Is GM finished?

[Roadtoad]

So, Mr. Chu is planning on renting?

 

[Just thinking]

Unfortunately, the incoming Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, seems to know nothing of economics. He seems to think that the gas tax should be raised until the price is $9.00/gallon.

Wow ... that'll get the economy bustling, not to mention a top notch infrastructure. Too bad no one will be able to afford to drive anything on them.

 

[Toke]

$9/gallon is 13,50 kr/liter
Last I checked, the price in Denmark was down to 8,50kr/liter from right over 10.

With your greater distances and fuelhogging cars that would be a problem for many.
Maybe he will stop at $6-7/gallon

 

[Roadtoad]

Or maybe he'll find his political career in shards, and his @$$ run out on a rail.

This is why I hate Washington. These SOBs don't live in the real world, and it shows.

 

[balrog666]

Wow ... that'll get the economy bustling, not to mention a top notch infrastructure. Too bad no one will be able to afford to drive anything on them.

And 99% of consumer goods are shipped via trucks so the cost of literally everything would go through the roof.

 

[Prometheus]

If the tax were applied gradually, and only to gasoline--NOT diesel--I think it might actually be a good plan. Exempting diesel would both prevent a lot of the follow-on economic effects, and spur people to demand (and purchase) diesel passenger cars which would pump up the economy, as people would replace their old cars at a faster than normal rate.

 

[Just thinking]

If the tax were applied gradually, and only to gasoline--NOT diesel--I think it might actually be a good plan. Exempting diesel would both prevent a lot of the follow-on economic effects, and spur people to demand (and purchase) diesel passenger cars which would pump up the economy, as people would replace their old cars at a faster than normal rate.

Unfortunately you don't think like a politician --- and that's a compliment. Unfortunate in that you don't see what comes of such planning. Once a segment of the government becomes dependent on a tax, they'll do everything and anything to keep it healthy ... and growing. If, like you said, folks went over to diesel, just where do you think the government will go to get their hands on all that money that is evaporating? That's right ... a tax on diesel fuel. Now you're back to square one.

 

[WildCat]

This is why I hate Washington. These SOBs don't live in the real world, and it shows.

Chu apparently doesn't realize that public transportation in 95% of the country is either inadequate, non-existent, or completely impractical.

Sounds like a good way to take the recession into a real depression!

 

[balrog666]

Chu apparently doesn't realize that public transportation in 95% of the country is either inadequate, non-existent, or completely impractical.

Sounds like a good way to take the recession into a real depression!

Exactly. Obamamamama's figure was only $4-5/gallon - but he was saying that before gas hit $4/gallon.

May you live in interesting times.

 

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately you don't think like a politician --- and that's a compliment. Unfortunate in that you don't see what comes of such planning. Once a segment of the government becomes dependent on a tax, they'll do everything and anything to keep it healthy ... and growing. If, like you said, folks went over to diesel, just where do you think the government will go to get their hands on all that money that is evaporating? That's right ... a tax on diesel fuel. Now you're back to square one.

Of course. Ideally, the diesel tax should be phased in gradually, beginning around the time battery electric or whatever new technology will replace diesel is ready to come to market. Seems to me that a sensible tax policy is a pretty good way to motivate change. So all we need is a bunch of sensible politicians to...oh, never mind.

 

[Disbelief]

GM's biggest problem is that the word most closely associated with "GM" and their dealers is "liar." It's like an adulterous spouse. Once the trust is gone, it's just gone and it's never coming back.

In 1950 (yes, 1950) my Dad ordered a new 1950 Chevrolet 4dr Sedan, black. The dealership called my dad and said his car had arrived. It was a pea green 2dr sedan. My dad said he ordered a black 4dr and wouldn't accept the green car. The dealer's sales manager pointed out the "fine print" of the contract that said "reasonable substitution due to availability" was permitted the dealer. My dad said, it's not a 4dr. They said, it's a Chevrolet. Take it or lose your 10% deposit. He lost his 10% deposit and bought a used 1947 Ford. The next week, he saw the sales manager sitting beside him at a traffic light in his brand new 1950 Chevrolet 4 dr Sedan, black.

My dad never, ever, EVER has stepped foot in a GM dealership since. Neither have I, neither has my sister. Neither do my children. The same thing has happened all over the US. They killed their own business with their monumental arrogance. Good riddance.

