Ask the Car People.SM


GM News, New Models and Market Share - READ ONLY

32000 messages,  Last post on Feb 14, 2013 at 7:24 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum.

What is this discussion about? Automotive News

Messages Page 2411 of 3201

#24095 of 32000 Re: I'm sure this is a scientific study! [busiris] by ateixeira

Apr 27, 2012 (12:03 pm)

Replying to: busiris (Apr 27, 2012 11:57 am)
You'd like the movie Whip It, if you haven't already seen it.

#24096 of 32000 "Building a Better Way..." commercial by uplanderguy

Apr 27, 2012 (1:13 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 27, 2012 12:03 pm)
...for the '72 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupe:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu-TnCo4yQ8&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list- =PLA4734D824965EEBB
 
I always liked Chevy's commercials touting American vacation spots with a clean-cut, good-looking all-American family on board!
 
I remember when I first saw a '72 Chevelle. The only appearance difference was the grille and front parking lights (and some colors)--and the grille was not an improvement IMHO over the '71. I couldn't recall when a Chevelle was less-changed from the prior model year. I believe this was due to the lengthy GM strike in the '71 model year which pushed the all-new Chevelle back a year, to '73.
 
My Dad loved the '71 and '72 Chevelle Sport Coupes, but we never bought one.

#24097 of 32000 Re: "Building a Better Way..." commercial [uplanderguy] by andre1969

Apr 27, 2012 (1:18 pm)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Apr 27, 2012 1:13 pm)
My Dad loved the '71 and '72 Chevelle Sport Coupes, but we never bought one.
 
My great-aunt and great-uncle had a '71 or '72 Chevelle, but I don't remember much about it, except that it was blue. I don't even remember if it was a coupe or sedan. It got passed down to one of my relatives around 1979 or so, and I think it finally succumbed to rust a couple years later.
 
They also had a '74 Impala, which I'm also having trouble picturing, but I think it was the Custom Coupe with the B-pillar and stationary rear window, that you paid extra for that year, compared to the hardtop. It was white with a black roof, and had a 400. They used to pull a trailer with it, but then got a 1980 Chevy 3/4 ton pickup to handle that task. By 1984 the Impala was pretty rusty, but the engine still ran well. They gave it to one of our neighbors, and he pulled the engine out of it, rebuilt it and hopped it up, and put it in a race car.
 
I'd always heard that the 400 smallblock wasn't all that great because the cylinders were siamesed (no water jacket between them). But then, I've heard conflicting info, that they're actually good for building up BECAUSE of that fact...maybe no water jacket between the cylinders means that the block is stronger? So, as long as you can find a way to keep it adequately cooled, it works out okay?

#24098 of 32000 Press request by KarenS HOST

Apr 27, 2012 (1:49 pm)

Do you think the government ownership stake in GM bothers you? If you think government ownership harms GM’s image, and would like to share your story with a reporter, e-mail PRedmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, April 27, 2012 at 5 p.m. Pacific/8 p.m. Eastern to be interviewed.

#24099 of 32000 Re: I'm sure this is a scientific study! [uplanderguy] by tlong

Apr 27, 2012 (3:46 pm)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Apr 27, 2012 4:22 am)
Do you honestly believe that people who choose luxury automobiles would care about what world leaders drive--especially, knowing some of those world leaders? I know that I laugh about people who are very concerned about image, but that has to be one of the most far-fetched examples I've heard recently.
 
You are absolutely correct.
 
However, regardless of what world leaders buy vs. us, if you were a world leader, probably you'd want the best. And given their choices, they're not choosing Caddy. Hence, the often stated message that Caddy is the new world standard is known to be hollow.
 
Wouldn't you expect an effective marketing strategy to be not using a slogan that many/most recognize as hollow and not true? IMHO this slogan does Caddy more harm than good. GM should be making changes.

#24100 of 32000 Re: I'm sure this is a scientific study! [tlong] by uplanderguy

Apr 27, 2012 (3:56 pm)

Replying to: tlong (Apr 27, 2012 3:46 pm)
I'm amazed at how much energy is spent disliking Caddy's longtime advertising slogan. If you didn't think Chevrolet 'built a better way to see the U.S.A.', would you have expected them to stop using that slogan?
 
