Is GM finished?

[Roadtoad]

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.

But while this is nice to know, you're faced with a Roseanne Roseannadanna situation: It's always something.

If it's not the dealer, (which is bad enough), it's the manufacturer.

Let me offer this as an example:

Presently, we have a '96 Corsica. It's got maybe 200,000 miles on it.

It's junk.

In order to change the serpentine belt on that car, you literally have to jack up the engine, then disconnect the motor mount on the right side of the engine. Once this is done, you must somehow get the idler pulley loosened enough to allow you to remove the belt, to install the new belt, and once that's done, you then must reinstall the motor mount.

Screw up on this, and you have to replace the heater core, possibly one or two power steering hoses, and the motor mount itself. Think I don't know this? I've still got the old belt on the car, because I could not change it.

Our local independent shop will do it for me. For $75. The dealer wants another $25 to $30. I can't get straight answers out of them about the cost of repairs, or how much a new car will cost, or ANYTHING even remotely like service. I once went in to buy a mirror for my CK1500 at Performance Chevrolet, on Madison Avenue in Sacramento. I stood in the parts department waiting for 45 minutes while the parts manager chatted with a buddy of his, ignoring me. A kid finally showed up to help me, and it took two tries for him to find my mirror. In the meantime, the manager was still yakking with his buddy, continuing to ignore me. Go to the DEALER?!?!? Like hell...

For years, I drove Subarus. They had plenty of power, went where I needed them to go, had room for the kids, and while they were ugly as a mutt, I could do most of the repairs on them myself. I did the whole gamut: oil changes, clutches, tune-ups, brakes. Changing a belt? Ten minutes with a socket wrench and a pry bar.

Of course, I have big boys. They eventually didn't fit in the back seat of a Subie. Now, they're grown. It's just Peggy and me. Guess what my next car will be. (Oh, and if you buy them used, and they've been well cared for, they last damn near forever. And I don't have to deal with their scumbag dealer at the Roseville Auto Mall.)

F@ck GM. If they go out of business, THEY DAMNED WELL DESERVE TO.

 

[WildCat]

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.

You act as if there is even a known way to implement a "hydrogen economy". There isn't. Extracting hydrogen from the molecules it is bound to (water being by far the most common) requires more energy than burning the hydrogen yields. Until this very fundamental problem is solved, a "hydrogen economy" will remain the stuff of dreams.

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).

Without SUVs Detroit would have faced their current crisis years earlier. SUVs were successful, so much so that even Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, even Porsche made their own to enter this lucrative market. There is no evidence to indicate that without SUVs Detroit would have developed a clue as to how to make smaller cars any better than they have.

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?

You think minivans get any better fuel economy than an SUV does?

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.

This is a good point. Stupid management, which will now be rewarded with billions in taxpayer money for their incompetence.

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

Certainly, the unions will not favor any consolidation that will cut the work force. In fact, cutting the work force was so opposed they created the infamous Jobs Bank in their last contract.

 

[balrog666]

I wonder how many UAW workers own the same model they build ...

 

[joobz]

You act as if there is even a known way to implement a "hydrogen economy". There isn't. Extracting hydrogen from the molecules it is bound to (water being by far the most common) requires more energy than burning the hydrogen yields. Until this very fundamental problem is solved, a "hydrogen economy" will remain the stuff of dreams.

I was purely assuming that a miracle Solar breakthrough would make such a system happen. I was simply discussing the cost of switching out all gas stations with H2 stations.

Without SUVs Detroit would have faced their current crisis years earlier. SUVs were successful, so much so that even Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, even Porsche made their own to enter this lucrative market. There is no evidence to indicate that without SUVs Detroit would have developed a clue as to how to make smaller cars any better than they have.

While true, it's fairly clear that a lot of fuel efficiency technologies that GM was developing as a reaction to the fuel crisis were abandoned once Fuel became cheap again (e.g., is variable cylinder management). If they had been smart, they would have continued those developments and slowly integrated them into their cars.

Instead, they reacted to the market instead of driving the market.

You think minivans get any better fuel economy than an SUV does?

