The SSR is more like a $40,000 truckett. It is no truck. Maybe lard-assed
bad-idea, but not a truck.
Don't argue with Mike. Waste of time. Accept his logic. Most unit sales +
massive losses + sinking market share = highest quality for GM vs. junky
brands liked by the idiots at CR such as Toyota.
GM's future is assured thanks to Mike's proof that GM quality is the best.
And those guys at GM who actually admit their quality is inferior to Toyota?
Heck they probably just don't want some poor Toyota exec. to feel bad and
have to impale himself on a sword or letter opener or something.
On behalf of GM stockholders everywhere, Mike, I thank you for lifting the
veil of deceit and despair for us all.
Seems you too are confused, as well. What makes you think any opinion that
does not agree with your opinion MUST be wrong? I never talked about who
is earning what, nor have I ever said Toyota or any other brand sells junk.
What I have said, over and over, is that ALL manufactures are building good
high quality, reliable vehicles today. The only real deference among them
is style and price. Buyers buy the brand, model, style and price they think
is best for them. Any other conclusion as to what buyers prefer defies
Hey, this is all about the survey results that CR publishes. Those survey
results are not based on my opinion (except for my one survey reply), they
are based on over a million replies by loads of car owners. Those surveys
show that you are dead wrong about brand reliability. There is a HUGE
difference between the reliability experience of, say, a Caddy and a
Lexus...according to the people who bought the two brands.
That is not the only factor that controls buyer choice for all or even most
buyers, you are exactly right about that and, as a result, GM sells a lot
more cars/trucks in the U.S. than Toyota. But they make no money doing it
and that is bad. I submit to you that if it was GM that had the excellent
survey results i the CR survey and Toyota had the mediocre or worse ones, we
would be discussing how Toyota is going to survive in the U.S. market.
It has come to light that the loss at GM last year was $11.000.000.000
and not just $9.000.000.000 as was previously estimated
So with $15.000.000.000 loss this year it will be interesting to see
how long they continue paying customers to take cars
Okay Mike. Anecdotal should be shoved aside. Hmm, also don't pay
attention to wide reaching surveys. Instead, judge quality and value
based on what is the most popular seller. That is what you are
Just curious Mike, do you like AOL as an ISP? Boy, they sure are
popular. Must be the best, at least by your logic.
Marketshare is a fickle thing. Every manufacturer has seen fluctuations in
marketshare. That all by itself is pretty meaningless. It only stands to
reason that GM would be seeing an impact from all of the recent
announcements. I expect they will continue to see some hits for a while.
That's the nature of the market. I also expect they'll come out of this in
time. I suspect they'll come out with a radically different agreement with
the unions, and I equally suspect that's what's behind a great deal of this.
Some honest restructuring both within the corporate ranks, the corporate
processes, and the union relationships would be good for GM and would
position them to be a leader again. Contrary to what the Toyota advocates
like to tout, I believe GM has some pretty damned good stuff to be proud of.
The question was, do YOU personally think AOL is the best national
I sure don't. I know they aren't in fact. But anyway, they are the
most popular. That shows me that your logic of best seller = best
quality/value is proven wrong. I could come up with many more
examples but I really only need but one.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:52:54 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
Like I said that my be your opinion, but the people that subscribe to AOL
think otherwise, obviously.
Personally I have been connect for many years, via satellite, to server
connected to a high speed a cable network that happens to be the oldest
ISP/cable system in the country.
Even more recently than that, when the new Pontiac Grand Prix debuted a
couple of years back I had considered buying one and decided to check out
what CR had to say about the new model (2002, or 2003 I think it was). They
dissed the car quite a bit in their "review", and then later in the same
review admitted something to the effect that they had yet to drive the new
Right then and there I vowed never to buy that magazine again. It's plain
that there is an agenda to bash the american cars and promote the import.
How can you "review" a vehicle that you have never even driven? If you
drive it and then you don't like it, that's your right. To bash it without
having driven it, for an "objective" magazine is unforgivable.
Need more proof? Look to the recommended used car list. As far back as
they go you'll find hardly any American cars on the list, and if memory
serves, no GM vehicles. You're telling me that the largest car company in
the world has not made a single model in the last 10 or so years that's
worth buying? Not one? Whether you're a GM fan or not, with the number of
vehicles they produce you must admit that they should put out a winner every
once in a while, even if it's by accident.
And the avoid list ... Honda or Toyota haven't produced a single lemon in
that same time period? Come on ...
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.