2-Page "Confession"
Question:
> Ever notice that all of those houses in the suburbs that have > a three or four year old Camry or Accord sitting in the driveway > because a new one cost so much, also seem to have a either a new > Ford or GM pickup truck or a new Ford, GM or Jeep SUV sitting > there as well? We here all this stuff about how good the Jap > stuff is compared to GM and Ford,
I’m not familiar with the "jap" line. What sort of car is that?
Response:
It isn’t a car, Americans used to call Japanese people Japs during WWII and for a while after the war ended. Roy
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ever notice that all of those houses in the suburbs that have > a three or four year old Camry or Accord sitting in the driveway > because a new one cost so much, also seem to have a either a new > Ford or GM pickup truck or a new Ford, GM or Jeep SUV sitting > there as well? We here all this stuff about how good the Jap > stuff is compared to GM and Ford, > I’m not familiar with the "jap" line. What sort of car is that?
Response:
Can’t refute what anyone says (that I should). Hyundai, the latest competitor, has markedly increased its quality while $undercutting$ both Japanese and American competitors as well. KIA too, which seems to be coming back from "the edge" (a GM co-patriot). In 1948 when my father took a brand-new green ’48 Chevy 4-dr to Korea. He was part of KMAG (Korean Military Advisory Gov’t) . .. and knew transport would be difficult to get. He had 18 Korean federal prisons to supervise (these held the real criminals. .. that would kill N/S Koreans, Communist or U.N. troops without regard). He quickly burned out the car’s clutch on the tough Korean terrain. Who repaired the Chevy? The Koreans. They "filed down" a clutch from a 1/2 ton truck to "fit" the Chevy. In 24 hours no less. That’s smarts. That’s industry. .. Never underplay the Korean’s ingenuity, intelligence or industry. Hyundai, Kia. . . hmmm ….
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ever notice that all of those houses in the suburbs that have > a three or four year old Camry or Accord sitting in the driveway > because a new one cost so much, also seem to have a either a new > Ford or GM pickup truck or a new Ford, GM or Jeep SUV sitting > there as well? We here all this stuff about how good the Jap > stuff is compared to GM and Ford, yet GM and Ford continue to > outsell all of the myriad of import brands, including Chrysler, > combined. Today every manufacture is building good stuff and they > all have a warranty. The only difference I see in our business > is style and price. The last question every new car salesman ever > has to answer when it comes to a vehicle purchase is; ‘How much > in my monthly payment?’ This week my one son was looking to > replace his 2000 Accord. He shopped Toyota, Honda and Ford > dealers. He bought a 2003 Mercury Sable! Why because the dealer > wanted a ‘drive home’ price $9,200 HIGHER for a similarly > equipped V6 Camry than he paid for the Sable. The Accord V6 was > $8,400 more than the loaded Sable. LOL > mike hunt > This is a tactical market ploy by GM. Tell your customers > that you are going to do better, and win-over the Japanese > car customer.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s exactly it, market share vs. profit. I had enough classes in > mgmt and econ to be taught the differences between Japanese and > American business. American style is maximum profit as soon as > possible, short term thinking, etc. That’s why GM and Ford still sell > more trucks than anyone else. The bigger trucks cost more and take > slightly less technology to design therefore they make a higher > profit. Japan believes in market domination, flood the market with > many cheap products and drive the competition out of business. Build > a bunch of small cheap to produce cars and sell them as fast as you > can and hope the competitors can’t keep up. My degree is in > electronics and many think Japan was better there too. But looking > back from the inside of the industry, Japanese products were not > better and sometimes worse, but almost always cheaper. The quality > and reliability of both Japanese and American products continued to > rise, but Japan could build things cheaper thanks to better > cooperation between their manufacturing banking and government plus a > lower standard of living for workers and lack of unions and > regulations. Here in America is became too costly for example to etch > printed circuit boards because of all the laws and regarding safety of > use and disposal of the required chemicals.
Well let me correct you on two things. 1. Japanese cars got a big foothold in the late sixties and early seventies because of the absolutely horrendous crap being produced by the dopeheads working in the American automotive industry. I can remember cars with 1/2" door trim openings on one side and 1 1/2" openings on the other side. I remember when we were told 1 quart oil consumption every 750 miles was suddenly normal. I remember my sister buying a new 1974 Malibu which ran sideways due to a defective frame. I didn’t get this from some CLASS but saw it firsthand. 2. I have worked in the Electronics industry since 1962 and Japanese electronics surpassed American electronics {Consumer Electronics} in the early sixties and most american consumer electronics dissappeared in the seventies and eighties. One of the major problems was reliability as well as cheap overseas labor. American companies continued to build products which failed out of the box with little regard for quality control, and like the automotive industry, would continue to build products which had problems which they knew about, but would no change the design to correct the problem. Just like the headgasket problems and leaking intake manifolds found on far too many cars today which have continued to be built for years after the defect was known. In short you are an educated jackass who can’t see the forrest for the trees!!!