No. I wasn't implying that they do. merely that Minivans represent a different market which still exists today. From a pure usage standpoint, a minivan beats the snot out of a SUV. More storage space, more comfortable seating, etc. There's a reason why Toyota, Honda, Crysler, ... still sell them. AND why VW put one on the market.

My critique was against GM's diversification of their product line.

This is a good point. Stupid management, which will now be rewarded with billions in taxpayer money for their incompetence.

Yup

Certainly, the unions will not favor any consolidation that will cut the work force. In fact, cutting the work force was so opposed they created the infamous Jobs Bank in their last contract.

Again, a smart managment plan would have involved a logical reorganization of thier workforce instead of purchasing other companies. (Why Saab?)
They also lost thier chance to drop hummer (when it was still an asset they could have made money on.)

As to the UAW, I agree the job bank is a travesty, but that's not THE reason for GM's problems. It's merely a symptom of them.

If they have a workforce that is not doing anything, dammit, use them to do something. That's a lot of labor time wasted. Why not subcontract their skill out for other jobs having them gain skills (which make them valuable to the company) and not take such a hit.

 

[Prometheus]

....
You think minivans get any better fuel economy than an SUV does?....

Yes.

 

[joobz]

Yes.

I disagree with the statement.

You can easily find a SUV with a fuel efficiency similar to minivans. What you can't find is an SUV with a usability equal to minivans.

People hate minivans because of the "Soccer mom/Minivan momma" perception. They view it as uncool. Unfortunately for these people, if you go and look at any soccer field you'll see that SUVs are the New Minivan. Once your kid is old enough to have friends, the car you own is no longer cool. No matter what car style it is.


1.) Wagons were first driven by parents and kids grew up hating wagons.
2.) These kids grew up and had minivans and thought they were cool cause the car looked like the space shuttle
3.) These kids grew up thinking minivans were uncool and drove SUVs, because they were Jeeps and jeeps are cool.
4.) The kids now think SUVs aren't cool and now wagons are becoming popular (The Vibe, Mazda 5, Matrix,...) They call them crossovers, but they're really wagons.

 

[WildCat]

Yes.

No.

In your link you'll see that they compare a 6 cylinder minivan to an 8 cylinder SUV.

A 6 cylinder minivan gets about the same mileage as a 6 cylinder SUV.

 

[OneShotKi11]

On my itouch and accidentally double posted!

 

[OneShotKi11]

All this has helped me to decide I will never go anywhere near GM and I will suggest the same for the rest of my familly and friends!

I persoanlly think we should let the situation just pan out and naturally take it's course.

 

[Just thinking]

Seems to me that a sensible tax policy is a pretty good way to motivate change.

Psych 101; the best way to modify behavior (motivate change) is through positive re-enforcement ... in other words, a reward system. Any tax, no matter how conceived, is looked at as punishment. Punishment is not regarded as a good motivator.

 

[Just thinking]

I persoanlly think we should let the situation just pan out and naturally take it's course.

The Powers that be just can't keep their hands off of such matters, as it makes them feel .... less powerful. When one has such power they feel compelled to use it, no matter what.

 

[FarmallMTA]

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

Interesting, albeit puzzling, response.

Albert Einstein said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. Think about this quote for a second and ask yourself, "why the hell would I ever go back to the same outfit that screwed me out of my time, my money, and my peace of mind to their own benefit?" Google "Bill Heard Chevrolet" (the recently defunct dealership chain that sold more Chevrolets than any other in the world) for a current example of how GM knew, condoned, promoted, enabled, and attempted to benefit from DECADES of shyster dealer tactics. GM is a central part of confidence games, the originator of many of them, rampant in the automotive industry.

Another old adage is, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Seems to be a clear warning not to go back to any GM dealer ever again, I'd say.

Yeah, you're catching on. No I won't go into a GM dealership based on something that happened to my father in 1950. If they can't design a way to keep crooks and crooked practices out of their business plan, they're then part of the planning to include crooks.

GM is untrustworthy: the market says so, not just me. They deserve to go out of business.

