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
8059 messages, Last post on Nov 09, 2009 at 1:39 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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.
|
|
|
GM lost its way a long time ago. Could have done the minivan before Chrysler. '82 camaro....looks great, wheres the 350? No....305 thats it. Eventually the 350 was made available (auto only) but the damage was done, and Ford sold a ton of 302 Mustangs. Buicks GN and other turbo V6 models (86-87)......."hey you cant make something faster than the Vette"....killed those cars, and the Monte Carlo sold very well but if you wanted a V8.......the 305. Pontaic Aztec.......do I need to say anything? They seem to make decent trucks, and we all know they make big profits from them. Thankfully they called the new small trucks Colorado and Canyon, look like Nissans to me. Who was in charge of designing these? Why only four guages in a truck? Most people would use it as a car I know, but this is supposed to be a truck. GM cars either look bland or from another planet. And why is onstar standard on all GM vehicles? I know alot of people would be out of work if they went bankrupt, I think the loan is only putting GM on life support.....and the pulse is fading......
|
|
|
Sure Dave, here's my list: Chevy HHR: horrible materials (compared to even PT Cruiser), terrible handler Cobalt: total crap compared to the likes of Civic and Mazda3 inside out. Aveo: Hopelessly cramped inside compared to Fit or even Yaris (which is tiny already) Impala: have you checked out the interior? 100% rental grade Equinox: Poor quality and refinement Colorado: hasnt been updated since the ice age Trailblazer (and all the clones): need I say more? SSR: what's the point? Uplander: is it dead yet? Pontiac Solstice: trashy engine and tranny, poor performance G3: same as Aveo G6: slow, heavy on fuel, doesn't feel solid G5: Cobalt ripoff = the same crap Vibe: Matrix twin minus the build quality and interior for the same price Aztek: behold, king of ugly and pointless Saturn Sky: just another Solstice ripoff Aura: totally unrefined compared to Malibu Astra: not bad but waayyy overpriced Hummer H2: horrible interior quality for the price H3: terrible engine Buick: Lucerne: Fit-finish, nuff' said. Cadillac: XLR: horrific fit-finish and quality for the price SRX: interior made of tupperware STS: terrible interior and space for it's size, class and price Escalade: good by regular standard, crap by luxo standard. The only reason it's "perceived as good": the hype, superficial "bling" (thanks to the celebs) Those are the ones I find below par, others are so-so at best. If you ask LaCrosse, I say: just ok, not bad but nothing good either. Escalade you say? Compare it with Audi Q7, Range Rover, Lexus LX or MB GL550, and you'll see why. Satisfied?
|
|
|
"So that Camaro built in Canada does support a couple thousand jobs there but also supports many thousands more here in the states. Same with all the vehicles built in NA." Even if a car is built in Canada it also supports thousands of jobs in the US, yes that's true but what about this one question noone seem to ask so far: instead of supporting thousands in US and thousands in Canada, why not build the whole thing in US to support even more jobs????? Sure financially its the best decision, but is this the kind of company you'd call patriotic, the kind of company you want to support? Yeah right. If GM wants us to be patriotic and buy US made, GM needs to at the very least be patriotic as well and make it 100% US made, no excuse and propagandas. For anyone who say: that's impossible, welcome to the real world, bud, where patriotism is meaningless in face of reality. "But we should have no problem if the buyer takes his US given rights and buys cars that were made in the US. " Well, I have the superior right given by US and most importantly god himself, it's called "Freedom of Choice" which allows me to buy whatever I wish. |
|
|
Replying to: tlong (Jan 09, 2009 3:28 pm) Regards, OW |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
