 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2005GM thinking of scrapping buick or pontiac division
About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All they need is chevrolet and caddy. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005032315440002961051&dt=20050 323154400&w=RTR&coview= DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp., which issued a shock profit warning last week and has been losing market share, may phase out one of its weaker car brands if sales fail to meet projections, company Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said on Wednesday. GM's Buick and Pontiac are both "damaged brands" due to lack of investment over the years, and GM is working to correct that with an array of new vehicles coming to market, Lutz told a Morgan Stanley automotive conference in New York. But if some of its brands fail to meet sales projections, "then we would have to take a look at a phase-out. I hope we don't have to do that. What we've got to do is keep the brands we've got." Financial analysts have said for years that the world's largest automaker has too many brands to support, even with the gradual phase-out of the Oldsmobile brand a few years ago, particularly with its weaker U.S. sales. Sales for both Pontiac and Buick have lagged in recent years. But GM is in the midst of a $3 billion investment in new vehicles for Buick, and Pontiac showrooms and they will have four new vehicles this year, including the Solstice roadster, Torrent SUV and the G6 mid-size coupe. GM, which last week cut its earnings outlook for 2005 by as much as 80 percent, posted a 6 percent drop in U.S. sales for the first two months of the year. GM's U.S. market share fell to about 25 percent, far below its share of 27.5 percent for all of 2004. (snip) > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of its weaker car brands if sales fail to meet projections, company > Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said on Wednesday. I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. I do think a brand retrenchment is a good idea - these older brands don't have much resonance at all among us younger buyers in particular these days. Olds has already bit the dust and I'm not surprised if others follow.  SignatureRobert I. Cruickshank roadgeek, historian, progressive >> About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All >> they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >resonance at all among us younger buyers in particular these days. Olds >has already bit the dust and I'm not surprised if others follow. Does this mean GM factories will have to pay *cash* for deliveries from GE? That could be interesting to watch! :-) SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE >>apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. > >Does this mean GM factories will have to pay *cash* for deliveries >from GE? WTF does GM buy from GE? Light bulbs? SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ > >>I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE > >>apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Light bulbs? General Electric is in the railroad business making engines and equipment. So is General Motors. >> >>I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE >> >>apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > General Electric is in the railroad business making engines and >equipment. So is General Motors. So are you saying that GM buys locomotives (or parts thereof) from GE? SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ > >> >>I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE > >> >>apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So are you saying that GM buys locomotives (or parts thereof) from GE? Remember most locomotives these days are electric. The diesel engine merely runs an alternator or generator to produce electricity to run the traction motors that turn the wheels. Subtract the diesel, add a third rail shoe or pantograph and you have a straight electric. GM recently sold off the locomotive business (EMD) to a finance outfit. EMD (Electromotive Division) was part of GM since the 1930's and for decades was the largest locomotive manufacturer in the world. General Electric supplied electrical gear such as traction motors and alternators to several manufacturers of locomotives over the years and was Alco's partner in the locomotive business of the 1950's. GE got into the large locomotive business in the early 1960's with it's own line and it was usually the #3 builder behind EMD and the now defunct Alco. After Alco called it quits GE usually ran a distant second behind EMD until the 1990's. During the 1990's several factors came into play that vaulted GE into a commanding lead in the domestic locomotive business. Poor quality control and performance from GM's 50 and 60 series locomotives and EMD's higher costs and longer wait times made the GE line look better. GE was able to produce more locomotives faster and at lower costs, meeting more stringent enviornmental guidelines and with better fuel economy. There were rumors floating around that GE would buy EMD but that would not likely pass anti-trust review. GE electrical gear can be found on some older EMD models that had trade-in parts, but the majority of EMD locomotives had EMD built alternators and traction motors. GE did sell it's electrical gear to other builders such as Alco and Baldwin. SignatureRich Carlson, N9JIG rich#n9jig*com Change the # to @ and the * to . [Executive summary omitted] Thanks, Rich, for the excellent synopsis! It looks like the other poster was referring to GE's financial arm. SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ The electricity in a diesel locomotive works as a transmission. They do have some purely diesel engines, but they are all small, usually designed for railcars and small passenger trains, and usually they have 2-3 gears. >>>I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE >>>apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Light bulbs? Probably, but the line of credit was used to pay other suppliers. And GE being the enormous megalith that it is, the GE lighting division probably hasn't even heard about it yet. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >I've read some reports that even mention bankruptcy as a possibility. GE > >apparently cut off a big credit line to GM recently. > > Does this mean GM factories will have to pay *cash* for deliveries > from GE? GE is a HUGE conglomerate. Among the biggest divisions of GE is its a bank. A HUGE bank, lending only to corporations, countries, and like that. Its not that GM buys parts from GE, although they probably do, its that GM uses GE's money as a short term loan cusion on a continious basis. GE is smart enough not to loan money to people that cannot pay it back. SP Cook > > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > > they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > resonance at all among us younger buyers in particular these days. Olds > has already bit the dust and I'm not surprised if others follow. On the other hand - Toyota is adding brands..... GM also just made the decision to scrap (or delay indefinitely) plans for a new RWD car platform. They decided they needed to concentrate on their next generation of SUVs. While it is true that GM has the oldest and clunkiest family of SUVs on the planet, this doesn't seem to matter to many SUV buyers. GM SUV sales are still relatively strong, and even though their SUV chassis designs are old, they are still roughly equivalent to the equally obsolescent Toyota SUVs. I think Ford and Nissan are rapidly proving that building a better SUV does not result in better sales. GM would be far better off concentrating on updating their car lines instead of trying to catch up in the SUV race to nowhere. And there is also the rumor that GM is going to layoff a large portion of it's US white collar workforce. This usually means engineers......another move that will result in "great things" from GM. I'll believe GM is serious about survival when they action some of the top guys.... Ed > And there is also the rumor that GM is going to layoff a > large portion of it's US white collar workforce. This > usually means engineers......another move that will result > in "great things" from GM. I'll believe GM is serious about > survival when they action some of the top guys.... On top of that, it's often the knowledgable engineers that haven't bothered to make the political connections to survive that will be axed. Leaving them with the buzzword types and a few good engineers who will now be so overworked quality will suffer even more. > GM also just made the decision to scrap (or delay > indefinitely) plans for a new RWD car platform. They decided [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lines instead of trying to catch up in the SUV race to > nowhere. I'm agree with you, looks like DCX (Daimler-Chrysler) had saw the writing in the wall about the height of the popularity of the SUV-mania and had developped a terrific car (even if they used a Mercedes platform), the Chrysler 300C and Dodge Magnum and avoid to be too much dependant of the SUV sales (Durango, Grand Cherokee). Ford, despite the half-success of the 500 and the bit hit than the restyled Mustang have, will bring in 2006, a new Ford Fusion, a car who have some guts (the too seems to have saw the end of the big SUV-mania) > And there is also the rumor that GM is going to layoff a > large portion of it's US white collar workforce. This [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed St?phane Dumas > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of the year. GM's U.S. market share fell to about 25 percent, far below > its share of 27.5 percent for all of 2004. Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan > Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. It'd be as much as a mistake as dropping the firebird and camaro, or dropping olds just as they started to come back. GM must be run by idiots. They screwed up the GTO when they brought it here because they didn't want to spend more than the bare minimum to americanize it and they screw up everything else. Also, the person who said the marques have no resonance with the younger buyers is obviously not a car guy.Then again this is a transportation board not a car board. >> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > with the younger buyers is obviously not a car guy.Then again this is a > transportation board not a car board. The new GTO is nearly perfect. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan >>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The new GTO is nearly perfect. You mean the one that looks like an ordinary GrandPrix and costs over 30 grand? >>>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You mean the one that looks like an ordinary GrandPrix and > costs over 30 grand? 33k for 400 horsepower is a bargain in 2005. Also, remember the original GTO looked like an ordinary Tempest, as it was based on the pedestrian family car. The new GTO is true to the original. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan Buick should be scrapped as it is the ONLY make to get a negative reference in a Futurama episode: Farnsworth talking about why killer space bees are too dangerous "These bees are as large as most Buicks, and twice as ugly" > >>>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Also, remember the original GTO looked like an ordinary Tempest, as it was > based on the pedestrian family car. The new GTO is true to the original. You're all saying thing because I just bought a Buick, aren't you? SignatureTim, a man with limited cash and limited options, proud owner of 1997 Park Avenue... Exit 4, NH 101 > You're all saying thing because I just bought a Buick, aren't you? I've owned 3 Buicks, 2 Olds and 1 Caddy since I started driving, and the 3 Buicks were my favorites. (although I liked the Caddy, it was a premium-drinking gas hog ;^) (oh, and Tim, my current car is a 1996 Park Avenue :) >> You're all saying thing because I just bought a Buick, aren't you? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (oh, and Tim, my current car is a 1996 Park Avenue :) And my dad had currently a 2004 Buick LeSabre And meanwhile in Australia, Holden will continue to work on the Zeta platform for the next generation Commodore and Monaro, someone at a forum posted an interesting suggestion for it http://forums.gminsidenews.com/showpost.php?p=195725&postcount=55 St?phane Dumas "Stéphane Dumas" <stephdumas@NOSPAMvideotron.ca> wrote: > "me" <nospam@nospam.com> a écrit > > "Tim" <spam@spam.spam> wrote [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And my dad had currently a 2004 Buick LeSabre My current car is a 2003 Buick LeSabre, my previous car was a 1994 Buick LeSabre, and I had a 1990 Buick Century before that. All very fine cars, and my favorites compared to the two Chevorlets and one Volkswagen that I owned before that. The fullsize Buicks are marketed mainly to the age 45 and up crowd; granted that few people in their 20s would buy one, but they certainly have a niche for the middle-age and above crowd. It is said that the Buick LeSabre has the highest brand loyalty among fullsize cars, meaning consecutive purchases of the same make and model (as I did with my current and previous car). I'll buy another one if they are still being manufactured. Buick just introduced the LaCrosse (http://www.buick.com/lacrosse/), which is about midway between the Regal and the LeSabre. I hope that GM keeps making Buicks, but we'll have to see what happens. SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com > "Stéphane Dumas" <stephdumas@NOSPAMvideotron.ca> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > granted that few people in their 20s would buy one, but they certainly > have a niche for the middle-age and above crowd. The last cool Buick was the 1987 Grand National/GNX. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan > My current car is a 2003 Buick LeSabre, my previous car was a 1994 Buick > LeSabre, and I had a 1990 Buick Century before that. All very fine [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I hope that GM keeps making Buicks, but we'll have to see what happens. Latest story from down under is the 2006 VE Commodore will be sold in the US as the - not sure of spelling - Buick Vel Satris? Not imported from Oz, the design and tuning will be done here, but when the design is complete appropriate tooling, etc, will be installed in an under-used US plant. Major hassle is with another GM division (unnamed, but here's a clue: C_______T) as the V8 option is the LS2. No probs for downunder, but the Bow Tie Boys are reluctant to have "their" engine in another US product. For a possible pic of how it look Google for VE Commodore 2006 - there is a www.germancars site somewhere that has a rendition of the same thing in its European Opel guise. Time will tell. Wonder if - blasphemy! - there will be a Buick Special Vehicles division using Holden Special Vehicles tuning kits (www.hsv.com.au)? Steve > > I hope that GM keeps making Buicks, but we'll have to see what happens. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Vehicles division using Holden Special Vehicles tuning kits > (www.hsv.com.au)? Several Buick models are being built in China -- "Shanghai, China - Shanghai General Motors (Shanghai GM) announced today it will produce a small car model starting at the end of this year to meet Chinese customers' fast-growing demand for high-quality, affordable vehicles. Two Buick Sail small cars assembled with imported components will be on display at the Shanghai International Industry Fair - New and High Tech Achievements Exhibition 2000, which opens Tuesday. Sail comes from the Chinese words Sai Ou. The 1.6-litre Buick Sail is based on the highly successful Opel Corsa sold in some 80 countries. The compact car, which has won more than 80 awards worldwide, is being tailored to meet Chinese road and market conditions by the Pan Asian Technical Automotive Center, a 50-50 joint venture of GM and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. and will introduce numerous first-in-class features for the segment". http://www.trishield.com/Concepts/sail.shtml "The Buick series sedan and W-wagon produced by Shanghai GM, a joint venture of General Motors, the world's largest auto maker, were able to enjoy some of the limelight alongside the cyber car". http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/history/00-06-06/b04-gm.html "General Motors Corp., a Sino-US joint venture, has introduced an upgraded Buick to the Chinese market. The new car, the 2003 Buick GL8, is equipped with double roof windows, smart device for backing and DVD film sets. The 2003 Buick GL8 comes in three models, namely, the GL, the LT and the CT, which are sold at prices ranging from 279,000 to 378,000 yuan (34,000 to 46,000 US dollars), according to the company". http://english.people.com.cn/200304/01/eng20030401_114388.shtml SignatureScott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com >> My current car is a 2003 Buick LeSabre, my previous car was a 1994 Buick >> LeSabre, and I had a 1990 Buick Century before that. All very fine [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > downunder, but the Bow Tie Boys are reluctant to have "their" engine in > another US product. The LS2 is in the Pontiac GTO and the Cadillac CTS-V, along with the Chevy Corvette and SSR. There really aren't "Chevy engines" and "Pontiac engines" anymore, just corporate engines (with the exception of the Caddy Northstar V8.) SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan Yes, yuo bad bad boy you! :-) > You're all saying thing because I just bought a Buick, aren't you? > Yes, yuo bad bad boy you! :-) What can I say? My beloved 1994 Corsica croaked and all my mechanic had on his lot was a Bonneville , a Caddy and the Park Avenue. With no money and less time, the choices were limited, but ultimately easy... SignatureTim, World's Youngest Buick Owner, at 41 years, 7 months... Exit 4, NH 101 > >>>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Also, remember the original GTO looked like an ordinary Tempest, as it was > based on the pedestrian family car. The new GTO is true to the original. You mean the one that looks like an ordinary GrandPrix and costs over 30 grand? >>>>>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > You mean the one that looks like an ordinary GrandPrix and > costs over 30 grand? No, the one that looks like an ordinary Tempest and cost over 3 grand. 