Re: GM admits it flucked up big time
Nate Nagel
> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn...@4ax.com>,
> me <noe...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>
>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>
>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>
>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>
>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
> "unsigned open letter". Maybe from the autoworkers union?
I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
What a spineless wanker. Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that
just makes you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at
the "begging" point now...)
unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
shortly.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
JoeSpareBedroom
news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
Sounds like something from James Brown's song "Think":
"Think about the bad things
I tried not to do"
Well...I guess he did them....
80 Knight
From what I see, GM is in very desperate need of the cash, and will say
anything to get it. There survival (and possibly the survival of the other
Big3) depends on it. What a shame that a good auto manufacture has to beg,
and lie (lies that will actually hurt them) to get $35 million, when the big
banks were handed $700 billion on a gold platter.
Jeff
There is far more than GM should have done besides trying to make
electric cars practical. They should have figured out cost-efficient
ways to make small cars (instead of importing them from Korea),
implemented ways to make cars more efficient, make entry level cars
that consumers would want and that would last, and improved its
manufacturing capability to be more flexible.
Jeff
Jeff
> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
What a shame that GM and Chrysler are in a position where they will
run out of money. And what a shame that the big banks were not allowed
to fail or go bankrupt. In addition, the Detroit 3 should be allowed
to go bankrupt. That's why we have those laws.
Jeff
Nate Nagel
I think their costs are such that they *couldn't* rely on entry-level,
efficient cars to be profitable and had to try to move upmarket instead
(which they failed to do.) Unfortunately moving upmarket generally
means lower volume, and with their union agreements that'd be a loser
too. Importing from Korea actually seems like a smart move, although I
would have buddied up with Hyundai long before Daewoo, who don't have a
particularly stellar record of automotive excellence.
nate
80 Knight
news:hus0k4d43atfopvd2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:18:34 -0600, Oscar Finkleheimer
>
> GM paid advertisement. Read the article.
House OKs $14B auto bill - but it's still in peril
WASHINGTON - A $14 billion rescue package for the nation's imperiled auto
industry sped to approval in the U.S. House Wednesday night, but the
emergency bailout was still in jeopardy from Republicans who were setting
out roadblocks in the Senate.
Democrats and the Bush White House hoped for a Senate vote as early as
Thursday and enactment by week's end. They argued that the loans authorized
by the measure were needed to stave off disaster for the auto industry - and
a crushing further blow to the reeling national economy.
The legislation, approved 237-170 by the House, would provide money within
days to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Ford Motor Co.,
which has said it has enough to stay afloat, would also be eligible for
federal aid.
Republicans were preparing a strong fight against the aid plan in the
Senate, not only taking on the Democrats but standing in open revolt against
their party's lame-duck president on the measure.
The Republicans want to force the companies into bankruptcy or mandate hefty
concessions from autoworkers and creditors as a condition of any federal
aid. They also oppose an environmental mandate that House Democrats insisted
on including in the measure.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it represented "tough love" for U.S. auto
companies, and "giving a chance - this one more chance - to this great
industry."
The White House, struggling to sell the package to congressional
Republicans, said earlier that a carmaker bankruptcy could be fatal to the
auto industry and have a devastating impact on workers, families and the
economy.
"We believe the legislation developed in recent days is an effective and
responsible approach to deal with troubled automakers and ensure the
necessary restructuring occurs," said Dana Perino, the White House press
secretary.
But the measure faces a difficult road in the Senate, where it needs 60
votes to advance. Rank-and-file Senate Republicans skewered the bill during
a closed-door luncheon with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, who was
dispatched to Capitol Hill to make a case for the rescue package.
Besides providing cash for the auto companies, it would create a government
"car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans,
with the power to force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they
didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to
restructure their businesses and become viable.
Behind the scenes, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders scrambled for a
deal that would allow votes on the bill on Thursday. Some GOP senators were
demanding votes on an alternative that would order the automakers to take
specific actions to restructure - including steep wage cuts and debt
restructuring - in return for any federal money.
PerfectReign
> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> SUV's and trucks
Something wrong with SUV's and trucks?
I'd rather have one of them than a car.
I drove a compact Maxima for a few years. Way too small.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock
coach...@hotmail.com
> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>
Sad, sick, and disgusting.
Bad enough having to defend GM from the likes of you, now, we have to
defend them from the top-brass of GM, as well.
"Vehicle trends"??????????
THF is that?????
The only "trend" is that EVERYONE, INCLUDING TOYOTA and HONDA are
building LARGER vehicles.
And they are the ones that SELLS!!!!!!!!!!!
Quickly now, tell me, outside of the tax-credited supported Prius, how
many cars does Toyota sell that are more fuel-effecient than American
nameplates??????
What are some of their most popular vechicles????
Camry?????
Does it get better gas mileagle than similar American nameplates?????
Of course not, in many cases it gets worse gas mileage.
Is it more reliable?????
Of course not!!!!
In many cases, it is LESS reliable.
Toyota has also invested BILLIONS of dollars in its full-sized pickup
truck line.
Does that sound like THEY think pick-ups are vehicles "no one wants to
buy"??????
Of course not, it is the single most PROFITABLE vehicle made on the
planet today, and they realize it.
And of course, our BIg Three, led by Congressional mandates tied into
loans they will recieve, will hand over truck sales to the Japaneses,
and they will make a fortune on the market.
All the Americans will do is lose more jobs.
As far as admitting to building "low-quality cars", they are going
against what many have been arguing about for years, that GM makes a
damned-good car.
I might believe them if I never owned a GM product, but having owned
many of them over the years, I know this is another lie.
My GM cars have not suddenly turned to junk simply because of an ad
designed to help the company beg for money.
But, I wonder about those who have never owned a GM product, but maybe
were thinking about checking into it.
Does this full-page as sound like a ringing endoresment?????
Will it help sales??????
Of course not!
But, I guess I would resort to anything lies, if my family were
starving to death.
coach...@hotmail.com
> In article <grovgrgrovel@ grovel >,> > > In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
> anything to get it, snort.....
> --
>
> "It's deja vu all over again"
> Yogi Berra- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You hit the nail on the head!
Of course, the money the get will be at the expensne of the automobile
buyer, and even more so for those working in the industry!
Gosi
It is interesting that Ford is not willing to receive money under the
terms the government is offering.
GM has no option but to crawl on the knees and hat in hand take the
money if they are to get any.
The best thing is to let them go into C11
Anything else is just plain stupid.
What else is there to be expected form Bush.
The question is if Bush is the most clever guy in the US?
badgolferman
>What else is there to be expected form Bush.
>The question is if Bush is the most clever guy in the US?
Are you saying this is Bush's fault also or are you saying Bush is
smart for not going along with this?
--
"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but
I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." ~
Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman
Jeff Findley
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
> still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are hybrids?
I will agree that when (if?) the Volt comes out that it ought to sell very
well and will be a much needed improvement over the existing Japanese
hybrids which rely far too much on their gas engines. If GM could have
released the Volt earlier this year, when gas was over $4 per gallong, they
would have sold every single one they rolled off the production line. A car
that used zero gas for my commute to/from work, but still has a gas engine
for long distance traveling, would be freaking nirvana!
Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson
Gosi
> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
There are a lot of electrical cars coming.
The dependency on oil is going down.
Even if some places need to burn somthing to create electicity it
needs not be oil.
It can be coal, there are also several other methods of creating
electricity in powerplants.
Chevy Volt: The future is electrifying.
The Extended-Range Electric Vehicle that is redefining the automotive
world is no longer just a rumor. In fact, its propulsion system is so
revolutionary, it's unlike any other vehicle or electric car that's
ever been introduced. And we're making this remarkable vision a
reality, so that one day you'll have the freedom to drive gas-free.
Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of America's daily
commuters without a single drop of gas.(2) That means for someone who
drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and
produce zero emissions.(1)
Unlike traditional electric cars, Chevy Volt has a revolutionary
propulsion system that takes you beyond the power of the battery. It
will use a lithium-ion battery with a gasoline-powered, range-
extending engine that drives a generator to provide electric power
when you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range.
Chevy Volt. Fully charged 2010.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle
At 2008 fuel prices, battery powered buses are more economical than
diesel or gasoline powered buses. The additional cost of the batteries
is made up for[citation needed] by the low operating cost in the first
half of the typical million to two million mile (three million
kilometer) life of the bus.
Chattanooga, Tennessee operates nine free (no fares) electric buses,
which have been in operation since 1992 and have carried 11.3 million
passengers and covered a distance of 1.9 million miles. They were made
locally by Advanced Vehicle Systems. Two of these buses were used for
the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.[3][4]
Wrightbus has a new a hybrid-electric driveline for the StreetCar RTV
which has been developed in conjunction with the ISE Corporation of
California and incorporates Siemens ELFA traction components and a
Cummins ISL engine. The chassis is built to Wright Group
specifications by Swiss trolleybus specialists Carosserie Hess and is
powered by Valence Technology lithium phosphate batteries .
