This is an amazing turn around: http://www.freep.com/article/201010...-General-Motors-makes-strides-in-reliability- Then you learn how they did it: Bob Wilson
It is not clear who you are quoting, but if 'more reliable' = 'so new no reliability information can be gathered' then some of this new found reliability will wear off as owners drive them. But hey, dropping those models who's owners have years of experience hating them, does work!
GM had been know to have "quality" products, if you take "quality" as less complaints for new cars. Coupla years ago they were right up there with Toyota and Honda. I actually find the GM cars' fit and finish tend to look and feel more solid than imports. Their problem is engineering, or the lack thereof, of reliable and fuel efficient engines.
I have no problem with GM dropping the poor quality cars from production; in fact, it makes fine sense to me. My problem is looking at the empty part of the cup: 20% of models are below average reliability. Put another way assuming even distribution of sales, from the get go, 20% of owners of new GM cars are going to get an unwelcome call from their friendly mechanics. Now sure, half of models overall have to be below average, but I personally do not want to own them. So the people who look for the best models will not find GM, and those who buy by corporate identity are still drinking kool-aid. And the taxpayer *continues* to foot the bill.
Sorry about the link to the source, The Detroit Free Press: Consumer Reports: General Motors makes strides in reliability | freep.com | Detroit Free Press I agree that dropping the poor quality cars makes sense until one asks 'how did they get so poor?' For example, Saturn was to be a 'new way of making cars' with a big plant up in Tennessee. I understand some organizations have to be terminated and dissolved but I also realize their goals and objectives were set by the same managers and board of directors that drove them into the ditch in the first place. I'm a great believer in having some part of management 'incentives' tied to long-term performance. This allows clawing back when they make a short-term, apparent profit decision only to steal from the future. Heck, I would not mind if all stocks had a minimum ownership requirement of 1 year. This would eliminate a lot of the speculative nonsense that promotes short term versus long term, for the future planning. Bob Wilson
Saturn USED to make good cars until GM took them completely over. Just like Geo used to. I had a Geo Metro, up until my Prius best damn car I ever owned. When it died I knew I wanted another one. I went and test-drove a GM Metro, and had never been in such a godawful POS. So I got a Toyota Echo and never looked back.
