 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / January 2006Ex-GM Fans now Dogging GM?
From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence with it seems that old GM fans are now starting to whisper distgruntlements about GM. Not that the cars are neccesarily bad, but more about what GM is offering which dosnt seem to be all that much unless you want to settle for a basic car or jump up to a Caddy. Like a previous poster mentioned GM is still using the pushrod engine design that is not as efficient. GM is also suffering the backlash of ignoring the intake gasket problem in these pushrod engines for years. I like the Mone Carlo SS which comes with the 3.8 which is known for the intake failure so I wont be getting one until they stick a newly designed engine in it thats been tested 2 or 3 years. Another thing about the 3.8 is you have to be running a Supercharger to make it getup and go which just adds to something else to break and maintain not the mention the hi-test gas it requires. Competitive japanese cars put out equivalent power without the need for a SuperCharger, so as much as I like the looks of the M/C SS I wont be getting one for those reason which sort of pisses me off because the customers are there whenever GM decides to ever get their sh.t together if ever. Until then it looks like GM is for me, Ford dosnt sweem to be offering much more either unless you want a Mustang which I think look ok, but If I decide to get a real mustang it will be a 69 Mach1 not some wannabee retro. Chrysler is in the same boat, yes boat meaning the new Hemi Charger of a boat, looks like GM and Chryler are sharing design styling queues as in ugly. Plus weith the price of gas Hemis no longer are practical. I just cant figure out why America can no longer design a very stylish yet practical car with some getup and go in a sleek 2 door coupe. That may be your opinion but unlike Jap cars my 2005 Mustang GT convertible produces 300 HP and 300 FP of torque, delivered to the proper end of the car I might add, and it does not need to be run at 6,000 RPM to do so. It will easily run 105 MPH at leisurely 3,000 RPMs. In addition it runs rings around my neighbors 69 Mustang convertible. ;) mike hunt . Competitive japanese cars put out > equivalent power without the need for a SuperCharger, so as much as I like > the looks of the M/C SS I wont be getting one for those reason which sort [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Mach1 > not some wannabee retro. > That may be your opinion but unlike Jap cars my 2005 Mustang GT convertible > produces 300 HP and 300 FP of torque, delivered to the proper end of the car [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Mach1 > > not some wannabee retro. But that Mustang convertable is not a 390 or 428cj, probably not even a 351c 4bbl. Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved a couple of years ago wasn't it? With oil supplies going down you may want to invest in a 1 hp vehicle. Sporty model with 2 wheels and full blown family vehicle with 4 wheels. Those Amish can't all be wrong. A few pounds of oats and a couple flakes of hay is all it takes to keep it running. > Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you > demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Those Amish can't all be wrong. A few pounds of oats and a couple > flakes of hay is all it takes to keep it running. Yeh..they said the 3.8, 3.1, and 3.4 intake problem was solved but it wasnt. Now they are also having the problems in some 350 v8s. > > Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you > > demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yeh..they said the 3.8, 3.1, and 3.4 intake problem was solved but it wasnt. > Now they are also having the problems in some 350 v8s. Not just now - the 350 has had this problem since the early nineties.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you > demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved > a couple of years ago wasn't it? No. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you > demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved > a couple of years ago wasn't it? How would we know? Typically the problem doesn't show up until a few years of use, often after the warranty runs out. GM has "fixed" the intake manifold leak problems a lot of times. John >> Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you >> demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > years of use, often after the warranty runs out. GM has "fixed" the > intake manifold leak problems a lot of times. If you have a dealer that will work with you, they can get it "goodwilled". I had two intake gasket jobs goodwilled (fully paid for) on the same van, well out of warranty. Jane > John > If you have a dealer that will work with you, they can get it "goodwilled". > I had two intake gasket jobs goodwilled (fully paid for) on the same van, > well out of warranty. > > Jane The problem with the 3800 is not the intake gasket. It is the decomposition of the plastic fuel injection plenum. I bitched and moaned to dealership and to Buick. Got a price reduction from $700-800 to $350, which is about a hundred more than a local independent mechanic would have done the work for. GM has been reticent to goodwill these problems. And, the problem has existed for approximately 10 years. >> If you have a dealer that will work with you, they can get it > "goodwilled". [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And, the problem has existed for approximately 10 years. I was lucky, I guess. Mind you, I unloaded the van shortly after the second problem. Always buy GM, though, as I work for them (would be taking the bread out of my own mouth if I didn't). For the most part, our vehicles have had no major issues. Jane > I was lucky, I guess. Mind you, I unloaded the van shortly after the second > problem. Always buy GM, though, as I work for them (would be taking the > bread out of my own mouth if I didn't). For the most part, our vehicles > have had no major issues. > > Jane Every company has made some junk. GM is not alone. Are you old enough to know about the rear window corrosion problem that GM exhibited for years and years? GM brazed steel body panels together just below the backlight (rear window) corners. Water drained off the glass there, and activated the brass/steel corrosion cell, which quickly rotted holes in the bodywork. GM certainly knew about the problem (according to a GM employee I knew personally) but did nothing to remedy it. They knew that people get rid of cars and buy new as much for cosmetic appearance as anything else. Some might suspect that this was planned and designed obsolescence. I'm one of them. Some car companies welcome that their cars fall apart soon GM is not alone in doing that The Ford founder sent people to the scrap yards in order to see what parts were still usable so they could use cheaper parts Ever since it has been the practice in the auto industry to do just well enough GM used to be better than most GM used to be all kinds of things GM used to build good cars GM used to outsell everyone else GM used to be have loyal customers GM used to be the biggest and best GM used to have good image GM used to have good management So they million dollar question is what went wrong To begin with GM stopped having good management Toyota and other Japanese brands have shown the world that they are better Customers do not like to buy something that used to be good Customers want what is best buy today and lasts