Gee, I am shocked by more misinformation in this thread since people never seem to let the facts get in their way. First, you would let something that happened to your dad in 1950 (when GM had 50+% of the market) affect what you do today? You should get out more. Second, as stated many times already, manufacturers only have limited recourse with dealers because of franchising laws. Just blaming GM, or any manufacturer, because of one dealer is also silly. Finally, every single GM brand ranks above the industry average for sales experience.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008250

 

[balrog666]

Gee, I am shocked by more misinformation in this thread since people never seem to let the facts get in their way. First, you would let something that happened to your dad in 1950 (when GM had 50+% of the market) affect what you do today? You should get out more. Second, as stated many times already, manufacturers only have limited recourse with dealers because of franchising laws. Just blaming GM, or any manufacturer, because of one dealer is also silly. Finally, every single GM brand ranks above the industry average for sales experience.

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2008250

Oooh! What's that? Oh, "customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle sales process has steadily increased since 2005"!

So, customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle sales process has gone up for three straight years!

A three year streak - what a breakthrough for a 100 year old company!

Woo-hoo!

 

[Disbelief]

Oooh! What's that? Oh, "customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle sales process has steadily increased since 2005"!

So, customer satisfaction with the new-vehicle sales process has gone up for three straight years!

A three year streak - what a breakthrough for a 100 year old company!

Woo-hoo!

Reading comprehension not your thing? That is from JD Powers and the three year increase is industrywide. This was also addressing a specific point about dealers and the claim about GM dealers being so bad. Why not scroll down a bit in the link so you can see the bar chart that summarizes the study?

 

[WildCat]

Reading comprehension not your thing? That is from JD Powers and the three year increase is industrywide. This was also addressing a specific point about dealers and the claim about GM dealers being so bad. Why not scroll down a bit in the link so you can see the bar chart that summarizes the study?

It will take a lot more than that to get someone who's been burned making the 2nd biggest purchase of their lives to go back to the people who screwed them over.

Fool me once and all...

 

[WildCat]

Here's a non-GM example for you Disbelief. 3 and a half years ago I bought a GE Spacemaker washer/dryer combo for the rental unit upstairs. Several months ago it started leaking, there was a hole in the outer tub! I figured my tenants had somehow managed to get something stuck between the inner and outer tub, causing the hole.

I ordered a new outer tub ($175) and when it came I took the machine apart. And guess what I found? One of the trunion bolts had been snapped off, which caused the tubs to become misaligned with each other, which caused them to rub together during the spin cycle.

Moreover, this had obviously happened at the factory during manufacture, because the bolt head was no longer there and there was no way it could have vanished from the scene.

I called GE to tell them about this, and was told if I had just informed them about this during the warranty period they would be happy to fix it for free. I asked them if they expected their customers to completely dissassemble their products upon receipt to verify if they were manufactured correctly... she offered to call a repair man for me which of course I would have to pay for. I told her that was bull feces and she threatened to hang up on me for swearing. I asked for her supervisor, she told me nope, there is nobody higher than her. I wrote a few letters to GE telling them of my experience and never heard back from them.

In the meantime, a seal broke when I removed the old tub. So I had to order a new seal ($74). The new seal broke immediately upon first use.

At this point I was tired of the aggravation, and just bought a new washer/dryer. You can bet it wasn't a GE.

I will never buy another GE product as long as I live, I can only hope they go bankrupt some day as well.

Screw 'em.

 

[Disbelief]

Here's a non-GM example for you Volatile. <snipped for space>

I am assuming you are talking to me, and I agree. I would never buy another GE because of a similar experience. However, the quoted example was something from more than 50 years ago, in a completely different climate (very few manufacturers) and this did not occur to the person who was telling the anecdote. To follow this up with saying this is common for GM, is false and disproven by customer satisfaction surveys.

 

[WildCat]

I am assuming you are talking to me, and I agree.

Oops, yeah. Fixed!

I would never buy another GE because of a similar experience. However, the quoted example was something from more than 50 years ago, in a completely different climate (very few manufacturers) and this did not occur to the person who was telling the anecdote. To follow this up with saying this is common for GM, is false and disproven by customer satisfaction surveys.

Considering the experience my mother had with her 1988 Beretta GM (she's now a devoted Toyota customer) has had serious customer service problems for most of its existence. Gonna take a lot more than 3 years of improvement to bring back the customers they screwed over for half a century, particularly for such a big-ticket item.