Unless it's funny, or nostalgic to me, I find most car commercials to be annoying regardless of brand. Ford's smug/thinks he's funny guy playing down to Gen Y'ers is the most annoying of all to me right now.

#24101 of 32000 Re: Press request [KarenS] by dave8697

Apr 27, 2012 (4:06 pm)

Replying to: KarenS (Apr 27, 2012 1:49 pm)
Now that we borrow over $4 Billion a day to keep this country afloat, The gov stake in GM is a few days worth of borrowed money. Some would argue almost a week's worth.
 
We will be borrowing $5B a day soon. I doubt we will ever get back to $3B a day.
 
The good news is that we import only $1B a day worth of oil, mostly from other N.A. countries. This quantity is dwarfed by the amount we borrow daily.
 
To put in perspective, as I spend $400 a month for gas, what if I was borrowing that entire $400, plus borrowing another $1200 a month for other stuff that was less important that the gas that gets me to work? Would I then, after behaving like this for 3 years, be able to belittle someone who borrowed a one time sum of $400? A week's worth of my borrowing rate?
 
A week's worth of our US borrowing is over $28 Billion. I think that exceeds what GM is 'into us' for. And by 'into us', I mean on paper only. We borrowed the money that GM got loaned, and got a 1% interest rate on it.
 
I'd hate to be the guy who had to justify each of the $28B lots that make up our $15.6T debt to the extent that GM's $28B loan has to be justified. That would be 557 justification reports, with a new one due every 6 days.
 
Just stack the reports over there next to the 2600 page health care law I also still need to read.

#24102 of 32000 Re: I'm sure this is a scientific study! [uplanderguy] by busiris

Apr 27, 2012 (6:04 pm)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Apr 27, 2012 3:56 pm)
Unless it's funny, or nostalgic to me, I find most car commercials to be annoying regardless of brand. Ford's smug/thinks he's funny guy playing down to Gen Y'ers is the most annoying of all to me right now.
 
Yes... The Ford commercial I laugh at is the one where they take "3 young cheerleaders" out of their "imports" and put them into a Mustang convertible... top down and all... which, amazingly, they like better.
 
Who knew???

#24103 of 32000 Re: I'm sure this is a scientific study! [tlong] by circlew

Apr 27, 2012 (6:18 pm)

Replying to: tlong (Apr 27, 2012 3:46 pm)
Excellent post and exactly the point. Why state what is obviously false in your adds?
 
That's the Old GM peeking out!
 
Regards,
OW

#24104 of 32000 Re: Press request [dave8697] by circlew

Apr 27, 2012 (6:31 pm)

Replying to: dave8697 (Apr 27, 2012 4:06 pm)
I'd hate to be the guy on the B.O.D. who put out this statement which is basically why GM is likely to ask for more support down the road. Some things never change.
 
The dunce cap
 
This is a rare case where it seems the company's board of directors worked together to place the dunce cap on the hapless CEO's head.
 
Based on paperwork filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday, Dan Akerson took home $7.7 million in compensation in 2011. This pay package, which was strongly tied to GM's stock performance, tripled Mr. Akerson's pay from the previous year. However, compared to peers Alan Mulally at Ford (NYSE: F ) , who took home $29.5 million in compensation last year, and Chrysler-Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne, who earned $22 million, Mr. Akerson's pay package was in the bottom 25% of the industry.
 
Now here's where things really got interesting. GM's board, in response to yesterday's filing with the SEC, released the following statement concerning executive compensation:
 
    Appropriately recognizing and rewarding these key contributors and competing with other large, multinational employers to attract and retain fresh talent with critical skill sets is extremely difficult. We are not able to deliver compensation for critical personnel in a manner that will continue to focus and drive their efforts in alignment with GM's internal business plan for sustained long-term growth.
 
Hang on while I go get my violin. Considering that GM's top 20 executives took home between $1.3 million and $8.3 million in total compensation in 2011, I'd be more than happy to relieve them of their duties if making that kind of money leaves them unmotivated enough that lose focus or drive for their duties. Seriously, GM board? You actually thought releasing this statement was prudent?
 
Regards,
OW

Messages Page 2411 of 3201

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement