Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
8452 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 11:27 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 08, 2009 5:14 pm) so 33% unemployment would be your target for our economy if you were in Obama's position? That would leave crappy people out on the street? In what category? sales? price? warranty? Specifics were asked for, otherwise you are doing exactly what I accused this site of constantly doing.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 09, 2009 12:39 pm) 2nd worst job loss year since 1945. Where's the problem with the D3 market share going over to Japan? |
|
|
Replying to: 62vetteefp (Jan 09, 2009 1:08 pm) No I've been watching the national news organizations coverage of the D3 and UAW going to Congress begging for money, because no one else would give them a loan. No one would buy any of their stock or corporate bonds if they issued it. Most corporations raise cash by offering stock and bonds. They do not go to Congress and get grilled for 2 days. Now that they have the loan they are paying their bills. Well isn't that great; we all thought they'd take the money and buy a few new jets. They do seem to have a lot of award winning vehicles coming out. They've had award winning vehicles before. So has Chrysler. These companies have and continue to lose $. That is what matters.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jan 09, 2009 10:50 am) |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 09, 2009 3:28 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jan 09, 2009 5:50 pm) Fully expected this. They won't give anything unless GM is two breaths from death. They're hoping Obama will be more lenient. Let's hope GM manages to pull itself through. In 4 years GM will probably have 5-10% less market share and half as many UAW workers. The few that are left will cling to those benefits like flies on poop.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jan 09, 2009 5:54 pm) Why don't we reverse that and ask which of the models listed by bpizzuti are NOT crappy. If we define crappy as in the bottom third against competitors, let's just take a few of the listed models (the specifics): Cobalt - unrefined, poor interior quality, poor reliability vs. Civic, Corolla, Elantra, Mazda 3, Focus. G3 - see Cobalt Aveo - unrefined, poor interior quality, poor reliability, poor handling vs. Fit, Versa, Yaris G6 - unrefined, poor interior qualilty, poor reliability vs. Camry, Accord, Optima, Sonata, Fusion, Malibu Aura - see G6 except somewhat better interior |
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jan 09, 2009 6:05 pm) so 33% unemployment would be your target for our economy if you were in Obama's position? That would leave crappy people out on the street? Apples to oranges. How is that relevant? Crappy people have lower-paying jobs, in general (or they are unemployed). Not at all relevant to an AUTOMOBILE discussion. In what category? sales? price? warranty? Specifics were asked for, otherwise you are doing exactly what I accused this site of constantly doing. Feel free to offer a different or better suggestion to define "crappy", rather than using the bottom third. You wanted specifics, so the first order of business was defining the word "crappy". If there are nine models in a segment and a car is in the bottom three then crappy sounds like a good term. You can read the reviews. The previous post listed some details for many of the models. Take the G6 from the supposedly sport division of GM. I rented one. It doesn't handle as well as an Accord, it is listed as having much worse than average reliability by Consumer Reports, its interior is an ugly sea of plastic. It will get you from point A to B but most vehicles in its class are better. Another way to look at "crappy" is the resale value. That is an aggregate voting of all used car buyers on the value of a model to the public. Most of GMs vehicles have poor resale. That's the result of an aggregate perception of the brand, the vehicle, the performance, the desirability, the refinement, the reliability. Crappy vehicles have lousy resale value, and excellent vehicles have high residuals. It should be obvious. It's wonderful that there are people who will buy the lousier vehicles, as competition is good for the marketplace. 
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jan 09, 2009 6:50 pm) Chevy Caprice was a car of the year! |
|
|
Replying to: dino001 (Jan 09, 2009 8:34 pm) That's why I suggested an *upgraded* BLS! If you look at the sum of U.S. sales of A4 + 3-series + 1-series + MB C-class + TSX + loaded Jettas you have quite a number of upscale small cars. PROFITABLE small cars. Where were the GM strategists? Supposedly the D3 can't profitably make a small car - - well the cars above sell for $25K-$40K. So GM could have been known as the American car company that sells *premium* small cars! Instead we got the Cobalt and Saturn Ion! And here comes the Volt! Yet an analog to the cars above would take no new technologies other than GM's ability to make a very high quality, refined, and excellent-handling small car. And they've done the handling with the CTS, so they CAN do it. They just have not. Another example of why I say Wagoner has no strategic vision.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
