"General Motors Co. is eliminating annual pension contributions for U.S. salaried workers who still receive them and will pare 2011 bonuses for all salaried workers, the auto maker said on Wednesday.
The Detroit company also won't give salaried workers pay raises this year, but will offer them an additional week of vacation. Workers in key jobs also will have a shot at bigger bonuses, the company said."
Where's the ZL-1's on that dealer website? That's what we were discussing...how even the ZL-1 has a rebate (which ended up being only $500 loyalty cash). Again...the Camaro is in its third model year of virtually no change. Your post is not a shocker.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Let's remember, one specialty, limited edition car model doesn't represent an entire fleet of manufacturer's models, especially hotted up editions.
If the ZL-1 doesn't sell at a discount (Is it even on sale yet? When I search on the Chevrolet site using major zip codes, there are none available), so what? Did Vipers when they were introduced? Did BMW Z8s? Did Nissan GT-Rs?
I'm just not sure what the point is here. I remember when the Plymouth PT Cruiser was first introduced, and the local dealer attempted to sell them for list plus $500. That didn't last long.
Not to nitpick, but I have issues with graphs like this.
Exactly what is a problem?
Great point. There needs to be a weighting of seriousness. Being stranded at night in a remote place, or even in Chicago on the Dan Ryan, is super, super serious. But, having a cosmetic or trim issue say in the back seat area of the passenger compartment is very minor. The only exception to this would be for a tiny minority of people, such as Donald Trump riding in the back seat of one of his limousines.
Stratification of seriousness is needed. It would seem at least 3 levels, maybe 4, of seriousness would impart much more meaning to these "problems" reports.
Consumer Reports annual April issue on autos will be out in 2 weeks. Will be interesting to see latest info on GM brands.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has this view.
I'm curious to see what CR's breakdown is as well.
Over the last few years I have read some pretty negative articles about Chrysler product interiors, and how cheap they have looked, compared to other makes. I wonder if that has anything to do with them sitting at the bottom of the rankings.
I believe JD Powers also reflects dissatisfaction. This is why Ford tanked - customers aren't thrilled with Microsoft Synch. I'm not sure what they were thinking turning to Microsoft and their history of glitchiness in the first place for something so prominent in their new vehicles. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just that too many users are apparently frustrated with it.
The conversation started out as, 'look, Camaros have rebates already, even the brand-new 2012 models
Performance Camaros used to be more affordable by young people many years ago. A performance Camaro SS was tested by R&T in July, 2011 issue and listed out at $42K. Most young people in twenties might have hard time affording that.
In contrast, when listing $42K, the person who more likely could afford that and wanting performance might want something beyond the "Chevrolet" nameplate. Not talking about Corvette here.
So, for $44K list price, one can get a more sophisticated engine, transmission, suspension, handling, quality and reliability from say an Acura TL SH-AWD.
R&T tested this model in May 2010 issue and it matches exactly the Camaro in performance in the Slalom and beats it slightly on the skidpad. And, the Acura has shorter stopping distances from 60 and 80 than does the Camaro.
You know, I don't disagree with the alternatives to the Camaro you mentioned.
I have absolutely no idea of the buying profile of the higher performance American cars, such as Camaro, Challenger and Mustangs in their hottest configurations, but I would guess a high percentage are owned by older folks like me (mid 50's) who didn't have a chance in hell of owning one of the originals.
But, that's just a guess.
Personally, if I'm gonna spend big $$$ for a hi-po Camaro or Challenger, I'm gonna take a real hard look at cars like the BMW M3. I just think the M3 has better engineering, and will hold its value much better. Again, that's just my opinion.
I have absolutely no idea of the buying profile of the higher performance American cars, such as Camaro, Challenger and Mustangs in their hottest configurations,
Had a Mustang GT, 3 Firebirds including a 71 455HO Trans Am. If I were in market today for that type, it would be a Mustang GT, maybe if it came in dark green, with appropriate wheels, kind of a Bullitt model if they make similar today. That is a better package than the Camaro.
