Why GM is Failing BADLY!!!

Page 1 of 3  
So why is GM going down the drain? Take a stroll through any GM dealers lot and the reason is obvious. TOTALLY LACKLUSTER CARS........ Like others have said, it looks like the rental lot at Hertz.
Let's take a look!
Malibu....BORING.......Horrid colors, overpriced compared to the Japs and does nothing really well. That extended semi-suv version is laughable.....UGLY....
Impala? According to what I hear the police package model is literally falling apart just sitting on the lot. Another totally boring, and OVERPRICED ($27,00 for an SS model???) car.....
Monte Carlo? Ok, it's a bit better than previous models but.............. Still FWD???? WTF??? OVERPRICED again...and take a look at that interior. It sucks............
Cobalt? Now here is a car with some potential, but once again GM fscked it up. The car (ss version) has tons of power but can't corner worth a shit.... Yea........ That's GM all over......
Corvette...that's a give...one of the best cars ever made.
Up coming Camaro? GM will over price it and fsck it up with some base package that turns the car into a slug....
Hey GM want to know how to sell cars?
Look at Chrysler and Ford.... The Mustang, even in a bas model is a looker, fast, has plenty of standard options and will cost you less than $20k..... The V6 has PLENTY of power. Want more? For $25k you can have a GT, again VERY well equipped even in base models.
How about Chrysler? Ok, I think they are ugly and a little overpriced, but there is plenty of bargaining room in the price and even the V6 Charger has plenty of power. Go up to the Hemi and you are talking serious power and comfort all at once. Again, nicely equipped in a base model.
So GM?
How will you fsk up the Camaro.....
My predication:
Optional: keyless entry, tilt steeringpower door locks,power windows,decent sound system, decent rubber and rims, Standard:
Shit interior and an underpowered engine... Anyone remember the 1982+ Camaros with the 4 cylinder engines? Here we go again...
GM has a knack for screwing things up and they will do it again.
Again GM, take a look at the Ford Mustang, study it, copy it's marketing philosophy and you will have a winner. Do business as usual and you will have another loser like the Monte Carlo SS.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
~snip~
Snooze.............nothing new here. Everything you said has already been said, many times, by others. Come back if you ever have an original thought.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hairy wrote:

Sounds like you work for GM. I got almost EXACTLY the same answer when I sent them an email a couple of days ago. Seems nobody is listening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Post the response to the group, be nice to hear what they had to say!
Why did you email them?
I think some of GM's tricks are jokes...
I saw the original thread started with listing some models -- the Monte Carlo... what the hell was up with hte first monte carlos they came out with in the new style, they were the same friggin style as the LUMINA for god sake ... a midsize family car! I can only assume they were the same car, the styles of the newer monte's is only slightly better.
The new SS Was just a waste of time... they need to put a real motor under the hood, and move the drives to the back where they should be, and sever this never before seen lumina blood line.
Another question, why did they ever call the VAN and the CAR both luminas... could it get any more confusing?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes you may be right on those models, but you forgot the the stunning 1 ton Express van......Styling that turns heads, so much power I can go uphill at 45mph! (without a load), and an astounding 8-10 miles per gallon on the highway.....he he he.
AZCRAIG

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The general public is thinking mpg. There are a few that have a valid reason to buy a 10 - 18 mpg barge but most don't need it or can't afford the gas.
If auto makers live up to their typical response to this demand it will probably take 3 to 5 years before they start putting out what the public wants in 2006 which means the big horse power cars and trucks should get real cheap, to get them off the lot.
So buy that hemi or SUV this fall, maybe get two, one to run and one to stash away to sell on eBay in 20 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cm wrote:

