Car Forum / GMC Cars / March 2008
GM: Possible pitfalls could derail rebound
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jim Higgins - 29 Feb 2008 12:30 GMT GM: Possible pitfalls could derail rebound http://tinyurl.com/2tzt4l
Sharon Terlep / The Detroit News
General Motors Corp.'s already fragile turnaround could be derailed by any number of threats looming in 2008, from more strikes at parts suppliers to a further meltdown of the housing market, according to the automaker's annual report filed Thursday.
In a lengthy inventory of potential pitfalls for the year ahead, a listing required each year by federal regulators, GM names many of the same risks that kept the automaker in red ink for 2007: a slumping U.S. auto market, turmoil at finance firm GMAC and the soaring costs of health care and materials used to build cars and trucks.
But this year, GM also must begin anteing up cash to set up a massive health care trust for hourly retirees. The automaker has to come up with $34 billion over several years to contribute to the fund, created as part of last year's labor pact with the United Auto Workers. GM's ability to spend in other areas of the business will be affected if it can't secure financing under favorable terms.
GM's worries are no surprise, but they come at a time when concern is mounting on Wall Street about the automaker's ability to forge a turnaround in the weakening U.S. economy. The landmark labor deal GM struck last year with the UAW promises relief -- as much as $5 billion a year -- but much of that savings won't start until the retiree health care fund kicks in around 2010.
The retiree fund, called a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, or VEBA, was a central part of the four-year labor deals between the UAW and Detroit's Big Three automakers, designed to help them better compete with leaner foreign-based competitors. GM, along with Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, will offload retiree obligations to the union in the form of the trust.
GM said it will have to pay the union up to $34 billion to take over $47 billion in retiree obligations.
"Despite significant cost reduction programs that have occurred at GM's North American operations, negative cash flows at GM are expected to increase in 2008," Fitch Ratings analyst Brian Bertsch wrote this week in affirming its negative outlook on GM. The agency said its rating could be cut if GM continues to burn cash in its home market or if operations outside the United States become less profitable.
"Projected cost savings from the 2007 UAW agreement will be insufficient to reverse consolidated negative cash flows through 2009 without revenue stabilization. Given weak economic conditions, this is not projected to occur in 2008."
GM, in its report, said further production cuts will be necessary if the slumping economy or competition from rivals cuts deeper into its U.S. sales. GM slashed production about 10 percent in 2007.
Despite cutting billions from its costs over the past few years, the No. 1 U.S. automaker hasn't been profitable for a full year since 2004. GM lost a record $38.7 billion last year after posting a massive tax write down last fall.
Among GM's key concerns:
• Work stoppages or financial problems at parts suppliers, especially if they interfere with production of high-margin vehicles like trucks and SUVs. GM already has had to shut down one truck plant because of the UAW's strike against American Axle and Manufacturing Inc.
• Competition from rivals introducing key new models this year. GM's product cadence will slow down this year after a number of successful, high-profile new vehicles in 2006 and 2007.
• Further losses at GMAC, of which GM owns 49 percent, due to the national mortgage crisis.
 Signature Civis Romanus Sum
Gosi - 29 Feb 2008 12:54 GMT Lets say that someone wanted to buy GM or some parts of it.
What would be the best thing to buy?
The shares?
The plants?
Dealers?
Is the combined value of the shares worth more than what GM owns? Would it be interesting for someone to buy the whole thing slice it up and sell?
Are any plants worth buying or is it better to start a new plant?
Are the dealerships wort much? Is it worth enough to buy the dealer channels?
Obviously as a whole GM is still alife and will probably not die all together but it will surely be a lot smaller. What parts will survive? Possibly only the offshore operations.
Mike hunt - 29 Feb 2008 18:40 GMT Like the old saying; "Be careful what you whish for, your wish may come true."
If GM and the other domestics die, ALL vehicle operation will be off shore and vehicle priced will go way up without domestic competitors. Even today import brands sell for 20% to 30% because many buys have the mistaken idea they are somehow "better."
Look at what happen to TV sets and sneakers etc When the import brands came to the US they underpriced domestic brands and put them out of business. After the domestics were gone, prices skyrocket. TVs can be made for less than 20% of the selling price and the best sneakers are made for around $5 ;).
Obviously import brands will not continue to assemble some of their vehicles in the US or Canada with imported parts, as they do now. They can make and assemble the parts as well a the cars in lower wage countries, that do not have all the government regulations that they must deal with in the USA
"Gosi" <gosinn@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Obviously as a whole GM is still alife (SIC) and will probably not die all > together but it will surely be a lot smaller. > What parts will survive? > Possibly only the offshore operations. HLS - 29 Feb 2008 19:36 GMT > Like the old saying; "Be careful what you whish for, your wish may come > true." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > today import brands sell for 20% to 30% because many buys have the > mistaken idea they are somehow "better." Or that some American made things are worse;>) The Big 3 screwed themselves on this one.
> Look at what happen to TV sets and sneakers etc TV sets are much higher quality than they used to be years ago when most were made in the US. The technology is better nowadays, and as a percentage of our income, the prices are, I would say, much lower than what we had to pay before.
> Obviously import brands will not continue to assemble some of their > vehicles in the US or Canada with imported parts, as they do now. They > can make and assemble the parts as well a the cars in lower wage > countries, that do not have all the government regulations that they must > deal with in the USA Our gutless government will essentially allow them to import anything they want and compete for our American jobs and money. For us to improve, we have to do just that...quit crowing about American quality and American engineering - which have not been so great in recent years - and actually product quality things that people want to buy.
80 Knight - 01 Mar 2008 10:33 GMT >> Like the old saying; "Be careful what you whish for, your wish may come >> true." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or that some American made things are worse;>) > The Big 3 screwed themselves on this one. I can agree that The Big 3 made a lot of mistakes, but (and I don't like to agree with Hunt) some people do actually see a Toyota or Honda badge, and immediately think it's better then something with a Chevy or Ford badge. That and you have to admit, GM especially is turning around quite a bit. When even the critics are saying GM is doing good, you know they are.
>> Look at what happen to TV sets and sneakers etc > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pay > before. Funny. I used to remember people keeping TV's, fridge's, stoves, all kinds of things, many many years. If it broke, they would bring it in for repairs. What do most do now? We go and pick up a TV for $200 at Wal-Mart, and when it breaks (usually within 30 days of the 1 year (if your lucky) warranty expiring), we go buy a new one. I purchased my first DVD player in 1998. I worked at an electronics store, and with my discount (not including taxes) it sold for $449 (Canadian). Too expensive? Hell yes. How much are they now at Wal Mart? $29.99. The difference, you ask? I have gone through many Wal Mart (and more expensive versions from other stores) DVD players, even though I still have that $449 model from 1998, and it still works...It just doesn't really match anything else I have...