Which is why the new Mustang, at about 20-22K after incentives is what the younger buyers are choosing. GM is going after the nostalgia segment and largely failing. Ford just makes a cheap and basic car with a big engine like cars back then were.
I really wish GM well, but they seem to be falling into the same trap as Toyota, which is that their cars are either cheap commuter tin cans or luxury cars. With not a whole lot in-between in the 20-30K range that's compelling. Sure, you can get a basic set of wheels, but there's no fun or soul in it. It's just something to get you from A to B.
10-4 on the comment about the car being a disaster on the inside. I've written similar things in my posts. I read last year that the Camaro was getting an "all new" interior for 2012, but all I saw was an updated steering wheel.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
Curious. Would think that people at that income have discriminating tastes and would want to buy a 3-Series, Audi, entry level Benz, even a Cadillac CTS rather than a Volt.
Well, most of them do have discriminating tastes and buy the other makes you mentioned. The Volt has sold VERY few vehicles. Just because the average Volt buyer makes $170K doesn't mean that most of the people making $170K buy Volts. Hardly any do.
Curious. Would think that people at that income have discriminating tastes and would want to buy a 3-Series, Audi, entry level Benz, even a Cadillac CTS rather than a Volt.
Let's face it, living where you do skews your perception of how appealing US makes are -- just as living where I do in CA skews my view a different way. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.
So, for $44K list price, one can get a more sophisticated engine, transmission, suspension, handling, quality and reliability from say an Acura TL SH-AWD.
Yes, but the Camaro has the "look at the size of my gonads" styling...
I do likevthe way the Camaro looks on the outside... Kinda reminds me of a Russian T-34 tank from WWII, with the turret facing backwards. Don't know why, but it does...
The one I sat in at a recent car show, at least for my height, 5'7", had horrible visibility from the inside if you looked anywhere but straight ahead.
Which is why the new Mustang, at about 20-22K after incentives is what the younger buyers are choosing. GM is going after the nostalgia segment and largely failing.
Last I heard, Camaro outsells Mustang. Just doing a reality check here.
Personally, I wouldn't buy either.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
You brought up the unreality regarding Camaros selling at a premium.
I merely suggested that the ATS would be priced to high as GM always does. The MAP price the dealer puts on is the desperation that kills a brands sales.
I'm just noting the history of the GTO and G-8, failure pricing schemes that did not work.
Re-read the original post--it's still here. I said the Camaro sold at a premium when introduced. I still believe ZL-1's at the dealership level will often have additional dealer mark-up. You've posted nothing that would contradict any of that.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
And I know, and I think you know, that if you and I went to our nearest Chevy dealer and looked for the latest Camaro with that monster engine (can't think of what they call it), it wouldn't be being discounted. In fact, I feel quite certain the opposite...there'd be additional markup on it.
Let me know when you actually find a ZL-1 at a dealership, and let me know how much they're discounting it.
Yeah, you do that.
Sheesh.
Also..what's up with Kia reliability in that J.D. Powers chart?
All ribbing aside...that chart just shows how close all the manufacturers are now. If I had a new car with 1.9 problems instead of 1.3, I don't think I'd be looking to trade it in. Those numbers wouldn't sway me to buying a car built in another country, or one I didn't like as much, just because a survey said its parent company had only 1.3 problems per new car instead of 1.9.
Don't know their methods, but I think it's clear Powers won't rely only on subscribers .
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Regarding the JD Powers chart, I don't think it brings very much information to the table.
I guess folks like simple, easy to read, black and white presentations, but without any explanation of the source (at least to me, if I was making a car buying decision) its virtually meaningless.
After all, a single model could severely distort a make's reliability.
Kinda discourages a maker from introducing any new technology that may have the remotest chance of not working 100% perfectly.
Last I heard, Camaro outsells Mustang. Just doing a reality check here.
Personally, I wouldn't buy either.