1964 Pontiac Tempest LeMans: http://www.americandreamcars.com/1964lemans.jpg 1964 Pontiac GTO: http://www.gtoaa.org/shows/rshow15.jpg Not a lot of difference. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan >> You mean the one that looks like an ordinary GrandPrix and >> costs over 30 grand? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not a lot of difference. There sure IS! Are you BLIND, man? They're different colors! Later, Chris, proud owner of a last model year Oldsmobile Intrigue... -- Chris Bessert Bessert1@aol.com http://www.michiganhighways.org http://www.wisconsinhighways.org http://www.ontariohighways.org > The new GTO is nearly perfect. Look in the trunk. Richard >> The new GTO is nearly perfect. > > Look in the trunk. ??? SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan they didn't want to spend to make the US fuel tank fit in the car well, so instead they just took out about 1/3 of the trunk for it. Richard >>> The new GTO is nearly perfect. >> >> Look in the trunk. > > ??? >>> The new GTO is nearly perfect. >> >> Look in the trunk. > >??? You can't hardly fit two bodies in there! SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >"OGT '92" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote >> The new GTO is nearly perfect. > >Look in the trunk. Speaking of GTO trunks, my 66 Goat was so light in the rear that it was squirrely when I braked quickly, so I put bags of sand in the trunk to weigh it down back there. Brand names Buick + Pontiac should go . Toyota should stay . Buick + Pontiac = brand names with little value . Buick + Pontiac = no future . Toyota = good future brand name . GM = too many brand names . GM should reduce the number of its brand names GM has too many brand names which makes consummers deasyy . GM should have only 3 brands , top , middle ,and low . > Brand names Buick + Pontiac should go . Toyota should stay . Buick + > Pontiac = brand names with little value . Buick + Pontiac = no future . > Toyota = good future brand name . Well, then, as a special treat for you after you finish your grammar homework and learn how to write a complete sentence, take a look at these Japanese-market Toyota Cavaliers: http://sr.khv.ru/images/racers/raven/548969MLW.jpg http://catalogue.carview.co.jp/Merismus/NewOverview/v4222a.jpg http://www.autobuy.co.nz/car/car_stock.php?module_id=3&vehicle_id=198956&dealer_ id=676&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobuy.co.nz%2Fautobuymain%2Fusedcarspage.php http://japan-car.ru/icar/t0074_1.jpg http://www.autobuy.co.nz/car/car_stock.php?module_id=3&vehicle_id=236079&dealer_ id=1605&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobuy.co.nz%2Fautobuymain%2Fusedcarspage.php http://www.autobuy.co.nz/car/car_stock.php?module_id=3&vehicle_id=220511&dealer_ id=656&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobuy.co.nz%2Fautobuymain%2Fusedcarspage.php >>Brand names Buick + Pontiac should go . Toyota should stay . Buick + >>Pontiac = brand names with little value . Buick + Pontiac = no future . [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.autobuy.co.nz/car/car_stock.php?module_id=3&vehicle_id=236079&dealer_ id=1605&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobuy.co.nz%2Fautobuymain%2Fusedcarspage.php > http://www.autobuy.co.nz/car/car_stock.php?module_id=3&vehicle_id=220511&dealer_ id=656&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.autobuy.co.nz%2Fautobuymain%2Fusedcarspage.php My, my. A Cavalier in disguise. (10 to 1 says that if Consumer Reports rated that car, the rating would jump as compared to the Chevy version simply because of the Toyota name.) Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) > (10 to 1 says that if Consumer Reports rated that car, the rating would > jump as compared to the Chevy version simply because of the Toyota name.) Ever hear those commericals for Consumer Reports where they say because they don't sell advertising they are unbiased. As if the only reason to be biased was advertising money.... > (10 to 1 says that if Consumer Reports rated that car, the rating would > jump as compared to the Chevy version simply because of the Toyota > name.) Of course it would. Witness the Toyota Corolla/Chevrolet-Geo Prizm twins, the Ford/Mazda twins, the Chevrolet/Isuzu twins... >>The new GTO is nearly perfect. > > Look in the trunk. What, they forget the trunk monkey? Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> Look in the trunk. > > What, they forget the trunk monkey? No, there is a gigantic block in the trunk because they didn't want to have to reorganize things for a US spe gas tank so they just put it in the trunk and made a box around it. Though, the trunk monkey is an important feature. In fact, I have it on good authority that trunk monkey racing is working to get official trunk monkey's produced. > >> Look in the trunk. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In fact, I have it on good authority that trunk monkey racing is working to > get official trunk monkey's produced. Where is the fuel tank in the Australian version? Ed > > No, there is a gigantic block in the trunk because they didn't want to > > have to reorganize things for a US spe gas tank so they just put it in > > the trunk and made a box around it. Though, the trunk monkey is an > > important feature. In fact, I have it on good authority that trunk > > monkey racing is working to get official trunk monkey's produced. > Where is the fuel tank in the Australian version? Under the car. > > > No, there is a gigantic block in the trunk because they didn't want to > > > have to reorganize things for a US spe gas tank so they just put it in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Under the car. Then they moved it so it would meet US fuel tank integrity requirements? Is it up high behind the back seat? No change to the trunk floor to make it deeper where the tank used to be? I wonder how much it hurt handling? Ed > Then they moved it so it would meet US fuel tank integrity > requirements? Is it up high behind the back seat? No change > to the trunk floor to make it deeper where the tank used to > be? I wonder how much it hurt handling? Yup. In the US version open the trunk and in the left far corner (i.e. left corner closest to cabin) you a big block of carpeting just sticking out into the trunk. What they should have done was made the trunk a little less deep and just put it vertically behind the back seats like Benz has been doing for decades. It wouldn't dig into the trunk so much since it would be as wide as the back seats instead of just taking up one corner. Richard >> Then they moved it so it would meet US fuel tank integrity >> requirements? Is it up high behind the back seat? No change [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > left corner closest to cabin) you a big block of carpeting just sticking > out into the trunk. Wow. Who cares? > What they should have done was made the trunk a little less deep and just > put it vertically behind the back seats like Benz has been doing for > decades. It wouldn't dig into the trunk so much since it would be as wide > as the back seats instead of just taking up one corner. > Richard And that would have made it cost how much? As it is, the GTO seems like one of the 2 or 3 GM products worth owning at the moment. >>> Then they moved it so it would meet US fuel tank integrity >>> requirements? Is it up high behind the back seat? No change [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wow. Who cares? Anybody who would care about something like that wouldn't drive a GTO anyway. They would drive something like a Camry. >> What they should have done was made the trunk a little less deep and just >> put it vertically behind the back seats like Benz has been doing for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > one > of the 2 or 3 GM products worth owning at the moment. The Chrysler 300C SRT-8 looks pretty good, although the lack of a manual transmission is a minus. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan > >> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The new GTO is nearly perfect. Maybe so, but it isn't selling well. In my opinion it is too bland and too expensive. I saw one on the road the other day (the only one I know was a GTO for sure). Even then, if the guy had not been driving like a moron, I'd never have noticed the car. I only saw it was a GTO when he almost ran me onto the shoulder when he realized he was about to miss his exit. Ed > It'd be as much as a mistake as dropping the firebird and camaro You're about 35 years too late in this critique. GM is bleeding -- literally swirling the toilet. Their financial position is very much worse than is being generally reported. GE Capital just yanked their $2 BILLION credit line that was used to pay suppliers, so GM's terms with their suppliers are now effectively "Net...sometime...maybe". Think a lot of suppliers will put up with that for very long? A bunch of new 2007-2009 models have been cancelled. They have no hybrids, the price of gas continues to rise with no end in sight, and GM is publicly stating they're pinning their hopes on the new-for-2007 full size trucks and SUVs (none of which will be hybrids). Meanwhile, Toyota and Nissan and Honda are ramping up their truck production, and lots of people are buying. > GM must be run by idiots. And has been for decades, yes. The only reason it's taken this long for the bleeding to be generally apparent is because bloated GM contained so much blood. > They screwed up the GTO when they brought it here because they didn't want > to spend more than the bare minimum to americanize it Er...that's wrong. They screwed-up the GTO when they brought it here because they DIDN'T do the bare minimum to Americanize it. They OVERLY Americanized it, giving it an ugly "1.25-scale Cavalier" body treatment and assorted other uglifications, softening the suspension, etc. > Also, the person who said the marques have no resonance with the younger > buyers is obviously not a car guy. Wrong again. Turn on your TV, pick up a newspaper, hit the web, listen to the radio: GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a Chevrolet Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). That giant sucking sound you hear is a great big enormous collective yawn. DS > Er...that's wrong. They screwed-up the GTO when they brought it here > because they DIDN'T do the bare minimum to Americanize it. They OVERLY > Americanized it, giving it an ugly "1.25-scale Cavalier" body treatment > and assorted other uglifications, softening the suspension, etc. I meant in the Americanization they just cheaply did a bunch of stuff, instead of making the americanization mods good quality. > Wrong again. You misunderstood me. I meant if Olds were not dead and they brought out a 442 kids would say "yeah this is just like the old 442" even if it weren't and they'd be proud about it. I'm a kid myself, so I should know. >> Er...that's wrong. They screwed-up the GTO when they brought it here >> because they DIDN'T do the bare minimum to Americanize it. They OVERLY [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 442 kids would say "yeah this is just like the old 442" even if it weren't > and they'd be proud about it. I'm a kid myself, so I should know. There was a Quad 442 in the late 80's or early 90's, based on the Calais. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing - Maynard James Keenan GM shall become a second biggest cars manufacturer In rec.autos.driving Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote: > > It'd be as much as a mistake as dropping the firebird and camaro > You're about 35 years too late in this critique. GM is bleeding -- > literally swirling the toilet. Their financial position is very much worse [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > which will be hybrids). Meanwhile, Toyota and Nissan and Honda are ramping > up their truck production, and lots of people are buying. > > GM must be run by idiots. > And has been for decades, yes. The only reason it's taken this long for > the bleeding to be generally apparent is because bloated GM contained so > much blood. > > They screwed up the GTO when they brought it here because they didn't want > > to spend more than the bare minimum to americanize it > Er...that's wrong. They screwed-up the GTO when they brought it here > because they DIDN'T do the bare minimum to Americanize it. They OVERLY > Americanized it, giving it an ugly "1.25-scale Cavalier" body treatment > and assorted other uglifications, softening the suspension, etc. > > Also, the person who said the marques have no resonance with the younger > > buyers is obviously not a car guy. > Wrong again. Turn on your TV, pick up a newspaper, hit the web, listen to > the radio: GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a > Chevrolet Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). That giant sucking sound > you hear is a great big enormous collective yawn. > DS GM is a global company. It does not exist solely on U.S. market share. People love to make fun of them but, people do buy their cars and trucks. If you have not seen any young people in Cobalt's and Cavalier's you simply choose to ignore them... It is my opinion that they will be around for awhile. Edward Strauss wrote: > GM is a global company. It does not exist solely on U.S. market > share. People love to make fun of them but, people do buy their > cars and trucks. If you have not seen any young people in Cobalt's > and Cavalier's you simply choose to ignore them... It is my opinion > that they will be around for awhile. I haven't seen a single Cobalt yet outside of TV commercials. nate > GM is a global company. It does not exist solely on U.S. market > share. That's what is so disapointing, we know that they can make decent vehicles if they are making money in those markets. They just refuse to sell them in the USA. Instead, they fill the US market with crap. > People love to make fun of them but, people do buy their > cars and trucks. If you have not seen any young people in Cobalt's > and Cavalier's you simply choose to ignore them... It is my opinion > that they will be around for awhile. Trouble for GM is, the market share for and margin on 'crap' is shrinking. "Edward Strauss" <es8m@Virginia.EDU> a ?crit dans le message de news: d1ucpq$g7b$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU... > In rec.autos.driving Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> ramping >> up their truck production, and lots of people are buying. Looks like the wind might turning http://www.freep.com/money/autoreviews/phelan24e_20050324.htm Also last year, lots of peoples complained about Nissan Quest glitches (a syndrome of the Renault disease?) Honda begins to check some nervous eyes in their rear view mirror the progress of Hyundai >> DS St?phane Dumas > > It'd be as much as a mistake as dropping the firebird and camaro > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which will be hybrids). Meanwhile, Toyota and Nissan and Honda are ramping > up their truck production, and lots of people are buying. GMs biggest problem is that their fixed costs are higher than any other manufacturer by a long run. According to this article, $2,000 on every car sold goes to retiree pension and health benefits - these are for people who are no longer adding value to the company. And GM makes about $200 per unit sold...compared to $1,400 for Toyota. Toyota, and others, have much more flexibility in times of a soft market when compared to GM. They should have done a better job managing their brands. They completely ignored Saturn during the SUV age...and now Saturn is the exact type of car they should be pushing. Or do they push the new Cobalt.... Do they push the new H3 or the Escalade? I don't know if dropping brands is the answer...maybe "focusing" them would be a better idea. Jon > GMs biggest problem is that their fixed costs are higher than any other > manufacturer by a long run. According to this article, $2,000 on every > car sold goes to retiree pension and health benefits - these are for > people who are no longer adding value to the company. I don't know all the details, but this smacks of phony accounting. I am sure that in the past, the GM profit and loss statement reflected charges for future pension obligations. Now maybe they spent the money they claimed was set aside for these obligations (like hmmm...the US government). I know the company I work for has a huge stash of money set aside for pension obligations. Government rules say they can't spend it, but interestingly they can claim any pension fund gains" as a profit in the annual report (even though they can't spend it). > And GM makes about $200 per unit sold...compared to $1,400 for Toyota. > Toyota, and others, have much more flexibility in times of a soft > market when compared to GM. It might be interesting to compare executive compensation at GM to executive compensation at Toyota. And then decide which people are "no longer adding value to the company." > They should have done a better job managing their brands. They > completely ignored Saturn during the SUV age...and now Saturn is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jon > > GMs biggest problem is that their fixed costs are higher than any other > > manufacturer by a long run. According to this article, $2,000 on every [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > any pension fund gains" as a profit in the annual report > (even though they can't spend it). They are "underfunded pension obligations." IOW, even the money they set aside wasn't enough so now they have to come up with more. Jon > Wrong again. Turn on your TV, pick up a newspaper, hit the web, listen to > the radio: GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a > Chevrolet Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). Actually edmunds.com has a positive review for the Cobalt. > > GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a Chevrolet > > Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). > Actually edmunds.com has a positive review for the Cobalt. Of course it does. Based on nothing but projected advertising revenues. C'mon, think for a minute. The Cobalt's been on the road for what, ten days, and these buffoons are telling us what a marvelously high-quality car it is? Gimme a damn break. Get back to me in