 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / December 2005Why do you post here-------
---------If you don't like GM products or GM as a Corp? Just a bunch of whinie trolls and trolls can just BITE ME! If you like Jap Crap so much go to www.buttmunch.TOYotas.suck.com and troll there. GM will be here making a great product long after you go to meet your maker. 102 years says it all doesn't it? Actually "In a note to investors on Thursday (11/11/95), Bank of America said bankrupcy for GM is now "inevitable."" http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/economics/ >---------If you don't like GM products or GM as a Corp? Just a bunch of >whinie trolls and trolls can just BITE ME! If you like Jap Crap so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >GM will be here making a great product long after you go to meet your >maker. 102 years says it all doesn't it? > Actually "In a note to investors on Thursday (11/11/95), Bank of > America said bankrupcy for GM is now "inevitable."" Bankrupcy protection does not mean the end of the company. It could come out of it stronger than ever. Jane > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/economics/ > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>GM will be here making a great product long after you go to meet your >>maker. 102 years says it all doesn't it? Greetings, The one and only way to deal with trolls is to completely ignore them. Do not respond in any way and place their names in your kill-file so you don't receive their posts. It doesn't take long for even a troll to learn that if she can't get a rise out of someone on the group they will leave and post their garbage elsewhere. Cheers - Jonathan > ---------If you don't like GM products or GM as a Corp? Just a bunch of > whinie trolls and trolls can just BITE ME! If you like Jap Crap so [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > GM will be here making a great product long after you go to meet your > maker. 102 years says it all doesn't it? > ---------If you don't like GM products or GM as a Corp? Just a bunch of > whinie trolls and trolls can just BITE ME! If you like Jap Crap so > much go to www.buttmunch.TOYotas.suck.com > and troll there. I read this NG as my employer forces me to drive a GM vehicle. > GM will be here making a great product long after you go to meet your > maker. 102 years says it all doesn't it? GM hasn't made a great product since the early 70s. The old 70s A-bodies were world class (wasn't the Olds Cutlass the best selling car in the world for a couple years?) the new GM passenger cars are average at best. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > I read this NG as my employer forces me to drive a GM vehicle. > GM hasn't made a great product since the early 70s. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate Come on Nate. Get real. It's apparent that you are still lamenting the demise of the Studebaker Corporation and are lashing out at the rest of the automotive world! *lol* Nate, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Studebaker's not coming back. > Come on Nate. Get real. It's apparent that you are still lamenting the > demise of the Studebaker Corporation and are lashing out at the rest of > the automotive world! *lol* Nate, I hate to be the one to break it to > you, but Studebaker's not coming back. Sometimes I wish that it were still possible to enter the market with a good old name and a better car....a successful 'Tucker' or rebirth of Studebaker maybe. Tuckerbaker could buy the best engines, trannies, airconditioning systems, ete from other suppliers and assemble them in a chassis that is strong, quiet, and roadworthy. Give the American people something worth buying. Oh well.... > Sometimes I wish that it were still possible to enter the market with a good > old > name and a better car....a successful 'Tucker' or rebirth of Studebaker > maybe. Plenty of companies have pulled this trick off in the past fourty years. Unfortunately none of them call the USA home :(. John Perhaps he's a coward? "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:unUhf.288$HC2.281@trnddc06... > Actually I own a 2002 Olds Silhouette that I paid my hard earned cash > for. I don't hate GM, actually I am very sad about the current situation. > I do have a deep disrespect for the use of thuggery to get your way, and > trashing a co-workers vehicle because you disagree with his or her [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is accurate constructive criticism which carries the power to help a > person or organization *be* better. We would certainly welcome your recommendations to help GM *be* better. You haven't posted such "constructive criticism". Oh, by the way, input into how a person or organization can *be* better, needn't be criticism at all. It can be friendly advise, without criticism. Hmm, we haven't seen that from you either. It might be wise to "practise what you preach". > Most of my career was spent making non-Intel microprocessors, but it > never occurred to any of us to destroy the home computer of a co-worker > who bought something with Intel Inside. That's because they didn't park their computers in the company lot every day to put salt in the wound! *lol* You might have felt differently if your company had fallen on hard economic times and you had faced the prospect of being laid off, while your coworkers continued to bring in their computers with "Intel Inside" every day and flaunted Intel's superior technology. That's