Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / GMC Cars / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Want proof that GM is going under?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Andy C.(never #) - 11 Jan 2006 17:42 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol

When I saw this on the tube, I kept thinking that the news guy had it
wrong. That they were talking about the camaro but showing a mustang.
Nope. Just goes to show how bad the brain drain at GM has gotten. Do
they really think no one is going to notice such a blatant copy? Sorry,
dude. If I wanted something that looked like that, I'd be at the Ford
dealership.

Later,

Andy C.(never #)
Cool Jet - 11 Jan 2006 19:10 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Andy C.(never #)

Where do these new News Group members come from? Funny how these trolls
appear out of nowhere and then disappear, never to be heard from again!

First of all, Andy C.(never #) says nothing in his message to
rationalize the subject he used, i.e. "Want proof that GM is going
under?". That is an obvious indicator that Andy C.(never #) is just
another troll.

Secondly, he must not have read the review at the link he posted, or he
would have seen that the author commented: "The 2006 concept was
particularly inspired by the 1969 version of the Camaro".

I guess that what Andy C.(never #) was trying to say is that the retro
Mustang has actually been copied from the style of the 1969 Camaro! But
we all know that's not true because the new Mustang is a great retro
version of past Mustangs.

This all seems to add up to either Andy C.(never #) being a troll OR
Andy C.(never #) has poor eyesight! *LOL*
Sharon K.Cooke - 11 Jan 2006 19:28 GMT
> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol
> >
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> This all seems to add up to either Andy C.(never #) being a troll OR
> Andy C.(never #) has poor eyesight! *LOL*

You think the proposed Camaro looks like a Mustang? I'll bet someone at Ford
wishes the new Mustang body looked that good.
Andy C.(never #) - 11 Jan 2006 19:33 GMT
>SNIP<
>
> You think the proposed Camaro looks like a Mustang? I'll bet someone at Ford
> wishes the new Mustang body looked that good.

If you want to look at something that looks new and looks like it is
based on the original, check out the Dodge Challenger concept. I'd pay
a dollar for that.

Later,

Andy C.(never #)
Cool Jet - 12 Jan 2006 04:25 GMT
> >snip
> > Secondly, he must not have read the review at the link he posted, or he
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> You think the proposed Camaro looks like a Mustang? I'll bet someone at Ford
> wishes the new Mustang body looked that good.

??? Not me Sharon! It was Andy C.(never #) who said that. I think you
may have responded to the wrong post. My post disagreed with Andy
C.(never #).
Ript - 15 Jan 2006 16:05 GMT
>> > http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_conce
>> > pt/?eref=aol
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> You think the proposed Camaro looks like a Mustang? I'll bet someone
> at Ford wishes the new Mustang body looked that good.

GM copied the mustang back in the 60's, so its the same old tricks.

Signature

1984 RZ350

Andy C.(never #) - 15 Jan 2006 20:01 GMT
>SNIP<
>
> GM copied the mustang back in the 60's, so its the same old tricks.
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350

Right, they copied the body style. Long hood, short back end. Same way
MoPar did. But at least GM put their own interpretation on it. The
Challenger was much more of a blatant copy of the Camaro than the
Camaro was of the Mustang. Still you're right. Car makers don't like
taking chances.

Later,

Andy C.(never #)
Andy C.(never #) - 11 Jan 2006 19:37 GMT
Nice try, drool pet. I read the article. I owned a '69 comaro. I can
see the differnce. Now, troll this.

Later,

Andy C.(never #)
RSCamaro - 12 Jan 2006 03:35 GMT
>Nice try, drool pet. I read the article. I owned a '69 comaro. I can
>see the differnce. Now, troll this.
>
>Later,
>
>Andy C.(never #)

Funny that you can't spell the model name correctly though.

           ...Ron
--
68'RS Camaro
88'Formula
00'GT Mustang
Cool Jet - 12 Jan 2006 04:32 GMT
> Nice try, drool pet. I read the article. I owned a '69 comaro. I can
> see the differnce. Now, troll this.

