Doesn't Toyota mention quality and reliability in about every ad?
"Standard of the World" is a slogan...just like the dopey "Oh, what a feeling!". I don't see any difference between either company using either one. They are both part of their heritage.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
They sure do! It's either directly stated or inferred in the ad. This is even after their awful showing for years about the unexplained acceleration problems.
Doesn't Toyota mention quality and reliability in about every ad?
Yes, but to me "Standard of the World" says you are the BEST. Toyota says they are reliable (which they are) but they don't claim to be the MOST RELIABLE. I understand you don't see the difference, but to myself (and I suspect many others) the GM advertising of absolutes like "standard of the world" is just silly and undermines their credibility at a time they should have the products' actual quality lead the charge, rather than the advertising.
I thought it referred back to standardized parts, the Dewar Trophy, and all that. In 1908 or whatever, Caddy and other American makes were the most standardized in the world, by far.
You are aware that "Standard of the World" was Cadillac's advertising slogan for decades, right?
Not sure why that matters today. It is incorrect. Lots of things change over history. Why is the slogan a good idea when people aren't supposed to bash GMs built in the '70's? Just as today's GM is much better than in the '70's, Caddy is nowhere near the standard of the world. :P
So it's ok to lie because Toyota does it? Hmmm...doesn't sound like your logic works.
Cadillac is the best brand GM has in the USA. Why cheapen it by using Old GM slogans that are untruthful. Standard of the USA would be perfect....but not the World.
"Every now and then a model comes along that shakes up the status quo and reshapes the automotive landscape as we know it. This fall, two new models seem poised to have this kind of impact.
2012 Chevrolet Sonic
The compact/subcompact segment is just one surprise after another. There've been some seismic shifts so far, first with the launch of the Fiesta and then with the introduction of the redesigned Accent. We were starting to think we had this new world order all figured out -- you know, the one where both the Fiesta and the Accent sit comfortably at the head of the class. Then along comes the Chevrolet Sonic."
Saw a Sonic Friday at a local dealer. It was outstanding. It can have a place in our garage anytime. If I had to buy a car tomorrow because one of our 3 got crashed, I'd be hard pressed to choose between a good buy on a Malibu 4/6, a Cruze, and a Sonic.
Supply on the Sonic will be short for a while as dealers are given initial allotments. I saw one in silver.
I like hatches for their praticallity, but I have to say I like the looks of the Sonic sedan better than the hatch. Still, I hope both models are a good car for GM.
What they should use for a slogan would be "The Cadillac of Luxury Cars". This way there would be no disputing their claim, yet they still claim the heritage thing, as people have been using the "The Cadillac Of......" line for years
What they should use for a slogan would be "The Cadillac of Luxury Cars". This way there would be no disputing their claim, yet they still claim the heritage thing, as people have been using the "The Cadillac Of......" line for years
Now that makes sense. It's a far cry from a hollow claim from the past! It shows intent to surpass while not sticking ones foot in ones mouth!
The other thing is that in spite of people's opinion of the brand, it is an undeniable claim. Caddy just gets the added benefit that people have used and still use the phrase to describe something as "the best"
Here's the thing with advertising Circlew - a catchy slogan or jingle might grab your attention just like something unique in the ad, but probably 90%+ of the stuff goes in one ear and out the other. So I just don't get too excited about ad slogans unless they are really outrageous. I don't think GM's caddy ad slogan is any more outrageous than the other makes and it also doesn't really inspire me any more than most of the others do. Auto ads are mostly a big yawn!
When desperate, do anything. Then go bankrupt. Ford rose above the lower road the other two followed.
For G. M., which lost $15.5 billion in the second quarter alone, the strategy for survival appears to center on pursuing a mega-merger.
In July, G. M. approached Ford with a proposal to combine the operations of the two biggest American automakers. The talks involved several meetings between G. M.’s chairman, Rick Wagoner; its president, Frederick Henderson; Ford’s executive chairman, William C. Ford Jr.; and its chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, people with knowledge of the process said.
Ford broke off the talks in September, these people said. Mr. Ford and Mr. Mulally were said to have concluded that their company had a better chance to reorganize on its own than in tandem with another automaker.
Don't kid yourself - Ford came within a gnat's eye of going bankrupt and they would have taken federal money too.