Beginning in the summer of 2000, Hong Kong airport began operating a
16-passenger Mitsubishi Rosa electric shuttle bus, and in the fall of
2000, New York City began testing a 66 passenger battery powered
school bus, an all electric version of the Blue-Bird TC2000.[5] A
similar bus was operated in Napa Valley, California for 14 months
ending in April, 2004.[6]
The 2008 Beijing Olympics used a fleet of 50 electric buses, which
have a range of 130 km (81 mi) with the air conditioning on. They use
Lithium-ion batteries, and consume about 1 kWh/mile. The buses were
designed by the Beijing Institute of Technology and built by the
Jinghua Coach Co. Ltd.[7] The batteries are replaced with fully
charged ones at the recharging station to allow 24 hour operation of
the buses.[8]
C. E. White
about an admission they screwed up something on thousands of engines
that lead many people to have sludge problems, or that the monster
Tundra is a huge mistake. Or that they have built some of the most
boring vehicles ever conceived. How about an apology for the older
4Runners that had one of the highest death rate for any vehicle ever
sold in the US?
Ed
"me" <noe...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn...@4ax.com...
jim beam
> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn...@4ax.com>,
> me <noe...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>
>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>
>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>
>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>
>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
>
> Here's the ad they WANTED to run:
>
> http://www.buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg
yup, that's right on! washington d.c. - no place else on earth where
"strategic investments" can get a 1000:1 return ratio.
Mike Hunter
the US. LOL
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3eae2c5d-64cc-489f...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
than a gasoline powered car of the same size.
Funny thing. when I was young ALL of the 'busses' were electric. We called
them trolleys and the were 'plugged in' all the time. ;)
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f74c2448-df53-4160...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
Even those that can make small and midget cars off shore, for far less, do
not sell many of them in the US. The best selling cars are mid-size cars
including the number one selling car the Camry and the best selling vehicles
are TRUCKS not cars.
The imports did exactly the same thing domestics were doing. They were
offering ever larger and more powerful cars and trucks during the same time
period. Their small cars today are bigger and more powerful than the 'big'
cars just ten years ago. If one doubts that, compare a sixties Toyota or
Honda to what the sell today.
The only time Americans bought small cars was when the were forced to by
them by the government when Carter cause the gas supply problems. Once
Reagan did the right thing and let the market decide, they return to buying
the larger saver cars they want to buy.
Where the hell does the government, in a free society, get the right to tell
manufactures what they must produce and to tell the buyer what they must
buy, in any event?
"Jeff" <jeff...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d68db791-0332-49e5...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 7:27 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
> > In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
There is far more than GM should have done besides trying to make
Mike Hunter
admit?
I heard the guy that convene Toyota to make a full size pickup was thinking
of killing himself. LOL
"C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:49411145$1@kcnews01...
PerfectReign
> In article <3010680.N...@perfectreign.com>,
> PerfectReign <theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Something wrong with SUV's and trucks?
>>
>> I'd rather have one of them than a car.
>>
>> I drove a compact Maxima for a few years. Way too small.
>
> But even though a modern minivan is WAY larger inside than any SUV with
> the same exterior dimensions, I bet you'd NEVER drive one of those.
Um, yes.
I actually traded in my 4x4 '95 GMC Jimmy for a Kia Sedona and drove that
for four years. (I traded back and forth with my wife for the Maxima
depending on needs.)
Here's a picture of us off-roading in Sedona, AZ in the Sedona.
http://www.perfectreign.com/files/images/DSCF10941_0.JPG
Good car, overall. However, there are a few problems with the minivan in
general.
1. They're "mini" - after all, my Sedona was roughly the same size as the
Maxima. I always felt a bit constrained in the front seat. The Jimmy
actually had more room in the front.
2. They're noisy. You can't have a box on wheels - with as much floor space
as they do next to the road - and expect a quiet ride.
3. They get crap gas mileage. My 3.5L V6 Sedona with 200 HP got about the
same mileage as my 5.3L V8 Avalanche does with 315 HP. I would regularly
get 16-20 MPG on the car. I get 17-21 on the Avalanche, and it weighs 1,000
lbs. more.
4. They are FWD. I can't tell you how annoying it is to drive a FWD car.
That's my only complaint about my wife's car. (She has a Saturn Vue.) It is
just - erm - wierd, driving a FWD car, because the dynamics are all wrong.
>
> Size? No, it's not about size. Usefuleness? No, it's not about
> usefulness. It's about....image. Gotta have that SUV or else people
> will think you're gay, right?
What the fuck planet are you from? A car is transportation, that's it. It
is not "image" unless you have $1M to drop on a Ferrari or Bugatti.
I bought the minivan because I thought it would be more useful than an SUV.
I was wrong. I can pack way more stuff into the truck than in the minivan
and not compromise comfort. I can also tow more and go more places in the
truck.
Oh, here we are over thanksgiving in a slightly more remote place in Sedona
than we were in the Minivan.
http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2008/av_in_sedona_1024.jpg
80 Knight
news:473df$49410894$927a2cda$30...@FUSE.NET...
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
>> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
>> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
>> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
>> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
>> I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
>
> Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are hybrids?
GM has more Hybrid vehicles they any other auto manufacture. Chevy Tahoe,
GMC Yukon, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra, Saturn Aura, Saturn
Vue, and the Caddy Escalade.
Dillon Pyron
>Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
>> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn...@4ax.com>,
<snip>
> Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that
>just makes you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at
>the "begging" point now...)
He is begging. For his job.
>
>unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
>shortly.
>
>nate
--
- dillon I am not invalid
When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams come true.
Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which
will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no
matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.
Ray O
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
news:wcmdnW8Ej7amAtzU...@giganews.com...
GM hybrids: 2 cars and 6 trucks/SUV's for a total of 8 vehicles...
Toyota hybrids cars: Toyota Prius, Camry, Crown, and Lexus GS and LS for 5
cars
Toyota hybrid trucks/SUV/van: Toyota Highlander, Estima, Toyoace, Dyna,
Harrier, and Lexus RX for 6 trucks/SUV/Van.
Toyota hybrids: 5 cars plus 6 trucks/SUV/Vans = 11 vehicles
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Mike Hunter
"me" <noe...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ek43k4dl4rphla79k...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:07:15 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>
>>The only time Americans bought small cars was when the were forced to by
>>them by the government when Carter cause the gas supply problems.
>
> Nonsense. Americans started buying smaller, better handling, more fun
> to drive, better mileage cars in the late 1960s because they wanted
> them. There was no gas crunch at the time. The only thing American
> cars had going for them was v8 power in a straight line.
>
>> Once
>>Reagan did the right thing and let the market decide, they return to
>>buying
>>the larger saver cars they want to buy.
>
> No, they didn't. Maybe a few swing votes bought smaller cars
> specifically for mileage reasons and then swung back. Most didn't.
>
>>Where the hell does the government, in a free society, get the right to
>>tell
>>manufactures what they must produce and to tell the buyer what they must
>>buy, in any event?
>
> Who is telling anyone what to produce or buy? The only exception I see
> is if Gm and Chrysler want to borrow money - then the lender can
> dictate any terms s/he wants to insure his investment.
HLS
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
> anything to get it. There survival (and possibly the survival of the
> other Big3) depends on it. What a shame that a good auto manufacture has
> to beg, and lie (lies that will actually hurt them) to get $35 million,
> when the big banks were handed $700 billion on a gold platter.
GM wanted billions from the government, not a lousy $35 million.
Art
industry with a 6 year bumper to bumper warranty on all their cars,
retroactive to 5 year old cars.
"me" <noe...@nothere.com> wrote in message
80 Knight
news:jaj0l.10337$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
Yes, they wanted $35 (B)illion. That was clearly a typo. However, compared
with the $700 Billion already given to the banks, $35 Billion is pretty
lousy.
80 Knight
Why don't they and all the other manufactures offer a 6 year bumper to
bumper warranty?
"Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:HYedndpEwITHSNzU...@earthlink.com...
Ted Mittelstaedt
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:J5ydndoyccoe6NzU...@ptd.net...
> Don't you know Toyota never makes mistakes for which they would need to
> admit?
>
> I heard the guy that convene Toyota to make a full size pickup was
thinking
> of killing himself. LOL
>
>
Did the guy at Toyota that designed the Tercel with the sinking valve
seals that caused the engine to emit huge quantites of blue smoke
right after the warranty expired also kill himself?
Ted
Tony Harding
>
>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>
>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>
>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>
>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>
>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
Doubt it
Tony Harding
> In article <grovgrgrovel@ grovel >,
>> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
>> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
>> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
>> I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
>> the "begging" point now...)
>>
>> shortly.
>>
>> nate
>
> anything to get it, snort.....
Spot on, man!
Tony Harding
> On Dec 10, 8:16 pm, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
>> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
>>>> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
>> anything to get it. There survival (and possibly the survival of the other
>> Big3) depends on it. What a shame that a good auto manufacture has to beg,
>> and lie (lies that will actually hurt them) to get $35 million, when the big
>> banks were handed $700 billion on a gold platter.
>
> run out of money. And what a shame that the big banks were not allowed
> to fail or go bankrupt. In addition, the Detroit 3 should be allowed
> to go bankrupt. That's why we have those laws.
Which laws?
C. E. White
> Hey, don't expect me to defend Toyota. I've had my differences with
> them, right up to the corporate attorneys. But, I think the key
> point
> would be that this post is about GM, because GM is the one that is
> (or
> should be, lacking an infusion of money from your paycheck) going
> into
> bankruptcy. That's due to gross mis-management on their part.
So GM migh get 15 billion, AS A LOAN. Worst case, GM goes under, and
can't repay the loan. So the average taxpayer middle class taxpayer
losses a $300 investment in a company that employess thousands of
fellow taxpayers. Meanwhile, the goverment has shoveled 700 billion to
comanies that have blown billion on bad loans and hyper inflated
salaries.
> Despite their mismanagement being pointed out repeatedly by people
> from across the business spectrum for decades, they've stuck to
> their
> pig headed approach and ignored everyone who did not agree. Now they
> are reaping the rewards.
What exactly were the people pointing out that constitutes gross
mismanagement? What did GM do that is so different than what Toyota
did, or rather what has GM done, that Toyota hasn't tried to do as
well?
The things I usually hear as cases of gross mismanagement are:
* GM ignored the small fuel efficient car market. People who say this
seem to forget GM tried to get into this market in a big way with
Saturn. For decades, no American car company has made any money on
small cars despite repeated attempts. High unionized labor costs,
foreign competitors dumping small cars here at break even or below
prices, and the ready availability of cheap used cars have kept the
price of small cars below the break even point for decades. Plus,
American have always shown an inclination to go big
* GM built to many big expensive fuel sucking trucks and SUVs. This is
an easy one. These things were a gold mine. They were relatively
inexpensive to develop, and sold like hot cakes at prices that earned
GM a good profit. If anything GM was slow to ramp up production in
this market, allowing Ford to gain a larger than usual share of this
market segment. And if this was such a bad thing, then you have to
cite Toyota, Nissan, and even Honda management for the same
miss-management, since all of those manufacturers were doing their
best to compete in this segment - mostly with mediocre success and
some real goose eggs (can you say "T100" or "Tundra").
* GM management didn't do enough to fight the unions to hold down
costs. I suppose they could have done more, and gone out of business
10 years ago. The UAW has tunnel vision - they can't admit they have
over reached and crippled the US auto industry and they have a death
like grip on GM. If you were running GM, how would you have forced the
UAW to lower wages? If you were running the UAW and knew you were
killing the industry, do you think you could have asked members to
voluntarily cut salaries and kept your cushier job?
* GM didn't do enough to develop alternate/advanced technology
vehicles. Hmm, hard one here - GM didn't have the sort of government
support for developing hybrid technology that Toyota enjoyed in the
1980 and 1990's, so they had to go it alone. Until the last oil shock,
hybrids were pretty much a money loser (probably still are). I am not
sure you can actually make a case for hybrid cars from an engineering
standpoint. And I think until Toyota managed to break through with the
Prius, it didn't look like it made much sense from a gee whiz
marketing standpoint either. Outside of the Prius, I think you could
argue that hybrid cars are mostly a flop. Honda gave up on the Accord
hybrid. Toyota isn't having a lot of success marketing Camry and
Highlander Hybrids. The big Lexus hybrid is a bad joke. I suppose you
could say that if GM had marketed hybrids, even at a loss as Toyota
has done, then people would "like" GM more.
* GM has too many brands competing against each other. Toyota has
three over lapping brands in the US (Scion, Toyota, Lexus) plus many
others in Japan, plus other companies that are essentially Toyota
divisions. I don't see the difference. When I was young, people
actually perceived that the different GM brands were, well, different.
There were loyal buyer for each of the brands, and each brand seem to
target different segments of the market. I suppose you can blame GM
management for allowing the different brands to become indistinct, but
I suspect that had more to do with the desires of the dealer base than
with an actual desire by GM management to make all the division full
line suppliers for every marketing segment. And GM has tried to
consolidate brands. Unfortunately given the franchise laws in this
country, simply eliminating brands is not so easy.
* GM let quality slip. I suppose there is some truth in this. But I
think the real truth is that GM's quality did not slip so much as it
did not increase as quickly as the imports. 40 years ago, I think if
you were objective, you would not have claimed that Toyota were more
reliable than GM products. Cheaper, more fuel efficient and smaller
yes, but I remember the crap Toyota sold in the 70's and 80's.
Toyota's got a lot better over the years. GM products only got some
better. People always cite the Vega as an example of a bad car from
GM. Actually outside of the engine, the cars were much better designed
and built than anything in the same segment from Japan. Too bad GM
management let the engineers go out on a limb with a risky engine
design. I wonder what people would have said about the Vega if GM had
just imported a European 4 cylinder design to power the car. They had
excellent engines designs available from Opel they could have tooled
up in the US. But instead, they took a chance on technology that
didn't work out for them.
I still don't understand how the Government can throw hundreds of
billions at banks and mortgage companies that were so much more
mismanaged than GM and not even throw GM a little bone.
Ask yourself this - If this recession gets a lot worse and Toyota
start spiraling down, what will the Japanese government do? Toyota
blew billions on a factory in Texas that builds at inferior product
that they have to literally sell at a loss to move off the lots. How
come you guys are not trashing Toyota mismanagement?
Ed
HLS
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:ghpmq...@news6.newsguy.com...
> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
> still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical. What a
> spineless wanker. Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that just makes
> you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at the "begging"
> point now...)
If he didnt try to show some shred of humility, then the (perhaps well
deserved ) perception of his arrogance and tunnel vision would have been
the end of this little party..
The weakest people in the world are those who cannot admit that they
have made mistakes.
Jeff Findley
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
So the answer to my question is Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura.
Still the mileage of their hybrid cars is unimpressive. A gas powered
Saturn Aura or Chevy Malibu EPA estimate is 22 city 33 highway. The hybrid
version is 26 city 34 highway.
Of course, all but the smallest hybrids seem to get poor mileage. My wife's
Pontiac Vibe's EPA estimates are 25 city 33 highway. We'd never trade that
for a hybrid that gets essentially the same mileage.
The Chevy Volt could be a huge leap forward, especially for the "daily
commute". Too bad GM can't seem to get it to market quickly enough to be
seen as innovative.
Tim
Not to mention the fact that it is a loan and i don't think the $700
Billion is a loan.
SMS
> Of course, all but the smallest hybrids seem to get poor mileage. My wife's
> Pontiac Vibe's EPA estimates are 25 city 33 highway. We'd never trade that
> for a hybrid that gets essentially the same mileage.
And the non-hybrid, VW Jetta TDI, set a new Guinness record for
averaging 58.82 miles per gallon. No batteries, no electric motors, and
a car that those that would never buy a Prius might be willing to buy.
What changed in the U.S. for diesel's is that diesel fuel is now
low-sulfer. A lot of diesel engines sold around the world can now be
used in the U.S.. Mitsubishi could really leverage this if they had a
marketing person working for them.
Of course the TDI comes to market at the one time in history when diesel
is much more expensive than gasoline. The $1300 federal income tax
credit might help offset that cost (not available on Prius).
80 Knight
news:60cf0$4942834f$cef8ac46$27...@TEKSAVVY.COM...
Very true. I saw on TV today that one of the big banks has decided to fire
X amount of people, while giving the upper management a raise.
Jeff Findley
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:huv0l.10388$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Jeff Findley wrote:
>
>> Of course, all but the smallest hybrids seem to get poor mileage. My
>> wife's Pontiac Vibe's EPA estimates are 25 city 33 highway. We'd never
>> trade that for a hybrid that gets essentially the same mileage.
>
> And the non-hybrid, VW Jetta TDI, set a new Guinness record for averaging
> 58.82 miles per gallon. No batteries, no electric motors, and a car that
> those that would never buy a Prius might be willing to buy.
That's really good. The early 80's Rabbit Diesels only got about 50 mpg.
My dad had one. When I drove it, I'd put 9 gallons of diesel in it every
two weeks. It cost me far less in fuel costs than any of my friend's cars.
> What changed in the U.S. for diesel's is that diesel fuel is now
> low-sulfer. A lot of diesel engines sold around the world can now be used
> in the U.S.. Mitsubishi could really leverage this if they had a marketing
> person working for them.
>
> Of course the TDI comes to market at the one time in history when diesel
> is much more expensive than gasoline. The $1300 federal income tax credit
> might help offset that cost (not available on Prius).
Unfortunately, GM did *a lot* to hurt the reputation of diesels in the US.
Just another way they've really screwed up the US car market. :-P
HLS
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
> According to many Toyota owners, Toyota builds unbreakable Gifts from God.
> Why don't they and all the other manufactures offer a 6 year bumper to
> bumper warranty?
>
>
> "Art" <begunaNOS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:HYedndpEwITHSNzU...@earthlink.com...
>> So why don't they put their money where their mouth is....... shake up
>> the industry with a 6 year bumper to bumper warranty on all their cars,
>> retroactive to 5 year old cars.
Our Avalon has a 7 year bumper to bumper warranty.. Includes parking lot
nicks
in the doors, etc.
Retroactive aint gonna happen.
SMS
> Unfortunately, GM did *a lot* to hurt the reputation of diesels in the US.
> Just another way they've really screwed up the US car market. :-P
I remember that, but a lot of people have likely forgotten by now.
What's interesting about the new VW is that it's the first diesel car in
a long time that can be sold in California. I'm not sure of the whole
reason why diesels were not sold in California for a while, especially
since it was legal to buy them in other states and bring them in (and
some dealers made money selling "used" diesel VWs that were really new,
but purchased in Oregon and driven down).
80 Knight
I'm going to have to assume you are joking, as according to Toyota's
website, even the '09 Avalon XLS has a much worse warranty then say, the '09
Buick Lucerne. The Avalon has the standard 36-month, 36,000 miles, while
the Lucerne has 48-months and 50,000 miles. Even GM's powertrain warranty
beat's Toyota's, with GM's at 100,000, and Toyota's at 60,000. Hell, the
Chrysler 300 does even better, with the unlimited mileage powertrain
warranty.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
> According to many Toyota owners, Toyota builds unbreakable Gifts from God.
> Why don't they and all the other manufactures offer a 6 year bumper to
> bumper warranty?
I have a 7 year/100,000 mile warranty on my '05 Scion tC. Had to have a
battery replaced. No charge (er, no pun intended...). Thank you!
I only got a three year/36,000 warranty with my '85 and '87 Corollas. The
'85 is still in my back yard...I don't think I ever used the warranty.
YES! The radio had to be replaced.
My '74 Corolla 1200 came with a 12/12 warranty. It blew the rear axle at
15,000 miles. Toyota fixed it gratis.
HLS
"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
>
> website, even the '09 Avalon XLS has a much worse warranty then say, the
> '09 Buick Lucerne. The Avalon has the standard 36-month, 36,000 miles,
> while the Lucerne has 48-months and 50,000 miles. Even GM's powertrain
> warranty beat's Toyota's, with GM's at 100,000, and Toyota's at 60,000.
> Hell, the Chrysler 300 does even better, with the unlimited mileage
> powertrain warranty.
I am not joking at all. 7 years, 70,000 miles, bumper to bumper
80 Knight
Is it an extended warranty? Did you have to pay extra for it? Because I
can't find any evidence (even from Toyota's own website) that they offer
anything more then the 36/36 on the Avalon.
larry moe 'n curly
Gosi wrote:
> It is interesting that Ford is not willing to receive money under the
> terms the government is offering.
Because Ford literally mortgaged itself before real estate market
values and the securities markets crashed, so it has $38B to work with.
Hachiroku ハチロク
He may have bought it used? My Scion was 1 year old and had 10,000 miles
on it:
Toyota Certified Used Vehicles come with an extensive used-car warranty
— one of the best in the industry.
Each Toyota Certified Used Vehicle comes with a 3-month/3,000-mile
comprehensive used car warranty from date of certified purchase [1]. This
warranty covers any repair or replacement of components which fail under
normal use due to a defect in materials or workmanship.
Each Toyota Certified Used Vehicle is also backed by a 7-year/100,000-mile
Limited Powertrain Warranty (from original date of first use when
purchased as new) [2]. We also add a 7-year/100,000 mile 24-hour Roadside
Assistance Plan (from original date of first use when purchased as new)
So, basically, I got a 6 year/90,000 mile warranty. For nothing.
But, since it's a Toyota, it doesn't go into the shop very often.
Nowhere near as much time as a GM product spends. Shoot, i get to drive
it, rather than wait for it to be repaired.
Gordon McGrew
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>Where the hell does the government, in a free society, get the right to tell
>manufactures what they must produce and to tell the buyer what they must
>buy, in any event?
It gains that authority by the will of the governed. Sane people
recognize that it is necessary to regulate what vehicles are allowed
on public roads and who can operate them and how they may be operated.
This prevents chaos. Sane people have managed to maintain some
modicum of control over the government in spite of the last 28 years
of ideology-driven deregulatory insanity.
Tell us, Mike, would you like food and drug companies to be able to
sell anything they like?
JoeSpareBedroom
news:ojt8k49oqb4le1kui...@4ax.com...
Uh oh. A sane question.
coach...@hotmail.com
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:04:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>
> <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote:
> >So GM migh get 15 billion, AS A LOAN. Worst case, GM goes under, and
> >can't repay the loan. So the average taxpayer middle class taxpayer
> >losses a $300 investment in a company that employess thousands of
> >fellow taxpayers. Meanwhile, the goverment has shoveled 700 billion to
> >comanies that have blown billion on bad loans and hyper inflated
> >salaries.
>
> they're wrong.
>
>
>
> >> Despite their mismanagement being pointed out repeatedly by people
> >> from across the business spectrum for decades, they've stuck to
> >> their
> >> pig headed approach and ignored everyone who did not agree. Now they
> >> are reaping the rewards.
>
> >What exactly were the people pointing out that constitutes gross
> >mismanagement? What did GM do that is so different than what Toyota
> >did, or rather what has GM done, that Toyota hasn't tried to do as
> >well?
>
> few: First, GM failed to adopt TQM and improve quality. It's a LONG
> TERM strategy that the Japanese adopted in the 40'5 and 50's. The
> results of TWM are long term customer confidence and quality products.
> GM's preference was for "cost cutting" and producing a cheaper product
> that would increase SHORT TERM profits. Note that the Japanese now
> enjoy a reputation for quality cars that bring buyers back again and
> again, while GM has a reputation for crappy cars no one buys again.
> The proof is in the pudding.
>
More typical bullshit from yet another GM basher.
Guys, PLEASE throw away the script and come up with something new.
This "Japan has a reputation for quality cars" crap got old about 15
years ago.
It really did.
By the early 90's, GM built cars that were as good as,or better than,
their rival Japanese auto manufacturers.
Gas mileage had caught up, at that point, also.
But alas, Consumer Reports, and the media, kept hammering away at the
general public, that the domestic autos were inferior to the almighty
Japanese.
Fast forward, to the year 2008.
Domestic autos, are proven to be at least, and in most cases superior
to the Japanese autos, and get better gas mileage.
But, thanks two two decades of hammering away at the domestics, the
Japansese still enjoy the "reputation" of having better quality and
better fuel economy than American nameplates.
Both are totally false.
GM sells more vechicles that gets 30 mpg or better than anyone,
(dispelling the "gas guzzler" myth), and has far fewer recalls than
the Japanese (dispelling the"quality" myth). Of course, Consumer
Reports "reports" this every month!
> Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.
Biggest lie of them all. Tell it often enough and people will believe
it.
They just arent yet.
Trucks in particular, and large vechiles, in general, continue to sell
well. That is what people want.
Toyota, and Honda both realize this, and continue to make more trucks
and/or LARGER vechicles in general.
Do you think the Camry is a small car???
Has the Honda Accord been downsized in the past 20 years???
Of course not.
When they started making it LARGER, it became a very good seller.
Is the Toyota Tundra a trend toward smaller vechicles?????
No, but Toyota knows full well where the "trends" are and wants to be
able to capitalize on them.
>
> Third, every time GM got someone on the Board who had a clue about how
> to run a company, they pushed him off. They didn't want to modernize,
> they didn't want to change. Innovation was not only not encouraged, it
> was actively discouraged. Buck the trend and you're out of a job.
>
> >Too bad GM
> >management let the engineers go out on a limb with a risky engine
> >design.
>
> Aluminum cyl's without liners? That's not engineering, that's
> stupidity.
>
> >I wonder what people would have said about the Vega if GM had
> >just imported a European 4 cylinder design to power the car. They had
> >excellent engines designs available from Opel they could have tooled
> >up in the US. But instead, they took a chance on technology that
> >didn't work out for them.
>
> You want to know how GM thinks? They bought a majority stake in Saab
> in the 1990's. Saab had a rock solid, powerful 4-cyl turbo known for
> easily running 300K miles with outstanding power and tuneability for
> more power. Did GM wholeheartedly endorse Saabs motor and adapt the
> engines / technology to their line? No, they ordered Saab to install a
> crappy (30K timing belt changes) Opel V6 in the cars because "a V6 is
> what American buyers want". WRONG. Not only did they alienate the
> loyal people actually buying Saabs, they blew a golden opportunity to
> innovate in their own line.
>
> That's just one example, my typing time is limited.
>
> >I still don't understand how the Government can throw hundreds of
> >billions at banks and mortgage companies that were so much more
> >mismanaged than GM and not even throw GM a little bone.
>
> All bailouts are wrong.
>
> >Ask yourself this - If this recession gets a lot worse and Toyota
> >start spiraling down, what will the Japanese government do? Toyota
> >blew billions on a factory in Texas that builds at inferior product
> >that they have to literally sell at a loss to move off the lots. How
> >come you guys are not trashing Toyota mismanagement?
>
> I'm not a Toyota fan, but they aren't asking for UG Gov't money so I
> don't really care what they do. In fact, when the first 25B
> "modernization" loan program for the big three passed Congress a few
> months ago, Toyota and Nissan were eligible to participate but both
> declined to apply for the loans.
Ed Pawlowski
<coach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Guys, PLEASE throw away the script and come up with something new.
> This "Japan has a reputation for quality cars" crap got old about 15
> years ago.