What a dumb a.s! You may well have owned "a '69 comaro" but I find it
difficult to believe that you owned a '69 Camaro because you can't even
spell C-A-M-A-R-O. LMAO!!! I'm happy to hear that you can "see the
differnce". But can you see the difference? *LOL* Now get to bed before
mommy spanks you!
Andy C.(never #) - 12 Jan 2006 13:24 GMT
> What a dumb a.s! You may well have owned "a '69 comaro" but I find it
> difficult to believe that you owned a '69 Camaro because you can't even
> spell C-A-M-A-R-O. LMAO!!! I'm happy to hear that you can "see the
> differnce". But can you see the difference? *LOL* Now get to bed before
> mommy spanks you!

Ok, on cars you don't know sh.t. But of dumb a.ses, I bet you are THE
expert.

You also seem to be obsessed with "Trolls". Do you think everyone is a
troll?

Sorry for the typo. But since we all knew what make and model of car we
were talking
about, why make such a big deal out of it? Sorry, rhetorical question.
I know why.
'Cause you're the self appointed moderator of this ng and so you think
you can make fun
of anyone who has an oppinion. Make fun of this one: My opinion of you
is that you are a pompous little dick.

Now more later, I'd rather talk to adults.

Andy C.(never #)
Cool Jet - 12 Jan 2006 19:35 GMT
> snip gibberish
> Now more later, I'd rather talk to adults.
>
> Andy C.(never #)

You'll be talking to a few more senior adults from your employer if you
keep it up! Heh! Heh!

By the way, you never did give us your "proof that GM is going under".
Andy C.(never #) - 12 Jan 2006 19:51 GMT
> You'll be talking to a few more senior adults from your employer if you
> keep it up! Heh! Heh!

At least I have a job. You're not like most Canadians I've met. They're
nice, polite people, for the most part. You on the other hand...

Later,

Andy C.(never #)
Cool Jet - 12 Jan 2006 20:22 GMT
> At least I have a job. You're not like most Canadians I've met. They're
> nice, polite people, for the most part. You on the other hand...

Andy, pulling the nationality card is tawdry and akin to pulling the
race card in a non-racial issue!  That's not worthy of a response.  You
are a fine one to be saying I'm not a "nice, polite" person! Here's a
reminder of your recent post:

> Ok, on cars you don't know sh.t. But of dumb a.ses, I bet you are THE
> expert.
> Make fun of this one: My opinion of you
> is that you are a pompous little dick.

Andy, is that your idea of being a "nice, polite" person? Practise what
you preach my friend.
gosinn@gmail.com - 15 Jan 2006 20:22 GMT
"The Malibu Maxx seems to have fallen flat, much less the original
Malibu. People on the inside swear it has European handling, good
power, decent fuel economy...but there isn't much buzz among the non-GM
employees. The Silverado sells well, but they pretty much seem to be a
step behind Ford in almost every category. The Cobalt should replace
the Cavalier whose name they ruined...but it doesn't seem to be
garnering much excitement at large.

GM is just the best example of the problems the Big3 all face: an
inability to understand what people want, an inability to make a
completely reliable car line, an apparent inability to look beyond
immediate profits...

I think the internet has hurt the Big3, too, because they can no longer
depend on someone walking on the lot and being able to convince him to
buy that day. Rather, consumers these days research, try things out,
and aren't so vulnerable to the hard sell these days. And the Big3 just
don't make a good enough product any more.

A quote from the owner of one of the dealers, Gilmour owner Allan
Gilmour - "There are no sales. We have done reasonably well in used
cars, but there are literally no sales."

University of Maryland business professor Peter Morici even predicts GM
is on a path to bankruptcy within five years. Banc of America auto
analyst Ronald Tadross has said GM should consider bankruptcy
protection. Bob Hoffman, another critic has posted an interesting entry
on why GM should consider bankruptcy protection. He says GM should
enter bankruptcy, reorganize and exit financially stronger, with better
management."
Spam Hater - 16 Jan 2006 21:56 GMT
> "The Malibu Maxx seems to have fallen flat, much less the original
> Malibu. People on the inside swear it has European handling, good
> power, decent fuel economy...but there isn't much buzz among the non-GM
> employees.
I agree it does sound interesting and I wanted to have a look at it and
try it out, but I didn't see one at our local dealerships. The
dealerships seemed more interested in getting orders sight unseen for
the HHR that wasn't in stock either or their huge lineup of truck based
SUVs.