>> Obviously import brands will not continue to assemble some of their >> vehicles in the US or Canada with imported parts, as they do now. They [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > product quality > things that people want to buy. Therein lies the problem. There is nothing wrong with competition, but when Toyota and Honda can build there cars in countries where they pay the workers half of half what they would have to pay here, how are the Domestic brands supposed to survive? Everything needs to be on an even playing field.
Mike hunt - 01 Mar 2008 16:37 GMT Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference is style and price.
Why anybody will spend 205 to 30% more money for an import, hoping the will not get one of their bad 2%, when there are so many good domestics, where you have no greater chance of getting one of THEIR 2% that are bad, makes not sense to me.. The odds are you will get one of the 98%, they all make that are trouble free, no mater which brand it on the hood ;)
I buy a lot of new cars and I have owned a bunch of Hondas and Toyotas over the years and they proved to be no better, or worse, then the domestic brand I now buy. My last import was a '97 Lexus, I owned three of them prior to that one.
The two different brands on domestics I own now have proven to be just as good, but have cost me a lot less to buy and a lot less to have serviced at the dealership.
I stopped buying Lexus because the dealership was taking me for granted as a customer, thinking I would pay whatever they expected. They were wrong. I found a V8 American luxury brand, down the street, that was just a good for $20,000 less. I saved so much on that car that I also purchased a sporty convertible from that dealership as well.
I currently run a 2007 convertible and a 2008 luxury car purchased for the same dealership that takes good care not to lose me as a customer.
>>> Like the old saying; "Be careful what you whish for, your wish may come >>> true." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> Even today import brands sell for 20% to 30% because many buys have the >>> mistaken idea they are somehow "better." .
> I can agree that The Big 3 made a lot of mistakes, but (and I don't like > to agree with Hunt) some people do actually see a Toyota or Honda badge, > and immediately think it's better then something with a Chevy or Ford > badge. That and you have to admit, GM especially is turning around quite a > bit. When even the critics are saying GM is doing good, you know they are. HLS - 01 Mar 2008 19:29 GMT > Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all > manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference > is style and price. Some domestics may be great; others perhaps still crappo. The Big 3 have a track record of being, well, rather undependable in what they offer.
I think all three have things to be ashamed about in the recent past, and it wont disappear with a run or two of good models, new sheet metal.
Mike hunt - 01 Mar 2008 23:01 GMT Perhaps in your opinion but you can't prove that by me. I haven't owned a vehicle, foreign or domestic, in the past twenty five years that was problematic. The only exception was a Honda that blew an oil seal early on, and I have owner s slew of them. Apparently most GM buyers do not agree with your opinion either, because they still buy more vehicles from GM than any other manufacturer. You don't stay number one is sales of anything if you do not sell a good product.
>> Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all >> manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think all three have things to be ashamed about in the recent past, and > it wont disappear with a run or two of good models, new sheet metal. Nate Nagel - 01 Mar 2008 23:59 GMT > Perhaps in your opinion but you can't prove that by me. I haven't owned a > vehicle, foreign or domestic, in the past twenty five years that was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any other manufacturer. You don't stay number one is sales of anything if > you do not sell a good product. And it doesn't look like GM will stay number one for long, if it even still is. So what's your point again? GM has some work to do, and I think even GM knows it.
nate
>>>Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all >>>manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>I think all three have things to be ashamed about in the recent past, and >>it wont disappear with a run or two of good models, new sheet metal.
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike hunt - 02 Mar 2008 21:48 GMT Get real, look at all of the latest surveys, the vehicles GM builds today are as good as, or better than, any other brand on the market, and generally cost less to drive home
>> Perhaps in your opinion but you can't prove that by me. I haven't owned >> a vehicle, foreign or domestic, in the past twenty five years that was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > nate Nate Nagel - 01 Mar 2008 20:02 GMT > Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all manufactures > are building great vehicles today; the only real difference is style and > price. http://bp1.blogger.com/_A-bXyPL07Ww/Rxv7K8w92II/AAAAAAAAAnY/QVaOXl7ptaE/s320/not ThisShitAgain.gif
Only a complete idiot could make a statement like the above, unless you consider minor details like "reliability," "durability," "performance," and "handling" to fall under the category of "style."
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike hunt - 01 Mar 2008 22:49 GMT Obviously style refers to the look and type of vehicle. Only and idiot would expect every vehicle to have around the same "performance," and "handling" but they are all nearly identical in terms of "reliability," "durability," in that they all fall within the same 2% range in that regard, according to every current market survey of new and longer term owners.
After owning a fleet service business or over ten years, servicing hundreds of thousands of vehicles that are run up to five years or 300K WOF, our records clearly show it to be actually closer to 1% in the real world, when vehicles are given the proper preventive maintenance. You of course are entitled to you own opinion and can spend your money wherever you choose
>> Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all >> manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > nate Nate Nagel - 01 Mar 2008 23:58 GMT > Obviously style refers to the look and type of vehicle. Only and idiot > would expect every vehicle to have around the same "performance," and > "handling" Then there are other differences.
> but they are all nearly identical in terms of "reliability," > "durability," in that they all fall within the same 2% range in that regard, False.
> according to every current market survey of new and longer term owners. False.
> After owning a fleet service business or over ten years, servicing hundreds > of thousands of vehicles that are run up to five years or 300K WOF, our > records clearly show it to be actually closer to 1% in the real world, when > vehicles are given the proper preventive maintenance. You of course are > entitled to you own opinion and can spend your money wherever you choose You're still an idiot.
nate
>>>Domestics are building great vehicles today. The fact is all >>>manufactures are building great vehicles today; the only real difference [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >>nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
HLS - 02 Mar 2008 13:35 GMT "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> You're still an idiot. > > nate He has never let facts get in the way of his cheerleading, has he, Nate;>)
I have owned a number of GM vehicles since the early 80's and EVERY ONE of them had serious and costly defects which were not caused by, nor could they be prevented by, maintenance or severity of duty issues.
They were ALL defective parts or design flaws.
- the conversion V8 diesel - the metric tranny for that diesel - the 440T4 metric tranny for gasoline engines - the CS small frame alternator - the small V6 gasket leakage problems - the 3800 gen II plenum problem - the four wheel disc brake weaknesses ** - defective run of engine control modules (one or more series)
The CS alternators could be controlled by maintenance...if you call replaceing them every three months "maintenance".
The four wheel disc rear adjustment problems could also be made liveable by using the parking brake religiously and constant maintenance. These were really just poorly designed and implemented.
Mike hunt - 02 Mar 2008 21:44 GMT Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had major engine, tranny, and brake problems? Those I owned certainly had their share of problems, terminal rust, paint coming off, gasket and oil seal failures, to so nothing of Toyotas current oil sludge problem that has never been properly addressed simply pushed ahead a few years, till the extended warranty expires.
