Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Viva the competition.
Regards,
OW
Soccer is a booming sport (not even counting the Olympics), and I thought the Facebook move made a lot of sense. Why buy ad space there or on Twitter when you can participate for free?
I remember polls showed around 45% of the public was pro-bailout when the gov't sold out to the rich wallstreet bankers and Big 3 automakers. I imagine a majority of those 45% in favor of bailouts owned a big 3 vehicle, and warranty service was a big reason for their supporting the bailout (selfish reasons).
Or how about everyone that likes GM simply agree to pay MSRP X 2 on their next GM.
If I didn't know better I'd say you're being facetious.
A sad story if the world's largest auto maker is such a cripple from an innovation standpoint that they need life support every few years.
were relatively nexpensive to purchase and perform perfectly, aside from some very minor problems.
Longevity? my son's 2000 Cavalier made 200k miles until the head gasket went. It was not worth enough to fix. We had an old Chevy Astro which we sold and went 320K miles, I regularly see old Chevy trucks close to that milege.
I know the perception is that all of the Asian manufacturers are superior. I don/t buy it. Look at the Edmunds consumer reviews for 4 or 5 year old models of the Camry or Accord. Not so glowing, with regular complaints about reliability.
Now let me say a word about the largest manufacturer in the world. I have been following the frame rust problem relating to Toyota trucks made in the last 10-15 years. Their truck buyback/frame replacement program only covers trucks up to the 2004 model year. Now there are complaints coming in about newer trucks. Motor mounts have been collapsing into the corroded frames, and in some cases new front end parts cannot be installed in some cases and gas tanks have been falling off the frame.
Toyota has no program in place to replace the frames on 2005 or newer
models. The owners are SOL.
I can't belieive these trucks have high resale value. I'll take an old Chevy truck any day. My neighbor has a 1986 Suburban he uses to plow snow,
and my 2006 Silverado's frame is clean as a whistle, just a bit of discoloration around the welds. These Toyotas are junk within 8-10
years unless the frame is replaced at a cost of $11K-$13K
I think Toyota has done a good job of keeping a lid on this issue, but I think it will be a big and expensive problem for them in the future.
Here is a post I left on the Edmunds Tacom forum:
Rust forum post
The Asian transplants were in a much better position with lower paid workers, a much smaller percentage of retirees and low cost factories in states willing to subsidize them.
Restructuring was required and the LOAN of $49 billion to GM, along with downsizing of their dealerships and renegoiation of their union contracts
allowed the company to survive, and to my mind they did well. New UAW hires start at $14 an hour, which is in line with Asian transplant salaries.
Asa a result, they made a profit every year after the bailout, and have turned out some great products that owners love.
I have not read one negative owner's review of the Chevy Volt. Many of them have had Priuses in the past and they claim the Volt is far superior
in every way. Most of the criticism I see has come from GM or government detractors. If the Volt was a Honda or Toyota it would be hailed a monumental automotive achievment.
Back to the "bailout" GM has paid back about half of the amount with interest. The government owns 32% of GM stock worth about $13 billion as of right now. If they sold it now (Of course they are hoping it will go up)
GM would owe about $12 billion (Only about 1/4 of the amount borrowed)to the government which they are required to pay back with interest. To put it in perspective that $12 billion is equal to about 3 days worth of borrowing by the US governent. Yes, our government borrows close to $4 billion a day. Who will bail out the country?
I just wanted to add a post with a few facts to counter some of the inane
hyperbole I see in this forum.
hyperbole I see in this forum.
Wow...can I vote for you for president?
were relatively nexpensive to purchase and perform perfectly, aside from some very minor problems.
Longevity? my son's 2000 Cavalier made 200k miles until the head gasket went. It was not worth enough to fix. We had an old Chevy Astro which we sold and went 320K miles, I regularly see old Chevy trucks close to that milege.
I'm glad that you've had good experiences with your GM cars. We do know that all makes have improved greatly over the past couple of decades.