Response:
That’s exactly it, market share vs. profit. I had enough classes in mgmt and econ to be taught the differences between Japanese and American business. American style is maximum profit as soon as possible, short term thinking, etc. That’s why GM and Ford still sell more trucks than anyone else. The bigger trucks cost more and take slightly less technology to design therefore they make a higher profit. Japan believes in market domination, flood the market with many cheap products and drive the competition out of business. Build a bunch of small cheap to produce cars and sell them as fast as you can and hope the competitors can’t keep up. My degree is in electronics and many think Japan was better there too. But looking back from the inside of the industry, Japanese products were not better and sometimes worse, but almost always cheaper. The quality and reliability of both Japanese and American products continued to rise, but Japan could build things cheaper thanks to better cooperation between their manufacturing banking and government plus a lower standard of living for workers and lack of unions and regulations. Here in America is became too costly for example to etch printed circuit boards because of all the laws and regarding safety of use and disposal of the required chemicals.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GM can make anything they want, good or bad. That’s a BIG problem > for them. How much profit and "work" do they wish to go for? You’re > probably correct about parts costs for domestic vs Japanese but Midas etc. > make so many aftermarket parts . .. with warranties .. . that repairs aren’t > all that different in price, unless you’re talking Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, > Lincoln etc. Dunno if Ford can/not make a good trans. GM had a lot of > different types in various divisions: dynaflow, duoglide, powerglide, > hydramatic .. . the hydramatic won out (Olds division) and is the basic auto > trans design for GM. Simple, rugged, easily repaired .. . and efficient. I > doubt that there is anything that GM does not know about auto engineering! > Of course they make mistakes when they try to cut corners (e.g. Vega) and do > without cylinder liners etc. They’re trying to break ground and make a > profit at the same time. That’s their game. I suspect that if they don’t > have enough market share it’s because it’s more profitable for them to sell > fewer cars at a greater profit per car. GM knows very well what they’re > doing .. . > This is a tactical market ploy by GM. Tell your customers that you are > going to do better, and win-over the Japanese car customer. > I worked for GM many years as a mechanic, and I’ll tell you that they > are more advanced than any of the other BIG THREE. Meaning, GM, Ford, > Chrysler. > Ford has formed an agreement with GM to build a world transmission. > That’s because Ford could never make a good trans. > I no longer work for GM. I work for a local municipality. I repair > Fords, Dodges, GM’s, buses, Navistar trucks, etc… > The best product I have come across is GM. Easy to repair, cheap to > repair, and a hell of allot better built. > Do I think they could compete with the Japanese? Hell if I know? I > just > know that it’s cheaper to fix and maintain a GM product, if you live in > the > U.S. ? I owned a Honda Accord out of warranty. The thing was a money pit. > Every part cost 2 times that of a GM part. > A Japanese product may be better at first, but when you reach the 75k > mile marker, you need to spend some heavy cash on timing belt replacement, > and other stuff, if you own a 4 cylinder job. Even regular stuff like > brakes > will cost a fortune. > I’m a 38 year old mechanic, that opted for a $1800 6yr/100k mile > extended warranty, on the GMC truck that I bought. The warranty has > covered > over $3000 of repairs to date. Why did I get the extended warranty? > Because > I don’t want to work on my car at home. The warranty even covered car > rental, when my truck was being repaired. > To date, I have spent about $300 out-of-pocket, on repairs out of GM > warranty. That’s pretty damn good. > GMdude > P.S. All I can say is,… no matter what you purchase, get the 6 year/100k > warranty on it. It’s like insurance, maybe you will never use it, but one > day, you’ll get that car that will make it all worth it. You can’t get a > transmission relaced for $1800 today.
Response:
Ever notice that all of those houses in the suburbs that have a three or four year old Camry or Accord sitting in the driveway because a new one cost so much, also seem to have a either a new Ford or GM pickup truck or a new Ford, GM or Jeep SUV sitting there as well? We here all this stuff about how good the Jap stuff is compared to GM and Ford, yet GM and Ford continue to outsell all of the myriad of import brands, including Chrysler, combined. Today every manufacture is building good stuff and they all have a warranty. The only difference I see in our business is style and price. The last question every new car salesman ever has to answer when it comes to a vehicle purchase is; ‘How much in my monthly payment?’ This week my one son was looking to replace his 2000 Accord. He shopped Toyota, Honda and Ford dealers. He bought a 2003 Mercury Sable! Why because the dealer wanted a ‘drive home’ price $9,200 HIGHER for a similarly equipped V6 Camry than he paid for the Sable. The Accord V6 was $8,400 more than the loaded Sable. LOL mike hunt – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > This is a tactical market ploy by GM. Tell your customers > that you are going to do better, and win-over the Japanese > car customer.