If one lives in hilly country one would be well advised to use the parking brake all the time. Why leave you 30K parked on a hill and count on a small pawl in the tranny to make sure it does not run down the hill if bumped by another car attempting to park? Another reason to use the parking brake is to be sure it will not corrode and be useless if need to stop the car if one has a brake failure
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > were > really just poorly designed and implemented. HLS - 02 Mar 2008 22:54 GMT > Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had > major engine, tranny, and brake problems? Those I owned certainly had > their share of problems, terminal rust, paint coming off, gasket and oil > seal failures, to so nothing of Toyotas current oil sludge problem that > has never been properly addressed simply pushed ahead a few years, till > the extended warranty expires. For years, I have had better luck with certain foreign brands than with GM. GM has sucked butt for a long time... They may have started to clean up their nasty act lately, but their attitude is crappola.
> If one lives in hilly country one would be well advised to use the parking > brake all the time. Why leave you 30K parked on a hill and count on a > small pawl in the tranny to make sure it does not run down the hill if > bumped by another car attempting to park? Another reason to use the > parking brake is to be sure it will not corrode and be useless if need to > stop the car if one has a brake failure We dont live in hilly country. Texas is not the California backlot many believe it is. But the worst problem is that I had a wife and teenaged daughter. They never managed to learn that the car was defective and in order to keep dad from having to re-do the shittola rear discs every few months, they had to use the parking brake religiously. Other 4WD (four wheel disc) systems didnt have that limitation.
GM has made a lot of sh.t, and they have not supported their loyal customers, regardless of the mindless raving that you continue to spout. They have the engineers to remedy it. But, they are like an unfaithful wife. How many times do they "do better" and then screw you again before you write them off.
They deserve a severe punishment tour.
Mike hunt - 02 Mar 2008 23:10 GMT I can't answer that for you, I have never had a GM vehicle that was problematic
>> Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had >> major engine, tranny, and brake problems? Those I owned certainly had [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > GM. GM has sucked butt for a long time... How many times > do they "do better" and then screw you again before you write them off. HLS - 03 Mar 2008 00:02 GMT >I can't answer that for you, I have never had a GM vehicle that was >problematic Then you must not have owned any in recent years, or you are conveniently blind.
Nate Nagel - 03 Mar 2008 01:42 GMT > Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had major > engine, tranny, and brake problems? Some, maybe. Some are of consistently higher quality than domestics. Only import I've had engine issues with was a well-used Corrado G60; it's had a set of rod bearings (replaced in the car) while it's been in my care, it's currently parked because the supercharger is blowing oil. Compression is kinda low too, but it's got about 140K miles on it and I suspect most of those were hard ones. (I know the last 30K or so were; SWMBO has a heavy foot!) Other than that, I've done no more than belts, hoses, and fluids and maybe an occasional alternator or starter to my cars. I did replace the transaxle on an old Scirocco at about 210K miles because it had a loose bearing that made the output shaft seal pass oil, but it was still working fine. That was the best damn car I ever owned...
Now I have a Porsche 944 which does require a little more care and feeding, but there's other benefits to owning that car, such as it drives like nothing else. (no differences except price and style my a.s.)
> Those I owned certainly had their > share of problems, terminal rust, paint coming off, gasket and oil seal > failures, to so nothing of Toyotas current oil sludge problem that has never > been properly addressed simply pushed ahead a few years, till the extended > warranty expires. I have never had any of those issues, and I've been driving "well used" imports (mostly VWs) since I got rid of my old Dart back in 1998ish.
> If one lives in hilly country one would be well advised to use the parking > brake all the time. And that's one of my (many) pet peeves with my company Impala - if I don't remind the service people to adjust the parking brake at *every* oil change, it stops working. I've never had that problem with any import.
> Why leave you 30K parked on a hill and count on a small > pawl in the tranny to make sure it does not run down the hill if bumped by > another car attempting to park? Another reason to use the parking brake is > to be sure it will not corrode and be useless if need to stop the car if one > has a brake failure My personal vehicles are all stickshifts and have proper lever actuated parking brakes, not that silly foot pedal like GM uses, so using the parking brake is a) easy and b) not a problem.
nate
>>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>were >>really just poorly designed and implemented.
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike Marlow - 03 Mar 2008 03:23 GMT >> Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had >> major engine, tranny, and brake problems? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > those were hard ones. (I know the last 30K or so were; SWMBO has a heavy > foot!) A heavy foot does not constitue hard miles. Hard miles are taxi miles. Going fast, accelerating fast, braking hard, do not make hard miles on a decent car. 140,000 is not low mileage, but it's far from high mileage. Most GM's since the early 90's would reliably go over 200,000
> Other than that, I've done no more than belts, hoses, and fluids and maybe > an occasional alternator or starter to my cars. That would be typical of most GM cars as well.
> Now I have a Porsche 944 which does require a little more care and > feeding, but there's other benefits to owning that car, such as it drives > like nothing else. (no differences except price and style my a.s.) I guess - more than a little care and feeding. Nice cars, but definately a car lover's car - one that you have to not mind tending to frequently.
> And that's one of my (many) pet peeves with my company Impala - if I don't > remind the service people to adjust the parking brake at *every* oil > change, it stops working. I've never had that problem with any import. I know there are some problems with the newer Impalas that I believe are inexcusable, but you're the only one I've heard of with this particular problem. This might be unique to your car.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Nate Nagel - 04 Mar 2008 01:07 GMT >>>Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had >>>major engine, tranny, and brake problems? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > decent car. 140,000 is not low mileage, but it's far from high mileage. > Most GM's since the early 90's would reliably go over 200,000 well, let's be honest here, a Corrado was unreliable from the start. It's not a typical "import" it's practically an "affordable" exotic. The experimental, not-ready-for-prime-time supercharger that needs rebuilt every 80K miles or less is just the tip of the iceberg.
>>Other than that, I've done no more than belts, hoses, and fluids and maybe >>an occasional alternator or starter to my cars. > > That would be typical of most GM cars as well. Then why all the stories about intake gaskets etc? I've never had to replace any engine gasket on any VW (except for the oil pan gasket on the Corrado when I did the rod bearings.) And I've never heard of any "typical" problem that results in oil/coolant mixing as a matter of course on any VW. (they did have an oil/water oil cooler on some performance models that supposedly could allow this to happen, but I've never heard of any failing without a lot of miles and/or neglect.)
>>Now I have a Porsche 944 which does require a little more care and >>feeding, but there's other benefits to owning that car, such as it drives >>like nothing else. (no differences except price and style my a.s.) > > I guess - more than a little care and feeding. Nice cars, but definately a > car lover's car - one that you have to not mind tending to frequently. It still has that typical German car thing where it's always worth fixing - the basic mechanicals just keep going and going, everything is rebuildable (yeah, for a price) even though it's the cheap a.s ghetto Porsche I can't imagine ever saying "man, my car's 20 years old... I better get a new one before this one leaves me stranded."