 

[Disbelief]

Oops, yeah. Fixed!


Considering the experience my mother had with her 1988 Beretta GM (she's now a devoted Toyota customer) has had serious customer service problems for most of its existence. Gonna take a lot more than 3 years of improvement to bring back the customers they screwed over for half a century, particularly for such a big-ticket item.

What I am saying is that it is not just a three year improvement, they have been better than Toyota for some time (I will see if I can find the previous years). Of course, this is a nationwide survey so individual dealerships will be better or worse.

 

[davefoc]

The various anecdotal stories of problems and successes with various car companies goes to something that I've thought about lately as far as the sale cycle on automobiles go.

Part of the market is up for grabs, some people will take a chance on a new brand fairly easily while a big part of the market is very conservative. If their family has mainly purchased one brand they tend to purchase that same brand. This brand loyalty lasts a very long time. It can last through an occasional lemon or other bad experience, but it can be broken and once it has been and a new brand has been substituted the old brand will find it very difficult to recapture that portion of the market.

But this support for the brand loyalty base can be very costly for a manufacturer in the short term. It ranges from fixing something that is just out of warranty, to overspending on quality to build up brand loyalty that won't show a payoff for more than ten years.

In our case we are a Honda family. My parents switched from Plymouth to Honda years ago and my wife and I followed along. My parent's car choice wouldn't have been a deciding factor but when we started buying new cars, Honda seemed to offer much better value than the competing American cars. But once we started having good luck with Hondas we were highly disinclined to try another brand. The fact is that a car purchase is a very significant investment for us and we are not inclined to take a risk on a different brand when our current brand is working out.

The point of all this is that GM needs to design a company for its current market share and build on that over the many years to come. There is no way that GM can capture enough market share to justify the current number of dealers, brands, employees and factories. More than any of the other Detroit automakers GM needs to be redesigned before putting substantial amounts of cash into it would be useful. If the government were to bailout GM it needs to be done in two steps. A short term loan to stave off bankruptcy followed by a very detailed planning and negotiating phase similar to what would happen in a bankruptcy court. And most importantly the government needs to be ready to walk away during this phase if any of the various stakeholders refuse to cooperate.

 

[joobz]

My problem with GM isn't quality of the cars, it's poor executive level decisions. Choices made by people who seem completely stupid at forcasting market trends and acting accordingly.


1.) They completely misspredicted the demand for hybrids. They called it a dead technology and focued only on Fuelcells. Yes, it is very smart to put your effort into a future technology that requires a >$1 trillion dollar infrastructure (hydrogen economy) investment rather than one that could yield profit within the next 3 years.

2.) SUVs = beanie babies. SUVs originally sold well because they were different then other cars being made at the time. Because thier design isn't complex and they could expand thier truck market, they made SUVs. Soon, they sold SUVs and started making more SUVs because people were buying SUVs. Then, everyone had SUVs. So, novelty was no longer there and people started wondering why they had SUVs. When gas prices became a problem, SUVs were killed in the market. None of this would be a problem if GM had other cars on deck to sell. Unfortunately, they were treating SUVs like a neverending demand and forgot what happened in the late 70s when gas prices shot up. (psst, people buy fuel efficient cars).

3.) No diversification in their car portfolio. So what if GM stopped selling SUVs, they have other car lines, right? Um, no. not really. When GM was SUVing themselves to death, they stopped designing fuel efficieny AND they cut out other car lines to save costs. For instance, Does anyone know that GM no longer makes a Minivan?

4.) Buick, cadillac, pontiac, chevrolet, Saturn.... WHY THE HELL DO YOU NEED 5 Lines that ALL SELL THE EXACT SAME CARS!!!! You can see the insanity of this when you look at one of thier best selling cars right now, the Pontiac Vibe, is also the car that is ONLY SOLD BY ONE of the brand lines. This bloated structure exists all the way through to the design rooms. This means taht you must have 5 sets of design groups all designing different cars which all look about as different as egg shell and off white. These designs can't be radical or innovative because they must all sit on very similar plateforms. It's a completely redundant and wasteful system that results in merely competing with yourself.


Each of these problems exist because of a extremely poor management plan. I know they like to blame the workers, but that's a diversionary tactic.

If they wanted to be able to weather changing markets, they needed a more varied product line.

If they complain that their work force is too expensive, then they need to consolidate thier product lines.