> It really did.
> By the early 90's, GM built cars that were as good as,or better than,
> their rival Japanese auto manufacturers.
> Domestic autos, are proven to be at least, and in most cases superior
> to the Japanese autos, and get better gas mileage.
> But, thanks two two decades of hammering away at the domestics, the
> Japansese still enjoy the "reputation" of having better quality and
> better fuel economy than American nameplates.
> Both are totally false.
Facts don't matter, perception does. There are fans of each of the big
three that goes back generations. If your father and grandfather had GM
cars and drank Budweiser, very good chance you do too. If your father
bought a Honda because it was 1980 and it was considered a "better" car,
chances are you do too.
Case in point: Yesterday I was out with my wife and it was about lunch
time. Looking for a place to eat, there was a nice little cafe, but we
passed it by. Why? Because 15 years ago we went there and had a sandwich
with a slice of orange that was moldy. The place has changed owners and I'm
sure they turned over the inventory and cleaned the fridge, but many years
later I, still don't go there.
Call it silly, but there are millions of people just like me. I've been
eating the same brands of peanut butter and ice cream for 60+ years too. It
is going to take a very long time for the Detroit crowd to swing the
pendulum back. They need some slick marketing to get people to put ther
thousands of dollars in their trust. Look at the success of the "It's not
your father's Oldsmobile" ad campaign. Worked well.
Gosi
> <coachros...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
There is a reason for those who become big and have gained trust.
There are constant connections with the customer.
Make sure you always keep constant quality.
If something goes wrong correct it immediately.
A happy customer comes back and brings his friends.
An unhappy customer bad mouths you to everyone and makes sure to
spread the word.
80 Knight
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:08:50 -0800 (PST), Gosi <gos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>There is a reason for those who become big and have gained trust.
>>There are constant connections with the customer.
>>Make sure you always keep constant quality.
>>If something goes wrong correct it immediately.
>>A happy customer comes back and brings his friends.
>>An unhappy customer bad mouths you to everyone and makes sure to
>>spread the word.
>
>
> I've posted here multiple times about TQM and Deming's work in Japan
> starting in the 1950's. About how he preached that you should
> constantly improve quality instead of worrying about the bottom line.
> About how this is a LONG TERM strategy that builds customer confidence
> and brand loyalty and wins in the end.
>
> We're at "the end". The long term strategy is won. Notice though that
> the GM fan boys here are still as pig headed as GM is: blaming the
> customer for not buying what they build and claiming "more of the
> same" is the best strategy of the future. Some people are just too
> foolish to look and see the light, even when it's about to blind them.
You are the fanyboy. You cross-posted this thread, just to start up a flame
war between Domestic and Foreign fans. I'm sure your buddies in the Toyota
newsgroup are just loving you for starting that. As for GM people blaming
the consumer for not buying there vehicles, I feel the need to remind you
that the #2 selling vehicle in the US is a Chevy, right behind a Ford. Now,
if you are done with your flame war, it would be nice if you left.
C. E. White
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:04:25 -0500, "C. E. White"
>
>>So GM migh get 15 billion, AS A LOAN. Worst case, GM goes under, and
>>can't repay the loan. So the average taxpayer middle class taxpayer
>>losses a $300 investment in a company that employess thousands of
>>fellow taxpayers. Meanwhile, the goverment has shoveled 700 billion
>>to
>>comanies that have blown billion on bad loans and hyper inflated
>>salaries.
>
> they're wrong.
>>
>>> from across the business spectrum for decades, they've stuck to
>>> their
>>> pig headed approach and ignored everyone who did not agree. Now
>>> they
>>> are reaping the rewards.
>>
>>What exactly were the people pointing out that constitutes gross
>>mismanagement? What did GM do that is so different than what Toyota
>>did, or rather what has GM done, that Toyota hasn't tried to do as
>>well?
>
> a
> few: First, GM failed to adopt TQM and improve quality. It's a LONG
> TERM strategy that the Japanese adopted in the 40'5 and 50's. The
> results of TWM are long term customer confidence and quality
> products.
Japanese cars in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and even the 80's were not
particularly high quality. In fact, they sent over some real junk. And
although GM might not have improved quality as much as Toyota, it is
impossible for you not to admit that GMs cars of today are far better
than GM cars of the 70's and before.
> GM's preference was for "cost cutting" and producing a cheaper
> product
> that would increase SHORT TERM profits. Note that the Japanese now
> enjoy a reputation for quality cars that bring buyers back again and
> again, while GM has a reputation for crappy cars no one buys again.
> The proof is in the pudding.
I don't think the reputation is deserved - on either side. The
difference in quality between the current average GM car and the
current average Japanese car is insignificant.
> Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.
You ignored my point (and deleted what I said). Maybe devoting a lot
of production to SUVs and trucks was a bad decision, but Toyota,
Nissan, Honda, and almost every other car company selling vehicles in
America made the same decision. Toyota upsized almost every vehicle.
Toyota and Nissan entered the full size pick-up and large SUV market.
Even Honda started building pick-ups and SUVs. If GM management was
wrong about this, so was the management of almost every car maker
operating in the US.
> Third, every time GM got someone on the Board who had a clue about
> how
> to run a company, they pushed him off. They didn't want to
> modernize,
> they didn't want to change. Innovation was not only not encouraged,
> it
> was actively discouraged. Buck the trend and you're out of a job.
I have no opinion on this comment.
>>Too bad GM
>>management let the engineers go out on a limb with a risky engine
>>design.
>
> Aluminum cyl's without liners? That's not engineering, that's
> stupidity.
Oh, you mean like Mercede's and Porsche's engineering? Both of those
companies use what is essentially the same technology in some of their
engines.
>>I wonder what people would have said about the Vega if GM had
>>just imported a European 4 cylinder design to power the car. They
>>had
>>excellent engines designs available from Opel they could have tooled
>>up in the US. But instead, they took a chance on technology that
>>didn't work out for them.
>
> You want to know how GM thinks? They bought a majority stake in Saab
> in the 1990's. Saab had a rock solid, powerful 4-cyl turbo known for
> easily running 300K miles with outstanding power and tuneability for
> more power. Did GM wholeheartedly endorse Saabs motor and adapt the
> engines / technology to their line? No, they ordered Saab to install
> a
> crappy (30K timing belt changes) Opel V6 in the cars because "a V6
> is
> what American buyers want". WRONG. Not only did they alienate the
> loyal people actually buying Saabs, they blew a golden opportunity
> to
> innovate in their own line.
You have to be kidding. Saabs from that era were junk! In 45 years of
living at the same place in a rural area, exactly one car has broken
down in front of my parent house - a Saab 900. One of sister's friend
bought Saabs in the 70's and 80's Not one made it to 100k miles. The
Saab 4 cylinder you like so much was originally a British Leyland
design. Saab was going to buy engines from BL, but the quality was so
bad, they had to build them themselves.
> That's just one example, my typing time is limited.
>
>>I still don't understand how the Government can throw hundreds of
>>billions at banks and mortgage companies that were so much more
>>mismanaged than GM and not even throw GM a little bone.
>
> All bailouts are wrong.
GM has been saddled with all sorts of Government mandates. The latest
financial panic is a direct result of bad decisions by the Government.
The Government allowed the UAW to have what constituted an auto
manufacturing labor monopoly for decades. Foreign competitors to GM
frequently receive assistance from their Governments. I don't like
bailout either, but it is not fair to GM for the Government to screw
things up and walk away from a mess they had a large hand in creating.
>>Ask yourself this - If this recession gets a lot worse and Toyota
>>start spiraling down, what will the Japanese government do? Toyota
>>blew billions on a factory in Texas that builds at inferior product
>>that they have to literally sell at a loss to move off the lots. How
>>come you guys are not trashing Toyota mismanagement?
>
> I'm not a Toyota fan, but they aren't asking for UG Gov't money so I
> don't really care what they do. In fact, when the first 25B
> "modernization" loan program for the big three passed Congress a few
> months ago, Toyota and Nissan were eligible to participate but both
> declined to apply for the loans.
Toyota has the Japanese Government they can ask for money any time
they need it.
Ed
Gosi
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/gm-death-watch-223-pianos-and-pinheads/
When I was growing up in Rhode Island, the state was run by the mafia.
Politicians, police, priests, judges, juries, firemen, trash
collectors, teachers, unions– anyone who had power owed that power to
Raymond L.S. Patriarca. Period. In the last forty years, the mob’s
stranglehold on the Ocean State has dissipated– even if the stench of
corruption remains. But it’s too late. The mob-controlled unions and
their corrupt enablers destroyed Little Rhody’s industrial base. The
state will never be a locus of, well, anything. And yet people call
talk radio and wax lyrical about “the good old days.” Justice was for
sale. Racism endemic. Violence systemic. Priests buggered little boys
with impunity. “But at least you could walk the streets without fear.”
This, Detroit, is your future. And you can thank your godfather, GM.
You can almost feel the anger coming from Detroit these days. The
sense of betrayal radiates from hometown journalists like heat off a
desert parking lot. How could Washington turn its back on us? How
could they treat us like goombas? Don’t they know who we are? Yes,
they do. And they don’t care. Why kow-tow to yesterday’s boss? But
that’s not really the point. Detroit’s anger is fully justified.