>>And that's one of my (many) pet peeves with my company Impala - if I don't >>remind the service people to adjust the parking brake at *every* oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > inexcusable, but you're the only one I've heard of with this particular > problem. This might be unique to your car. Well, to be fair, most of the problems I have with the car are ergonomic, so they're not going to be counted as "defects." It still makes me hate the car with a passion, however. Only 7K more miles to go until I can get something different!
nate
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike Marlow - 04 Mar 2008 01:50 GMT >> That would be typical of most GM cars as well. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > models that supposedly could allow this to happen, but I've never heard of > any failing without a lot of miles and/or neglect.) The intake gasket debacle only applies to the 3.1L and 3.4L engines. GM has produced more than just those two engines over the years. It does represent one of the greater disappointments from GM in that they had many years to make good on that design and instead foisted it on the public for way too long.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 04 Mar 2008 14:59 GMT If one does a search they will discover, gasket problems like, the previous pealing paint problems, were caused by the US government, not by any of the domestic or import vehicle manufactures, or the gasket and paint manufactures that made the paint or gaskets.
The government in its infinite wisdom chose to ban the use of asbestos and certain paint processes on dates certain, without allowing the gasket and paint manufactures sufficient time to develop suitable replacement materials with field testing. The result was the buyers were left to do the field tests in the vehicles they purchased. The result was buyers blamed the manufactures that use two of the four gasket material that were not up to the task. Those that used the one that failed early on were covered by the vehicle, manufactures warranty but those that used the other mater that failed around 70K had to wait until Ford litigation with the gasket manufactures was settled out of court to get relief.
Unfortunately many still blame the vehicle manufactures, not the environuts for those problems because the vehicles they bought were NOT made in the US and were still using asbestose
>>> That would be typical of most GM cars as well. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > years to make good on that design and instead foisted it on the public for > way too long. <RJ> - 04 Mar 2008 23:57 GMT >If one does a search they will discover, gasket problems like, the previous >pealing paint problems, were caused by the US government, not by any of the >domestic or import vehicle manufactures, or the gasket and paint >manufactures that made the paint or gaskets. FORD didn't have the problem. Chrysler didn't have the problem.
And GM let the problem drag on for....... HOW MANY YEARS ?
So much for GM engineering/manufacturing expertise.
And GM owners are STILL being screwed by the failed manifold gasket problem !
<rj>
Mike hunt - 05 Mar 2008 00:10 GMT You obviously did not do a search, since you don't know what you are talking about.. Ford did indeed have a "problem" as well as all the others that made cars in the US, Chrysler Toyota and Honda. It was Ford, who started the litigation against the gasket manufacturers that led to the out of court settlement and the resulting extended warranties by GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Honda for gasket related problems. LOL
>>If one does a search they will discover, gasket problems like, the >>previous [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <rj> Mike Marlow - 05 Mar 2008 04:01 GMT > And GM let the problem drag on for....... > HOW MANY YEARS ? And that sir, is what turned me from being a died in the wool GM bigot after 35 years of owning GM vehicles. The manner in which GM continued to foist their design flaws on the consumer just got to be unacceptable.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 00:44 GMT You just don't get it do you? It was not a design flaw. I was a material failure. According to the out of court settlement with Ford the gasket manufacturers agreed the failure of gaskets, after asbestos was removed, was a result of the gasket manufactures not meeting the design specs of the gasket made for the various vehicle manufactures.
The resulting settlement led to extended warranties being issued by the various manufactures including GM, by which the gasket manufactures would pay 80% of the cost and the vehicle manufacturer 20% of the cost of repairs directly relate to gasket failures including engine failures. If for some reason your particular vehicle was not repaired it would have to be that it was beyond the 100K, ten year, extension of the warranty.
If you owned one of the Toyota or other maufacturers vehicle on which the gasket had failed you would now be mad a Toyota etc. for the wrong reason just as you are mad a GM for the wrong reason. The person you should be pissed off at is your Congressmen who voted to ban asbestos, on a date certain, rather than allowing the gasket manufactures time to field test the alternative materials. ;)
>> And GM let the problem drag on for....... >> HOW MANY YEARS ? > > And that sir, is what turned me from being a died in the wool GM bigot > after 35 years of owning GM vehicles. The manner in which GM continued to > foist their design flaws on the consumer just got to be unacceptable. Mike Marlow - 06 Mar 2008 01:01 GMT > You just don't get it do you? It was not a design flaw. I was a material > failure. You're the one who does not get it Mike. When the problems first surfaced, they were a materials problem. Over 10 years later, when GM continues to have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, it's a design flaw.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 02:11 GMT You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of gaskets has been the same for years. Except for configuring a gasket for individual application the basic way to build the gasket has not changed in years, the only thing that has changed is the material used in gaskets. If you doubt that take a look at the head gasket on a prewar car. The head gaskets that failed did not have a change in the way they were built, the "design" as you call it did not change and the specifications did not change before asbestos or after asbestos when the were made with alternate materials.. The same gasket worked fine with asbestos and two of the four material used after asbestos was ban, did not work, it's that simple. The vehicle manufactures had no control over the material the gasket manufacturer used to meet their specs. If you still do not understand that's your problem
>> You just don't get it do you? It was not a design flaw. I was a >> material failure. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > continues to have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, it's > a design flaw. Mike Marlow - 06 Mar 2008 02:16 GMT > You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own > opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > manufacturer used to meet their specs. If you still do not understand > that's your problem Mike - you have continued to demonstrate your ignorance on this point for months now. The gasket issue at hand is not a head gasket issue. It's not an asbestos issue. It's the issue with the intake manifold gaskets. The aftermarket succeeded in supplying a superior gasket, while GM was still shoving the same old stock into their 3.1's and 3.4's. They had over a decade to make good on that particular problem and simply did not. Take your repeated carping of the same old tired line - which is irrelevant by the way, and tell it to the wall.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 19:01 GMT Ya right LOL
>> You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own >> opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Take your repeated carping of the same old tired line - which is > irrelevant by the way, and tell it to the wall. Mike Marlow - 06 Mar 2008 19:24 GMT > Ya right LOL Perfect. Can't deal with the facts, can you Mike? No problem - as one prolifically rhetorical poster is known to say - you're entitled to your opinion.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 19:34 GMT Ya right LOL
>> Ya right LOL > > Perfect. Can't deal with the facts, can you Mike? No problem - as one > prolifically rhetorical poster is known to say - you're entitled to your > opinion. Mike - 06 Mar 2008 03:22 GMT > You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own > opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of > gaskets has been the same for years. Except for configuring a gasket for > individual application the basic way to build the gasket has not changed in > years, the only thing that has changed is the material used in gaskets. If > you doubt that take a look at the head gasket on a prewar car. There's your problem moron, it is not a head gasket being discussed ! GM's don't have the head gasket failure that Fords are famous for. GM's problem was with the intake gaskets failing. It is you that doesn't know what they are talking about as the gasket IS NOT of a conventional manufacturing process as all previous gaskets were. It is made out of plastic, YES PLASTIC, and it is a piece of sh.t design. Whay are you in a GM newsgroup anyway, you are a Ford man ?