But it's not just about whether your cars have been reliable. What else have you owned? Have you actually lived for months, years, with makes from Japan, Europe, and the US? Experienced all of those dealers? Really been able to compare the experiences? After all, GM might be good -- yet others much better. Or not. How do you know if you don't actually experience this?
I've owned vehicles from Japan, Europe, and US manufacturers. My US vehicle was very reliable, but shoddily put together. My Japanese vehicles were stellar in reliability. My European vehicles have a driving dynamic that no other vehicles duplicated, creating a passion where I miss them most of all.
I don't think GM knows what it wants to be when it grows up. It's like a 300 lb. 20 year old that has no direction in life. Toyota is reliable. BMW is a driving machine. Ford is moving high tech. What is GM? Reliable cheap sedans and lots of trucks and SUVs? More products is not better - it just dilutes the brand. Why 3 different hybrid technologies? Why so many (still) divisions? Why buy into Peugeot?
Even the head of GM has admitted a calcified culture in the company. I'd like to see an auto maker a la the next Apple, but in the auto industry. Disrupt the heck out of the market. Make the rest of the world chase after YOU. Do you really think GM has that kind of strength? Even Toyota is leading in hybrids, and they're almost as big as GM, so it's not about size. Toyota is making cars profitably in THIS COUNTRY, so it's not about US manufacturing. It's about GM not yet having enough of what it takes. That's what I have against GM. They should cut half the company and rebuild it from scratch. Given what we've all invested in them, that's what we deserve.
That comes across as arrogant. It's as if someone else can't possible know anything unless they have the same supposed experience as someone else...
We need to put up more money to move GM into the Apple of the autos position. It's the responsibility of the US government who has helped so many of the other foreign companies through the decades come in and take over to do this to help our US-based company succede.
>vToyota is making cars profitably in THIS COUNTRY
You mean the Camry and others based on Camry? They use non-union labor. Talk to your administration about getting UAW out of the GM plants. When you have 40% temporaries and don't have any responsibility to the employees who are fulltime if they get hurt and can't physically do the job so you just make it as rough as possible and fire them when they miss work, e.g. Sounds fair enough to me.
Otherwise, let's put the money behind the US auto industry for US companies that we put behind bailing out the banks, and for that no one has been prosecuted for the losses and problems caused.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's certainly not the intent. I just think that the experience of owning and living with a vehicle for years - maintenance, rattles, seats, engine, etc. is something that helps you understand it in a way you aren't going to get if you rent one for a couple of days - or drive one on a test drive.
You mean the Camry and others based on Camry? They use non-union labor. Talk to your administration about getting UAW out of the GM plants.
Since when is US manufacturing prowess required to be linked to union labor? Maybe in the D3. But not in general. Perhaps the union is the problem? Too bad the BK was "artificial" and didn't wipe the union agreements - a major missed opportunity.
And I agree with your sentiment about the administration.
Otherwise, let's put the money behind the US auto industry for US companies that we put behind bailing out the banks, and for that no one has been prosecuted for the losses and problems caused.
I'll disagree about dumping more money into the auto industry. If GM didn't have the unions, they could be much more flexible. I don't see money as the problem - it's about the culture of the company, the management, and the unions.
I'll again agree with you that it's a crime that we haven't jailed a bunch of the banking and financial community after the great meltdown.
If GM didn't have the unions
Easy whipping boy, but chances are those European vehicles with that passionate driving dynamic were screwed together with union labor (except the ones from SC and AL).
It's not whether the UAW can assemble properly (though sometimes I wonder) -- it's about the costs and the work rule inflexibility, the labor inflexibility, that has hampered GM.
Why is Ford's most automated plant in South American and not the US? Because they couldn't build it in the US due to UAW work rules.
No doubt the management chain is a big part of the problem as well.
There were (and to some extent, still are) some major issues that need to be addressed. And, by some, I mean several, inter-related, interactive issues. Unions, leadership, vision, and many more...