Something bad has happened. Something that could have been avoided.
Should have been avoided. But this animus, this furious indignation,
is entirely misplaced.
It is GM that betrayed Detroit, not Washington. Instead of sorting out
their business, GM’s capos spent the last four decades dining at fancy
restaurants, smoking fine cigars, flying around in Gulfstream jets and
doing… nothing. And then, when they finally grasped the fact that
their goose was cooked, they ran to Uncle Sam and said, “Let’s do a
deal.” GM CEO Rick Wagoner faced the Senate and told Dodd et al that
he’d agree to anything to secure the bailout bucks. Oversight? Car
Czar? Deadlines? “I think we would could live with that.”
As a friend of ours likes to say, there is no honor in this. GM’s CEO
should not have come crawling back to D.C. in a Malibu hybrid to beg
for a taxpayer handout. At the very least, Wagoner should have
resigned after his first, disastrous Congressional appearance. Either
that or he should have poured bankruptcy expert Jay Alix a stiff
whiskey and told him to file for Chapter 11. Wagoner would have spared
his employer the final indignity of watching Congress and the
executive branch remove GM’s ability to determine its own fate.
“But no one will buy a car from a bankrupt automaker.” Excuse the
profanity, but who the fuck cares? GM is bankrupt. Its liabilities
currently outweigh its assets by a factor of ten. A government loan
will simply add another creditor to a long list. Head of the line,
back of the line, big whoop. The fed’s $13b will keep GM on life
support for what? A month? Three? And then what?
As there’s nothing GM can do to generate the profits it needs to cover
its overheads, as any real turnaround would take over $100b and at
least five years, sooner or later, GM is headed for more public
humiliation. How much more of that can GM take?
It’s one thing to get steamed at a politician for pissing away $700b
of your hard-earned money for his or her best buds on Wall Street. All
you can do is not take out a loan from TARP-blessed banks (that won’t
give you a loan anyway) and/or vote the offending politicians out. You
know; later. But if a carmaker is blowing your taxes, retaliation is
easy. You don’t buy their products. You want my business? Sorry, but I
gave at the office.
Mark my words: if GM uses taxpayer money to stave off bankruptcy, and
then comes back for more, executive haircuts and public equity stakes
won’t do squat to mollify an enraged public. There will be a consumer
backlash that will make bankruptcy seem like a J.D. Power Award.
Meanwhile, GM and its camp followers are dazed and confused. Just like
the little old ladies who used to promenade up and down Atwell’s
Avenue without a care in the world, they don’t understand why things
have changed. They will never understand that they sat atop of a
pyramid of abusive exploitation. In the same sense, GM’s customers
subsidized Detroit’s sense of wealth, safety and entitlement by buying
shoddy vehicles. But only because they had to.
As soon as they didn’t have to, they didn’t. And then it was only a
matter of time before the old corrupt system collapsed. Reform? The
man who could have created life-sustaining change for GM through C11
(albeit three years ago) is in federal custody. Powerless. Someone
somewhere else is large and in charge. Depending on your perspective,
you might even call it progress.
GM is a corrupt mafia and it deserves to be put down like a mad dog
larry moe 'n curly
coachros...@hotmail.com wrote:
> By the early 90's, GM built cars that were as good as,or better than,
> their rival Japanese auto manufacturers.
>
> Gas mileage had caught up, at that point, also.
>
> But alas, Consumer Reports, and the media, kept hammering away at the
> general public, that the domestic autos were inferior to the almighty
> Japanese.
>
> Fast forward, to the year 2008.
>
> Domestic autos, are proven to be at least, and in most cases superior
> to the Japanese autos, and get better gas mileage.
>
> But, thanks two two decades of hammering away at the domestics, the
> Japansese still enjoy the "reputation" of having better quality and
> better fuel economy than American nameplates.
>
> Both are totally false.
I haven't heard Americans say that Japanese cars get better fuel
economy when size is considered. OTOH a lot of Americans won't buy
small cars that aren't Japanese or German because, let's face it, the
typical Saturn, Cobalt, or Caliber isn't as good as most Corollas,
Golfs, or Civics.
Americans do tend to think Japanese reliability is better, and the
numbers tend to bear this out, especially after the cars are a few
years old. But polls of Americans show that they don't think all
Japanese car brands are more reliable, and Nissan and the smaller
Japanese car makers haven't fared better than GM/Ford/Chrysler.
> GM sells more vehicles that gets 30 mpg or better than anyone,
> (dispelling the "gas guzzler" myth), and has far fewer recalls than
> the Japanese (dispelling the"quality" myth). Of course, Consumer
> Reports "reports" this every month!
So if a company produces just one model and it gets better MPG than
75% of GM's models, is that company inferior to GM in this respect
simply because GM has more models? And should GM's closely related
models, such as some Pontiacs and Chevys, really be counted
separately? If so, why not lump the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe
twins together, even though their brands are from almost completely
separate firms? My point is, counting the number of models of a
company that achieve a certain goal is silly. Even counting the
percentage of models that do so is almost as silly because different
manufacturers can have different market niches, e.g., BMW isn't
interested in producing economy cars.
> > Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> > Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> > they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> > the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> > bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.
Yep, plus their factories weren't designed to handle changes in models
as well, and development costs for new models have been higher .
> Trucks in particular, and large vechiles, in general, continue to sell
> well. That is what people want.
But truck buyers wouldn't mind if their vehicles got 10 MPG better
fuel economy, at no extra cost to them, of course. ;)
> Toyota, and Honda both realize this, and continue to make more trucks
> and/or LARGER vechicles in general.
And Toyota, despite its disaster with the new Tundra, can much better
afford low truck sales.
> Do you think the Camry is a small car???
>
> Has the Honda Accord been downsized in the past 20 years???
>
> Of course not.
>
> When they started making it LARGER, it became a very good seller.
Or Japanese car executives are just as stupid about the bias for big
size.
coach...@hotmail.com
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:41:32 -0800 (PST), coachros...@hotmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >More typical bullshit from yet another GM basher.
>
>
NO.Bullshit, absoulte, and with no denial. "Reputation" and "facts"
are not one and the same. Facts cannot be disputed. Reputation can be
debated, and worse, can be manipulated, as has been the case in the
dissing GM products have been for nearly 30 years.
Consumer Reports, Edmonds, USA Today, and other media outlets have
slammed American nameplates for years.
Common catch-phrases are "reliabilty" and "fit and finish", among
others.
Realy not any stasitical data to back these assersions up.
Of course, no real need to, if the news says it is so, it MUST be so.
Forget about checking out things on your own, it takes a little
effort.
> >Guys, PLEASE throw away the script and come up with something new.
> >This "Japan has a reputation for quality cars" crap got old about 15
> >years ago.
>
> You can argue about whether Japanese cars are of higher quality. You
> CANNOT argue that they don't have a reputation for quality cars.
> Please try to understand the difference and how it impacts the Big-3.
>
> >By the early 90's, GM built cars that were as good as,or better than,
> >their rival Japanese auto manufacturers.
>
> I'd disagree, but that is NOT the point.
>
Disagree, and while you are at it, bring out some valid arguements to
prove it. And yes, it IS the point.
US autos have been of high quality for MANY years(check the highways,
what do you see more of, early 90 model GM's or Toyotas-your eyes wont
lie to you!)
They got as good as, or better than, fuel mileage, even back then.
Don't take my word for it, check it out.
> >Gas mileage had caught up, at that point, also.
>
> Again, I'd disagree. In fact, they fought vehemently against raising
> CAFE standards just a couple years ago. But again, that is NOT the
> point.
>
YES it is!!! Why do you argue this??? It is so important for the
preception that a 2008 Toyota Camry gets better gas milege than an 08
Gran Prix, or Impala, when if fact,if equiped with a V6, gets WORSE.
These are FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Check it out.
>
>
> >But alas, Consumer Reports, and the media, kept hammering away at the
> >general public, that the domestic autos were inferior to the almighty
> >Japanese.
>
> I don't like CR's unscientific surveys. However, their surveys did
> show that American cars had much lower quality. Therefore the public
> is convinced. Since most people have no understanding of statistics
> and why the surveys might be incorrect, and lacking any other
> competing surveys, they are the standard.
>
More bullshit.
The surveys show that, comparing Japan to US auto manufactures, the
gap in quality is "stastically insufficient"
Pardon the spelling, but that means the cars are the same. quality-
wise.
>
>
> >Domestic autos, are proven to be at least, and in most cases superior
> >to the Japanese autos, and get better gas mileage.
>
> By who?
>
If you are dumb enough to argue that Japan gets better gas mileage
than American, then I'll ask YOU to prove it. Give me REAL numbers.
Dont compare the Prius to the Corvette.
Otherwise, I am sure that you cant prove that Japan DOES NOT have
better gas mileage, over all than American nameplates.
>
>
> >But, thanks two two decades of hammering away at the domestics, the
> >Japansese still enjoy the "reputation" of having better quality and
> >better fuel economy than American nameplates.
>
> Your point?