The head
> gaskets that failed did not have a change in the way they were built, the > "design" as you call it did not change and the specifications did not change [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> they were a materials problem. Over 10 years later, when GM continues to >> have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, it's a design flaw. Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 18:51 GMT Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, a gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all types and the MATERIALS used in their construction. I previously referred to some worked and some did not, dummy
contrary to what you choose to believe GM had a recall on the intake manifolds as well, if your vehicle did not qualify because of mileage of age that your problem.
Newer intake manifolds do not requires the heat resistance of the gaskets of old. Intake manifolds today contain air, not the fuel mix that needed to be kept heated when engines used carburetors. Why any sensible person would judge how all the renditions of a vehicle of a particular brand, albeit it good or bad, by one that they may have owned is somewhat foolish at best, in any event. Why are you always disparaging GM in a GM NG if you no longer buy GM products, is the better question one might ask LOL
>> You appear to be a bit slow but you certainly are entitled to your own >> opinion however your information is not correct. The basic design of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>> continues to have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, >>> it's a design flaw. Mike Marlow - 06 Mar 2008 19:12 GMT > Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, > a gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all types > and the MATERIALS used in their construction. I previously referred to > some worked and some did not, dummy Mike - your repeated attempts to sound informed on this are an utter failure. GM did not experience head gasket failures. If this were a materials problem of the sort you keep babbling about, they would have. But - they did not. They experienced intake gasket problems because they continued to use the same gasket desing for over 10 years despite the near 100% failure rate of these gaskets. It is not a materials problem.
> contrary to what you choose to believe GM had a recall on the intake > manifolds as well, if your vehicle did not qualify because of mileage of > age that your problem. I might not be informed on the matter of a recall but I do not remember any recall on the 3.1 and 3.4 for intake gaskets. Please provide proof of this statement. These manifold gaskets failed anywhere from 20,000 miles on up, and GM did not universally stand behind them. At best, owners with 40,000 miles were sometimes fortunate enough to get a Goodwill contribution out of GM, but even that was not a warranty - did not cover the costs, and was dependent upon the dealer persuading GM to do so.
> Newer intake manifolds do not requires the heat resistance of the gaskets > of old. What do you call newer? This was a problem throughout the life of the 60 degree engine. It most certainly was true of the newer engines. 3.1 and 3.4 engines built right up to the end suffered this gasket failure.
> Intake manifolds today contain air, not the fuel mix that needed to be > kept heated when engines used carburetors. Why any sensible person would > judge how all the renditions of a vehicle of a particular brand, albeit it > good or bad, by one that they may have owned is somewhat foolish at best, > in any event. Why are you always disparaging GM in a GM NG if you no > longer buy GM products, is the better question one might ask LOL Mike - you continue to throw out irrelevant points. Please do some research on the GM intake gasket problems. You'll make yourself look less foolish.
 Signature -Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 19:30 GMT You keep presenting the same convaluted opinion. I'm not going to continue banter back and force with you over the same subject, you are free to believe whatever you choose. What you choose to believe is wrong. As I posted before, when I owned my fleet service business we submit many a claim to every manufacturer the made cars in the US for several years. They all were paid under warranty or extended warranties for defected gaskets and covered the claims we submitted. If you had a complaint and could not collect it has to be that you were outside the warranty or extended warranty time and mileage parameters. What I have presented are facts not opinions, if you want to continue to believe otherwise that up to you...
>> Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking >> about, a gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > research on the GM intake gasket problems. You'll make yourself look less > foolish. Mike - 07 Mar 2008 19:18 GMT >Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, a >gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all types and >the MATERIALS used in their construction. If your reading comprehension wasn't so low you would see that GASKET MATERIALS is exactly what I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Is english not your fisrst language ??
> I previously referred to some >worked and some did not, dummy Can you try it again in english, retard.
>contrary to what you choose to believe GM had a recall on the intake >manifolds as well, if your vehicle did not qualify because of mileage of age >that your problem. Well make up your mind, are you talking intakes or gaskets. Or are you so senile that you don't remember what you were talking about ? In your post, which I replied to, YOU were talking about gaskets. My reply was on the topic of gaskets. NOW, YOU are talking about intakes. Pay attention to your own posts, moron.
>Newer intake manifolds do not requires the heat resistance of the gaskets of >old. Intake manifolds today contain air, not the fuel mix that needed to be >kept heated when engines used carburetors. See above, the topic is GASKETS, not intakes. Pay attention to the subject, you are off topic again.
> Why any sensible person would >judge how all the renditions of a vehicle of a particular brand, albeit it >good or bad, by one that they may have owned is somewhat foolish at best, in >any event. Jumping to conclusions again, Einstein ?? Or just pulling sh.t out of your a.s, as usual ? I work on cars everyday, been doing it for about 25 years. When I make a comment on this gasket problem my comments come from hands on experience. Like you have been told by most people here before, GM has a gasket problem that has gone on now for ten years or so, that is a fact that you choose to ignore. The problem affects tens of thousand of vehicles, not just one, moron. So you see I am not judging things by one vehicle, eh Einstein. And on the engines affected by this gasket problem, EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE is affected, usually MULTIPLE TIMES. So for the customer this gets to be an EXPENSIVE REPEAT REPAIR.
> Why are you always disparaging GM in a GM NG Show me were I am disparaging GM ! I am simply stating facts, you do now what facts are, don't you....... nevermind.
>if you no longer >buy GM products, is the better question one might ask LOL How did you jump to that conclusion ?
The better question would be why are you here defending GM, you're a Ford man. Every time someone mentions this GM gasket problem you come in here and try to cover it up like it didn't exist. In fact, you come in here to defend GM anytime someone posts about a large scale problem with a GM vehicle. You make yourself look like a fool because everyone here knows these are real problems. If you don't like what GM related info gets posted in a GM newsgroup you can always go to the Ford newsgroup.
> "Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote in message > news:__-dnfksrrtHz1LanZ2dnUVZ_tyknZ2d@ptd.net... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>> continues to have the same problem for lack of a design improvement, >>> it's a design flaw. Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 01:41 GMT You are even slower than I realized. Look up the definition of the word gasket and get back to us dummy. LOL
>>Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, >>a [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>in >>any event. Mike - 11 Mar 2008 04:12 GMT > You are even slower than I realized. Look up the definition of the word > gasket and get back to us dummy. LOL Get back to "us" ??? Do you have a turd in your pocket or are you with your imaginary friend, you know, the one you get your "facts" from.
I see you snipped half my post so I added it back in for you. I see you are still an idiot.
"Mike hunt" <mikehunt22@lycos.com> wrote in message news:cLqdnSpx3t-noE3anZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@ptd.net...
>Duh you continue to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about, a >gasket, is a gasket and my reference has been to gaskets of all types and >the MATERIALS used in their construction. If your reading comprehension wasn't so low you would see that GASKET MATERIALS is exactly what I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Is english not your fisrst language ??
> I previously referred to some >worked and some did not, dummy Can you try it again in english, retard.
>contrary to what you choose to believe GM had a recall on the intake >manifolds as well, if your vehicle did not qualify because of mileage of age >that your problem. Well make up your mind, are you talking intakes or gaskets. Or are you so senile that you don't remember what you were talking about ? In your post, which I replied to, YOU were talking about gaskets. My reply was on the topic of gaskets. NOW, YOU are talking about intakes. Pay attention to your own posts, moron.
>Newer intake manifolds do not requires the heat resistance of the gaskets of >old. Intake manifolds today contain air, not the fuel mix that needed to be >kept heated when engines used carburetors. See above, the topic is GASKETS, not intakes. Pay attention to the subject, you are off topic again.
> Why any sensible person would >judge how all the renditions of a vehicle of a particular brand, albeit it >good or bad, by one that they may have owned is somewhat foolish at best, in >any event. Jumping to conclusions again, Einstein ?? Or just pulling sh.t out of your a.s, as usual ? I work on cars everyday, been doing it for about 25 years. When I make a comment on this gasket problem my comments come from hands on experience. Like you have been told by most people here before, GM has a gasket problem that has gone on now for ten years or so, that is a fact that you choose to ignore. The problem affects tens of thousand of vehicles, not just one, moron. So you see I am not judging things by one vehicle, eh Einstein. And on the engines affected by this gasket problem, EVERY SINGLE VEHICLE is affected, usually MULTIPLE TIMES. So for the customer this gets to be an EXPENSIVE REPEAT REPAIR.
> Why are you always disparaging GM in a GM NG Show me were I am disparaging GM ! I am simply stating facts, you do now what facts are, don't you....... nevermind.
>if you no longer >buy GM products, is the better question one might ask LOL How did you jump to that conclusion ?
The better question would be why are you here defending GM, you're a Ford man. Every time someone mentions this GM gasket problem you come in here and try to cover it up like it didn't exist. In fact, you come in here to defend GM anytime someone posts about a large scale problem with a GM vehicle. You make yourself look like a fool because everyone here knows these are real problems. If you don't like what GM related info gets posted in a GM newsgroup you can always go to the Ford newsgroup.
Mike - 06 Mar 2008 03:22 GMT > You just don't get it do you? It was not a design flaw. I was a material > failure. According to the out of court settlement with Ford the gasket [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > gasket had failed you would now be mad a Toyota etc. for the wrong reason > just as you are mad a GM for the wrong reason. More bullshit from Mike Hunt ! Toyota was the only one that I know of that addressed the gasket problem. They issued a recall for the head gasket problem. Cna you name any other manufacturer that had a recall for gaskets. I know Chrysler covered them under warranty. I know GM did NOTHING if the car was out of warranty. That's why people get pissed at American vehicle manufacturers. Ten years later and GM has still done NOTHING to address teh problem, including making a better gasket.
The person you should be
> pissed off at is your Congressmen who voted to ban asbestos, on a date > certain, rather than allowing the gasket manufactures time to field test the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> after 35 years of owning GM vehicles. The manner in which GM continued to >> foist their design flaws on the consumer just got to be unacceptable. Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 18:58 GMT You keep going around in circles. You are entitled to you own opinion no matter how convoluted it may be. Read previous posts as to who actually had what problems and what warranties were issued and why, WBMA. Trying to enlighten you apparently is a waist of time, you prefer to believe what you want to believe. Bye, bye.
>> You just don't get it do you? It was not a design flaw. I was a >> material failure. According to the out of court settlement with Ford the [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>> after 35 years of owning GM vehicles. The manner in which GM continued >>> to foist their design flaws on the consumer just got to be unacceptable. Mike hunt - 03 Mar 2008 15:12 GMT That says more about you than the cars you choose to buy if you believe using a foot actuated parking brake is a hard thing to do. LOL
\> Mike hunt wrote:
>> Surly you are not suggesting import brands over the years have not had >> major engine, tranny, and brake problems?
> My personal vehicles are all stickshifts and have proper lever actuated > parking brakes, not that silly foot pedal like GM uses, so using the > parking brake is a) easy and b) not a problem. > > nate .net/njnagel
Nate Nagel - 04 Mar 2008 01:10 GMT It's not that it's hard, it's that it's a sucky design. There's no possiblity of using the parking brake as anything other than a parking brake if you use that stupid foot pedal. Couldn't even use it as an "emergency brake" if your base brakes failed because it's either on or off (and doesn't work worth a sh.t anyway - it feels like there's a spring in the linkage somewhere instead of a direct cable connection) Certainly couldn't use it to correct understeer in the snow...
nate
> That says more about you than the cars you choose to buy if you believe > using a foot actuated parking brake is a hard thing to do. LOL [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > .net/njnagel
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike hunt - 04 Mar 2008 15:03 GMT DUH! It is no harder to hold the brake release lever on a foot operated brake than holding down the button on a lever release ;)
> It's not that it's hard, it's that it's a sucky design. There's no > possiblity of using the parking brake as anything other than a parking [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> That says more about you than the cars you choose to buy if you believe >> using a foot actuated parking brake is a hard thing to do. LOL N8N - 04 Mar 2008 16:22 GMT There is no release lever on GM's current implementations of this design, you have to push it all the way to the floor to release the ratchet. Like I said, it's a sucky design. And yes, it is harder to hold the release lever of a foot operated brake while operating it with your left foot than it is to simply use your right hand to hold the button in on a handbrake and operate the lever with the same hand.
nate
> DUH! It is no harder to hold the brake release lever on a foot operated > brake than holding down the button on a lever release ;) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mike hunt - 04 Mar 2008 21:05 GMT No wonder you have a problem you don't know how it works. Actually it is a step ON step OFF design which allows one to use only the foot to opperate the brake and to keep both hands on the wheel. LOL
There is no release lever on GM's current implementations of this design, you have to push it all the way to the floor to release the ratchet. Like I said, it's a sucky design. And yes, it is harder to hold the release lever of a foot operated brake while operating it with your left foot than it is to simply use your right hand to hold the button in on a handbrake and operate the lever with the same hand.
nate
On Mar 4, 10:03 am, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote:
> DUH! It is no harder to hold the brake release lever on a foot operated > brake than holding down the button on a lever release ;) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Nate Nagel - 04 Mar 2008 22:45 GMT I know how it works, it SUCKS. Even if it did work properly, you couldn't use it while the car is moving because you can't modulate it thus you would be risking rear brake lockup. LOL at you and the GM apologists. You can't even admit when GM makes something so clearly shitty that it's indefensible.
nate
> No wonder you have a problem you don't know how it works. Actually it is a > step ON step OFF design which allows one to use only the foot to opperate [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> >>- Show quoted text -
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Jim Higgins - 04 Mar 2008 23:55 GMT > I know how it works, it SUCKS. Even if it did work properly, you > couldn't use it while the car is moving because you can't modulate it [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >>> >>> - Show quoted text - Mike is suffering from cranial rectal inversion, have pity on him.
