Quality.

FYI - My 2004 Chevy Silverado comes with DRL's and automatic headlights. However, at any time you can flip the main headlight switch to the OFF position and it will shut off all external lighting plus the dash lights (including the DRL's if that's what's on at the time). Flip it to OFF again and the lights come back on (whatever lights are appropriate for the ambient conditions). The switch is spring loaded, so when you turn it to OFF it rebounds to the AUTO setting. This way, the next time I start the truck the lights function normally again. Of course you can flip the switch to the ON position at any time which disables the AUTO function and get your regular headlights and full external lighting plus dash lights.

GM is listening to what people want, and this feature in my truck is in response to the anti-DRL crowd. I like DRL's myself, but I can appreciate that some folks don't want them. I applaud GM for listening to everyone and making this option available.

Cheers - Jonathan

Reply to
Jonathan Race
Loading thread data ...

Oh please, this isn't GM's fault. You can blame anyone you want and complain about salaries until the cow's come home, but don't think for one minute that GM would be paying this kind of money to folks if they didn't have to. If they could lower their pay and benefits costs, they'd drop the prices on their vehicles overnight just to grab more market share. As an example, if you are looking at both a new Silverado and Tundra similarly equipped for the same price and suddenly the Silverado was $5000.00 cheaper, Silverado sales would skyrocket and Tundra sales would dry up in a heartbeat.

Cheers - Jonathan

Reply to
Jonathan Race

Yes they sure are and I bet you would take their pay and benefits-------- IF YOU COULD GET THEM! Sounds like you are in a low paying dead end job and just wish that GM would hire you to sweep floors.

Reply to
No One You Know

If gm made good quality break pads we would not have to replace them so soon. why should we waste our time and dollars to replace gm's poor quality break pads. best to just forget about buying their auto's, there are better quality autos out there.

Reply to
Jk

GM is now desperate for dollars, the banks don't lend dollars to companies with junk bond status.

gm was a fat cat, with over paid staff and workers. with some of the best perks in canada.

just a matter of time before it ran out of steam, if they offer you a package deal take it and move on...

Reply to
Jk

that's why they are now a Company with junk bond status.

poor quailty products and over paid staff and workers.

a great recipe for bankruptcy...

Reply to
Jk

I'll give you a clue, Skippy. GM doesn't make brake pads and none of the other automakers do either. All brake pads have to meet Federal Standards. Trolling here will only get you the pole. Buy what you will and enjoy.

Reply to
No One You Know

Want a bet JK? I'm a retired Corporate banker and we still stand in line to lend to GM. You are way off base when you equate junk-bond status with bankruptcy or insolvency. I'd suggest that you take a basic accounting course. There are many financially strong corporations who have been relegated to junk-bond status by the bond rating agencies. GM is but one of them at this point in time and they are still quite solvent.

Some GM employees are overpaid. Others are underpaid. It happens with every large company. There is never an equitable balance.

I've watched you for a while now Jk and I must say that you are an epitomy of the old adage "A little learning is a dangerous thing". You talk about GM's shrinking market share, while failing to acknowledge or perhaps even recognize the plethora of new car manufacturers in low wage countries who have flooded the market with low cost, low-value products. Free trade has opened North American markets to the world and when markets are opened to low-cost producers, there is an immediate and negative impact on North American market share. Over time, the balance can and often does shift back dramatically, as foreign wages and benefits get closer to the "world average". In the meantime Jk, you may rest assured that GM is well capitalized and is not on the verge of bankruptcy. And they are taking drastic cost-cutting measures and are becoming far more efficient than in the recent past. So don't get your panties in such a knot. Many of today's blue-chip companies have suffered Operating losses from time to time. It's not the end of the world if they address the issues leading to these losses.

Reply to
StingRay

And your credentials consist of what? State the facts and then show where you got them from. Opinions are not in fact and need to be proven.

Move along TROLL!

Reply to
No One You Know

.We know that auto products gm installs in their autos are out sourced to other companies, but that don't let gm of the hook for poor quality products that are installed in their autos.

are you saying because some other company makes brake pads for gm,

. That GM is not responsible for letting them be part of their final product that they sell to the public..

Reply to
Jk

I figure a year from now gm will be like Air CANADA, seeking chapter eleven...

it cannot afford it's present setup, it has to change or close it's doors.

calling someone a troll is just hiding your head in the sand. wake up and see the complete picture. surely you got to have some concerns about your job status.

Reply to
Jk

Looks like your source is the washroom wall at your janitorial service.

Reply to
No One You Know

A filing for court-ordered bankruptcy protection in the United States comes under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code; hence the common expression of "filing for Chapter 11." There is no such thing in Canada. Canadian companies don't actually file for "bankruptcy protection." That's the informal term for a filing under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That's a federal law that basically gives a company time to try to work out its financial difficulties with those it owes money to. A company files under the CCAA for permission to file a restructuring or reorganization plan that would give it time (often 30 to 90 days) to try to arrange its affairs so that it can keep operating.

As long as a CCAA order remains in place, creditors are not allowed to take any action to collect money owed to them. They can't seize the company's property or petition it into bankruptcy.

Since a CCAA filing is made because a company is deeply in debt (under CCAA rules, a company must have more than $5 million in liabilities), the first order of business is to strike some kind of deal with the people or organizations it owes money to. That includes lenders, unpaid suppliers and bond-holders, to mention a few.

Negotiations among the company and its debtors can take weeks or even Months. Essentially, the sides are trying to find a compromise they can live with (for example, creditors might agree to accept 50 cents on each dollar of debt).

