Editorial: What's bad about GM? The Cars

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Jan 3 2007, 01:08 AM) [snapback]369927[/snapback]</div>

It is speed-sensitive steering, and has much more to do with the driver being used to it than anything else. amazing a writer would go to such lengths to try and destroy a company based on one rental car. I ahve driven some Toyota Camry's that were just awful. I know that rental cars do not usually represent the cars sold retail.

 

The Job Bank sucks; the UAW killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

They say: it's not our fault that the company is not doing well, it's the fault of the 'white collar' folks...so why should our guys have to sacrifice?

Answer: 'cause y'all are part of the same organization. That's why it's good to work as a team, instead of perpetuating an 'us vs. them' menality within the same outfit.

I think that the hubris of this argument is beyond belief.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Dec 31 2006, 10:32 PM) [snapback]369154[/snapback]</div>

Don't tell me you guys didn't know about the jobs bank. No way. It's one of those little bitty things that was added in to the last contract that was only supposed to be used sparingly and was promptly exploited way beyond its intentions. Not too dissimilar to how legislation is abused in ways that it wasn't meant to be taken. Yes, they get paid not to work. Actually, the cars are a symptom of the real problem, not the problem itself. GM is a huge corporation that has been uninspired for generations. The labor contracts, for decades, have been signed by executives who are worried about losing market share so they meekly go along with the UAW's wishes without regard for the long term costs. Market share affects said executives' bonuses so they have a lot of incentive to sign those ridiculous contracts. Unfortunately, they lose market share anyway because no one in the company cares about anything but themselves and sees the consumer as something akin to cattle. GM and the UAW don't build quality because they don't care, they're apathetic and have no way to feel driven to excellence beyond paying lip service to the concept.

Also unfortunately, GM (as well as Ford and Chrysler) can't afford business as usual any longer. Back in the seventies, and I've heard this myself, when the UAW's latest contract was signed and GM announced that the next model year would see price increases of $300 per car the GM folks would say matter-of-factly 'the customer is just going to have to get used to paying $300 more'. Back then, they had no real competion so they could afford to blow off the customer. They can't do that now and the proverbial perfect storm is brewing to make life for the American auto company people very unhappy. Having been a GM customer for decades and having bought a lot of GM cars during that time, I've witnessed first hand the indifference GM has for its customers. GM is now witnessing first hand the indifference of the customer who has left them for good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 31 2006, 02:19 PM) [snapback]369000[/snapback]</div>

Q? What is wrong with GM?
A: Unions

Solution: Buy non-unionized products like Toyota's.

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10824

Does anyone miss Oldsmobile? Not what Oldsmobile was in its heyday -- but what it had become by the mid-late 1990s just before GM pulled the plug?

Probably not.

Same goes for Plymouth.

Like Olds, it had a great history. Once upon a time, Plymouth had been a great brand defined by an exciting lineup of standout cars. But Plymouth faded into badge-engineered irrelevance -- re-selling the same basic cars sold under the Chrysler and Dodge nameplates. Just like Olds. And just as irrelevant.

The same could be said today for Ford's Mercury division -- to say nothing of several of GM's divisions, whose continued existence makes ever less sense for an automaker whose share of the pie has dwindled from a high approaching nearly 60 percent of all vehicles sold in North America circa 1979 to around 24 percent today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 4 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]370717[/snapback]</div>

Each and every time a US automakers car division or support company dies, disappears, or dismembers itself is a good thing. This will force unions to either give in or give up. The sooner the better.

Like the minimum wage - something that might have been useful in the past and is nothing but a hinderance today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jan 4 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]370717[/snapback]</div>

Yea,

Why do they need Oldsmobile around, when they can just turn Saturn into the New-Oldsmobile. Which is probably why I wont buy another Saturn. Saturn used to be unique vehicles, now its just another marketing channel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(donee @ Jan 4 2007, 12:25 PM) [snapback]370741[/snapback]</div>

Excellent - keep buying non-union! Hopefully GM will shut down Saturn too - boy did they completely ruin what was once a shining star in their lineup.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 4 2007, 12:30 PM) [snapback]370746[/snapback]</div>

And to think, that in Greek mythology, Saturn was the one who ate his children.

Too bad that didn't happen in this case!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 4 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]370789[/snapback]</div>

ewww, thanks for the imagery bleech

 

Try to imagine this - you are President of the United States and invite GM, Ford, DCX. Once there are there, you take them to task with such stuff like Bob Lutz' while GM is doing all they can and could not afford even a modest increase in fuel economy standards. With all the compassion of basketball coaching great Bob Knight, you ask them why they did not drive in what they are selling everybody - a Dodge Ram, Excursion, H2.

Afterwards, you hold a press conference and give a brief recent history of Detroit then ask aloud why they refuse to reinvent themselves

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Delta Flyer @ Jan 4 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]370855[/snapback]</div>

...then, afther that, you meet up again with those same auto industry folks, grab the heads of the major oil companies, and go to lunch to discuss how "conservation is not a sound energy policy".

...finally, to add insult to injury, you deduct the cost of the meal as a business expense!

 

Good idea.

I figure chances would be good of getting assassinated, or at least getting the oil companies wishing for Jimmy Carter.