> GM is just the best example of the problems the Big3 all face: an
> inability to understand what people want, an inability to make a
> completely reliable car line, an apparent inability to look beyond
> immediate profits...
May I suggest I feel it's more that they try to force on the public what
they think we want.  They've never asked my opinion on what vehicle I
want next.  When I bought my Concord in '96 the parting comment from the
sales person was see you in a few years for your SUV.  How dumb!

It seems they need a BIG down turn to smarten them up.
Chrysler smartened up in the 80s,  now they are off on their own trip
which was pissed off many of their long term mid sized car buyers, but
admittedly the 300 has made them lots on money. However it appears the
300 is killing the large Mercedes sales.
HLS@nospam.nix - 11 Jan 2006 19:25 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol

> When I saw this on the tube, I kept thinking that the news guy had it
> wrong. That they were talking about the camaro but showing a mustang.

Definitely inspired by early Camaro's.  Nice looking car.  I wonder if the
petroleum poor world is ready for another spate of muscle cars.
. - 11 Jan 2006 21:35 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol

> > When I saw this on the tube, I kept thinking that the news guy had it
> > wrong. That they were talking about the camaro but showing a mustang.
>
> Definitely inspired by early Camaro's.  Nice looking car.  I wonder if the
> petroleum poor world is ready for another spate of muscle cars.

Looks nothing like the old Camaro to me, but does bear quite
the striking resemblance to both the new and old Challenger.
Mike Marlow - 11 Jan 2006 22:48 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol

> When I saw this on the tube, I kept thinking that the news guy had it
> wrong. That they were talking about the camaro but showing a mustang.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Andy C.(never #)

Well - it is reminiscent of the early Camaro, but I agree that they did get
it more like a Mustang look than they should have.  The pic on the web site
makes it look very Mustang-ish in the rear.

Signature

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

Harry Face - 11 Jan 2006 23:19 GMT
Andy

The Camaro concept doesn't look like a Mustang to me or anybody I know .

     Harryface    
05 Park Avenue, 33,175
91 Bonneville LE  305,279        


Lanze - 12 Jan 2006 01:39 GMT
Looks great and comes with a nice motor. With all these remakes coming out
from the (fabulous three) this should help keep buyers away from the other
foreign manufactures. I love this car!

> Andy
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 05 Park Avenue, 33,175
> 91 Bonneville LE  305,279
Oil Can Harry - 12 Jan 2006 03:23 GMT
> Andy
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 05 Park Avenue, 33,175
> 91 Bonneville LE  305,279

Me Neeva
Cool Jet - 12 Jan 2006 04:38 GMT
> Andy
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 05 Park Avenue, 33,175
> 91 Bonneville LE  305,279

It's almost unanimous!
James C. Reeves - 22 Jan 2006 00:35 GMT
> Andy
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 05 Park Avenue, 33,175
> 91 Bonneville LE  305,279

I agree.  Nice looking car too!
Nomen Nescio - 12 Jan 2006 02:50 GMT
What has looks got to do with the utility of an automobile?  That was the
problem of the 50's with tail fins and thousands of pounds of chrome.
Remember the '57 Pontiac with the "bombs" on the bumpers and
thru-the-bumper exhaust, guaranteeing rusty chrome within 10 days of
delivery?

Form must follow function.  Style is out of the equation.  Even the most
beautiful airliner ever built, the Lockheed Constellation, was not styled.
Its curvacious lines was for propeller to ground clearance and its triple
tail fins was for hangar clearance.  When cars' form starts to follow
function, we will have beautiful and efficient cars that will have sales
appeal.
SgtSilicon - 12 Jan 2006 05:39 GMT
I like the look of it but I see what you mean.  That rear quarter
panel just screams Mustang.  I sure liked the earlier artist rendering
that were done before.

See:  http://www.popularhotrodding.com/features/0409phr_camaro/

>http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Andy C.(never #)
Spam Hater - 12 Jan 2006 22:44 GMT
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=a
> ol
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> dude. If I wanted something that looked like that, I'd be at the Ford
> dealership.

Too bad they dumped their Canadian workers who used to produce it.
They probably drive Hondas and Toyotas now.

