 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / October 2006GMs predicted death
From: "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> Subject: GM's eleven brands Date: 8. oktober 2006 09:18 Time will tell. It isnt out of the question We know the why We do not yet know exactly the how and when It is very interesting to watch and see what will be the trigger to the very end Also to see how it will happen It is very interesting to see the former arrogance slowly changing and knowing it is already too late and every measure taken is wrong and futile It is like watching a bullfight and the bull is running around wild with anger and can no longer make any revolutionary moves to save it self It can move around looking for targets to hit but gets ever weaker The once mighty bull is no longer very powerful nor seeing clearly The big question is if the remains will be used or just thrown away after the public leaves Unfortunately the public has already started leaving > From: "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> > Subject: GM's eleven brands > Date: 8. oktober 2006 09:18 > > Time will tell. It isnt out of the question > We know the why > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Also to see how it will happen The very same things were said of IBM.  Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net Compared to what IBM was it is pretty dead now IBM has sold off most of its factories and changed into a service company I do not see GM being able to do anything like that Nobody wants to buy their factories GM has already sold its finance and service arm There is not much for GM left than let us who are interested in the lifes of companies watch how and when it will die > > We know the why > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The very same things were said of IBM. > Compared to what IBM was it is pretty dead now > > IBM has sold off most of its factories and changed into a service > company You are working too hard to justify a distinction that does not exist. The fact of the matter is that IBM was very much like GM in their corporate philosophy and along came David with sling shot. IBM was dealt a humbling blow and had to reinvent itself into something that was a combination of their former self and a new, in demand self. That owes to the fact that they had outlived their reign as king of the mountain, and if they were to survive, they had to embrace the new demands of the computer world instead of continuing to define what those demands would be. That is indeed, very similar to where GM is today. > I do not see GM being able to do anything like that Maybe, and maybe not. It all depends on whether the right management gets in there. Your ability to see whether they turn around or not has nothing to do with GM's ability to do so. I will agree if you say that they still have not demonstrated enough awareness of the changes they have to make, but that is far from a shovel of dirt on their casket. > Nobody wants to buy their factories Nobody wanted to buy IBM's or Carrier's or..., or..., or... > GM has already sold its finance and service arm So? You are looking at this with too short sighted an eye. > There is not much for GM left than let us who are interested in the > lifes of companies watch how and when it will die I can see you don't find yourself often accused of optimism. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message >> > The very same things were said of IBM. I have to agree with Gosi's later post. IBM is but a shadow of its previous embodiment.. They were very similar to GM in arrogance and philosophy, and while they didnt disappear, they have certainly been humbled with reference to their earlier position > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message >> > > > > The very same things were said of IBM. > > I have to agree with Gosi's later post. > IBM is but a shadow of its previous embodiment.. I disagree. IBM is a very successful leader in the industry. They are not what they were at one time, but the world has changed and no company is what IBM was. They realized the world was changing (later than they should have), they embraced the change and emerged as one of the most formidable leaders in that industry today. What does it matter that they are not the same company that they were 40 years ago? Isn't that exactly the point? > They were very similar to GM in arrogance and philosophy, and while they > didnt disappear, they have certainly been humbled with reference to their > earlier > position So? Isn't *that* the point? Those companies that realize the world is changing around them survive. No matter that they aren't a mirror image of what they were. The changing world demands that they don't remain the same. Somehow this thread and the thoughts about GM have gone the direction of a changed GM is somehow a lesser good. Bull. A changed GM is a mandate and a good thing. The world is past the days of "what's good for GM is good for America". So they get humbled. Isn't that what everyone is saying that want? Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message The world is past the days of "what's good for GM is good for > America". So they get humbled. Isn't that what everyone is saying that > want? Basicaly, we agree, Mike... Some industries have to make drastic changes to stay alive. GM may be at that point, as IBM was. AT&T was. They got their cashews crumbled too, but they survived. I doubt that anyone wants to see GM disappear from the face of the earth. I certainly dont. > > "Mike Marlow" <mmarlow@alltel.net> wrote in message >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > America". So they get humbled. Isn't that what everyone is saying that > want? My parallel comparison would be with PanAm (Pan American Airlines) Back in the 50s and 60s PanAm ruled the skies of the world with the 707. They got huge and then gambled mightily on the 747 to expand their dominance. To survive for their last 2 decades they had to sell off valuable assets just to stay alive. They sold the reall estate (PanAm building, Intercontinental Hotels) Asian routes, key European routes etc... Once all of the valuable stuff was gone they could not stay in business. The rest is history. Is GM going down that path ? Sell off what is valuable to bring in the most money and cutting off your own legs slowly ? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=229 > My parallel comparison would be with PanAm (Pan American Airlines) Back in > the 50s and 60s PanAm ruled the skies of the world with the 707. They got [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is GM going down that path ? Sell off what is valuable to bring in the most > money and cutting off your own legs slowly ? > My parallel comparison would be with PanAm (Pan American Airlines) Back in > the 50s and 60s PanAm ruled the skies of the world with the 707. They got [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Is GM going down that path ? Sell off what is valuable to bring in the most > money and cutting off your own legs slowly ? Perhaps they are. Time will tell. My point is not that they are doing all the right things, but that their situation is very survivable, in contrast to the "GM is dead and doesn't know it" mentality of some here. The future of GM lies in the senior management of the company. I have no confidence in that senior management at present, but that can be changed. We'll just have to see... Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> My parallel comparison would be with PanAm (Pan American Airlines) Back >in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >that senior management at present, but that can be changed. We'll just have >to see... Mike and Everyone, Take a look at this article from this week's Autoextremist: http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml#Rant G.M. is doing something they should have done 10 years ago, finally reversing the Roger Smith "homogination" process from the late 70s~ early 80s. About bloody time. Mike, I think you (and I'll plead guilty to it too) have underestimated Rick Wagoner. Yeh, he's not a "car guy" in the mold of Ed Cole, Bill Mitchell or John DeLorean, but for a bean counter he has come a long way. G.M. is far from dead - maybe a little bit "Rip Van Winkle", but I think he (meaning G.M.) has awakened from its slumber. Regards, Bill Bowen Sacramento, CA > Mike and Everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > G.M. is far from dead - maybe a little bit "Rip Van Winkle", but I > think he (meaning G.M.) has awakened from its slumber. This is good to see. Let's hope GM really does release the reigns somewhat and let's the divisions really stretch their wings. This could be interesting. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > Once all of the valuable stuff was gone they could not stay in business. The > rest is history. I made a good profit selling Pan Am short in the early 80s. Is it a good time to sell GM short yet? > > Once all of the valuable stuff was gone they could not stay in business. The > > rest is history. > > I made a good profit selling Pan Am short in the early 80s. > I have to agree with Gosi's later post. > IBM is but a shadow of its previous embodiment.. IBM is different, they don't control their area of business, but their business and stock performance is excellent. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=IBM&t=my > > I have to agree with Gosi's later post. > > IBM is but a shadow of its previous embodiment.. > IBM is different, they don't control their area of business, but their > business and stock performance is excellent. The IBM story is very much like the GM story of today. At the time IBM did indeed control their area of business. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > The very same things were said of IBM. IBM made the necessary changes, but GM is still waffling. > > The very same things were said of IBM. > > IBM made the necessary changes, but GM is still waffling. Irrelevant. Read the original comment I was responding to with this comment. As well, read the subsequent posts. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net > We know the why Their woes are the fault of the engineers. > We do not yet know exactly the how and when > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > Time will tell. It isnt out of the question >From: "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> >Subject: GM's eleven brands >Date: 8. oktober 2006 09:18 > >Time will tell. It isnt out of the question I don't believe this will be the death of GM, but they will get smaller, concentrating on areas of business such as full sized sedans where they are not so vulnerable to a bitch slapping by Toyota and Honda. >> From: "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> >> Subject: GM's eleven brands [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > where they are not so vulnerable to a bitch slapping by Toyota and > Honda. I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so far this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... "jcr" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message > I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so far > this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... A local Honda dealer has a load of Accords on the lot, but the Civics are all sold out and they are just taking orders. Good mileage and the Car of the Year Award from Motor Trend is selling them. Of course, that was when gas was $3+ a few week back so that may change. > A local Honda dealer has a load of Accords on the lot, but the Civics are > all sold out and they are just taking orders. same here >Good mileage and the Car of > the Year Award from Motor Trend is selling them. Of course, that was when > gas was $3+ a few week back so that may change. The growth of more economical vehicles will slow a bit with lower fuel prices, but I doubt it will fall back as far as it increased. As for me I will definitely look for significantly improved urban fuel mileage (75% of my driving now) with my next vehicle. > > A local Honda dealer has a load of Accords on the lot, but the Civics are > > all sold out and they are just taking orders. News item today: Chrysler has 50,000 unsold vehicles and dealers won't take (it) any more. Plants are shutdown in an attempt to balance inventory. The Caliber and a related Jeep which are fuel efficient are selling well. >> > A local Honda dealer has a load of Accords on the lot, but the Civics are >> > all sold out and they are just taking orders. > >News item today: >Chrysler has 50,000 unsold vehicles and dealers won't take (it) any more. >Plants are shutdown in an attempt to balance inventory. <snip> Sounds like "Dr. Z" is falling into the same trap that Riccardo's mismanagement team got into in the '70s...the "sales bank." It's rather obvious that the sales and manufacturing divisions aren't talking to each other again. This is one of the first things that Iacocca had to tackle once he took over at Chrysler in '78...the plants would churn out cars, and tell Sales to sell them...even though no one was buying! At least they shut down the plants this time to try to balance inventory. In the '70s, the plants would just keep churning out cars and filling up every vacant lot in Michigan with them! Nissan had a similar problem in '75, once the gas crunch eased. Greedy for quick profit, Nissan was filling boats up with their biggest model, the 610, hoping that US buyers would gobble them up to replace their US-made gas guzzlers. Didn't work...'75 610s were seen languishing on dealer's lots as late as the '77 model year. People never talk about it now, but between '75 and '77, Nissan almost gave up on the US market entirely. The only thing that saved their bacon were their mini-trucks. 280Z sales weren't enough to turn much of a profit at all. As a result, there were lots and lots of unsold Nissan 610s and 710s parked on vacant lots all around Southern California as dealers tried to plow through the surplus, often only taking year-old cars at 30% discounts from wholesale. It was at that time that they abandoned the Datsun name, going with the corporate Nissan. The local Chrysler-Jeep dealer here is bulging with unsold 300s and Pacificas, but cannot keep Calibers or even Magnums in stock. Trucks also aren't moving anymore and they're even offering "$2000 off" Cummins diesels. While the new 300 initially was a hot seller, it got a reputation (at least out west) as a ghetto ride, and now sales have tanked. DESERTBOB (not its real name) is a troll. It regularly frequents at least twenty news groups, including many rabid/sex/racist/liberal idiot/wannabee mechanic groups. Normally, it starts off with reasonable, even witty lines, but rapidly drifts into lies, abuse and stupidity. Check its details at Google Groups at this URL: http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=Ohn2FRMAAADKWt-YFW4KG3QbhQogR22 2h-kUg4S0n7nbF1Te82ZIng&hl=en See it's pathetic picture and myspace page at this URL- as it searches for companionship at age 50- looks like a quart of oil for the car in that hair... http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=30321125 It had 2 Ebay usernames, both banned due to abuse, auction interference, and harassment- they were VOXPOPPER and XCALIBER44- see them here- search history of VOXPOPPER to see how it left (8) negative feedbacks for a seller, for items that cost only a penny each ! http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=voxpopper http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=xcaliber44 It is a sad creature, deserving of pity, not anger. Any direct response simply feeds it, but it will go away if you ignore it. Look - DeserTBob has his very own stalker. He may be all that you say he is, but you are no better. Of the two of you, you are the first that I will plonk. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >Look - DeserTBob has his very own stalker. He may be all that you say he >is, but you are no better. Of the two of you, you are the first that I will >plonk. <snip> I'm not. Go to http://www.flamez.com , and you'll see he's following a "stalking script." > Look - DeserTBob has his very own stalker. He may be all that you say he > is, but you are no better. Of the two of you, you are the first that I will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -Mike- > mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net just be sure to plonk Boob too... > People > never talk about it now, but between '75 and '77, Nissan almost gave [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cars at 30% discounts from wholesale. It was at that time that they > abandoned the Datsun name, going with the corporate Nissan. It was even worse that you say. In '78 we were looking at a Nissan smaller car. Good Lord it had a non standard shift pattern. Why they would try that I'll never know, having had several Datsun 510s in the family in the early 70s that had the std. pattern. > The local Chrysler-Jeep dealer here is bulging with unsold 300s and > Pacificas, but cannot keep Calibers or even Magnums in stock. Same here for the 300s, with Magnums selling a little better. I drive by a nearby Chrysler dealer every few days. In the summer he suddenly had a lot full of 300s and trucks. They are going very slowly, but the Calibers are seldom seen on the lot. Recently very well equipped new 4wd 3.5L Magum's have been selling for a very low price here. I would have bought one, but a two week rental taught me their outside vision is inadequate for me. >> People >> never talk about it now, but between '75 and '77, Nissan almost gave [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >would try that I'll never know, having had several Datsun 510s in the >family in the early 70s that had the std. pattern. <snip> No doubt the absolutely awful F10, Nissan's first attempt at FWD, and a complete sales disaster. >> The local Chrysler-Jeep dealer here is bulging with unsold 300s and >> Pacificas, but cannot keep Calibers or even Magnums in stock. >Same here for the 300s, with Magnums selling a little better. > I drive by a nearby Chrysler dealer every few days. In the summer he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >very low price here. I would have bought one, but a two week rental >taught me their outside vision is inadequate for me. <snip> It's even worse in the 300, about as badly designed new car there is for side or rear vision. The only thing I remember being worse was a chopped '49 Merc! > It's even worse in the 300, about as badly designed new car there is > for side or rear vision. The only thing I remember being worse was a > chopped '49 Merc! I bought one with a 289 Ford that ate a valve for $600 in '79. Had extreme chop. I pulled out the 289, put in a junkyard Ford engine and slushbox, and-took a air chisel and cut the whole top off the car, windshield and all. Completely decapitated it. Put on imitation "Brooklands screens" and painted it with stolen TWA Red imron. Sold it a couple of years later and he drove it off a boat ramp in the Muddy Mississippi near Hannibal. Probably still down there. > > It's even worse in the 300, about as badly designed new car there is > > for side or rear vision. The Magum I drove had poor front vision as well, with that high middle of the hood. The poor vision keeps me from buying one at todays '06 clear out prices. >>> From: "Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> >>> Subject: GM's eleven brands [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so >far this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... I was thinking more in terms of quality, the lack of which is driving new car buyers, the only ones who count, away from GM and Ford and towards makers of quality automobiles. > >I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so > >far this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... > > I was thinking more in terms of quality, the lack of which is driving > new car buyers, the only ones who count, away from GM and Ford and > towards makers of quality automobiles. So how does this explain Toyota's increase in market share? Their cars are no better than anyone else's though they seem to have marketed themselves well. Toyota has a complete quality chain of production, sales and customer satisfaction Many companies try to immitate but are usually missing some vital ingredient in the chain > > >I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so > > >far this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are no better than anyone else's though they seem to have marketed > themselves well. >> >I thought the Honda and Accord and Civic sales were down about 18% so >> >far this past model year (2006). Toyota, on the other hand.... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >are no better than anyone else's though they seem to have marketed >themselves well. Their cars are much better. That explains it. |
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.