If a restructuring attempt is not successful, or if it's not approved by the courts, a company can be petitioned into receivership or bankruptcy. The main difference between a CCAA filing and the alternative is that receivership or bankruptcy means that the company is no longer a going concern.

Do not confuse court-ordered court protection from creditors, (commonly referred to as bankruptcy protection), with a bankruptcy filing. Under bankruptcy protection, the company is trying to continue operating. In a bankruptcy filing, an insolvent company is liquidated by a trustee.

We truly value your well-informed opinion.

You're right Jk. There is a world of difference between a troll and someone who is simply as dumb as a post. Your preoccupation with insolvency and bankruptcy gives rise to suspicion that you have either declared personal bankruptcy or are considering it. Don't be so angry with the world. I'm sure that there are better days ahead for you.

Reply to
StingRay

This is the part that bothers me. They're harping on hourly health care, but there are a lot more issues that need addressing. GM has to look beyond next month's balance sheet. Band-aid fixes may look good short term, but wouls only postpone another crisis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

formatting link

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Reply to
David Starr

David, I have nothing but respect for anyone who puts in over 40 years with one employer. I just visited your website and those pics you took of the big cats are excellent. I'll be watching out for your "Future Galleries".

Reply to
StingRay

This is partly great news. But why have the spring loaded piece of the switch? If the owner wants the things off and has placed the switch in the off position for that reason, why force them to have to turn it back to the off position every time they restart the vehicle? That doesn't make any sense at all and will still piss people off. GM needs to get out of the "I know better than you do, Mr. Customer" mentality...and do so PRONTO!

Reply to
James C. Reeves

headlights.

function and

You probably don't like air bags and seat belts either. Forget ABS and while we are at it lets ged rid of padded dashboards too.

Reply to
No One You Know

And you'd be wrong on two of the three. ;-) But, what's your point? The purchasing market is full of people...some don't want ABS, some don't want DRL's, etc., etc. If you're going to sell cars to those people, you need to have a product they will buy. The concept is really about as elementary as it can get. Duh!!!

Reply to
James C. Reeves

appropriate

PRONTO!

elementary as

DUH??? Listen Skippy, building a car ain't building a Whopper. You don't always get it your way. All of the automakers play the average and build for the majority. You get choice of many options and colors so why would any of the automakers change some of their basic safety features just to suit a few. Oh, I get it now, you just don't want to be told you have to have something. If it was a add on option you would buy it on your own.

Reply to
No One You Know

Who's Skippy? ;-)

True enough, with one extremely glaring exception in this case...unless your competition builds a competing Whopper the way significant segments of the market want it and you don't. When that situation exists, you loose market share of that segment needlessly to your competition. The situation should change, especially when it is a *very* simple and *no cost* thing that can be done on GM's part to open up that segment of the market to them. Yes, it is a elementary concept...Marketing 101...DUH is the only word that could possibly fit the obvious.

Not exactly. The auto consumer market does not have any single "majority" constituent. The needs and desires of the market are many and quite varied and diverse. IF you want to sell cars, build them the way that satisfies the greatest numbers of "needs" and "wants" (and the combinations in-between) AND offer options that don't cost much (or anything) to attract as much of the "fringe" market in as you can as well (without loosing money in the process, of course).

What we have here is that "all the automakers" (actually most of them) are providing these options except GM (translation = "DUMB-AS-HELL"!). Are "all the automakers" surveying a different auto consumer market than GM is (so getting different results)? Of course not. GM is "hearing" the same thing they are. GM just isn't "listening" and the competition is. That is quite obvious from the situation. The cars are good. Many are very desirable vehicles, good looking, very good performing, etc. So, it's the "intangible" things working to erode their market share. (e.g. Customer Service, respecting the customer's wishes that could easily/cheaply be accommodated, responding to customer's letters, etc. would be examples)

I take it from this statement that you actually agree then that GM is not doing what some segments of the market want that ARE being satisfied by GM's competitors. Make up your mind. Which is it? Hint: you're right...the sales numbers prove it.

Back to the topic. This one is quite simple too. Again...if GM wants to sell more cars, then they have to provide what their competitors provide or those customers will go to their competitor for their car purchase. "Safety" only sells if the consumer agrees that a feature being pushed on them actually provides safety. The customer makes safety choices and assessments as well. Those "safety decisions" by the customer should be respected by GM, if they want to sell cars to them! If they don't respect the customer, then it's yet another "intangible" that becomes a huge liability.

Only if I don't want it and I can get it the way I want elsewhere. So, no, you don't get it...and this really is as plain as day too, so you should.

The conclusions you seem to keep coming to are so often quite incorrect. If you must know, the car I currently drive is a 2004 Chrysler product that has neither DRL's or ABS...both were options. So your theory, not surprisingly, is flawed.

Look. If we want GM to do better, we need to stop making lame excuses for their bad behavior toward their customers AND their lack of response to customer wants. GM has some damned excellent product offerings that should be selling the pants off of other products out there. Now, if you have a different explanation why Toyota (which is really nothing special in my book) is eating GM's lunch right now, we're all ears. When Toyota took the heat from their customers in 1999-2000 for their mandatory stance to DRL's, they switched their position to do what the customer wanted...as GM should have also done (5+ YEARS AGO). It didn't cost Toyota a darn thing to do what their customers wanted, and THAT sells cars. It's the little things like that that matter.

Reply to
James C. Reeves

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.