the comparison you have to consider. You have to walk in the same shoes as the GM employees. > I could care less what you think you have seen from me. All I see from > you is mindless boosterism and approval of those who use force to get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who need to "get out of the group". This is just an unmoderated usenet > newsgroup, hardly a special club :). You're right, it's not all about you John. I couldn't agree more. What made you even think it was? We couldn't give a damn about you and your "mindless" drivel. > John > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Plenty of companies have pulled this trick off in the past fourty years. > Unfortunately none of them call the USA home :(. Those companies that have pulled this off in the past forty years are no longer in business you dumbass! They don't have a home, period! > John > Perhaps he's a coward? Well, I have posted a number of times about what I expect, and what it would take to make me want to buy another GM car. My desires span several generations. In case you have not seen them, here are some...maybe not all...of the issues: (1) I want an engine that holds up. Not a 3800 Gen II that blows a freaking plastic plenum which I have to pay for. Shitty engineering. Very Very shitty. (2) I want a transmission that doesn't have to be rebuilt...to the tune of $2000 +...around 100K miles. The 440T4 Metric was one of the worst pieces of sh.t GM even came out with. And like (1) above, they avoided the issue. (3) I dont want a car loaded with computerized bullshit. I do not need a computerized air conditioner, or anything that makes it hard or super expensive to repair. We recently had to pay $600 for an HVAC computer that went bonkers. A switch and a thermostat would work as well. I dont want any more shitteaux complicated electronics that absolutely necessary. I do not need 48 microprocessors integrated into my sun visor. (4) I want a car body that doesnt creak, moan, rattle, and complain. Body by Fisher used to mean something. These latter day bunghole rattly SOB's are a disgrace. (5) I want an air conditioning compressor that doesn't become petulant and start leaking at the front seal before the new car smell is out of the auto. And while we are at it, lets improve the metallurgy in the heater cores, air conditioner evaporators, and maybe even in the radiators. (6) I want an alternator that holds up to the heat and stresses put on it. Fire some of the union workers, and some of the pimply faced lavender shirt wearing executives if need be, and get GM back on course. If you can't do it, go the hell bankrupt. > > Perhaps he's a coward? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > plastic plenum > which I have to pay for. Shitty engineering. Very Very shitty. You know you are WRONG here. The 3800 is by far the best and most reliable GM or any other car maker ever made. Bar none! > (2) I want a transmission that doesn't have to be rebuilt...to the tune of > $2000 +...around > 100K miles. The 440T4 Metric was one of the worst pieces of sh.t GM even > came out with. WRONG here too. GM has the best transmissions in the industry. > And like (1) above, they avoided the issue. > (3) I dont want a car loaded with computerized bullshit. I do not need a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > absolutely necessary. > I do not need 48 microprocessors integrated into my sun visor. What car maker doesn't use computer technology in their vehicles? > (4) I want a car body that doesnt creak, moan, rattle, and complain. Body > by Fisher used > to mean something. These latter day bunghole rattly SOB's are a disgrace. For your information, Body by Fisher hasn't been for a while now. > (5) I want an air conditioning compressor that doesn't become petulant and > start leaking > at the front seal before the new car smell is out of the auto. And while we > are at it, lets improve > the metallurgy in the heater cores, air conditioner evaporators, and maybe > even in the radiators. More Bull! > (6) I want an alternator that holds up to the heat and stresses put on it. More Bull! > Fire some of the union workers, and some of the pimply faced lavender shirt > wearing executives > if need be, and get GM back on course. If you can't do it, go the hell Now the TROLL shows his ugly face! Have you ever owned a NEW car or just get Grandma's hand-me-downs? >> (1) I want an engine that holds up. Not a 3800 Gen II that blows a >> freaking plastic plenum >> which I have to pay for. Shitty engineering. Very Very shitty. > > You know you are WRONG here. The 3800 is by far the best and most > reliable GM or any other car maker ever made. Bar none! Not even close. The Gen II 3800 has all sorts of quality defects that cost people a lot of money and put a lot of money in my pocket as I have to repair them. The basic engine design is excellent, but the way they executed many parts of the design "upgrade" from the Gen I engine was really poor. >> (2) I want a transmission that doesn't have to be rebuilt...to the >> tune of $2000 +...around >> 100K miles. The 440T4 Metric was one of the worst pieces of sh.t GM >> even came out with. > > WRONG here too. GM has the best transmissions in the industry. I doubt that. >> I do not need 48 microprocessors integrated into my sun visor. > > What car maker doesn't use computer technology in their vehicles? I'll agree with you here. Microprocessors are here to stay, and there isn't anything wrong with them. People are