>
You know the point, but I'll repeat it again/\.
Reputation, and reality are two different things.
Really hate repeating myself.
> >Both are totally false.
>
> Arguable, but again, not the point.
>
> >GM sells more vechicles that gets 30 mpg or better than anyone,
> >(dispelling the "gas guzzler" myth), and has far fewer recalls than
> >the Japanese (dispelling the"quality" myth). Of course, Consumer
> >Reports "reports" this every month!
>
> Bent and partial statistics on your part.
>
NO. the words "more", and "30 mpg" are petty strait-forward.
Take away the tax credited supported Pruis out of the equation, and I
am not even sure if Toyota could even ENTER this gas mileage
discussion, but guess which company has the "percecption" of being the
gas mileage king????
?
> >> Second, GM refused to acknowledge where the auto market was going.
> >> Instead of taking a small hit today to guarantee a market tomorrow,
> >> they continued to build for quarterly profit. Trucks and SUV's ruled
> >> the day and they didn't listen to anyone who told them that it was a
> >> bad strategy. Whoops - proof in the pudding again.
>
> >Biggest lie of them all. Tell it often enough and people will believe
> >it.
>
> Huh? They missed the boat. They even admitted it in the full page
> advertisement they ran that started this thread. Go back and read the
> story.
>
> >Trucks in particular, and large vechiles, in general, continue to sell
> >well. That is what people want.
>
> Not anymore. But again, you don't seem to have captured the point.
>
Quick quiz, Bozo.
What was the biggest selling vechicle in the US last month???????
And the month before????????
And the month before that????????????????
And the month before that????????????????????
And before that???????????????????
And EVERY SINGLE MONTH, except for ONE, for the past THIRTY
YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, those, "no one wants to buy them", and "trends are saying people
are not wanting them anymore" are full-size PICK UP TRUCKS!!!!!!
They are the top sellers, even when sales are down across the board,
so spare me the bullshit that no one buys them anymore.
Even today, people buy more large vechiles than they do cracker box
size cars.
> >Toyota, and Honda both realize this, and continue to make more trucks
> >and/or LARGER vechicles in general.
>
> They make a profit too. Odd, that.
>
> >No, but Toyota knows full well where the "trends" are and wants to be
> >able to capitalize on them.
>
> They are also still making a profit. YOU tell ME the difference. Tell
> me why GM is bankrupt (or going to be very soon without taxpayer
> money).
There are a lot of reasons GM is going bankrupt, but "making products
no one wants to buy" is at the VERY BOTTOM OF THE LIST.
Like I said earlier, please throw the script away and come up with
something new when bashing GM.
And while you are at it, feel free to take a hike, son.
coach...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:08:50 -0800 (PST), Gosi <gos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >There are constant connections with the customer.
> >Make sure you always keep constant quality.
> >If something goes wrong correct it immediately.
> >A happy customer comes back and brings his friends.
> >An unhappy customer bad mouths you to everyone and makes sure to
> >spread the word.
>
>
> I've posted here multiple times about TQM and Deming's work in Japan
> starting in the 1950's. About how he preached that you should
> constantly improve quality instead of worrying about the bottom line.
> About how this is a LONG TERM strategy that builds customer confidence
> and brand loyalty and wins in the end.
>
> We're at "the end". The long term strategy is won. Notice though that
> the GM fan boys here are still as pig headed as GM is: blaming the
> customer for not buying what they build and claiming "more of the
> same" is the best strategy of the future. Some people are just too
> foolish to look and see the light, even when it's about to blind them.
I just cant understand this.
Have many times does the phrase "customer not buying" is used before
you realize that it is absolute Bullshit.
Why do you fail to understand that GM still sells as many as, or the
the very worst case, nearly as many cars as Toyota?????
You DO think Toyota sells cars, so you????
So it is logical to assume that if THEY sell cars, then, GM, who sells
about the same amount of vechicles, could also logically be accused of
selling vehicles, also???
So. please, trash can the cliche that "no one buys GM"
It is old, and makes you look stupid, to boot.
Mike Hunter
REAL test of who make the best vehicles rest in who sells what to whom.
Apparently Toyota makes the best single brand car, the Camry because it is
the number one seller. On the other GM makes the best cars since GM sells
more of them than any other manufacturer. It is just that they do not have
the same name on the grill. The same applies to trucks. Ford sells the
most trucks with one name on the grill, the F150 and has for thirty one
years and so far in 2008 as well, and at a rate that has been at nearly
twice that of the best selling car. But in total, GM sells more trucks but
with two names on the grill. If GM vehicles were as bad as the import
buyer why post in domestic NGs would have one believe, why is GM still the
number one selling manufacturer in the US? Obviously more buyers still
prefer GM products than their preferred brand, period
<coach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f80cd6f-2731-45ce...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
PerfectReign
> The same applies to trucks. Ford sells the
> most trucks with one name on the grill, the F150 and has for thirty one
> years and so far in 2008 as well, and at a rate that has been at nearly
> twice that of the best selling car. But in total, GM sells more trucks
> but with two names on the grill. If GM vehicles were as bad as the
> import buyer why post in domestic NGs would have one believe, why is GM
> still the number one selling manufacturer in the US? Obviously more
> buyers still prefer GM products than their preferred brand, period
The quality issue does work against GM.
Even I was relatively cautious about buying a Saturn back in '05. In fact, I
only bought it because it has a Honda (3.5L v6) engine that I know is
reliable in the Pilot/Odessy/MDX combination.
Oddly enough, I had just the opposite concerns when buying a truck in '06. I
had looked at Toyota trucks but eventually discounted them because I wasn't
sure about the reliability compared to the GM and/or Ford trucks. I knew
the engines and transmissions (and where the weak points may be) in Ford
and GM and didn't know much about the Toyota V8. In fact, I was leery of
it.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org
Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock
SMS
> On the other GM makes the best cars since GM sells more of them than any other manufacturer.
McDonald's makes the best hamburgers because they sell more of them than
any other restaurant.
Sharx35
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:npW1l.10397$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Restated, GM and McDonald's make the most POPULAR cars and hamburgers,
respectively. As you know, what is most POPULAR
is not necessarily the best. Witness the recent U.S. election results for
further proof.
Mike Hunter
But if you believe, "What is most POPULAR is not necessarily the best," then
you must believe that explains why the Camry is the number one selling car
but not necessarily the best, right?
"Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XCW1l.474$Ve.330@edtnps82...
Gosi
McDonalds makes the same quality all over the world (except in the UK
because the brits can not make food and ruin quality) but it is
definitely not the best quality
GM can not do either.
Mike Hunter
they would go next door to Berger King. Just as Camry buyers do not go buy
an Accord or an Altima next door.
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:npW1l.10397$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Sharx35
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:vNidnZyewcP-ptXU...@ptd.net...
> How do you account for the fact Berger King is usually right near
> McDonalds? But if you believe, "What is most POPULAR is not necessarily
> the best," then you must believe that explains why the Camry is the number
> one selling car but not necessarily the best, right?
Mcdonald's are just the cheapest. I don't mind them for that reason. They
are adequate. I love my Camry....but if I had my druthers I'd go Lexus!!!
Mike Hunter
"Gosi" <gos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c4099d5-bb90-4100...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
SMS
> How do you account for the fact Berger King is usually right near McDonalds?
> But if you believe, "What is most POPULAR is not necessarily the best," then
> you must believe that explains why the Camry is the number one selling car
> but not necessarily the best, right?
No argument from me there.
McDonald's hamburgers are popular because they are inexpensive and
served fast.
Toyota Camry's are popular because they are inexpensive, very reliable,
and last a long time. That doesn't make them "the best." Accords have
better crash test results and are about as reliable.
You seem to be confusing volume with quality when you claim GM is the
best because they sell more vehicles than Toyota (actually Toyota sells
more vehicles, but that's just another error of yours).
Mike Hunter
drive a Lexus? ;)
"Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8X1l.483$Ve.356@edtnps82...
Sharx35
"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:IOydnTA47__o2dXU...@ptd.net...
> You mean to say if you could afford it you would go to a stake house and
> drive a Lexus? ;)
Well, I would drive a Lexus TO a steak house. Yes.
Gordon McGrew
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>The opinions of who makes the best is in the minds of consumers. The only
>REAL test of who make the best vehicles rest in who sells what to whom.
>Apparently Toyota makes the best single brand car, the Camry because it is
>the number one seller. On the other GM makes the best cars since GM sells
>more of them than any other manufacturer. It is just that they do not have
>the same name on the grill. The same applies to trucks. Ford sells the
>most trucks with one name on the grill, the F150 and has for thirty one
>years and so far in 2008 as well, and at a rate that has been at nearly
>twice that of the best selling car. But in total, GM sells more trucks but
>with two names on the grill. If GM vehicles were as bad as the import
>buyer why post in domestic NGs would have one believe, why is GM still the
>number one selling manufacturer in the US? Obviously more buyers still
>prefer GM products than their preferred brand, period
>
I guess Fords used to be better than Toyotas but they aren't anymore.
Right, Mike?
And I guess that the best car in the world must be a Toyota since they
are the world sales leader. Right, Mike?