Well, in fact, Ford did take a bucketful of federal money while hocking everything.
Ironically GM and Chrysler may be in a better financial position now - less debt and they got a no-strike clause in their UAW contract, unlike Ford. Last I heard Ford's bonds were still junk status.
Heck, I believe Rolls-Royce actually used the tagline " The Best Car in the World. It's hard to call any car "the best car...period." The best car for what? Would a Ferrari be the best off-road vehicle or a Jeep Wrangler the best vehicle for the Formula-1 track? Would a Ford F-350 be the best vehicle for fuel economy or a Prius the best for hauling building materials or pulling a trailer?
The Standard of the World goes all the way back to 1910 and refers to interchangeable parts. Back then, cars were pretty much handbuilt and one part for one car may not fit the other despite being the same make and model. Cadillac learned how to make precision parts from the day's gun manufacturers enabling it to reliably craft interchangeable parts and was pretty much the first make to embrace this philosophy.
One challenge was to have four Cadillac motor carriages disassembled and their parts randomly scattered about a room. The scattered parts were reassembled and the four cars ran reliably. You couldn't count on this over 100 years ago when many parts had to be hand-fitted and shaped for each individual automobile.
Well, in fact, Ford did take a bucketful of federal money while hocking everything.
But can we really call it "hocking"? They sold off PAG because they realized it was too much burden financially to hold onto niche makers like LR, Jag or Aston Martin.
Government Motors had nothing to sell otherwise they would have done the same IM. They also lost 2 billion in the Fiat fiasco which IMO was the straw that broke the camels back.
Meanwhile, GM came out of CH11 minus 3 brands (plus whatever was left of SAAB), yes, but for a total of of 1 car, the Kappa. Everything else was rebadges of either Chevies, Buicks or Holdens (which as we all know, ended up coming back anyways)
As for Chysler, they had been tossed around from owner to owner for half a decade, they weren't going to make it with CH11 because they couldn't even stand on their own before the recession hit. Besides, they haven't been an "American brand" since about 2004... :confuse:
A shining hour in front of TV cameras one day in 2009 Cost us taxpayers $.538B that will never be recouped. Yeah, GM has an unrecouped remainder still in the neighborhood of $9B. Nearly Twenty times greater but still has a million times better chance of recoup. And look at the permanent jobs created, saved, etc....Zero for Solyndra. Tens of thousands for GM.
The 3.4 L LNJ is a 204-cubic-inch (3,350 cc) modified version of the normal 3400 engine. It includes a modified intake manifold, oil pan, engine cover, and fuel system as well as electronic throttle control. It is built in China
That makes sense - the block was still the same casting, I'm sure.
Just 185hp from 3.4 liters seems almost silly today. Thankfully specific output it nearly double for newer GM engines.
This is even after their awful showing for years about the unexplained acceleration problems.
It's easily explained with one single word, actually:
POLITICS.
Quick summary...
Fall 2009: NHTSA SUA complaints for Toyotas are at half the rate of similarly sized automaker Ford. Keep in mind this is US government data, verified by Edmunds.
Japan tells the US their military base cannot remain on Japanese soil.
Meanwhile, a government that owns Toyota's competitors (hello conflict of interest!) mandates recalls and dishes out fines, why not target Ford since complaint rates were higher?
All heck breaks loose.
Japan changes their minds, we're sorry, you can keep the military base in Japan.
Complaints plunge 96% per CR May 2011, p. 16.
So basically complaints were very low before Novermber 2009 and after May 2011, and only high during that short period, while the same government whose military was snubbed happened to own Chrysler and GM.
Ford came within a gnat's eye of going bankrupt and they would have taken federal money too.
And Jordan won a lot of his rings by 1 or 2 points. There's a big, HUGE, gigantic difference between almost or a gnats eye and bankruptcy. It is the difference between winning and losing. It is gargantuan.
Ford correctly managed and won, GM and Chrysler failed and lost. The goverment decided to make two losers winners with bailouts. The Miami Heat could have won the NBA championship this year if the government would have taken a loser, spotted them a few points with a bailout, and turned them into winners against the superior Dallas Mavericks.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Your cars.com link about Ford taking 15.9 million clearly mention that they are conveniently leaving out the GM Bailout Government ownership portion from the figures for some unknown reason.
I don't like goverment loans to business. It is a bailout but at least it is a loan that will be paid back.
A bailout that takes over ownership of a company is an entirely different (and worse) animal. GM stock is not worth what we put into it. We have lost billions with a B.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
"Standard of the World" is a slogan...just like the dopey "Oh, what a feeling!". I don't see any difference between either company using either one. They are both part of their heritage.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes, but to me "Standard of the World" says you are the BEST. Toyota says they are reliable (which they are) but they don't claim to be the MOST RELIABLE. I understand you don't see the difference, but to myself (and I suspect many others) the GM advertising of absolutes like "standard of the world" is just silly and undermines their credibility at a time they should have the products' actual quality lead the charge, rather than the advertising.
Not sure why that matters today. It is incorrect. Lots of things change over history. Why is the slogan a good idea when people aren't supposed to bash GMs built in the '70's? Just as today's GM is much better than in the '70's, Caddy is nowhere near the standard of the world. :P
All this, over an advertisement slogan?
Does this mean that BMW should really be the "Ultimate driving machine", and there really is "No substitute" for a Porsche?
It's an AD CAMPAIGN, that's it.
Cadillac is the best brand GM has in the USA. Why cheapen it by using Old GM slogans that are untruthful. Standard of the USA would be perfect....but not the World.
Regards,
OW
Nothing more. You are quite correct!
The reason why it is defended? Who the heck knows!!! :confuse:
Regards,
OW
I'm surprised we've devoted this many words to it already.
Real good advertising: "We don't just build Luxury Cars....We Build Cadillacs." Call it Right-Puffing.
Perhaps you can't see the difference but millions others do. Point being, don't lie, just be honest.
What a concept! Even GM can use it!
Regards,
OW
Let's move on, shall we?
2012 Chevrolet Sonic
The compact/subcompact segment is just one surprise after another. There've been some seismic shifts so far, first with the launch of the Fiesta and then with the introduction of the redesigned Accent. We were starting to think we had this new world order all figured out -- you know, the one where both the Fiesta and the Accent sit comfortably at the head of the class. Then along comes the Chevrolet Sonic."
(Straightline)
Supply on the Sonic will be short for a while as dealers are given initial allotments. I saw one in silver.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But in the article, if you're a numbers guy, the second car would be the choice for optimum practicality and cost savings.
The Sonic sedan is the better choice for Chevy die-hards, afaic.
Looks like a Baby Cruze or Baby Verano!
Regards,
OW
Shocker!
Really! You know me so well!
Regards,
OW
This way there would be no disputing their claim, yet they still claim the heritage thing, as people have been using the "The Cadillac Of......" line for years
This way there would be no disputing their claim, yet they still claim the heritage thing, as people have been using the "The Cadillac Of......" line for years
Now that makes sense. It's a far cry from a hollow claim from the past! It shows intent to surpass while not sticking ones foot in ones mouth!
Regards,
OW
Now that is how it's done, GM! Live and Learn!
Regards,
OW
of the stuff goes in one ear and out the other. So I just don't get too excited about ad slogans unless they are really outrageous. I don't think GM's caddy ad slogan is any more outrageous than the other makes and it also doesn't really inspire me any more than most of the others do. Auto ads are mostly a big yawn!
This is interesting:
General Motors, Ford Discussed Secret Merger in 2008, NYT Says (Bloomberg)
Or even "Aspiring to be the Luxury Standard of the World". States the direction they intend to go.
G.M. Said to Seek Merger With Ford Before Chrysler
When desperate, do anything. Then go bankrupt. Ford rose above the lower road the other two followed.
For G. M., which lost $15.5 billion in the second quarter alone, the strategy for survival appears to center on pursuing a mega-merger.
In July, G. M. approached Ford with a proposal to combine the operations of the two biggest American automakers. The talks involved several meetings between G. M.’s chairman, Rick Wagoner; its president, Frederick Henderson; Ford’s executive chairman, William C. Ford Jr.; and its chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, people with knowledge of the process said.
Ford broke off the talks in September, these people said. Mr. Ford and Mr. Mulally were said to have concluded that their company had a better chance to reorganize on its own than in tandem with another automaker.
Too Big to Fail was the "Standard" in 2008.