My original comment, though wasn't on sales so much as what younger buyers are able to afford and buy. The problem with the Camaro is that sales will decline in typical GM model fashion as the novelty wears off. Yes, it's a great vehicle from an engineering and reliability standpoint. The price is simply too high for what's basically a lot of fancy sheet metal and interior bits. Sure, you can eek out one for about 20-22K as well, but it's so stripped-down that it's a crime. Nasty "GM" seats (GM makes horrible seats - always has since the 80s) , plastic that makes no sense, and on and on. 25K quickly turns into 30K after you're done.
But the Mustang keeps soldering along as a viable performance option for younger buyers.
Yes, reflects 2009 Kia. Agree they were way below average.
Sorry...not buying it. Dosent mention anything about 2009 all i see is 2012. kia in the garbage can. no surprise there tho. some things never change :P
Don't need to buy anything. The survey is for 2009 MY dependability.
The annual study looks at problems experienced by original owners (a total of 31,000 were surveyed) of three-year-old (2009 model year) vehicles and includes 198 different problem symptoms across all areas of the vehicle. Overall dependability is determined by the level of problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality.
You know, when the Big 3 went bankrupt? You remember...
For all of 2011, G.M. earned $7.6 billion, nearly all of it from North America. That was 62 percent higher than the $4.7 billion it earned a year ago and nominally more than G.M.’s previous record of $6.7 billion in 1997 (in today’s dollars, the 1997 profit would be about $9.4 billion).
That is also the highest profit they earned in 15 years. The C-11 was quite an encompassing eraser of bad management and uncontrollable UAW-engineered debt!
Very impressive indeed. Actually, the best news is that given the concessions, it might be that the membership are quite happy with their $7G checks. (I might ask, why even support the UAW at this point??)
All ribbing aside...that chart just shows how close all the manufacturers are now. If I had a new car with 1.9 problems instead of 1.3, I don't think I'd be looking to trade it in.
You are correct if you keep a car only what, 3 years? I tend to go easily over 100K on all of my cars. If a car holds up for three years and then starts being problematic, then at 5 or 8 years the story could be quite different.
It was a good year to be sure. The numbers are bolstered by GM not having to pay any Federal income tax. GM won't be paying any Federal taxes this decade. 10 years of no taxes! That helps!
Good thing they wrote a 100% tax exemption clause in 2009 during the bail-out!
GM won't be paying any Federal taxes this decade. 10 years of no taxes! That helps!
Good thing they wrote a 100% tax exemption clause in 2009 during the bail-out!
The $7,000 bonuses being awarded to the UAW workers is just another slap in-the-face to the average U.S. citizen who does not have a union lobbying for them in DC, or part of a "too-big-to fail" company.
The U.S. government agrees to stop collecting income taxes on GM for a number of years, with a clause in their bailout and BK terms. So one would think that this generous and unheard of "gift" is needed $ for GM to maintain cash to run their business. But no; apparently GM doesn't really need that $ - they have so much extra $, they can give away some to their employees.
It's a disgrace; right from the top. The President and Congress give a private company unusual and generous "gifts" at the expense of the average citizen; and then that company turns around and passes out large cash bonuses to their employees. :mad: Shouldn't GM hold onto the cash so their books look more solid, and the stock price increases - so the U.S. Treasury can recoup more on its stock? Or shouldn't GM say to the U.S. government, that the 2009 terms of not paying income tax, are not needed anymore?
You are correct if you keep a car only what, 3 years? I tend to go easily over 100K on all of my cars. If a car holds up for three years and then starts being problematic, then at 5 or 8 years the story could be quite different.
My last three Chevys have had 94K, 112K, and 130K when traded. No regrets. Zero. And I'm a notorious cheapskate.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
The agreement was if the UAW workers took another haircut they would in return be compensated with profit sharing. My step dad would rather have his $5 an hour back then the $7000 bonus. But it is what it is. They agreed to profit sharing and will only get bonuses if the company makes money. You are upset that GM is tax exempted on taxes. Are you mad that 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes at all or around 2,500 millionaires/billionaires avoid paying taxes at all also? There are 18,000 corporations alone in the Cayman Islands that pay zero taxes. At least GM pays state and local taxes while all these others avoid it all together. They also are bringing jobs back to the U.S.
