasis on GM. Goes back to the 20's and 30's and the rise of GM, the postwar years when GM held more than 50% of the total market, and the decline starting in the 70's, where poor product decisions, external events (oil crises of the 70's) and an inability to keep pace with the competition led to the decline of the company and the Chapter 11 filing.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Any more suggestions. Really rying to find this info without getting a subscription to AN.
My current problem with GM is the continuing Impala. I can not understand the reasoning for NOT making massive changes now to this old/boring design.
Take the largest Chevy - add a 4-pot turbo and e-assist to achieve 300 HP and 35 mpg highway....anything to spiff up this dinosaur! :confuse:
Regards,
OW
Probably cash - only so much available for all the different launches, meanwhile Impala provides steady cash flow through fleet sales. Based on the new Malibu, I'm expecting good things out of the '14 Impala when it finally arrives.
That's what I was thinking, too. Plus, the Impala is a fairly durable, sturdy design that lends itself fairly well to taxi and police use. Maybe not as well as the Crown Vic did, but certainly better than the likes of the Malibu.
Plus, since they have the Impala to dump into rental fleets and such, maybe that helps keep them from over-producing Malibus and dumping the excess into fleets, which would then cheapen that nameplate.
At least GM is dumping the old 3.5/3.9 pushrod and 4-speed automatic combo, and going with a standard 3.6 DOHC/6-speed in the Impala for 2012. That might cure some of its ills, although it might also affect the durable/cheap-to-fix factor a bit, as well.
I understand the Impala completely. I guess the Malibu is simply that the new one is on the way and somehow makes the old one long in the tooth - which it certainly isn't.