Regards,
OW
Well, in fact, Ford did take a bucketful of federal money while hocking everything.
Ironically GM and Chrysler may be in a better financial position now - less debt and they got a no-strike clause in their UAW contract, unlike Ford. Last I heard Ford's bonds were still junk status.
One challenge was to have four Cadillac motor carriages disassembled and their parts randomly scattered about a room. The scattered parts were reassembled and the four cars ran reliably. You couldn't count on this over 100 years ago when many parts had to be hand-fitted and shaped for each individual automobile.
But can we really call it "hocking"? They sold off PAG because they realized it was too much burden financially to hold onto niche makers like LR, Jag or Aston Martin.
Government Motors had nothing to sell otherwise they would have done the same IM. They also lost 2 billion in the Fiat fiasco which IMO was the straw that broke the camels back.
Meanwhile, GM came out of CH11 minus 3 brands (plus whatever was left of SAAB), yes, but for a total of of
1 car, the Kappa. Everything else was rebadges of either Chevies, Buicks or Holdens (which as we all know, ended up coming back anyways)
As for Chysler, they had been tossed around from owner to owner for half a decade, they weren't going to make it with CH11 because they couldn't even stand on their own before the recession hit. Besides, they haven't been an "American brand" since about 2004... :confuse:
The amount Ford borrowed exceeded the value of their stock by more than $2 billion.
If it hadn't worked, a merger or bankruptcy would have been about the only other option left to them. (NY Times)
Think back to the bailouts. GM got $13.9 billion from the feds for GMAC in 2008.
Now, guess who got more. Yep, Ford Credit got $15.9 billion. (Cars.com)
Go buy a Toyota if you want clean hands. They only took $4.6 billion from that pot of money. :shades:
How much help did they receive from their motherland through past and present years? And then there's the exchange rate question...
Doesn't look to me like anyone has perfect "hands."
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That makes sense - the block was still the same casting, I'm sure.
Just 185hp from 3.4 liters seems almost silly today. Thankfully specific output it nearly double for newer GM engines.
It's easily explained with one single word, actually:
POLITICS.
Quick summary...
Fall 2009: NHTSA SUA complaints for Toyotas are at half the rate of similarly sized automaker Ford. Keep in mind this is US government data, verified by Edmunds.
Japan tells the US their military base cannot remain on Japanese soil.
Meanwhile, a government that owns Toyota's competitors (hello conflict of interest!) mandates recalls and dishes out fines, why not target Ford since complaint rates were higher?
All heck breaks loose.
Japan changes their minds, we're sorry, you can keep the military base in Japan.
Complaints plunge 96% per CR May 2011, p. 16.
So basically complaints were very low before Novermber 2009 and after May 2011, and only high during that short period, while the same government whose military was snubbed happened to own Chrysler and GM.
Like I said, politics...
And Jordan won a lot of his rings by 1 or 2 points. There's a big, HUGE, gigantic difference between almost or a gnats eye and bankruptcy. It is the difference between winning and losing. It is gargantuan.
Ford correctly managed and won, GM and Chrysler failed and lost. The goverment decided to make two losers winners with bailouts. The Miami Heat could have won the NBA championship this year if the government would have taken a loser, spotted them a few points with a bailout, and turned them into winners against the superior Dallas Mavericks.
The only entity that has anything remotely resembling "permanent" jobs is the government.
In today's economy, permanent jobs are a thing of the past.
How permanent do you think GM's bailout is? Chryslers didn't last long before they needed a 2nd one. I would call that Unsustainable jobs.
Let's see who is still around when demand finally climbs back up, though.
Not as sophisticated but more affordable than existing systems.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/02/black-air-the-story-of-the-buick-grand-nation- al/
I don't like goverment loans to business. It is a bailout but at least it is a loan that will be paid back.
A bailout that takes over ownership of a company is an entirely different (and worse) animal. GM stock is not worth what we put into it. We have lost billions with a B.
The UAW - Ford contract looks real close, but if that had turned into a mess, then all bets would be off. Again.
Meanwhile Ford's sales are up 8.9% over a year ago.
GM (and Chrysler) sales are up "over 20%".
U.S. Sales Climb at GM, Chrysler (Wall St. Journal)
Chrysler Sales Up 27%; GM Up 20% (AutoObserver)