At the end of the day, if you're avidly pro-Big 3, they can do no wrong. If you're avidly anti-Big 3, they can do no right.
The actual reality is most likely somewhere in the middle...
Something tells me this dead horse is going to be continuously beaten for many years to come.
Whoops. Misinterpret. My point was the profitability. The high costs of the UAW is a major problem in costs compared to being able to have parttime workers or treat workers like chattel.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
>I'll disagree
>I'll again agree
We agree on some important things here. That's good!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I thought with labor and benes the average $$/hr cost was pretty close between UAW and non-D3 labor in the US? The big difference is the swollen ranks of ex-workers promised beaucoup benefits far into retirement.
Seems like we don't agree on the best actions to take for GM, but we are aligned on the administration and the banks!
Unsettled Management
Ewanick’s departure shows that GM is still far from settling its management ranks despite recruiting several outsiders for top jobs, said Maryann Keller, principal of Maryann Keller & Associates, a consulting firm in Stamford, Connecticut. By contrast, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally brought in just one outsider, marketer Jim Farley, after taking over in 2006 and has kept a stable management team, Keller said.
“You have a company that still seems to have too much internal dysfunction,” Keller said of GM in a telephone interview. “Mulally really only brought in one high-profile outsider. He proved you can take an organization that was rife with politics and fix it.”
Ewanick arrived with task of improving the image of GM’s Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC brands. He introduced the “Chevy Runs Deep” campaign in 2010 during the broadcast of Major League Baseball’s World Series that was intended to emphasize the brand’s heritage and emotional connection. It’s a tagline that Ewanick said earlier this year was under review.
‘Shabby’ Marketing
“The marketing has been shabby, erratic and inconsistent so the move is most likely positive for GM if it can find someone who has any notion at all of what the individual divisions stand for,” Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research, said in an e-mail. “The ad agencies have been doing the best they can under Mr. Ewanick’s often helter-skelter approach.”
Facing greater competition from Toyota Motor Corp. (7203) after regaining production capability following last year’s Asian natural disasters, GM’s first-half U.S. market share fell to 18.1 percent from 19.9 percent a year earlier, according to researcher Autodata Corp.
Toyota’s worldwide sales surged 34 percent in 2012’s first half to 4.97 million, ahead of GM’s 4.67 million, putting the Toyota City, Japan-based company on pace to regain the top spot.
When will it be about the products?
Regards,
OW
GM to Recall 36,000 Police Vehicles to Replace Suspension
General Motors Co. (GM) is recalling about 36,000 Chevrolet Impala police cars to replace part of the suspension that may fracture and cause loss of control of the vehicle.
The manufacturer will fix free of charge both front control arms, which form part of the police sedan’s suspension, for the model years 2008-2012 starting Aug. 21, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on its website. Non- police Chevrolet Impala vehicles for those model years aren’t affected by the safety recall, the agency said.
Regards,
OW
That's probably more a problem as much with the divisions as with the marketing message for the divisions. Hard to develop what the brands stand for if the brand itself isn't sure. What's Buick about, for example? What differentiates it from Chevy? GMC is about trucks, but what differentiates its trucks from Chevy's trucks? The only one that does seem to have a clear identity is Cadillac, and for better or worse, that identity is "BMW Wannabe." Except that the Escalade models doesn't fit that identity at all.
That's probably more a problem as much with the divisions as with the marketing message for the divisions. Hard to develop what the brands stand for if the brand itself isn't sure. What's Buick about, for example? What differentiates it from Chevy? GMC is about trucks, but what differentiates its trucks from Chevy's trucks? The only one that does seem to have a clear identity is Cadillac, and for better or worse, that identity is "BMW Wannabe." Except that the Escalade models doesn't fit that identity at all.
Good question. I've never understood why GMC exists and why is there a Terrain and an Equinox? Dump GMC and bring back Pontiac.