Second best will soon be forgotten If what you believe to be true was actually true how do account for the fact that GM is the number ONE seller of vehicles in the US? Why are the two leading foreign brands, Toyota and Honda only number four and five, way behind Ford and Chrysler, in total vehicle sales in the US? ;) mike hunt > Some car companies welcome that their cars fall apart soon > GM is not alone in doing that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Second best will soon be forgotten Toyotas sales figures are steadily growing They have passed Ford and are now number two It is only a question of time when they will be number one They might even pass GM before GM turns belly up Sales figures for GM are declining and that also hastens the change in pecking order Toyota has a quality control and does not grow faster than they can build up their complete network of quality products and quality customers It is also interesting to note that Toyota is producing much of the cars it sells in USA in USA So it is pretty obvious that there is nothing wrong with the workers in USA The best factory GM has is indeed in cooperation with Toyota It may be too late for GM to learn enough from Toyota to change the trend of their losses > If what you believe to be true was actually true how do account for the fact > that GM is the number ONE seller of vehicles in the US? Why are the two [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > Second best will soon be forgotten Do you live in a dream world? Do a search of Automotivenews.com you will discover GM sells twice the number of vehicles as it did 25 years ago. You are confusing market share in a growing market, with numbers sold. Yes Toyota sells the number one selling car in the country but it is number four in totals sales. Over half of the vehicles sold in the US are light trucks, including SUVs. The number one selling vehicle is a Ford truck that sells at a rate over twice that of the Camry, the number two seller is a Chevy truck and the number three is a Dodge truck. GM and Ford individually sell more trucks alone annually than Toyota and Lexus sell cars and trucks combined. GM sells twice as many vehicles as the number two manufacture Ford. Ford sells a million more than the number three manufacture Chrysler. Toyota is number four with just over 10% of the US market, followed closely by Honda at 8%. mike hunt > Toyotas sales figures are steadily growing > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> > >> > Second best will soon be forgotten Sorry, I had to jump in here. If you add the Silverado and Sierra together, GM sells more trucks than anyone. GM will never make them one truck due to the number of true fans of each truck although they are basically the same. Another thing that distorts those sales figures are the number of cars out into the rental car fleets. Hertz uses mostly Ford products and Avis uses mostly GM cars. I think National still uses Chrysler products. Those guys are another source of problems in specific models. If you look at all the Buick's in the senior citizen communities, it is hard to say that GM has no fans. What Buick might do is offer more paint colors, they sure have outdone that bronze paint color with the tan interior. The new red on the Buick van is cool. I love the red on my Tahoe. TPBeach The number one selling individual vehicle is the Ford F150 and Fords F Series is the number one selling line of trucks but you are correct GM does sell more trucks than Ford, but as you point out they sell them under two brand names. Same is true of cars, Toyota sell the number one individual car model the Camry and the most cars under one brand, Toyota. However both GM and Ford sell more cars than Toyota Motors and far more trucks than Toyota Motors in the US. It is a game of words Toyota likes to play, like their made in America claim for some of it vehicles that are actually only assembled in American of mostly imported parts ;) mike hunt > Sorry, I had to jump in here. If you add the Silverado and Sierra > together, GM sells more trucks than anyone. GM will never make them one [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > my Tahoe. > TPBeach GM is going to be the number one bancruptcy case in history That is what they said about Chrysler in the Seventies and Ford in the eighties LOL mike hunt > GM is going to be the number one bancruptcy case in history Give up Mike, you're being double-trolled from multiple NG's. You're fighting a losing battle here because "commen" and "sense" will never apply. > Give up Mike, you're being double-trolled from multiple NG's. You're > fighting a losing battle here because "commen" and "sense" will never apply. Your post would make more sense if you'd include the text you're replying to. As it is, it's anyone's guess which Mike you're responding to. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Toyotas sales figures are steadily growing > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The best factory GM has is indeed in cooperation with Toyota Nope! The two plants in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada (CAW) plants are GM AND North America's #1 and #2 plants (across all manufacturers) for quality (JD Power) and #1 and #4 in productivity (Harbour). I don't think NUMMI even rates as high as the CAMI GM/ Suzuki joint venture plant in Ontario. Before you ask why they are closing a plant in Oshawa then...one word, politics. They are also investing 2.5 billion in the remaining Oshawa plants and I believe the #1 plant will expand into defunct #2 space (they share a building) after #1 is retooled for flex manufacturing. Jane > It may be too late for GM to learn enough from Toyota to change the > trend of their losses [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> > >> > Second best will soon be forgotten > Nope! The two plants in Oshawa....should read "The two CAR plants in > Oshawa...etc". Oshawa's truck plant does not rate quite as high. Jane > If what you believe to be true was actually true how do account for the fact > that GM is the number ONE seller of vehicles in the US? Why are the two > leading foreign brands, Toyota and Honda only number four and five, way > behind Ford and Chrysler, in total vehicle sales in the US? ;) > > mike hunt Simple...GM still has a lot of brand loyalty, still makes a car that is nice to drive, and prices have been reasonable. Not a bad combination. The brand loyalty is beginning to slip, and GM can either step up to the plate and protect its market share, or it will eventually sink below the more popular cars. Ford and Chrysler have some brand loyalty and decent deals too. If Toyota and Honda made the absolutely perfect car, they would not displace the American brands immediately. But they are gnawing away at it. Gnawing away at what? New total sales or percentage of the new sales? GM and Ford are selling more vehicles than at almost any time in their history? The total numbers of vehicles they sell are up, not down. What is happening is the number of vehciles sold annually is going up by the hundreds of thousands and the number of manufactures sharing those sales are far greater than when GM had nearly 50% of the sales. 