> You are upset that GM is tax exempted on taxes. Are you mad that 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes at all or around 2,500 millionaires/billionaires avoid paying taxes at all also?
ROFLMAO! Great one.
At least GM is employing many people on this continent to build many of their autos instead of bringing them over on freighters.
It's the GM hate club. It's okay to bailout Wall Street so their employees can make millions and then get bonuses on top. But it's not okay for GM...
It's not the hate GM club. It's the don't like socialism club. It's not okay to bail-out Wall Street either. We've created a weaker economy than a crash, burn, and re-build efficiently would have allowed (aka market forces).
I bought a new GM vehicle last year and like it. GM would still exist w/o the bail-out and so would Wall Street. They would not have been allowed to socialize their losses and privatize their gains however. And that's what they're doing at the expense of the future of our country.
Comments
The Detroit company also won't give salaried workers pay raises this year, but will offer them an additional week of vacation. Workers in key jobs also will have a shot at bigger bonuses, the company said."
GM to Freeze Pay, Pare Bonuses (WSJ)
IOW, EVERYONE is paying less than sticker price. Wanted to make sure you understood.
What are you basing this on (besides 'wishin' and hopin')? I'll believe it when I see a ZL-1 advertised for less than sticker.
Plus..."loyalty cash" would indicate that you'd have to drive a GM now to get the cash.
Wow, $500 off a $55K car if you're a current GM owner...man, that's terrible news.
Did you notice kia near the bottom. Some things never change :lemon:
If the ZL-1 doesn't sell at a discount (Is it even on sale yet? When I search on the Chevrolet site using major zip codes, there are none available), so what? Did Vipers when they were introduced? Did BMW Z8s? Did Nissan GT-Rs?
I'm just not sure what the point is here. I remember when the Plymouth PT Cruiser was first introduced, and the local dealer attempted to sell them for list plus $500. That didn't last long.
Am I missing something here?
The SS however sells below invoice.
Exactly what is a problem?
Great point. There needs to be a weighting of seriousness. Being stranded at night in a remote place, or even in Chicago on the Dan Ryan, is super, super serious. But, having a cosmetic or trim issue say in the back seat area of the passenger compartment is very minor. The only exception to this would be for a tiny minority of people, such as Donald Trump riding in the back seat of one of his limousines.
Stratification of seriousness is needed. It would seem at least 3 levels, maybe 4, of seriousness would impart much more meaning to these "problems" reports.
Consumer Reports annual April issue on autos will be out in 2 weeks. Will be interesting to see latest info on GM brands.
I'm curious to see what CR's breakdown is as well.
Over the last few years I have read some pretty negative articles about Chrysler product interiors, and how cheap they have looked, compared to other makes. I wonder if that has anything to do with them sitting at the bottom of the rankings.
Maybe nothing...
Disingenuous--as usual.
This is the car's third model year. Is anybody else's three-year old car selling for straight sticker?
I mentioned that I believe ZL-1's would be selling at above sticker.
The response: "Look! They already have a rebate, their halo model!!!!"
Yeah. A $500 loyalty rebate only, on a $55K sticker car.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/06/mytouch-could-sink-ford-–-on-the-j-d-power-ranking/
http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2011/07/slammed-by-quality-concerns-ford-struggl- es-to-fix-mytouch/
Performance Camaros used to be more affordable by young people many years ago. A performance Camaro SS was tested by R&T in July, 2011 issue and listed out at $42K. Most young people in twenties might have hard time affording that.
In contrast, when listing $42K, the person who more likely could afford that and wanting performance might want something beyond the "Chevrolet" nameplate. Not talking about Corvette here.
So, for $44K list price, one can get a more sophisticated engine, transmission, suspension, handling, quality and reliability from say an Acura TL SH-AWD.
R&T tested this model in May 2010 issue and it matches exactly the Camaro in performance in the Slalom and beats it slightly on the skidpad. And, the Acura has shorter stopping distances from 60 and 80 than does the Camaro.