When I was a little kid, I remember asking my Granddad, who preferred GMC's, what exactly it was, and he described it as basically a Pontiac truck. And now that I think about it, his '76 GMC crew cab came from a Pontiac-GMC dealer. Once upon a time, GMCs used Pontiac V-8's instead of Chevy V-8's, and for a few years GMC also had its own unique V-6. But, by '76 they were just re-badged Chevies, and the main difference was probably the seat patterns...the little metal decorative buckles on the GMC would burn you in a different pattern than they would on the Chevy! :P
In the old days, trucks were viewed as more workhorse, blue-collar, and plebian. So, to market a truck as a Pontiac, Olds, Buick, or Cadillac would have diluted the brand.
However, over the years trucks became much more trendy and luxurious. And the brands ended up diluting themselves, anyway. So today, GMC probably doesn't make that much sense. It does still give Buick-Caddy dealers a pickup truck to sell, so maybe there's some value in that. But then you still have overlap with the Terrain/SRX, the Acadia/Enclave, and the Yukon/Escalade.
Personally, I think the SRX dilutes the Cadillac nameplate a bit, while the Enclave is a really, really nice Buick. Maybe they should give the SRX to Buick and the Enclave to Cadillac?
Funny, never thought of them that way, but my mom had a GMC pickup for years, and that was right after her Buick station wagon phase. She probably got it at a Buick/GMC dealer.
I thought GMC trucks fit best on the lots where they sold bigger trucks, like box trucks and cargo and work vans. If the boss was shopping for a box truck or flatbed or two, maybe a GMC pickup could round out the deal nicely.
I think that's a fair statement, but another area that hurts D3 is UAW work rules. If you look into it, you'll find the transplants can produce more vehicles with fewer workers. Much of that is not because the plants are more modern, but because they have significant labor flexibility.
I've seen figures closer to 20 billion in losses than the 12 billion figure you offer, but stocks do go up and down. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle if they Gov't sold their GM stock right now.
As to only returning 3/4 of what was borrowed, I'd gladly take that deal. Sign me up, I'll borrow $49.00, 49 Million, 49 Billion, or heck, why stop there, give me 49 trillion dollars and I promise to pay you back 75 cents on the dollar in a few years.
It's such a great deal you should take it. You are either hypocritical or guilty of using flawed logic if you don't take this deal! I'm ready to sign on the dotted line immediately. Every tax payer should get the GM deal.
Just like every bank was hoping for the equivalent of the "Bear Stearns" deal and took us down waiting for it.
hyperbole I see in this forum.
I'll counter with a different POV. If we go back to 2009, and realize something that is also true today, GM was also doing very well in China. They dominated in China with about 95% market share which wasn't surprising if you do a direct comparison of a GM vehicle and pretty much anything from one of China's home grown companies. GM also has operations in
Uzbekistan
Brazil
Korea
Taiwan
Australia
Poland
Austria
Germany
France
Turkey
Mexico
Canada
And I'm sure plenty of other places around the globe. Resources that have zero impact on the wealth and being of GM's union members here in the states.
My pont is, you have a large conglomerate that has many global ties and resoureces, yet when they got into trouble, who the heck was responsible? The US taxpayer.
Sorry, it was not our fault that these clowns stretched their resources too thin. It was not the US taxpayer who is at fault for the 2 billion dollars wasted on a deal with Fiat which went sour. It is not the US taxpayer who is at fault for the gluttony of dealerships in the states, not the gluttony of its own individuals who demand ridiculous compensation for lesser tasks like cleaning floors. It is not the US taxpayer who make the decison to cover 17 million dollars a year in flippin Viagra for employees.
link title
IMO, these clowns should have done what every other company does when it stretches it's resources too thin (or some of the war history buffs on here can relate to)"
Pull back and re-group...
GM the "Murican Company" running out of money at home? Tough. have your global resources take care of fixing it. That's why they call them assets...