30% of 19,000,000 in 2004 is better than 50% of the 8,000,000 in 1954 mike hunt >> If what you believe to be true was actually true how do account for the > fact [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > displace > the American brands immediately. But they are gnawing away at it. > Gnawing away at what? There was a day long ago when Toyota, Honda, and Mazda were unheard of. They were crappy little pieces of tin, imported by the handful from Japan. We had little here but Chevrolets, Fords, and Dodges. (includes the models made by the Big 3 manufacturers. Toyota and Honda have an increasing presence here now. Mazda is not as highly placed, but sells a lot via Ford, I understand. Toyota and Honda give good performance, good quality, and good economy, and I feel they will continue to claim market share. Gasoline politics in the next few years may finally put the death stroke on American trucks and SUVs. Americans don't, I believe, really believe that fuel prices are likely to continue to climb, even far below the $3 levels we have recently seen. Believe me, coming from a residency abroad where gasoline recently sold for near $8 per gallon, when fuel gets expensive, people HAVE to find different ways to operate. And when cars are very expensive, as they are there, you must consider the reliability record and price to repair. (A Jeep Cherokee, the nice one, cost about $100,000 there.) I predict that the economy of owning a car, overall, will begin to influence the car market here more than ever. If the American Big 3 can step up to the plate with products that make sense and are attractive, maybe they can keep their market shares and even improve them. Otherwise, somebody else will. You are entitled to your opinion but you need to do more research. Your are confusing market share with total sales. The fact is the vehicle market in the US is growing annually, and the imports are gaining a share of that growing market. The fact is most of the growth in the market in the US, for domestic and imports, is not in cars but light trucks and SUVs that American prefer in larger numbers every year. The fact is every manufacture, domestic and imported, is building good quality, reliable, long lasting vehicles that get excellent fuel mileage today. The fact is GM sells more different models that get as good or better fuel mileage than ANY import brand. The fact is GM Ford and Chrysler ALL sell more vehicles in the US than any other manufacture. The fact is GM and Ford sell millions more than ANY import brand. The fact is GM Ford and Chrysler sell more vehicles today than at any time in their history and more then they did just ten years ago, not fewer. mike hunt >> Gnawing away at what? > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > attractive, maybe they can keep their market shares and even improve > them. Otherwise, somebody else will. When GM gives you your layoff notice and files for chapter 11 wonder if you still will have your rose colored glasses on. Wake up Mike, cut your losses and move on... cheers >You are entitled to your opinion but you need to do more research. Your are >confusing market share with total sales. The fact is the vehicle market in [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> attractive, maybe they can keep their market shares and even improve >> them. Otherwise, somebody else will. > When GM gives you your layoff notice and files for chapter 11 wonder > if you still will have your rose colored glasses on. Wake up Mike, cut > your losses and move on... Chapter 11 does not mean the end of a company or the end of our jobs. Stelco has made money hand-over-fist since sekking bankruptcy protection. Chapter 11 would allow GM to get out of $$ contracts with the union(s). The first thing GM should do...today...is lose Wagoner. Jane > cheers > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>> attractive, maybe they can keep their market shares and even improve >>> them. Otherwise, somebody else will. > Chapter 11 does not mean the end of a company or the end of our jobs. > Stelco has made money hand-over-fist since sekking bankruptcy protection. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jane Good point Jane. Ironically, much of Stelco's profit, since seeking bankruptcy protection, has come from its contracts with GM! > You are entitled to your opinion but you need to do more research. > > mike hunt How about the research publish just today? You mean that Chevrolet outsold Ford for the first time in 19 years and both Chevrolet and Ford sell more than Toyota? ;) mike hunt >> You are entitled to your opinion but you need to do more research. > >> mike hunt > > How about the research publish just today? >Believe me, coming from a residency abroad where gasoline recently >sold for near $8 per gallon, when fuel gets expensive, people HAVE to >find different ways to operate. And when cars are very expensive, >as they are there, you must consider the reliability record and price >to repair. (A Jeep Cherokee, the nice one, cost about $100,000 there.) Which model of vehicle (the non nice one is a little vague)? Where exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the case, doesn't that pretty much suggest that there are some nasty tariffs and trade restrictions on imported US autos (at least somewhere)? > Where exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the > case, doesn't that pretty much suggest that there are some nasty > tariffs and trade restrictions on imported US autos (at least > somewhere)? Many places in Europe It is not just US cars that are expensive Also the petrol is very expensive with taxes The US should do the same The faster US understands to use less oil the better for all What makes you believe using less gasoline necessarily result in using less crude oil? Gasoline is a byproduct of the distillation process. If it were not burned off in cars it would need to be burned off at the refinery. Before gasoline became useful at a motor fuel that is what they did to get rid of it, same thing they do today to get ride of the natural gas that can not be distributed, because there are not enough pipelines in the US. mike hunt >> Where exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the >> case, doesn't that pretty much suggest that there are some nasty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The US should do the same > The faster US understands to use less oil the better for all More expensive fuel leads to less usage and alternative fuel use This has happened in Europe USA is missing out The situation is worse in China because they sell under world prices which leads to too much use Same is true in parts of former easter Europe They are trying to get in line and raising prices It is much better to raise the prices of oil now and get the alternatives in quicker I don't think you get to decide what is too much use. Shove off. >More expensive fuel leads to less usage and alternative fuel use >This has happened in Europe [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It is much better to raise the prices of oil now and get the >alternatives in quicker We aren't concerned with what's better for you, any more than you are concerned what's better for us. >> Where exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the >> case, doesn't that pretty much suggest that there are some nasty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The US should do the same >The faster US understands to use less oil the better for all > Which model of vehicle (the non nice one is a little vague)? Where > exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the > case, doesn't that pretty much suggest that there are some nasty > tariffs and trade restrictions on imported US autos (at least > somewhere)? The Grand Cherokee was a model that sold for about $100,000. My ex boss looked into exporting her