 

[Disbelief]

Actually, the biggest problem facing GM, and which is abundantly clear in this thread, is public perception. They are seen as bloated and inefficient, yet are one of the most efficient automakers in the US including the Japanese. They are seen as having all crappy cars, yet have made drastic improvements from a decade ago and lead some categories (i.e. mid-sized sedan) in quality surveys. They have unreliable cars, yet their recalls and warranty costs have plunged since 2004. Their designs are crap, yet they have consistently one Car of the Year awards at auto shows (Aura, CTS). Their dealers are horrible (which individuals very well could be), but overall they are better than the industry average and better than the vast majority of the Japanese dealers.

Many of these misperceptions were abundantly clear by watching the Senate hearings, since the senators were declaring many of these same falsehoods. Unfortunately for GM, they may have burned too many bridges to recover consumer trust. Sad when you think that Hyundai and Kia, who foisted some of the worst quality vehicles ever on the US, were given another chance and have done very well.

 

[Prometheus]

Psych 101; the best way to modify behavior (motivate change) is through positive re-enforcement ... in other words, a reward system. Any tax, no matter how conceived, is looked at as punishment. Punishment is not regarded as a good motivator.

This was not taught when I took Psych 101. Do you have a source to back up the claim? Also, personally, when I do something that reduces my tax burden, I consider that a reward for good behaviour. Why don't you?

 

[Prometheus]

No.

In your link you'll see that they compare a 6 cylinder minivan to an 8 cylinder SUV.

A 6 cylinder minivan gets about the same mileage as a 6 cylinder SUV.

So what? A six-cylinder minivan does get better mileage than an 8 cylinder SUV. That's exactly the point. Many people who purchased SUV's opted for the 8 cylinder version. I've never even heard of an 8 cylinder minivan.

 

[joobz]

Actually, the biggest problem facing GM, and which is abundantly clear in this thread, is public perception. They are seen as bloated and inefficient, yet are one of the most efficient automakers in the US including the Japanese.

Do you have a source for this claim?

It's my understanding that Toyota is still the leader in Lean Manufacturing and Lean-6 technologies.

and a quick google for "most efficient car manufacturer" pulled up this article from June 5th, 2008:
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6249925...rth-americas-most-efficient-plants/index.html

 

[Disbelief]

Do you have a source for this claim?

It's my understanding that Toyota is still the leader in Lean Manufacturing and Lean-6 technologies.

and a quick google for "most efficient car manufacturer" pulled up this article from June 5th, 2008:
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6249925...rth-americas-most-efficient-plants/index.html

Here is a pdf from that same report:

http://www.oliverwyman.com/content_images/OW_EN_Automotive_Press_2008_HarbourReport08.pdf

As you can see, the difference between everyone has gotten smaller, though the Japanese have had the benefit of builing new plants and incorporating lean concepts from the beginning. GM did better than Toyota in vehicle assembly, while Toyota was better at stamping and engine assembly.

 

[davefoc]

Actually, the biggest problem facing GM, and which is abundantly clear in this thread, is public perception. They are seen as bloated and inefficient, yet are one of the most efficient automakers in the US including the Japanese. They are seen as having all crappy cars, yet have made drastic improvements from a decade ago and lead some categories (i.e. mid-sized sedan) in quality surveys. They have unreliable cars, yet their recalls and warranty costs have plunged since 2004. Their designs are crap, yet they have consistently one Car of the Year awards at auto shows (Aura, CTS). Their dealers are horrible (which individuals very well could be), but overall they are better than the industry average and better than the vast majority of the Japanese dealers.

Many of these misperceptions were abundantly clear by watching the Senate hearings, since the senators were declaring many of these same falsehoods. Unfortunately for GM, they may have burned too many bridges to recover consumer trust. Sad when you think that Hyundai and Kia, who foisted some of the worst quality vehicles ever on the US, were given another chance and have done very well.

I suspect there is a lot of truth in your post.

Assuming there is truth in it, it still doesn't justify dumping money into GM as it is presently configured. I truly hope GM survives. I think it has something to offer. But it looks to me like the only way that GM can survive is with major restructuring and I don't think the government should be on the hook for the costs of a lot of that restructuring.