But no. As others have mentioned above, arrogance reigns supreme and Big ol GM was just "Too big to fail" and all thoe assets were completely ignored when the big 60 billion dollar check was conceived. 60 billion paid for by people like myself who don't see the RenCen as some sort of Center of the Automotive Universe nor the On/Off key to the US economy.
That is complete Bull. Sorry. Government Motors is a company, an operation that is no more "Special" than the Pizza Hut or McDonalds chain that operates in this Country and other Countries around the globe. And if your home operations are failing, maybe it's time to re-think those priorities.
:sick:
Meanwhile, another 3 billion have been invested in PSA since the bailout, another shaky entity, so I wouldn't be surprised in the least if another payoff to them in the future.
|
|
I'm with genius.
:shades:
IT's time for the government that controlled the bankruptcy to bulk up GM more to give them an even playing field in the global market that everyone keeps reminding us about. It will take money.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And if GM can't bulk itself up, then maybe it needs to get out of the way and make room for someone else. Maybe GM DOESN'T need to be working "around the world." Maybe it needs to be picking and choosing its battles so it can bring its limited resources to bear more effectively. It's not the government's job to provide it with more resources if the entity is incapable of using them wisely.
Not when the playing field is unevenly slanted in favor of the foreign makers for so many years.
>Maybe it needs to be picking and choosing its battles so it can bring its limited resources to bear more effectively.
Most like if GM were only selling in US/Can, posters here would be whining that they should be competing around the world: after all, it's a global economy, you know.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Nah, would never happen. It's all about being the biggest to these goons.
Chicken tax ring a bell? GM's had its fair share of slant applied to it. The problem isn't slant. The problem is that GM thinks it knows better than everyone else, including (and this is the unforgivable part) their customers. And then when their customers refuse to give them money, they have the nerve to demand the U.S. Government take it anyway.
If GM can compete on their own two feet, more power to them. If they can make a product I like, I'll GIVE them my money, voluntarily. And if they can't get enough people to voluntarily give them money, they need to change they way they do business. That's how business works.
True, but if the competition is aided with government investment, we either have to play the same game, or penalize the competition to the impact of such investment.
I was a prime candidate for the Saturn Sky when it was being shown around the Auto Show Curcuit back in 2002 or so. It had great looks and Bob Putz's vision of "an affordable, minimalist Sports car" was right up my alley for what i was looking for. I was stoked beyond belief when that thing was in the news.
I could not believe what a disappointment it was when I finally got to check one out and then drive one. What an overrated, steaming pile of under-engineered junk it was. It was literally crap wrapped in a shiney, fancy wrapper. They should have just called it the "Saturn Bean Counter Express" instead of wasting a perfectly good model name on it...
So ya, GM almost had me as a customer again, more than 12 years after they lost me due to the last pile of crap I bought from them. And this was well before bankruptcy so the bailouts had zero influence on why I didn't buy one. As bpuzzuti summed up nicely "It's all about the product stupid" :shades:
I prefer the latter.
Right on Fintail +1
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, I think it is more about dealership situation and incremental revenue versus incremental cost savings if Buick and GMC went away. Right now I think it is probably more advantageous to maintain the extra dealership outlets and the revenue they provide. That may change in the future if GM volume keeps dropping. I seriously doubt there is all that much inherent additional cost in running Buick and GMC since most of the product and manufacturing is really just derived from the other GM divisions, including Opel. One other point - I don't know if they will be successful, but I think GM would like to have Buick be near lux and Cadillac luxury only down the road. There is always the question of whether M-B. Lexus, etc. will water down their market status with this new, smaller, cheaper product they are bringing out. I guess time will tell. If Buick takes off (big iff!) they can move away from CTS and focus and more profitable prestigious vehicles at Cadillac.
GM got loans from the Canadian government too and at one time owned 12% of the company (tbo.com)
GM also sought EU loan guarantees to help it overhaul Opel but I don't know all that worked out. I think GM got fed up with all the hoops and backed out their requests.