Lexus sports model from the USA (over $70,000 here) and the standard import tax would have brought it up to about $200,000. The country is Norway, and taxation is high on all cars, not just American ones. The country produces huge quantities of petroleum from the North Sea, and has a large positive cash balance...No national debt. The gasoline prices have not changed some much in recent years in terms of kroner per litre, but since the dollar dropped so much, the cost per gallon has been about US$8. My income tax rate, just for the interest, was 52% of gross. You didn't think that the free stuff that the government provides in socialist counties was actually free did you ;) mike hunt >> Which model of vehicle (the non nice one is a little vague)? Where >> exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > My income tax rate, just for the interest, was 52% of gross. > You didn't think that the free stuff that the government provides in > socialist counties was actually free did you ;) > > mike hunt Sounds expensive, but actually on a personal basis it is no worse than the USA. Pay is generally higher, and the income tax includes all your retirement, medical, social security, etc. When you make the allowances for these, the apparent penalty shrinks a lot. The car and fuel situation is dismaying at times, but, believe it or not, most of us can afford to buy and maintain cars there. We are probably a bit more planful of what we do than most Americans have had to be over the years. Public transportation is very good, and is used a lot by the people. You especially use it if you want to go party a little, because getting caught with even a little alcohol in your system can lead to rather severe and inevitable penalties. (Lawyers can't just get you off, or your sentence reduced.) Mechanical work there is generally of much better quality than you would find in the USA, as a rule. No shadetree mechanics, but there are independents. The service work is done right by well trained and educated mechanics, who tend to go by the book...the real book, not the flatrate manual. They are responsible under the law to repair the vehicle properly and are held liable if they dont do it right. All in all, the people there have a better lifestyle, as the broad population, than do the Americans. It is difficult for the implanted American, at first, to live under a society which stresses social responsibility and honesty, but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe and stable place. Sorry...but if someone starts saying the grass is greener...I learned a long time ago it isn't. I would not trade my freedom for all of the socially engineered programs and outlandish laws, and the "apparent" European superiority, for all of the tea in China. Let Norway be Norway and please stop denigrating the US. >> You didn't think that the free stuff that the government provides in >> socialist counties was actually free did you ;) [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe and stable > place. Really? One would think all of the people that are illegally leaving their home county without any of there belonging or money, taking a small boat on the ocean to get away or ever risking getting shot by boarder guards or mauled to death by dogs or taking the risk of hiding in the wheel wells of airliners or stowing away for three month in a cargo container would be doing so to get into a European country, rather than into the US where things are so terrible. LOL mike hunt > Sorry...but if someone starts saying the grass is greener...I learned a > long time ago it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >> but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe and stable >> place. Actually Mike, my understanding is that Norway doesn't fool around with illegal immigrants like the U.S. does. In other words, part of the attraction of coming to the U.S. illegally is that illegal aliens aren't often kicked out and many employers hire them with impunity. And though those employers are paying them dirt wages (often less than minimum), the alien has nothing to fear because it's better than prospects in Mexico. Besides, U.S. taxpayers make up the difference in low wages in the form of social services, higher health care costs (yes folks, those who don't pay cause costs to shift to those who do) and other things. But besides that, I do agree with you the U.S. is still the single place that is the most desirable to be. >Really? One would think all of the people that are illegally leaving their >home county without any of there belonging or money, taking a small boat on [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe and stable >>> place. > Sorry...but if someone starts saying the grass is greener...I learned > a long time ago it isn't. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> honesty, but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe >> and stable place. Yeah Norway is a nice country. We get it. But they'd be speaking German right now if it weren't for the Good 'Ol USA. They don't even build any cars in Norway, do they? They get their Volvos and Saabs from Sweden. But that's ok. I'm sure there are very, very good mechanics and techs in Norway. I would trust them to work on my Pontiac or Chevy. Their women are beautiful, blonde and busty. But quit trashing the USA. We build great cars. (I'd take a cool Pontiac with personality with a throaty exhaust over a bland Toyota "quality product" any frigging day of the week!) We are the leaders in technology, medicine, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, entertainment, and many other fields. We invented the computer and have always led in the computing and high tech fields. Buy a Pontiac, get the oil changed every 3000 miles and it'll last probably last to 150,000 miles, by then you'd be sick of it anyway and want something else. Or buy a Toyota "quality product" that's probably built here anyway. > Yeah Norway is a nice country. We get it. But they'd be speaking > German right now if it weren't for the Good 'Ol USA. They don't even [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you'd be sick of it anyway and want something else. Or buy a Toyota > "quality product" that's probably built here anyway. Well expressed JD!!! > > Their women are beautiful, blonde and busty. Not bad, for a start;>) > > But quit trashing the USA. I haven't been trashing the USA. > > We build great cars. We have the potential to build great cars. It would appear that, right now, the Japanese have the engineering, management, labor relations, organization, and manufacturing functions pretty much how they want them. No one can make the case the GM and Ford are where they need to be. These two giants have the pieces to the puzzle, but haven't put them together very well. I hope they can do it without going into bankruptcy, but only time will tell that. > I would not trade my freedom for all of the socially engineered programs and > outlandish laws, and the "apparent" European superiority, for all of the tea > in China. Let Norway be Norway and please stop denigrating the US. No one wants you to trade your freedom, and I haven't been denigrating the US. Only a fool pulls his head inside his shell and pays no attention to what is happening elsewhere. Yeah, just hand over your money to the government and they will best know how to spend it on you. Hell, you may as well be communist. >> You didn't think that the free stuff that the government provides in >> socialist counties was actually free did you ;) [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >to live under a society which stresses social responsibility and honesty, >but once you get over the culture shock, it is a very safe and stable place. The situation you describe in Norway sounds horrible to me. I'm glad the U.S. isn't more like you. >> Which model of vehicle (the non nice one is a little vague)? Where >> exactly is "there" where it costs $100,000 for it? If this is the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >My income tax rate, just for the interest, was 52% of gross. > The situation you describe in Norway sounds horrible to me. I'm glad > the U.S. isn't more like you. You have no idea what I'm like, Sgt. I can adapt to living most anyplace. I'll admit that their lifestyle is not for everybody. They take care of themselves and do not solicit immigration. Hi. I didn't claim to know what you yourself is like. I was responding to the information you provided about the (IMHO anyway) extremely high taxation and lifestyle in Norway. Maybe horrible was a bit too strong of a word. I know a little bit about life in Norway as I personally know a few people from there. I like the sense of community and a fairly homogeneous value system among the citizens which I share a lot in common with. Count me as one American who doesn't think that diversity is always such a good thing. Diversity often leads to competing values and conflict. I think America's diversity is a strength in the aspect of the whole, but can be very problematic at more granular levels. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is I still more highly value the American way for the many freedoms and ways to enjoy life that it brings. >> The situation you describe in Norway sounds horrible to me. I'm glad >> the U.S. isn't more like you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >themselves >and do not solicit immigration. > Hi. I didn't claim to know what you yourself is like. I was > responding to the information you provided about the (IMHO anyway) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is I still more highly value the American way for the many freedoms > and ways to enjoy life that it brings. The unions have in the past managed to do for their members similar things as are for everyone in Norway Problem in USA compared to Norway is that because not all the companies have unions and not all people belong to companies the standard of living varies a lot in USA There are a number of people in USA who are dead poor The companies who do have unions are also forcing their companies to pay a lot higher wages than those companies can pay Big companies like GM and IBM have always done well for their union members but they are trying to get away from pension payments and high costs Understandably because otherwise these companies can not compete Fortunately for us in the developed world with social systems like Norway there is a change towards using robots and they are much cheaper than manual labor In USA the citicens will not benefit from the robots the unions are even fighting the robots In Norway the whole country enjoys better living when better technology is available IN USA the poor become poorer and the rich richer There is no need to share What exactly is dead poor? You might be surprised at just how good a life "poor" people in the USA can have if they don't screw it up for themselves. >> Hi. I didn't claim to know what you yourself is like. I was >> responding to the information you provided about the (IMHO anyway) [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >IN USA the poor become poorer and the rich richer >There is no need to share > Fortunately for us in the developed world with social systems like > Norway there is a change towards using robots and they are much cheaper [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In Norway the whole country enjoys better living when better technology > is available I agree. All the recent "problems" at GM are really a desire -- actually a need -- to divest itself of workers who are basically sitting around watching the robots do the work. The cost of a car today should be more like $5000, not $20000, and it would be if the factories could operate at the efficiencies they're capable of. That would benefit almost everyone. As far as unions/labor being the driver for ascendency into the middle class -- I think that was replaced decades ago with a new model. The people who are moving into that arena are the guys who can fix cars, not build cars. the guys who build houses, and remodel and do body work. Those are the guys they target in those "big truck" ads. That is the new ladder for getting up there, not standing around in a factory and collecting $19.95 an hour to watch a robot arm. SignatureRSS Feed/Incognito Blog http://blog.360.yahoo.com/rss-siXzkMA8eqhXNgGa9ZbTlKkOL5SWLA-- > That is the new ladder for getting up there, not standing around in a > factory and collecting $19.95 an hour to watch a robot arm. Soon the option of watching the arm will not be there One of the jobs inexperienced people get is checking out at the supermarket Those jobs will soon not be there either The robots are taking over all manual work Only question is who gets the benefit > > That is the new ladder for getting up there, not standing around in a > > factory and collecting $19.95 an hour to watch a robot arm. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only question is who gets the benefit The basic problem remains -- humans are controlled by the hypothalamus. Best we can do is VOTE to keep 'em honest. >>>Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you >>>demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jane GM should have simply extended the warranty on all engines with that problem so that every customer would be treated fairly. Honda has done so on transmissions for models which had high transmission failure rates. John you must work for GM, to have it goodwilled twice... >>> Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you >>> demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> John > you must work for GM, to have it goodwilled twice... I do, but I don't think that matters! I have dealt with some lousy dealers in my time. I think it had more to do with being a regular customer of that dealership, such that he was willing to go to bat for me. Jane >>>> Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you >>>> demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >>> John Okay Jane. let me have name and phone number of your goodwill gm service person. and I will call him or her... you can email it to me. jak2@sympatico.ca we will see if I have the same customer goodwill that you got from GM. >> you must work for GM, to have it goodwilled twice... > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>>> >>>> John > Okay Jane. let me have name and phone number of your goodwill gm > service person. and I will call him or her... > you can email it to me. > jak2@sympatico.ca > we will see if I have the same customer goodwill that you got from GM. I dealt with the dealer, not GM directly. I agree that all customers should get the same service, but a lot of it has to do with the dealer. My being an employee doesn't cut it; I'm an hourly CAW worker, for heaven's sake! Jane >>> you must work for GM, to have it goodwilled twice... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>>>> >>>>> John The 'gasket problem' was not of GMs doing. The federal government banned the use of asbestos without allowing time for the gasket manufactures to develop a suitable replacement material. EVERY manufacture had problems with the new gaskets, not only GM. The 'gasket problem' was settled years later when Ford sued the gasket manufacture and obtained a out of court settlement for all manufactures, in which the gasket manufactures agreed to pay 80% of the costs of correcting the problems for owners. mike hunt >> Stuck in the past? No new car under $100k would meet the criteria you >> demand. Another thing, the intake gasket problem on the 3800 was solved [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John > The 'gasket problem' was not of GMs doing. The federal government banned > the use of asbestos without allowing time for the gasket manufactures to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > mike hunt The problems with this Mike is that it only excuses the manufacturers from producing bad engines for the first couple of years. After that they all should have been producing a gasket that didn't fail like the GM gaskets fail. I'm a died in the wool GM guy, but let's face it, no other manufacturer is facing this same problem. Hell, my '03 3.4 needed gaskets at 39,000 miles. That's just inexcusable. BTW - where are the rebate certificates so that we can all get our 80% back for the cost of all the gaskets that have been replaced in GM engines? Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not Chrysler, not Honda yet they ALL had gasket failures of some type. Ford, Toyota and Chrysler were plagued with head gasket failures and ruined engines, at mileages as low as 20K in the case of Toyota. There were four materials used in gaskets, after asbestos was banned. Two worked fairly well, one failed in a very short period of time and the fourth failed years later at high mileages like the Ford 3.8 at 75K. If depended on which material was in which casket, as to when it failed. NONE of the newer materials are as good as asbestos however. mike hunt >> The 'gasket problem' was not of GMs doing. The federal government banned >> the use of asbestos without allowing time for the gasket manufactures to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > back > for the cost of all the gaskets that have been replaced in GM engines? > Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not > Chrysler, not Honda yet they ALL had gasket failures of some type. Ford, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > mike hunt It's odd then that rarely (a few but very few) does one see a post regarding failed gaskets in the Ford or Dodge newsgroups. They have other chronic issues to deal with, but seemingly not so much in the gasket area. Do you have a report you can cite? > > Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not > > Chrysler, not Honda yet they ALL had gasket failures of some type. Ford, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > mike hunt > It's odd then that rarely (a few but very few) does one see a post regarding > failed gaskets in the Ford or Dodge newsgroups. They have other chronic > issues to deal with, but seemingly not so much in the gasket area. Do you > have a report you can cite? I agree that the other groups don;t post much. Ford & Chrysler head gasket failures are a known problem. Same with every other manufacturer. Most also have other gasket problems, like intake, major valve cover leaks, etc. My Toyota 23R ate intake gaskets - every 2 years. My son's Mazda 2.5 needed intake and valve covers every two years. Put this into Google: ford head gasket failure Use this for Chrysler: head gasket failure chrysler Or to see them all: head gasket failure Tens of thousands of hits. The reason you don't see them today is they not longer have the problem. mike hunt "« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?="@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:43B1EB40.5AAC47BA@houston.rr.com... >> > Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not >> > Chrysler, not Honda yet they ALL had gasket failures of some type. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Tens of thousands of hits. > Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not Chrysler, > not Honda yet they ALL had gasket failures of some type. Correct - but that was not my point. Read it again below. My point is that none of those manufacturers are still suffering massive gasket failures like GM is. They all figured out how to build an engine with the new gaskets and not suffer gasket failures at 20K or 30K or 60K miles. > Ford, Toyota and > Chrysler were plagued with head gasket failures and ruined engines, at > mileages as low as 20K in the case of Toyota. There were four materials > used in gaskets, after asbestos was banned. Two worked fairly well, one > failed in a very short period of time and the fourth failed years later at > high mileages like the Ford 3.8 at 75K. Correct again, but these are all cases expressed in the past tense. Unfortunately, GM engines are still suffering gasket problems. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > back > > for the cost of all the gaskets that have been replaced in GM engines? Where did you get the idea that GM still has a gasket problem? We sure did not see any gasket problems with late model vehicles from any manufacture in our business and we service thousands of GM vehicles every month. mike hunt >> Gasket manufactures make gaskets, not GM, not Ford not Toyota, not > Chrysler, [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >> > back >> > for the cost of all the gaskets that have been replaced in GM engines? > Where did you get the idea that GM still has a gasket problem? We sure did > not see any gasket problems with late model vehicles from any manufacture in > our business and we service thousands of GM vehicles every month. Well, I just had the 3.4 in my '03 Grand Am done two weeks ago. I'm aware of a number of '02's & '03's that have been done. The mileage on my '03 was 39,000 when it needed it. What are you considering late mode vehicles to be Mike? Just last week I did my daughter's '98 Malibu 3.1. Her car has 115,000 miles on it but it has needed gaskets for a very long time and I just kept putting it off. I can't speak to '05's and '06's. I know the local Chevy dealership is doing '04's. My point is that the problem has gone on for years and years and for a car as new as an '03 or an '04 to still have the problem, it qualifies in my mind as a problem that still exists. Those cars should be going 200,000 miles without this problem. I'm not your typical GM basher - like I said in another post, I'm died in the wool GM. I expect my GM's to easily go 200,000 miles plus, and I expect that because that's what they deliver for the most part. This gasket issue though is a non-characteristic GM blunder. I'm really dissappointed in the way GM has handled this problem from the very start. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Do you really think it is proper for one to judge all of GM current vehicles based on one problem with one particular vehicle built years ago? If that is the case then every manufactures current cars are not worth buying since they all make some that are not up to snuff on occasion that is why they all have a warranty. Me thinks your complaint is you had to pay the bill if it was under 36 you would not be bitching I'll bet. ;) mike hunt >> Where did you get the idea that GM still has a gasket problem? We sure > did [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > did my daughter's '98 Malibu 3.1. Her car has 115,000 miles on it but it > has needed gaskets for a very long time and I just kept putting it off. > Do you really think it is proper for one to judge all of GM current vehicles > based on one problem with one particular vehicle built years ago? If that > is the case then every manufactures current cars are not worth buying since > they all make some that are not up to snuff on occasion that is why they > all have a warranty. Me thinks your complaint is you had to pay the bill if > it was under 36 you would not be bitching I'll bet. ;) Come on Mike - you're not reading what has been posted below and in plenty of other posts. I didn't complain about a bill at all. My '03 was covered under the used car warranty that came with the car when I bought it and I did my daughter's car myself for just the cost of the gaskets. What I see is that you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what is a well documented, well known problem with GM's engines. Check with a dealer Mike - they will tell you that they replace probably more intake gaskets than any other single problem. If we're going to hold an intelligent discussion, at least have the courtesy to read what is posted and reply to that rather than twisting it into something unrelated that you attempt to use to discredit the other poster - as you attempted to do with the above reply. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net I agree GM has a gasket problem but as I pointed out previously it is not of their doing anymore than paint falling off of cars was their doing. All I'm suggesting is that GM was a victim in both cases, as were many other brands, and as much as were their customers, that is the point. mike hunt >> Do you really think it is proper for one to judge all of GM current > vehicles [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > twisting it into something unrelated that you attempt to use to discredit > the other poster - as you attempted to do with the above reply. >I agree GM has a gasket problem but as I pointed out previously it is not of >their doing anymore than paint falling off of cars was their doing. All I'm >suggesting is that GM was a victim in both cases, as were many other brands, >and as much as were their customers, that is the point. > >mike hunt NOT THEIR DOING ?? Who designed the motors ? Who spec'd the parts ? Who tested, approved and bought the parts ? Who assembled the vehicle ? Who sold the vehicle under a GM name ? Who took the money ? Who knew about the problem, and cointinued selling the cars ? And, when you go to your GM dealer with a motor that failed at 75K miles, Who'll pay for it ?? <rj> > I agree GM has a gasket problem but as I pointed out previously it is not of > their doing anymore than paint falling off of cars was their doing. All I'm > suggesting is that GM was a victim in both cases, as were many other brands, > and as much as were their customers, that is the point. > > mike hunt The car is made by GM and every part that goes into it is designed, spec'ed, and vetted by GM. It is their product and their responsibility. It is my understanding that Ford sued their OEM gasket supplier and won,and has taken some responsibility for their 'product'. GM has been lax at doing anything for its customers, except for a few like Jane. Your certainly are entitle to your opinion ;) mike hunt >> I agree GM has a gasket problem but as I pointed out previously it is not > of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > GM has been lax at doing anything for its customers, except for a few like > Jane. You are so full of nonsense Mike. My '96 Volvo has not a single asbestos gasket in the engine and is leak free at 10 years and 130,000 miles. Millions of modern automobiles have been made without their intake manifold gasket's failing at under 50,000 miles like so many GMs have done. Blame the customer or blame the goverment seems to be your working hypothesis. John > The 'gasket problem' was not of GMs doing. The federal government banned > the use of asbestos without allowing time for the gasket manufactures to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >>John That is because one of the material used by the gasket manufactures worked, the other three did not, over time. Blame the customer was the position the gasket manufactures took before the settlement. They did not care about replacing gaskets but did not want to pay the resulting damage to mechanical parts. They said for example a failing head gasket like the one used in a Ford 3.8 V6 (them only Ford engine that use that gasket material) did not fail catastrophically, but rather slowly over time. The owner, if providing the proper maintance, should have observed the coolant consumption and discover the failing gasket and replaced it long before the coolant contaminated oil destroyed the engine. The court did not agree and that is what led to the out of court settlement. Ford subsequently extend the warranty on that engine to seven years, unlimited mileage A web search should lead one to the details of how the different manufactures handled their warranty extensions on affected systems. mike hunt . > You are so full of nonsense Mike. My '96 Volvo has not a single asbestos > gasket in the engine and is leak free at 10 years and 130,000 miles. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> >>>John >From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence with >it seems that old GM fans are now starting to whisper distgruntlements about [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >practical. I just cant figure out why America can no longer design a very >stylish yet practical car with some getup and go in a sleek 2 door coupe. The more people with whom I discuss this issue, the more I am convinced the biggest problem GM and Ford face is that of reliability, or at least the perception thereof. That is not to say that GM and Ford are less reliable than their Japanese competitors. They may or may not be, but they are largely perceived to be less reliable among a large percentage of the new car buying demographic. These are people who can afford to buy new each and every car but are hesitant to be screwed yet again by listening to promises by auto manufacturers when those promises have proven to be hollow many times in the past. They are far less enticed by promises and snappy styling than they are by a track record of proven reliability. I doubt GM or Ford spends too much time worrying about the preferences of used car buyers. GM and Ford will have to overcome the stigma that their second rate products have engendered and it won't be done with nifty styling unless what is under the hood matches what surrounds it. It won't be done quickly, either. That may be your opinion certainly but not mine. I have owned a boat load of vehicles in my time, both foreign and domestic. I run two and three vehicles at a time and buy one every year. I have not a bad vehicle in at least thirty years, foreign or domestic. The only real difference among them we saw in the fleet service business a formally owned was style and price. My last foreign car I bought was in 1997. When I was looking to buy in 1999 I started to buy domestic vehicles rather than continuing to pay 20% to 30% more to buy the foreign band I had been buying. The truth is every manufacture today is making well built, reliable, vehicles today. Since they all need to be maintained and they all will need to be repaired at some point if you keep them long enough, buyers today should be more concerned about the maintenance costs and the price of part than whose brand is on the grill. mike hunt >>From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence >>with [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > unless what is under the hood matches what surrounds it. It won't be > done quickly, either. >That may be your opinion certainly but not mine. ...... The truth is every >manufacture today is making well built, reliable, vehicles today. .... > >mike hunt Mike, At the end of the day you may well be correct. I hope so. I would prefer to buy American when I replace my Crapillac, but I won't unless I am convinced that what I am being sold is a better car, not a bill of goods. The reality is that a whole bunch of new car buyers, those who actually effect the bottom line, believe the Japanese vehicles to be better made and will make their buying decision based on that perception. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. GM and Ford are going to have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, for quite a while to reclaim the disillusioned. Again that may be your opinion but it is not the opinion of most American buyers. The fact is GM and Ford vehicles TODAY attracts more buyers than ALL of the vehicles from ALL of the many foreign manufactures selling vehicles in the US. GM sells three times as many vehicle as the number one import brand, Toyota. Ford sell more than twice as many. Chrysler also sells more than Toyota in the US as well and Honda is a distant fifth in sales in the US. The cars one can buy today are light years improved from what was on the market ten, or even five, years ago ;) mike hunt >>That may be your opinion certainly but not mine. ...... The truth is every >>manufacture today is making well built, reliable, vehicles today. .... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > GM and Ford are going to have to walk the walk, not just talk the > talk, for quite a while to reclaim the disillusioned. >Again that may be your opinion but it is not the opinion of most American >buyers. The fact is GM and Ford vehicles TODAY attracts more buyers than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> GM and Ford are going to have to walk the walk, not just talk the >> talk, for quite a while to reclaim the disillusioned. Sorry Mike. I have to killfile you. You'd rather argue than read. Be well. What a load of crappola,, gm has nothing but problems with their dex-coolant leaking into their engines, I had my Impalla gasket replaced a mth ago, cost $1035.00 at the dealer. the dex-coolant was leaking into the engine oil. no-recalls on this very common problem from GM. They just ignore the problem. Gm sure don't attract me. >Again that may be your opinion but it is not the opinion of most American >buyers. The fact is GM and Ford vehicles TODAY attracts more buyers than [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> GM and Ford are going to have to walk the walk, not just talk the >> talk, for quite a while to reclaim the disillusioned. > What a load of crappola,, > gm has nothing but problems with their dex-coolant leaking into their [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Gm sure don't attract me. What year is your Impala and what engine? year 2000 engine 3.4 >> What a load of crappola,, >> gm has nothing but problems with their dex-coolant leaking into their [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >What year is your Impala and what engine? > What a load of crappola,, > gm has nothing but problems with their dex-coolant leaking into their > engines, > I had my Impalla gasket replaced a mth ago, cost $1035.00 at the > dealer. Then you paid about $400.00 more than the going rate around these parts. The book only pays something like 5.5 hours plus parts for the job. Most good independent shops around here will do the job for ~$400 and the dealers are just north of $600. > the dex-coolant was leaking into the engine oil. > no-recalls on this very common problem from GM. They just ignore the > problem. > > Gm sure don't attract me. Well, GM sure does attract me, for a lot of other reasons. Though, I have to admit that the intake gasket and intake plenum problems are completely inexcusable. They've gone on for too long and they are too widespread across the products to be overlooked as "one of them things". I could have overlooked the issue if GM had experienced some infant mortality problems and within the first couple of years had come up with a fix, but this has gone on too long to be overlooked. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net TL*2 Whatever the do at the moment will not have any effect until after the bankruptcy So it will be Too Little and way Too Late They had a chance up to say 5 to 10 years ago Too many broken promises will always get you in the end > From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence with > it seems that old GM fans are now starting to whisper distgruntlements about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > getup and go which just adds to something else to break and maintain not the > mention the hi-test gas it requires. I had one for years. Have worked on plenty of 3.8's with the Supercharger. Never had to do any work to the Supercharger. I kept mine to 250,000 miles. I never used hi-test gas either. I runs just fine on 87 octane. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Suzuki H. Kawasaki Jr. wrote: > From reading this newsgroup and talking to others (snipped the rest of the troll garbage) Obviously troll, you know little to nothing about cars or engines. > Suzuki H. Kawasaki Jr. wrote: > > > > From reading this newsgroup and talking to others > (snipped the rest of the troll garbage) > > Obviously troll, you know little to nothing about cars or engines. Explain yourself instead of just babbling. > From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence > with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offering which dosnt seem to be all that much unless you want to settle > for That's pretty much it. They don't sell anything that I would buy (except for an ordinary old pickup truck). And that's saying a lot, for the world's largest automaker. I would drive an old GM car, I just wouldn't bother buying a new one. They're too boring. I'm not interested in a Sport Utility vehicle, as I find them incapable of either sport or utility. I'd rather have a cheaper, more useful truck. GM's big mistake, in my opinion, was the failure of their rear-drive cars. All their cars were basically rental units, or you might think of them as cars made for women (I'm not one). What caused that, of course, was CAFE, but they gave up too easily. When the revival of exciting cars began, they didn't bother to make products for it. Cadillac is the exception - they were allowed to build a modern rear-drive car. None of the other divisions are allowed to compete with what I would buy. GM has tons of moder rear-drive models overseas, but Americans don't really want that. >> From reading this newsgroup and talking to others I come in aquaintence >> with [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > are allowed to compete with what I would buy. GM has tons of moder > rear-drive models overseas, but Americans don't really want that. It might have beem more clear to say GM was trying to rid itself of its enthusiasts. They really just want to make cars for people who don't want to get excited about a car. So that explains why the "fans" are unhappy. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message