simply not used to them or working on them. Also, GM (and I'm sure other's too) tends to rape everybody pricewise on these modules until the cars have been in service for a number of years. One of the big reasons they use microprocessors all over the place is the reduced amount of wiring needed to operate items in the vehicle. Plus the control that they can have over all the different functions in the car (which I realize many people on these newsgroups could care less about, but they aren't the majority of the buying public). >> (6) I want an alternator that holds up to the heat and stresses put >> on it. > > More Bull! The alternator's appear to be getting better. We certainly don't replace them as often as we used to. But they were pretty bad in the 90's. Ian A lot of nonsense which is snipped. > Now the TROLL shows his ugly face! Have you ever owned a NEW car or > just get Grandma's hand-me-downs? Ooooo, calling people names ... that is so convincing! John >> Perhaps he's a coward? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plastic plenum > which I have to pay for. Shitty engineering. Very Very shitty. The 3800 is the best engine I have ever seen. I have owned 2 Series I's and a Series II, all are excellent engines. The 3800 is also on the top 10 engines of the century list. > (2) I want a transmission that doesn't have to be rebuilt...to the tune of > $2000 +...around [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as well. I dont want any more shitteaux complicated electronics that > absolutely necessary. That is your opinion. I like my electronics, as do many others. > I do not need 48 microprocessors integrated into my sun visor. Without those microprocessors your car would have more wires in it then there would be room for. Get with the 21st century. All cars have computers in them. If you don't like them, go buy something from the 50's. > (4) I want a car body that doesnt creak, moan, rattle, and complain. Body > by Fisher used > to mean something. These latter day bunghole rattly SOB's are a disgrace. I have no problems with my present and past bodies. My current one has over 275,000km's on it, all others except one, had well over 200,000. > (5) I want an air conditioning compressor that doesn't become petulant and > start leaking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > if need be, and get GM back on course. If you can't do it, go the hell > bankrupt. Yes, the company needs to re-think things, but they still build good auto's. > Perhaps he's a coward? Not at all, mostly because I have a lot better things to do that to argue with people on usenet. Buy what you like and believe what you want, I really don't care. If you are a GM believer, put your money where your mouth is and load up on GM stock in your retirement portfolio. I used to own GM stock, but sold mine about a year ago when it became clear to me that GM management doesn't have the stones to turn around their Titanic. John >> I read this NG as my employer forces me to drive a GM vehicle. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the automotive world! *lol* Nate, I hate to be the one to break it to > you, but Studebaker's not coming back. Well, if you really wanna go there... why does my '55 Stude coupe ride better than my new Impala? (granted, it's got heavy duty springs, gas shocks, and Super Hawk sway bars, but still... you can consider it basically a '63 Hawk mechanically, and it was an outdated design even then.) There actually have been some efforts to revive the Studebaker name, most recently by Avanti Motors trying to cash in on the hugeass SUV craze. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about that... nice to see a proud name back; not so nice to see it on such an ugly vehicle. It never really got off the ground anyway although it did get them lots of press a couple years ago. It's not so much that I'm nostalgic for Studebaker in particular; I'm just nostalgic for cars that were cars, not apparent extensions of one's living room, and noisy, slow, ill-handling ones at that. Seems to be a very small niche market these days for vehicles that are basically good mechanically with high quality appointments that aren't loaded down with gadgets and gizmos. Do you really think that people will look back 30 years from now on today's GM product line with the fond nostalgia that they do that of, say, 1965-71? Where's the equivalent of the Cutlass today? GM can't compete on price and they ought to know that; they need to come up with some compelling products that have clear advantages to what is available from other mfgrs. and they are not doing that. Unless you LIKE vehicles that scream "rental fleet..." There are bright spots, like the GTO... but not enough of them. I wouldn't buy a GTO anyway; it's priced out of reach of the average person and unfortunately my income isn't significantly greater than average... but I'm curious why they can't seem to take the lessons learned from the GTO (by all reports its chassis dynamics are excellent) and apply them to their more mundane products... What's the point of having flagship vehicles like the 'vette and GTO if there's zero relation between them and the rest of the product line? nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel There are perhaps a few cars that people will look back to in this era, but not too many. This SUV craze has shown the ugly truth about Americans, their taste in autos, and their buying habits. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.