I have absolutely no idea of the buying profile of the higher performance American cars, such as Camaro, Challenger and Mustangs in their hottest configurations, but I would guess a high percentage are owned by older folks like me (mid 50's) who didn't have a chance in hell of owning one of the originals.
But, that's just a guess.
Personally, if I'm gonna spend big $$$ for a hi-po Camaro or Challenger, I'm gonna take a real hard look at cars like the BMW M3. I just think the M3 has better engineering, and will hold its value much better. Again, that's just my opinion.
Had a Mustang GT, 3 Firebirds including a 71 455HO Trans Am. If I were in market today for that type, it would be a Mustang GT, maybe if it came in dark green, with appropriate wheels, kind of a Bullitt model if they make similar today. That is a better package than the Camaro.
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/topspeed-rendering-2013-ford-mustang-bulli- tt-ar106886.html
I really wish GM well, but they seem to be falling into the same trap as Toyota, which is that their cars are either cheap commuter tin cans or luxury cars. With not a whole lot in-between in the 20-30K range that's compelling. Sure, you can get a basic set of wheels, but there's no fun or soul in it. It's just something to get you from A to B.
2024 Ram 1500 Longhorn, 2019 Jeep Wrangler Rubicon, 2019 Ford Mustang GT Premium, 2016 Kia Optima SX, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6
That was a good link. If it comes out, I better not rewatch the Bullitt movie on home large screen with full sound. Don't want to be tempted.
Of course, to really be a Bullitt car, would have to get some small dents on doors and fenders to replicate the movie car.
As for the dents, just park it in some of the local parking lots for a few days... That ought to do it.
I guess I've seen the movie 25 times. I loved that Mustang...
Well, most of them do have discriminating tastes and buy the other makes you mentioned. The Volt has sold VERY few vehicles. Just because the average Volt buyer makes $170K doesn't mean that most of the people making $170K buy Volts. Hardly any do.
Let's face it, living where you do skews your perception of how appealing US makes are -- just as living where I do in CA skews my view a different way. The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in between.
Yes, but the Camaro has the "look at the size of my gonads" styling...
The one I sat in at a recent car show, at least for my height, 5'7", had horrible visibility from the inside if you looked anywhere but straight ahead.
It does bring back old memories, though.
Last I heard, Camaro outsells Mustang. Just doing a reality check here.
Personally, I wouldn't buy either.
I merely suggested that the ATS would be priced to high as GM always does. The MAP price the dealer puts on is the desperation that kills a brands sales.
I'm just noting the history of the GTO and G-8, failure pricing schemes that did not work.
Regards,
OW
No mark-up. Right? Incentive is the reality.
Regards,
OW
Are you denying the other post that the Camaro is a failure and the Mustang is selling better?
I didn't think so...but then, I didn't see your response to that effect.
Yeah, you do that.
Sheesh.
Also..what's up with Kia reliability in that J.D. Powers chart?
All ribbing aside...that chart just shows how close all the manufacturers are now. If I had a new car with 1.9 problems instead of 1.3, I don't think I'd be looking to trade it in. Those numbers wouldn't sway me to buying a car built in another country, or one I didn't like as much, just because a survey said its parent company had only 1.3 problems per new car instead of 1.9.
Don't know their methods, but I think it's clear Powers won't rely only on subscribers
Most dependable cars are not American. Some things never change.
Regards,
OW
I guess folks like simple, easy to read, black and white presentations, but without any explanation of the source (at least to me, if I was making a car buying decision) its virtually meaningless.
After all, a single model could severely distort a make's reliability.
Kinda discourages a maker from introducing any new technology that may have the remotest chance of not working 100% perfectly.
Just my opinion...
Personally, I wouldn't buy either.