One other thing, Mike. Does your logic still work when some companies
are selling cars at a loss? I am sure that Toyota could outsell GM
tomorrow if they were willing to lose $2000 per car or whatever GM is
losing. Why doesn't GM just raise the price on their cars by a few
thousand and make a profit? Then we won't have to bail them out.
PerfectReign
>
>
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:npW1l.10397$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> On the other GM makes the best cars since GM sells more of them than any
>>> other manufacturer.
>>
>> McDonald's makes the best hamburgers because they sell more of them than
>> any other restaurant.
>
> Restated, GM and McDonald's make the most POPULAR cars and hamburgers,
> respectively. As you know, what is most POPULAR
> is not necessarily the best.
I agree.
I mean, look at In n' Out hamburgers. Way better than Micky D's.
Also, we all know that a Lambo is better than a corvette. Just depends on
how much you want to pay.
> Witness the recent U.S. election results for
> further proof.
Tell me about it. I can't believe people voted in Ex-Governor Bush twice.
His dad is a great man, but this moron should never have stepped foot in
the White House.
CharlesTheCurmudgeon
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:50:19 -0500, "80 Knight" <8...@knight.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> We're at "the end". The long term strategy is won. Notice though that
>>> the GM fan boys here are still as pig headed as GM is: blaming the
>>> customer for not buying what they build and claiming "more of the
>>> same" is the best strategy of the future. Some people are just too
>>> foolish to look and see the light, even when it's about to blind them.
>>
>>You are the fanyboy. You cross-posted this thread, just to start up a
>>flame
>>war between Domestic and Foreign fans. I'm sure your buddies in the
>>Toyota
>>newsgroup are just loving you for starting that. As for GM people blaming
>>the consumer for not buying there vehicles, I feel the need to remind you
>>that the #2 selling vehicle in the US is a Chevy, right behind a Ford.
>>Now,
>>if you are done with your flame war, it would be nice if you left.
>
> screwed up. Some people seemed to be arguing otherwise - particularly
> the guy who started a cross posted thread indicating that GM's
> problems were the fault of them thar forin car buyers. That's
> incorrect, and GM has admitted it in the most public way they could:
> with a full page advertisement in the leading industry publication.
>
> If the fan boys like you would just acknowledge what GM admitted to,
> instead of trying to defend the indefensible, there'd be no flame war
> at all.
>
> As for "#1 selling vehicle" - If Chevy is so hot, why does GM want
> billions of public tax money to fund their private company? Oh wait, I
> know: "we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume".
>
>
>
>
Never mind 80 Kn-nig-gets. His mother was a hampster and his father reeked
of elderberies. Tell him to go away or I will taunt him a second time.
Sir Charles the Curmudgeon
C. E. White
> Mcdonald's are just the cheapest.
Really?
I go to McDonalds becasue they are the closest and usually have
tolerable service. I don't see a lot of cost difference between
McDonalds and Burger King. I actually prefer Burger King, except there
are not as many close to me. If I am going to go "cheap," I don't feel
like riding an extra mile to get something from Burger King. There is
not enough differencce in the hamburger experience provided by Burger
King vs McDonalds to justify and extra mile of travel.
> I don't mind them for that reason. They are adequate. I love my
> Camry....but if I had my druthers I'd go Lexus!!!
Which Lexus? If you say an ES350, well, I'll think you are nuts.
Ed
Sharx35
"C. E. White" <cewh...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4948f104$1@kcnews01...
Well, there ARE some good Lexuses. UP here in Canada, Burger King is
significantly MORE expensive than McD's.
Tim
Maybe you worry too much.
Tim
80 Knight
news:hu9hk4dpsitv1vs60...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:50:19 -0500, "80 Knight" <8...@knight.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> We're at "the end". The long term strategy is won. Notice though that
>>> the GM fan boys here are still as pig headed as GM is: blaming the
>>> customer for not buying what they build and claiming "more of the
>>> same" is the best strategy of the future. Some people are just too
>>> foolish to look and see the light, even when it's about to blind them.
>>
>>You are the fanyboy. You cross-posted this thread, just to start up a
>>flame
>>war between Domestic and Foreign fans. I'm sure your buddies in the
>>Toyota
>>newsgroup are just loving you for starting that. As for GM people blaming
>>the consumer for not buying there vehicles, I feel the need to remind you
>>that the #2 selling vehicle in the US is a Chevy, right behind a Ford.
>>Now,
>>if you are done with your flame war, it would be nice if you left.
>
> Nope, I posted this thread to highlight GM's admittance that they
> screwed up.
Bullshit. You posted it to start a flame war. What do you think would
happen if I posted a Toyota bashing article in the Toyota group? It would
start a flame war. Just like you did.
> Some people seemed to be arguing otherwise - particularly
> the guy who started a cross posted thread indicating that GM's
> problems were the fault of them thar forin car buyers. That's
> incorrect,
So, you are saying that if there were no Foreign cars being sold in the US,
GM wouldn't be low on cash?
> and GM has admitted it in the most public way they could:
> with a full page advertisement in the leading industry publication.
GM has done nothing of the sort. GM realizes that most American's are
stupid, and don't support there own industries, so they are saying
everything they can to get the government to help them out. Tell me, why is
it the big banks were able to get 700 billion in a matter of days, meanwhile
GM can't get 35 billion in months? Do you honestly think American's like
the banks better?
> If the fan boys like you would just acknowledge what GM admitted to,
> instead of trying to defend the indefensible, there'd be no flame war
> at all.
I will acknowledge when GM fucks up. I've never seen a Toyota fanboy admit
there Toyota has a problem, even when it's in the fucking shop.
> As for "#1 selling vehicle" - If Chevy is so hot, why does GM want
> billions of public tax money to fund their private company? Oh wait, I
> know: "we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume".
If people don't like Chevy's, why is it the #2 selling vehicle?
Hachiroku ハチロク
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:50:19 -0500, "80 Knight" <8...@knight.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> We're at "the end". The long term strategy is won. Notice though that
>>> the GM fan boys here are still as pig headed as GM is: blaming the
>>> customer for not buying what they build and claiming "more of the
>>> same" is the best strategy of the future. Some people are just too
>>> foolish to look and see the light, even when it's about to blind them.
>>
>>You are the fanyboy. You cross-posted this thread, just to start up a flame
>>war between Domestic and Foreign fans. I'm sure your buddies in the Toyota
>>newsgroup are just loving you for starting that. As for GM people blaming
>>the consumer for not buying there vehicles, I feel the need to remind you
>>that the #2 selling vehicle in the US is a Chevy, right behind a Ford. Now,
>>if you are done with your flame war, it would be nice if you left.
>
> Nope, I posted this thread to highlight GM's admittance that they
> screwed up. Some people seemed to be arguing otherwise - particularly
> the guy who started a cross posted thread indicating that GM's
> problems were the fault of them thar forin car buyers. That's
> incorrect, and GM has admitted it in the most public way they could:
> with a full page advertisement in the leading industry publication.
>
> If the fan boys like you would just acknowledge what GM admitted to,
> instead of trying to defend the indefensible, there'd be no flame war
> at all.
>
> As for "#1 selling vehicle" - If Chevy is so hot, why does GM want
> billions of public tax money to fund their private company? Oh wait, I
> know: "we lose money on every sale, but we make it up in volume".
Actually, they were making the money on GMAC and Ditech. Then those fell
on their faces, and GM was left holding the bag.
Really, when it comes down to it, they aren't looking to bailout the
car-making part, but the financial businesses that went flat.
I'm not sure, but I'd guess that since GM isn't a bank, they can't get in
on the banking industry bailout.
Mike Hunter
requesting. He in not about to allow one of our last reaming defense
industries to go out of business in the midst of our war with the radical
Islamic terrorist that he has been fighting for the past seven years.
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.12.17....@e86.GTS...
Mike Hunter
sell more cars and trucks than any other manufacturer in the US. What they
'want' are loans, not public tax money and GM is not a private company like
Chrysler, it is a publicly owned stock company. You might want to do a bit
more research befor you comment on a subject of which you obviously have
little or no knowledge
"me" <noe...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hu9hk4dpsitv1vs60...@4ax.com...
> As for "#1 selling vehicle" - If Chevy is so hot, why does GM want
PerfectReign
>> The quality issue does work against GM.
>>
>> Even I was relatively cautious about buying a Saturn back in '05. In
>> fact, I only bought it because it has a Honda (3.5L v6) engine that I
>> know is reliable in the Pilot/Odessy/MDX combination.
>>
>> Oddly enough, I had just the opposite concerns when buying a truck in
>> '06. I had looked at Toyota trucks but eventually discounted them because
>> I wasn't sure about the reliability compared to the GM and/or Ford
>> trucks. I knew the engines and transmissions (and where the weak points
>> may be) in Ford and GM and didn't know much about the Toyota V8. In fact,
>> I was leery of it.
>>
>
> Maybe you worry too much.
Well, it makes me wonder. I just saw a new Seqoia on the way to work this
morning. It looked - similar to the new suburbans - like a bloated minivan.
Also, it had a label on the back saying it had a 5.7L engine.
Fuck, that's a 40-year-old GM engine!