a year or five or ten and *then* we'll see what kind of alleged quality is built into the Cobalt. >>>GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a Chevrolet >>>Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > car it is? Gimme a damn break. Get back to me in a year or five or ten and > *then* we'll see what kind of alleged quality is built into the Cobalt. You could be right, but generally edmunds.com is much better at discerning quality than consumer reports. In rec.autos.driving Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote: > > > GM is telling young people that they're hot prospects for a Chevrolet > > > Cadavalier (oops, I mean "Cobalt"). > > Actually edmunds.com has a positive review for the Cobalt. > Of course it does. Based on nothing but projected advertising revenues. > C'mon, think for a minute. The Cobalt's been on the road for what, ten > days, and these buffoons are telling us what a marvelously high-quality > car it is? Gimme a damn break. Get back to me in a year or five or ten and > *then* we'll see what kind of alleged quality is built into the Cobalt. Hmm... Ten years is probably beyond the products life cycle. Cobalt is a decent car. Small inside but seems to fit in with the rest of the stuff on the road. The Mazda is the preferred car in this class which also includes the Toyota Corolla. Which is more the "Buffoon", someone who has driven the car or someone who has not??? Edward Strauss wrote: > In rec.autos.driving Daniel J. Stern <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "Buffoon", > someone who has driven the car or someone who has not??? I have an idea that 10 days for a Cobalt would be like a year for, let's say, a Corolla. But I really shouldn't be so hard on the General - I am looking with lust in my heart on a certain 1980 Buick Wildcat. Signature"Life is hard. Life is harder when you're stupid". - John Wayne "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed" - Mao Zedong '99 FLHRCI Remove 74 before replying > I have an idea that 10 days for a Cobalt would be like a year for, let's > say, a Corolla. But I really shouldn't be so hard on the General - I am > looking with lust in my heart on a certain 1980 Buick Wildcat. That's a doomed crush you've got. There was no such car as the Buick Wildcat in 1980. >> I have an idea that 10 days for a Cobalt would be like a year for, >> let's say, a Corolla. But I really shouldn't be so hard on the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's a doomed crush you've got. There was no such car as the Buick > Wildcat in 1980. Certainly. My bad - I was fat-fingered. It's a 1970 model just up the road from me. Going to look at it tomorrow, as a matter of fact. Signature"Life is hard. Life is harder when you're stupid". - John Wayne "Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed" - Mao Zedong '99 FLHRCI Remove 74 before replying >I am looking with lust in my heart on a certain 1980 Buick >Wildcat. It's obviously a forgery. SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ >It's obviously a forgery. The rest of the internet. -- Lady Chatterly "Are you replying to me, or to the Bot known as Lady Chatterly? A rather well put together version of the old computer Liza artificial personality." -- Gunner > Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. I cant believe they're considering that. There are a lot of new GrandAms and GrandPrix on the road, so people are buying them. >> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > >I cant believe they're considering that. There are a lot of >new GrandAms and GrandPrix on the road, so people are buying >them. 1. Olds sold cars until they shut the doors. 2. Just becasue they are selling cars doesn't mean they are selling them at a profit. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > > Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. > > I cant believe they're considering that. There are a lot of > new GrandAms and GrandPrix on the road, so people are buying > them. How many of these are rentals? After all, are not Grand Ams a fleet favorite? Douglas A. Willinger Takoma Park Highway Design Studio http://www.HIghwaysAndcommunities.com >>> Dropping the Pontiac marque would be a HUGE mistake for GM. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How many of these are rentals? After all, are not Grand Ams a fleet > favorite? They're all over here too. I have several acquaintances who drive late-model Pontiacs. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > they need is chevrolet and caddy. > > http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005032315440002961051&dt=20050 323154400&w=RTR&coview= I might argue that they need a value line (Chevy), a performance line (Pontiac) and a luxury line (Caddy). > > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > > they need is chevrolet and caddy. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2005032315440002961051&dt=20050 323154400&w=RTR&coview= > I might argue that they need a value line (Chevy), a performance line > (Pontiac) and a luxury line (Caddy). "Performance line"???? You mean criminal line that caters to psycopaths like you that think it's cool to drive fast and reckless and kill innocent people. > "Performance line"???? You mean criminal line that caters to psycopaths > like you that think it's cool to drive fast and reckless and kill > innocent people. Go fornicate yourself with a clown pole. >> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >like you that think it's cool to drive fast and reckless and kill >innocent people. EXACTLY! You got a problem with that? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in >message [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >like you that think it's cool to drive fast and reckless and kill >innocent people. A performance line is one that turns quicker, stops quiker and accelerates quicker. There are all very important safety features that make a car safer. Unfortunately you are too stupid to figure that out. -------------- Alex >>"Performance line"???? You mean criminal line that caters to psycopaths >>like you that think it's cool to drive fast and reckless and kill [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quicker. There are all very important safety features that make a car safer. > Unfortunately you are too stupid to figure that out. Though he'll probably deny it now, Judy once admitted that he understood that quick acceleration can be beneficial in terms of safety. Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) As opposed to you, who think it's cool to get drunk and murder your mistress like your hero Teddy did? >>About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All >>they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I might argue that they need a value line (Chevy), a performance line > (Pontiac) and a luxury line (Caddy). But Chevy has more of a performance image than Pontiac these days anyway - they have the Corvette, and Pontiac only has the boring-looking GTO. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All > > they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I might argue that they need a value line (Chevy), a performance line > (Pontiac) and a luxury line (Caddy). No Buick? Ed >About time. Why have a million "brands" selling the same thing. All >they need is chevrolet and caddy. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >of its weaker car brands if sales fail to meet projections, company >Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said on Wednesday. GM should have seen the writing on the wall and scrapped it's SUV production a couple of years ago. It didn't - so let 'em rot. GM has always believed that when push comes to shove that folks in the US will choose style and glitz over reliability and quality. Toyota, on the other hand, believes the exact reverse. Toyota is looking to the future. GM still believes that selling dinosaurs to old coots is a core business. (and I qualify for 'old coot'). It's a shame to watch its demise especially when everybody and their dog knows why. If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand that thing. > If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand > that thing. But...you notice it! At least they are different. The "new" GTO is invisible. Ed >> If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >> that thing. > > But...you notice it! At least they are different. The "new" > GTO is invisible. Perfect. >>>If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >>>that thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Perfect. Not really. It's not invisible in a "looks like every other fairly well styled but innocuous small coupe/sedan on the road" way, but more of a "looks just like another boring, plastic-clad Pontiac POS" kind of thing. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >>>>that thing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > nate Ahh. Well, could be. Although I was sort of idly clicking around the Pontiac website one day (I happen to have a GM credit card, for reasons even I still don't quite understand) and noticed the GTO could be ordered without the hood scoops and body cladding stuff. In a nice silver pearl I thought it was decent enough looking if pretty anonymous, and I'm sure that there are people that a combination of good performance and blend-in-with-the-crowd looks would appeal to. Not that I'm exactly in the market for one, but it's one of the few GM cars that I wouldn't reject out of hand. Gee, that's not such a ringing endorsement, is it? >>>>>If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >>>>>that thing. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > one of the few GM cars that I wouldn't reject out of hand. Gee, that's not > such a ringing endorsement, is it? LOL... well, the other thing it has against it is that the new Mustang is quite a bit less scratch out of your pocket, and IMHO is more nicely styled, if not quite as invisible. So if I were in the market for a new, reasonably sporty car with a back seat, I'd probably be leaning toward the Mustang, even though I don't generally go for cars quite that extroverted for a daily driver. That said, even though I am definitely lukewarm on the GTO's styling, and probably will never buy one, it looks like a respectable package at least on paper and I wouldn't kick one out of my driveway for leaking oil. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>>> If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >>>>>> that thing. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > like a respectable package at least on paper and I wouldn't kick one out > of my driveway for leaking oil. I don't like the front end of the new Mustang. The wrap around park lights bug me. I don't really like the beady-eyed headlights either. Build one with round park lights and different headlights and I'd buy one. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan >>>>> If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all ofr it. I can't stand >>>>> that thing. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > one of the few GM cars that I wouldn't reject out of hand. Gee, that's not > such a ringing endorsement, is it? It's the sleeper effect. Part of the original GTO and the moderrn GTO's appeal. SignatureBeliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing. - Maynard James Keenan >If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all for it. I can't stand >that thing. That's the ugliest vehicle to come down the pike in quite awhile. > >If this gets the Aztek off the road, I'm all for it. I can't stand > >that thing. > > That's the ugliest vehicle to come down the pike in quite awhile. Honda Element beat out the Aztek for my 'ugliest car of the year' award last year. >> On 24 Mar 2005 05:34:41 -0800, "The Office Jet" ><grimesa4218016@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Honda Element beat out the Aztek for my 'ugliest car of the year' award >last year. How about the Scion? I don't think the Honda Element is all that ugly looking. I think it looks sort of cute, but that's just my opinion. What I really think is ugly- superfluous spoilers/wings on cars- usually the trunk area. The ones on a car for no other reason than to say "hey |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message