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
8478 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 6:24 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Apr 25, 2009 7:26 pm) Comment 1: I never understood why Chrysler is given the credit since the original VW van seems pretty similar. Fairly small, right side sliding door, three rows of seats. VW was much cruder but also much earlier (1950's-1970's). Comment 2: GM could be forgiven for not getting the minivan right. But they also didn't get the midsized sedans right, they also didn't get the small cars right, they also never saw the potential of premium small cars. Speaking personally, I don't enjoy big vehicles, but I do enjoy good handling and good interiors. So in 1985 when I looked for a decent handling small sedan I bought a VW jetta. My best American competition was the Tempo/Topaz. When I wanted an even more upscale small sedan in 1998, I looked at the BMW 3 series, the Passat, Audi A4. I even considered the Caddy Catera but it was a far cry from the others. I ended up with the Audi. I had NO American cars that could even compete! Lots of profits made by BMW, Audi, Acura, Lexus, and even VW on small premium sedans. Where are the US manufacturers in this market?
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Apr 25, 2009 7:26 pm) On the other hand, GM makes a mistake like the Cobalt or Aveo, and instead of learning from it, they rebadge it as a G3 or G5! And just when it seems like they're learning something and make the Cobalt SS, guess which version DOESN'T get rebadged as a "sporty" Pontiac? And no one at GM gets fired over debacles like this until the US President steps in, which says that that sort of culture of rotten work is at the very least acceptable there.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Apr 25, 2009 6:01 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Apr 25, 2009 7:26 pm) You seem to like to invent arguments that have no basis on what actually occurred in the car industry over the last 3 decades |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: bpizzuti (Apr 26, 2009 3:40 am) But he got fired for in-fighting. He wanted to prove he was cooler than the guy at Audi when they should be on the same team. GM makes a mistake like the Cobalt or Aveo, and instead of learning from it, they rebadge it as a G3 or G5! And just when it seems like they're learning something and make the Cobalt SS, guess which version DOESN'T get rebadged as a "sporty" Pontiac? I am not defending re-badge model decisions. I think this is what hurt them all along, not every brand needs to have a vehicle in every segment. I would never, ever buy an SUV from Saab, and the fact that they tried to market one makes me not consider a 9-3. Buick doesn't need an SUV. Nor does Pontiac. SUVs are not luxurious nor sporty. I think this is where Ford is way ahead. Lincoln has a clear charter, so does Ford, and for the time being so does Volvo. Toyota, Lexus and Scion all have clear charters, as do Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura. It was a cultural thing at GM, the brands used to fight with each other, Chevy had a Monte Carlo SS, Buick and a Regal T-Type and Grand National, Olds had the 442 and Hurst editions. It started even before that. You don't need 5 performance brands, you need a mainstream, luxury, and maybe something else. What I was defending was the innovation and willingness to try something new. What I am not defending was half-a**ing the attempt, or not fully proving it out before giving it to customers. When you have that many brands, each brand doesn't need something in every market, that is just dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steevo (Apr 26, 2009 5:47 am) How is that a failure? They tried something new. They developed a platform and it brought the Buick Rendezvous. The Aztec was ugly, the marketing groups missed. It wasn't scheduled to be a high volume seller either. The Buick was much more main stream and sold much more as a result. Neither had any real functional issues, both were basically well proven. I don't get what your beef is or why someone needs to get canned for trying something new. They tried, it was ugly, they went mainstream and it worked fine. You seem to like to invent arguments that have no basis on what actually occurred in the car industry over the last 3 decades How do you figure? Someone said this car is terrible or that car is terrible yada yada, and then I mentioned what made a particular car innovative or interesting. Then I mentioned that other companies copied the concept, improved it, and its now the norm. There is a risk to being first and trying to innovate new ideas. |
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Apr 26, 2009 6:04 am) The ads are trying imply that have all their crap together. But, GM its too late, your problems are already uncovered. Even with your value and investment protection on new cars is attractive, but that would be 1 of the few things to be confident in the brand. It almost angers me to see the ads. Its okay, just admit and swallow your pride. I think you could get a better response than pretending that everything is okay. People might feel a little more for ya. GM its too late for the ads.
|
|
|
Replying to: fintail (Apr 25, 2009 6:01 pm) I thought the Allante was the best looking Cadillac since the 1950s. Nothing since is close. The current run of Cadillacs had to be designed at Disney or Looneytunes. I guess it appeals to kids that were raised on Transformers. Nothing else can explain it to my satisfaction. I guarantee Elvis would not be caught dead in a modern Cadiallac. 
|
|
|
Replying to: bvdj84 (Apr 26, 2009 6:16 am) If the Govt put a 5000 dollar tariff on foreign cars back then, GM and FORD would have used the opportunity to raise their own prices by 6000 dollars to maximize profits, rather than using the opportunity to take over the market. Its the same old story. They would rather come up with markting gimmicks like "Buy American" while they continue to close plants and move their manufacturing to Mexico and Canada.. all the while NIssan, Toyota, and Honda building plants right here in the good old US of A creating jobs and building communties. We may as well entice them to move their corporate headquartes to the USA and just call them US Car companies and just finish the job. Hell, Nissan is practically a US company now as it is with design and engineering and marketing all taking place in California, Texas, Michigan, and even Denver I think... Nissan is more a US Car company than Chrysler.
|
|
|
Replying to: steevo (Apr 26, 2009 5:47 am) The FJ was a very poor implementation of the original. I know as I bought a new Land Cruiser in 1964. I was totally turned off by the FJ, from every aspect except the name. I think it was a disappointment for Toyota as well. They could not have possibly made money on their retro like Chrysler did with the PT Cruiser. The Aztek is ugly beyond belief. The FJ is right behind it. |
|
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