It supposedly cost something like two billion dollars to shut down Oldsmobile. If the government just dumps money into GM a whole lot of that money will just go into the pockets of the already wealthy people who own the dealerships that need to be shut down. These are the kinds of things that need to be dealt with in a chapter 11 bankruptcy or in a pre bankruptcy negotiation. Right now the just-give-them-the-money crowd seems to not care about any of this.

If GM is going to survive it needs to reduce brands, dealerships, employees and legacy costs including its massive debt. GM needs to emerge out of this period as a leaner meaner company with some money in the bank and a business plan that has a chance for success. It is very much in the government's interest to support something like that. If there is a complete failure of GM the government will be on the hook for all sorts of costs. Essentially the government is one of the stakeholders that stands to lose a whole lot in the event of the complete failure of GM. But the government stands to lose even more if it puts GM on permanent life support.

It seems like the UK went through a period exactly like this where the government was afraid to let any major industry fail. The net result was a disastrous economy where nearly everything was failing. If the government can thread the needle and bailout GM in a productive way, great. But I think the people who argue for no bailout at all might be right. Given the political realities the government will just not be tough enough to put together a deal that can get GM moving in the direction of sustainability.

One other thing I'd like to note in my long winded post (sorry) is that the very possibility of a government bailout could be exacerbating the situation right now. A furniture manufacturing company that I'm familiar with has recently experienced a 2/3 drop in sales. It's not sitting around waiting for a government bailout. Long term employees have been let go. Where possible buildings have been vacated, owners are taking smaller salaries. Essentially the company is scrambling to survive. GM seemed to think it could just mine its capital forever and after the capital ran out it thought it could just run off government capital. Management that thinks like that needs to be replaced. Management that takes huge salaries in the face of massive losses have no place in a future GM. But this kind of thing is completely ignored by the throw-money-at-them crowd.

 

[WildCat]

So what? A six-cylinder minivan does get better mileage than an 8 cylinder SUV. That's exactly the point. Many people who purchased SUV's opted for the 8 cylinder version. I've never even heard of an 8 cylinder minivan.

Have you heard of an 8 cylinder full-size van?

You are comparing the biggest SUVs with the smallest vans.

Wouldn't a more apt comparison be to compare a minivan with a mini-SUV, such as a Honda CR-V?

 

[Roadtoad]

Actually, the biggest problem facing GM, and which is abundantly clear in this thread, is public perception. They are seen as bloated and inefficient, yet are one of the most efficient automakers in the US including the Japanese. They are seen as having all crappy cars, yet have made drastic improvements from a decade ago and lead some categories (i.e. mid-sized sedan) in quality surveys. They have unreliable cars, yet their recalls and warranty costs have plunged since 2004. Their designs are crap, yet they have consistently one Car of the Year awards at auto shows (Aura, CTS). Their dealers are horrible (which individuals very well could be), but overall they are better than the industry average and better than the vast majority of the Japanese dealers.

Many of these misperceptions were abundantly clear by watching the Senate hearings, since the senators were declaring many of these same falsehoods. Unfortunately for GM, they may have burned too many bridges to recover consumer trust. Sad when you think that Hyundai and Kia, who foisted some of the worst quality vehicles ever on the US, were given another chance and have done very well.

Disbelief, did you perform the search Farmall suggested? Trust me. It's enough to make you scream.

GM has demonstrated they're willing to look the other way when they have a dealer doing dirty, as long as they can move the metal. Did you even read what I wrote about Performance Chevrolet? I mean, good God! How long was I going to be forced to stand there while the parts manager did NOTHING? I've even taken my truck there to be worked on. NEVER AGAIN!

For all the talk about quality service, you pay a premium price to be treated with disrespect, with contempt, just so they can take as much of your money as they can lay their hands on. GM damned well ought to know what's happening, and they have demonstrated that when they DO learn of this kind of crap, they just don't care.

When a Subaru dealer tried similar tactics with me, there were consequences to their actions. The salesman was canned, the parts people lost a couple of days pay, IIRC. Where do you think I might buy a new car, should I ever be able to afford one?