Mike hunt - 05 Mar 2008 00:16 GMT Sticks an stones, in the NGs we are accustomed to personal attacks from those that have run out of facts to support their arguments. What will you resort to next, vulgarities? LOL
"Jim Higgins" <gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Mike is suffering from cranial rectal inversion, have pity on him. Nate Nagel - 05 Mar 2008 00:49 GMT Hah, that is funny, since when did you ever post a single "fact" that wasn't pulled out of your a.s? You're delusional.
nate
> Sticks an stones, in the NGs we are accustomed to personal attacks from > those that have run out of facts to support their arguments. What will you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >>Mike is suffering from cranial rectal inversion, have pity on him.
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Jim Higgins - 05 Mar 2008 01:06 GMT > Sticks an stones, in the NGs we are accustomed to personal attacks from > those that have run out of facts to support their arguments. What will you > resort to next, vulgarities? LOL > > "Jim Higgins" <gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> Mike is suffering from cranial rectal inversion, have pity on him. I don't do that Mike, I just think you really do deserve pity.
 Signature Civis Romanus Sum
Mike hunt - 06 Mar 2008 00:54 GMT If you do not want do a proper search for the facts or accept what I posted that is your prerogative. I could not care less what you or anybody else thinks.
I am simply trying to set the record straight by presenting some facts, for those that do not know the facts, so they may not be erroneously influenced by the personal opinions of those that are not enlightened. ;)
>> Sticks an stones, in the NGs we are accustomed to personal attacks from >> those that have run out of facts to support their arguments. What will >> you resort to next, vulgarities? LOL
> I don't do that Mike, I just think you really do deserve pity. 80 Knight - 07 Mar 2008 07:44 GMT > If you do not want do a proper search for the facts or accept what I > posted that is your prerogative. I could not care less what you or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > influenced by the personal opinions of those that are not enlightened. > ;) Wrong, moron. If you present us information, with nothing except your "good name" to back it up, it isn't facts...It's information provided by a moron. So, either post links proving what you say is actually true, or admit you are full of sh.t and shut up. Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make it a "fact".
Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 01:45 GMT I never did the home work for my own kids, what makes you think I will do yours. Do you own search WBMA. You person opinion does not mean much. LOL
>> If you do not want do a proper search for the facts or accept what I >> posted that is your prerogative. I could not care less what you or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make > it a "fact". Nate Nagel - 11 Mar 2008 02:14 GMT > I never did the home work for my own kids, That's probably because you wanted them to PASS.
> what makes you think I will do > yours. Do you own search WBMA. You person opinion does not mean much. > LOL Hell of a lot more than yours.
nate
>>>If you do not want do a proper search for the facts or accept what I >>>posted that is your prerogative. I could not care less what you or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make >>it a "fact".
 Signature replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 02:36 GMT Ya right LOL
>> I never did the home work for my own kids, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >>>Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make >>>it a "fact". HLS - 12 Mar 2008 01:29 GMT >> I never did the home work for my own kids, > > That's probably because you wanted them to PASS. Nate, dont even waste time with this cretin. We all know something is wrong with him.
80 Knight - 11 Mar 2008 02:14 GMT >I never did the home work for my own kids, what makes you think I will do >yours. Do you own search WBMA. You person opinion does not mean much. >LOL Yup, just like I thought. You have absolutely no proof to back up your claims. Thanks for the admission.
>>> If you do not want do a proper search for the facts or accept what I >>> posted that is your prerogative. I could not care less what you or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make >> it a "fact". Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 02:36 GMT Ya right LOL
>>I never did the home work for my own kids, what makes you think I will do >>yours. Do you own search WBMA. You person opinion does not mean much. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not make >>> it a "fact". 80 Knight - 11 Mar 2008 02:49 GMT > Ya right LOL Remember the old saying: "It is better to be thought of as a moron, then to post to Usenet and prove it".
>>>I never did the home work for my own kids, what makes you think I will do >>>yours. Do you own search WBMA. You person opinion does not mean much. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>>> Oh, and for the record, saying the same sh.t over and over does not >>>> make it a "fact". HLS - 11 Mar 2008 02:50 GMT > Yup, just like I thought. You have absolutely no proof to back up your > claims. Thanks for the admission. This guy is a perennial twinkie. Absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
I have just now killfiled him again. Not the first time, but have a new computer.
His circumciser just threw away the wrong piece, I guess.
80 Knight - 11 Mar 2008 07:15 GMT >> Yup, just like I thought. You have absolutely no proof to back up your >> claims. Thanks for the admission. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > His circumciser just threw away the wrong piece, I guess. I just don't get why Hunt bothers to come here. Even if he did know all that he claims (which I doubt), if his attitude is "if I don't get paid, I ain't helping", then why come to a group like this one, whose primary function is to help others solve problems? Hell, even when he posts about the auto industry in general, he has not once (that I have ever seen) posted proof of anything he has said. It is my opinion that "Mike Hunt" is an 60 year old man, with no wife, kids, or life at all. He spends his days going to his local Library or Internet Cafe to come onto Usenet and be an a.s. Now, there is anything wrong with being 60, having no wife, kids, or life, but the last part gets annoying.
Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 17:28 GMT I look in on many auto NGs, I spend a few minutes reading and at times posting on some subjects, but I certainly do not hang in any one. What I do notice is the same people are in them day after day at all hours of the day commenting on most every subject. I only comment when I see posts that are based on half truths and erroneous opinions, to try and set the record straight. What I post are the things I know to be factual based on my nearly 60 years working all three sides of the automotive business. You are free to except what I post or if you do not want to believe what I post do you own search. You will not see me call anybody, who disagrees with what I post, a moron or such because they do not agree. I could not care less what anybody chooses to believe or not believe.
I will be eighty two in a few weeks, I have an engineering degree in metallurgy and worked for thirty years as a both a field engineer at Pennsylvania VW plant and as a design engineer for GM and Ford, the last fifteen years I worked helping in designing crumple zones.
After I retired I was Group Sales Manager for one to the largest mega-dealership groups on the east cost that operated melt-franchised stores in six eastern states, and sold just about any brand you can name. I also established my fleet service business that serviced thousand of vehicles, both domestic and foreign, used by large and small corporate fleets, as well as federal state and locale governmentsin those six eastern states for over ten years.