Is it just window dressing styling covering up old GM technology?
gosinn@gmail.com - 13 Jan 2006 00:55 GMT
"Another bad day for General Motors and downgrades for Coca-Cola

Of the many fallers, ailing carmaker General Motors suffered the most,
losing 4.1 per cent to $20.96 as last week's rally faded into the
memory, while retailer Wal-Mart fell 1.8 per cent to $45.74 on fears
that it may be forced to spend more on healthcare for its employees."
Peter - 13 Jan 2006 04:45 GMT
>"Another bad day for General Motors and downgrades for Coca-Cola
>
>Of the many fallers, ailing carmaker General Motors suffered the most,
>losing 4.1 per cent to $20.96 as last week's rally faded into the
>memory, while retailer Wal-Mart fell 1.8 per cent to $45.74 on fears
>that it may be forced to spend more on healthcare for its employees."

Maryland voted to pass the Wal Mart bill.  basically companies employing
more than 10,000 people to spend  8% of their payroll on employee health
care.

I think the Supreme Court will take exception to this law. as it discriminately
targets selected companies rather than being applied evenly and fairly across
all business,  including UPS and FED EX.
gosinn@gmail.com - 13 Jan 2006 12:16 GMT
"Wall Street's credit default swaps traders now view GM as a company so
risky that a holder now must pay as much as $12 per year for every $100
of the automaker's five-year corporate debt if they want to hedge
against a default, up from $8 to $9 just several weeks ago. In
addition, credit default swaps traders are now demanding more of that
money up front from investors looking to protect their GM holdings.

Banc of America analysts reiterated a sell rating on the company's
stock, saying they believe the odds GM management could be held
accountable for the accounting woes has risen and this could accelerate
a bankruptcy protection decision they judged to be "inevitable.""
Spam Hater - 14 Jan 2006 07:29 GMT
> "Wall Street's credit default swaps traders now view GM as a company so
> risky that a holder now must pay as much as $12 per year for every $100
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> accountable for the accounting woes has risen and this could accelerate
> a bankruptcy protection decision they judged to be "inevitable.""

Business week said the DOW is being held down because of GM's failing
stock.  The DOW is considering removing GM from that small index.

> The biggest news at the Detroit Auto Show, which opened on Jan. 8, wasn't
> sleek cars but clunky carmakers. GM (GM ) cut prices on many models, hoping a
> little realism would end the boom-and-bust incentive cycles. On Jan. 10,
> Jerome York, a turnaround artist and top deputy of GM shareholder Kirk
> Kerkorian, made a speech urging the company to ditch some brands, chop the
> dividend, and set clear financial goals
gosinn@gmail.com - 14 Jan 2006 12:11 GMT
"General Motors gave notice that it will seek fresh concessions from
its US workers and further cost savings from overseas operations as
part of a more aggressive drive to stem heavy losses at the world's
largest carmaker.

The savings are projected to amount to $14bn a year by 2010, based on
2005 revenues - twice the current target. "We realise that we can and
must do more on all four elements of the turnaround plan," Rick
Wagoner, chief executive, told analysts in Detroit on Friday."
xblazinlv - 14 Jan 2006 08:43 GMT
This thread is complete BS.... there is no PROOF that GM is going under
by any of the opinionated stuff you've posted.

------------------------------------
Mike Mangione
http://www.carforums.net
HLS@nospam.nix - 15 Jan 2006 15:19 GMT
> This thread is complete BS.... there is no PROOF that GM is going under
> by any of the opinionated stuff you've posted.

Some of the most competent investment sources in the USA have warned
of the possibility of bankruptcy, Mike.  Possibility, not PROOF.  Some
have described it as likely, and at least one has said it is INEVITABLE:

Investors, except for the most loyal, are viewing the facts and the
condition of
the company, and some are easing out.

Your post is not PROOF, but is an indication that (1) you don't read
business
and investment news, or (2) your loyalty to GM has made you tunnel visioned.
Spam Hater - 16 Jan 2006 21:44 GMT
> This thread is complete BS.... there is no PROOF that GM is going under
> by any of the opinionated stuff you've posted.

OK why don't you buy some GM stock.  <:)
It's now a great deal.
If I saw some GM products I liked I'd certainly buy some stock.

Back in the 80s I made money twice on Chrysler's ups and downs, but I
thought they had some hope.
Guess - 26 Jan 2006 04:45 GMT
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/funonwheels/01/09/detroit_camaro_concept/?eref=aol
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Andy C.(never #)

Moron !  It looks nothing like a Mustang.. Ever get out much ? you can
clearly see the rear quarters as well as the roofline and grill are
right from and early Camaro...  With those skills, you need a yugo...
 
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.