That is one market where the Daimler-Chrysler merger has brought a strong new competitor into the market, the Dodge Sprinter, which is essentially a European all purpose van. Several decades advanced beyond the horrid large vans from GM or Ford.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently buyers do not agree with your opinion. They by far more vans from Ford and GM.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just like cars, huh, Mike? Do you ever have anything to say besides sucking off GM? Are you paid by them to shill their products on the NG's? (if so, their marketing department apparently sucks as much as their engineering.) Open your eyes, GM is making shite and has made shite for the past three decades, if they want to survive they are going to have to make some big changes like yesterday.
nate
Mike Hunter wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't own a GM vehicle and I am simply stating facts and the facts are GM and Ford both sell more vehicles, including vans, than ANY import brand and thus their buyers opinion is that their vehicles are better than any import. Others are entitled to their own opinion but their opinion is the opinion of a minority whether some like it or not.
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are missing the point, I am not analyzing anything, just stating the obvious. We are discussing the OPINIONS of the BUYERS here. Opinion of buyers that buy vehicles that compete in the same US market among vehicles of the same class and price range. I E Camry and Impala. F150 and Tundra etc. not between a Toyota and a RR or the midget cars sold in third world counties where not all manufactures even compete.
Obviously you might think TGI Friday's has a better that McDonalds, but the fact is more buyers prefer McDonalds, comparable hamburgers, by far. Does that make them better who knows, but in the opinion of buyers there is no question McDonalds are 'better' that is why they buy what they buy and your opinion is that of a minority. The same is true of vehicle buyers and just as obviously GM and Ford have more buyers that prefer their completive vehicles to those of any import, period. More American chose to buy the Camry than any domestic mid size, according to your reasoning they are stupid for buying a car just because they like the dealer. Surely that can not be the case since Toyota dealers are far from the top in any survey of dealerships in the US ;)
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You must not be paying attention to the Toyota commercials. They constantly compare the Tundra to the F150. It is also in the same class according to the EPA. The fact that it is a mediocre full suze truck doesn't mean that you can reclassify it so you can avoid unfavorable comparisons. However, I persoanlly prefer the size of a Tundra - too bad it is so over-priced. I can buy an F250 for less. I liked the size of the Tacoma even better (a true mid-sized truck), but it is unbelieveably over-priced (I can actually buy a Tundra for less). I ended up in a Frontier becasue of price, not stlye, not reliability and not comfort. However, the Nissan does have great power and towing ability and adequate cab room. But to be honest, I wish I'd bought a Ranger instead (even less money, a better ride, and it seems to handle loads in the bed better than the Frontier, despite having a lower rating). Oh well, maybe in 10 or 12 years when I need a new truckl Toyotas will be affordable.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, GM is not building shite. They build a good-quality, reliable car. On a class-by-class comparison, I think GM has made tremendous strides in the past 5 years with their interiors, ride, and overall presentation... but they're being buried with the media's bad news. In short, they can't "catch a break", and I belive if they could some of their cars (like the Cobalt) could be much appreciated.
That being said, I think in many ways their cars are 1 generation out from 'catchin up' with the best of the imports. But it doesn't mean they're bad cars. JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip

ship
Recently, I read that the Cobalt had not done well in a crash test.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We sure do, around 43,000 people die annually, in accidents involving the 235,000,000 vehicles on the road in the US. However, the fact remains, of the approximately 18,000,000 new vehicles sold in the US annually, less than 8% will be involved in an accident sufficient to deploy the SRS in its lifetime. One of my jobs in the automotive industry was working to designing crumple zones and SRS systems. No question SRS and properly belted occupants have saved lives. Do you know more, improperly belted and unbelted occupants of motor vehicles in the US, have been killed by SRS than the number of member of the military that have been killed in fighting the Iraq war over the same time period? Sad but true
mike hunt

.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
doesn't
Even better yet, go look at the IIHS injury loss ratings (see http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl_4wd_pickup.html ). The crash test are very specific engineering tests that only test a very specific condition. The IIHS offset crash test is probably the most over-hyped test on the planet. Tundras' did great in the test, the old style (pre-2004) F150s did poorly. Yet in the injury loss rating, Tundras are the worst. The Japanese are very good at designing for specific repeatable tests. Sometimes they overlook the reason for the test. Toyota's are getting better, but in the not so distant past there vehicle often were on the very low end of any category when it came to injury loss ratings (and they still are for pick-ups). Currently the only Toyota car that has a better than average rating is the Avalon.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
How can one know for sure with a test as done by the Insurance companies when they are not demonstrable REPEATABLE test? There is not yet a federal stand for side impact bags, bags are still optional. There is only ONE manufacture that builds its vehicles to a standard that exceeds the NHTSA 35 MPH frontal crash standard as well as the rear crash standard of 30 MPH. That manufacture is Ford Motor Company. Ford builds all of it vehicle to a 40 MPH frontal crash standard and a rear crash standard of 35 MPH. The Ford Interceptor is built to a rear crash standard of 50 MPH Ford builds several vehicles, as well, that exceeded the NHTSA side crash standard without the use of side bags
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The fact is in survey after survey ALL manufactures vehicles fall in to the same category, when it comes to problem vehicles, and that is only around 2%. 2% is the average failure rate for most every product on the market. ALL manufactures today are building good high quality long last vehicles. The only real difference among them is style and price, period. Anything else is simply opinion
mike hunt

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.