>>> Yup, just like I thought. You have absolutely no proof to back up your >>> claims. Thanks for the admission. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be an a.s. Now, there is anything wrong with being 60, having no wife, > kids, or life, but the last part gets annoying. N8N - 11 Mar 2008 18:22 GMT > I look in on many auto NGs, I spend a few minutes reading and at times > posting on some subjects, but I certainly do not hang in any one. What I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > straight. What I post are the things I know to be factual based on my > nearly 60 years working all three sides of the automotive business. Stop, you're killing me. Seriously. You're freakin' hilarious.
nate
Gosi - 11 Mar 2008 18:30 GMT > I look in on many auto NGs, I spend a few minutes reading and at times > posting on some subjects, but I certainly do not hang in any one. What I [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > be an a.s. Now, there is anything wrong with being 60, having no wife, > > kids, or life, but the last part gets annoying. I can understand that it can not be fun for you to see your companies being raped by incompetent imbeciles. I do not take joy in seing big companies failing as such. I do find it interesting to see how the theories about beancounters and Peters principle come true. It is really interesting that even a huge company like GM can be run down by wrong decisions and highly paid executives who do not know what they are doing are allowed to operate year after year. It is so run down now that there is no turning back. They may have a few good cars and many good people working for them but that can only delay the inevitable. In cases like these the worst overall thing to do is to continue and let things only get worse. Stopping flat and brake the company into several smaller companies would be the best thing for customers and employees.
Mike hunt - 11 Mar 2008 23:07 GMT Really? Obviously you can believe what ever you choose but if things are that bad for GM as you seem to believe, why does GM continue to sell more cars and trucks than any other manufacturer, foreign or domestic, in the US? GMs sales figures went up last month, according to the US Commerce Department ;)
On Mar 11, 4:28 pm, "Mike hunt" <mikehun...@lycos.com> wrote:
> I look in on many auto NGs, I spend a few minutes reading and at times > posting on some subjects, but I certainly do not hang in any one. What I [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > be an a.s. Now, there is anything wrong with being 60, having no wife, > > kids, or life, but the last part gets annoying. I can understand that it can not be fun for you to see your companies being raped by incompetent imbeciles. I do not take joy in seing big companies failing as such. I do find it interesting to see how the theories about beancounters and Peters principle come true. It is really interesting that even a huge company like GM can be run down by wrong decisions and highly paid executives who do not know what they are doing are allowed to operate year after year. It is so run down now that there is no turning back. They may have a few good cars and many good people working for them but that can only delay the inevitable. In cases like these the worst overall thing to do is to continue and let things only get worse. Stopping flat and brake the company into several smaller companies would be the best thing for customers and employees.
Gosi - 12 Mar 2008 01:58 GMT > Really? Obviously you can believe what ever you choose but if things are > that bad for GM as you seem to believe, why does GM continue to sell more > cars and trucks than any other manufacturer, foreign or domestic, in the US? You are so funny They do not LOL
80 Knight - 12 Mar 2008 02:29 GMT >I look in on many auto NGs, I spend a few minutes reading and at times >posting on some subjects, but I certainly do not hang in any one. What I >do notice is the same people are in them day after day at all hours of the >day commenting on most every subject. That is usually the Internet version of "friends", "chums", or "pals". Knowing your attitude, I can see how you would be completely puzzled by such an experience.
> I only comment when I see posts that are based on half truths and > erroneous opinions, to try and set the record straight. What I post are > the things I know to be factual based on my nearly 60 years working all > three sides of the automotive business. Perhaps. But no one on this group knows you in real life, correct? So, all of what you post could actually be true, but seeing how none of us actually know you, why should we believe everything you type? You need to back up your "facts", Mike. You should know this, if all you say is actually true.
> You are free to except what I post or if you do not want to believe what I > post do you own search. That's not how it works. If you actually do teach classes, when you walk in that door, they know who you are. They know you are there because you can teach them, and they know you have the knowledge. On Usenet, you could just be some teenager with too much time on his hands. You have to back up your "facts" with proof, or no one is going to take you seriously.
> You will not see me call anybody, who disagrees with what I post, a moron > or such because they do not agree. I could not care less what anybody > chooses to believe or not believe. If you are referring to me, I call you a Moron because you can't seem to grasp the fact that you have to back up your claims with real information. How do you expect people on Usenet, with no actual knowledge of who you are, to believe everything you say? Especially when some things you say, WE can prove (with proper sources) are incorrect?
> I will be eighty two in a few weeks, I have an engineering degree in > metallurgy and worked for thirty years as a both a field engineer at > Pennsylvania VW plant and as a design engineer for GM and Ford, the last > fifteen years I worked helping in designing crumple zones. I wish you an early Happy Birthday then. But you still don't seem to get my point, Mike. Yes, you could have those degrees, you could have had those jobs, but on Usenet, anything is possible. I could claim to run the biggest chain of GM dealer's in Ontario. But, without any actual proof, it's all blowing smoke.
> After I retired I was Group Sales Manager for one to the largest > mega-dealership groups on the east cost that operated melt-franchised [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fleets, as well as federal state and locale governmentsin those six > eastern states for over ten years. And, if all that is true, I honestly congratulate you on your success in the auto business. But just try to provide a reference to the facts you throw at us. It will give you a lot more credibility, and you may actually be able to help someone fix a problem.
>>>> Yup, just like I thought. You have absolutely no proof to back up your >>>> claims. Thanks for the admission. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> Usenet and be an a.s. Now, there is anything wrong with being 60, having >> no wife, kids, or life, but the last part gets annoying. Mike hunt - 12 Mar 2008 18:09 GMT Back in the day the NGs were a place where we engineers and technicians exchanged ideas as well as offering solutions to each others questions and problems. We never asked one to prove what they had told us and we only sighted sources when they need to go there for MORE information and may be allowed access. Oven the years most of those with whom I conversed left because the NGs were becoming a place where people were looking for a free or cheap fix for their old worn out cars. If I would read a post from one who obviously knew nothing about cars or have the ability to correct their problem I would suggest they take the vehicle to a competent technician with the proper equipment to diagnose their problem and allow him to correct it for them. If i did that I was jumped on by some people in the NG when in fact that was the best advice for that individual. How many times have your read advice in the NGs today that is way wrong as a solution?
Back in the late fifties, when I owned a Toyopet, there was no source for information. When the net came around the Toyota NG was a great source for information from techs for the few people that owned them, today that NG is primarily a political debating room for the kooks. and that's sad.
One can use what I tell them to broaden their knowledge or they can ignore me, I could not care less, but I seldom see anybody showing me where I have been wrong and if they do, I will admit I was wrong. What generally happens is they start calling anybody who does not share their personal opinion names or resorting to vulgarities.
Many of the things |
|