Good point, but where does this stop?
We certainly didn't do it with the textile industry, which saw the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs to overseas companies.
We didn't do it with the clothing/shoe industry. We didn't do it with the appliance industry. We didn't do it with the electronics industry. We didn't do it with the .... well, you get the idea.
The idea if unfair competition is a great whipping boy, but its only one of many causes. I remember reading case studies back in the 70's in business school that detailed the problems facing the Big 3 with its unfunded retirement/employee benefits, and that had very little to do with outsourced competition then.
About a month ago, I visited a friend in my hometown in GA who is at least a 5th generation farmer. It took 72 employees to run the farm when his grandfather ran it. Today, with the ultra modern equipment (the cab on one of his tractors is a site to behold.... 4 LCD screens, GPS... it practically drives itself!) the same acreage is farmed by FOUR people, and the output/product produced is many multiples of what his grandfather produced.
In 1900, if you wanted a deluxe horse buggy, one company you would have investigated was Barnesville Buggies in Barnesville, GA. The company decided to stay in the buggy business instead of adapting to the automotive business. Ever hear of them?
Probably not, since they have been out of business for around 100 years...
Bottom line is this... Companies HAVE to adapt, or they lose. No, it may not always be "fair", but it IS predictable, if those in charge happen to be looking. For far too many years, the Big 3 played "kick the can" with its problems, and the can finally got too big to kick.
Certainly there are other factors, but the fact remains, both the Asian and Euro competition have received considerable help from their respective federal governments, oftentimes in the form of direct government intervention and funding. The impacts of this need to be equalized in one way or another. There's no other solution, this aid is too much to simply be "adapted" to in such a tightly competitive market.
1) It is inconsistent. It is not fair to the various people in the various industries. The government above all else needs to be fair, and treat everyone equally.
2) When government officials help certain businesses their is the perception and many times the actual recripication of favors. So if you don't like a BOUGHT government of lobbyists, tax breaks, and 30+ year lifetime politicians, we need to keep business and government as separate as possible.
3) GM executives, retirees, and employees have taken so much $$ in various ways from GM's coffers, they contributed a great deal to GM's BK. From the person who swept the floor to the penthouse of the GM building, to the retirement home, they overpaid themselves for decades.
4) I see no HONOR in GM even today. They still owe the government, suppliers, retirees, and bondholders amongst others, $$$. Maybe not owe-legally, but morally-owe. What does GM do with the profits it's still making? To name a few - excess advertising deals, still paying no income taxes, and bonuses for all employees.
The best thing that could happen to this country, is for the budget cuts to take effect on 1/2/13. Let's take $100B from DC which feeds the monster; $50B of which can shrink the military-industrial complex.
Maybe GM wil see a big hit in its sales of Tahoes and Suburbans that every federal agency seems to have.
Here is a great example: All around here you find primarily Mexican labor in the building trades... In the South, an already low-wage area. One could say the immigrant labor came in and stole the jobs, but one could also say only immigrant labor was the inly work force willing to work in those trades for the wage rate offered.
Both answers are simplistic, and neither reflect the true complexity of the issue.
As a country, our government attempts to resolve complex issues with simplistic fixes, typically ones that are politically popular and expedient, and quite often, 100% incorrect.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure I feel too cozy with our government picking winners and losers. After all, isn't that how communism and socialism work?
Just sayin...
The military-industrial complex, of which GM is at least some kind of honorary member, will be cut when pigs fly.
The best thing that could happen to the country would be a reversal to 1950s style tax rates, and an end to the ideal of being a policeman and endless propper-upper of false nations.
Look who owns the construction industry to see why that labor issue is allowed to exist. Sadly, some want the low wage economic contagion of the south to spread everywhere. It won't be nice.
The government has proven itself to be a poor manager and decider of success...just as poor as our treacherous executive class. If neither chooses, then who?