My original comment, though wasn't on sales so much as what younger buyers are able to afford and buy. The problem with the Camaro is that sales will decline in typical GM model fashion as the novelty wears off. Yes, it's a great vehicle from an engineering and reliability standpoint. The price is simply too high for what's basically a lot of fancy sheet metal and interior bits. Sure, you can eek out one for about 20-22K as well, but it's so stripped-down that it's a crime. Nasty "GM" seats (GM makes horrible seats - always has since the 80s) , plastic that makes no sense, and on and on. 25K quickly turns into 30K after you're done.
But the Mustang keeps soldering along as a viable performance option for younger buyers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/story/2012-02-16/general-motors- /53113520/1
Sorry...not buying it. Dosent mention anything about 2009 all i see is 2012. kia in the garbage can. no surprise there tho. some things never change :P
The annual study looks at problems experienced by original owners (a total of 31,000 were surveyed) of three-year-old (2009 model year) vehicles and includes 198 different problem symptoms across all areas of the vehicle. Overall dependability is determined by the level of problems per 100 vehicles (PP100), with a lower score reflecting higher quality.
You know, when the Big 3 went bankrupt? You remember...
Regards,
OW
People still bring up the Vega on this board, for Gosh sake.
Impressive when you see a lux brand way up there given there are a lot more things to break with all the added content.
Lincoln, Ford, and Buick and beat the industry average, too.
It's encouraging news for those brands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/business/gm-reports-its-largest-annual-profit.- html
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But that would be the reality. The fact remains there are others that are better than GM but the gap is closing.
So, fire away. You can say that and it would be a fact. :shades:
Regards,
OW
Very impressive indeed. Actually, the best news is that given the concessions, it might be that the membership are quite happy with their $7G checks. (I might ask, why even support the UAW at this point??)
That is the best news overall, afaic. Balance!
Regards,
OW
You are correct if you keep a car only what, 3 years? I tend to go easily over 100K on all of my cars. If a car holds up for three years and then starts being problematic, then at 5 or 8 years the story could be quite different.
Good thing they wrote a 100% tax exemption clause in 2009 during the bail-out!
Good thing they wrote a 100% tax exemption clause in 2009 during the bail-out!
The $7,000 bonuses being awarded to the UAW workers is just another slap in-the-face to the average U.S. citizen who does not have a union lobbying for them in DC, or part of a "too-big-to fail" company.
The U.S. government agrees to stop collecting income taxes on GM for a number of years, with a clause in their bailout and BK terms. So one would think that this generous and unheard of "gift" is needed $ for GM to maintain cash to run their business. But no; apparently GM doesn't really need that $ - they have so much extra $, they can give away some to their employees.
It's a disgrace; right from the top. The President and Congress give a private company unusual and generous "gifts" at the expense of the average citizen; and then that company turns around and passes out large cash bonuses to their employees. :mad: Shouldn't GM hold onto the cash so their books look more solid, and the stock price increases - so the U.S. Treasury can recoup more on its stock? Or shouldn't GM say to the U.S. government, that the 2009 terms of not paying income tax, are not needed anymore?
My last three Chevys have had 94K, 112K, and 130K when traded. No regrets. Zero. And I'm a notorious cheapskate.
The agreement was if the UAW workers took another haircut they would in return be compensated with profit sharing. My step dad would rather have his $5 an hour back then the $7000 bonus. But it is what it is. They agreed to profit sharing and will only get bonuses if the company makes money. You are upset that GM is tax exempted on taxes. Are you mad that 2/3rds of corporations pay no taxes at all or around 2,500 millionaires/billionaires avoid paying taxes at all also? There are 18,000 corporations alone in the Cayman Islands that pay zero taxes. At least GM pays state and local taxes while all these others avoid it all together. They also are bringing jobs back to the U.S.
-Rocky
ROFLMAO! Great one.
At least GM is employing many people on this continent to build many of their autos instead of bringing them over on freighters.
It's the GM hate club. It's okay to bailout Wall Street so their employees can make millions and then get bonuses on top. But it's not okay for GM...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I bought a new GM vehicle last year and like it. GM would still exist w/o the bail-out and so would Wall Street. They would not have been allowed to socialize their losses and privatize their gains however. And that's what they're doing at the expense of the future of our country.