Response:
GM can make anything they want, good or bad. That’s a BIG problem for them. How much profit and "work" do they wish to go for? You’re probably correct about parts costs for domestic vs Japanese but Midas etc. make so many aftermarket parts . .. with warranties .. . that repairs aren’t all that different in price, unless you’re talking Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, Lincoln etc. Dunno if Ford can/not make a good trans. GM had a lot of different types in various divisions: dynaflow, duoglide, powerglide, hydramatic .. . the hydramatic won out (Olds division) and is the basic auto trans design for GM. Simple, rugged, easily repaired .. . and efficient. I doubt that there is anything that GM does not know about auto engineering! Of course they make mistakes when they try to cut corners (e.g. Vega) and do without cylinder liners etc. They’re trying to break ground and make a profit at the same time. That’s their game. I suspect that if they don’t have enough market share it’s because it’s more profitable for them to sell fewer cars at a greater profit per car. GM knows very well what they’re doing .. .
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is a tactical market ploy by GM. Tell your customers that you are > going to do better, and win-over the Japanese car customer. > I worked for GM many years as a mechanic, and I’ll tell you that they > are more advanced than any of the other BIG THREE. Meaning, GM, Ford, > Chrysler. > Ford has formed an agreement with GM to build a world transmission. > That’s because Ford could never make a good trans. > I no longer work for GM. I work for a local municipality. I repair > Fords, Dodges, GM’s, buses, Navistar trucks, etc… > The best product I have come across is GM. Easy to repair, cheap to > repair, and a hell of allot better built. > Do I think they could compete with the Japanese? Hell if I know? I just > know that it’s cheaper to fix and maintain a GM product, if you live in the > U.S. ? I owned a Honda Accord out of warranty. The thing was a money pit. > Every part cost 2 times that of a GM part. > A Japanese product may be better at first, but when you reach the 75k > mile marker, you need to spend some heavy cash on timing belt replacement, > and other stuff, if you own a 4 cylinder job. Even regular stuff like brakes > will cost a fortune. > I’m a 38 year old mechanic, that opted for a $1800 6yr/100k mile > extended warranty, on the GMC truck that I bought. The warranty has covered > over $3000 of repairs to date. Why did I get the extended warranty? Because > I don’t want to work on my car at home. The warranty even covered car > rental, when my truck was being repaired. > To date, I have spent about $300 out-of-pocket, on repairs out of GM > warranty. That’s pretty damn good. > GMdude > P.S. All I can say is,… no matter what you purchase, get the 6 year/100k > warranty on it. It’s like insurance, maybe you will never use it, but one > day, you’ll get that car that will make it all worth it. You can’t get a > transmission relaced for $1800 today.
Response:
This is a tactical market ploy by GM. Tell your customers that you are going to do better, and win-over the Japanese car customer. I worked for GM many years as a mechanic, and I’ll tell you that they are more advanced than any of the other BIG THREE. Meaning, GM, Ford, Chrysler. Ford has formed an agreement with GM to build a world transmission. That’s because Ford could never make a good trans. I no longer work for GM. I work for a local municipality. I repair Fords, Dodges, GM’s, buses, Navistar trucks, etc… The best product I have come across is GM. Easy to repair, cheap to repair, and a hell of allot better built. Do I think they could compete with the Japanese? Hell if I know? I just know that it’s cheaper to fix and maintain a GM product, if you live in the U.S. ? I owned a Honda Accord out of warranty. The thing was a money pit. Every part cost 2 times that of a GM part. A Japanese product may be better at first, but when you reach the 75k mile marker, you need to spend some heavy cash on timing belt replacement, and other stuff, if you own a 4 cylinder job. Even regular stuff like brakes will cost a fortune. I’m a 38 year old mechanic, that opted for a $1800 6yr/100k mile extended warranty, on the GMC truck that I bought. The warranty has covered over $3000 of repairs to date. Why did I get the extended warranty? Because I don’t want to work on my car at home. The warranty even covered car rental, when my truck was being repaired. To date, I have spent about $300 out-of-pocket, on repairs out of GM warranty. That’s pretty damn good. GMdude P.S. All I can say is,… no matter what you purchase, get the 6 year/100k warranty on it. It’s like insurance, maybe you will never use it, but one day, you’ll get that car that will make it all worth it. You can’t get a transmission relaced for $1800 today.
Response:
The Zs were notorious for rust-through. Later Zs had sub-par Hitachi ignitions and even $pricey$ Michelins with a lot of failures. The Datsun PL510, however, was a brilliant little car. Terrific layout, serviceability, handling, economy etc. I’ve owned Renaults (much-maligned cars), VW (a 412 that was actually faultless), Toyota (the groundbreaking ‘78 Celica, brilliant but absolutely treacherous in winter) and Acura (Integra – rock solid and quick in every category). All good cars; Acura’s the best. (Acura has a bra .. . and it doesn’t bend the hood . 
) On the other hand I inherited an ‘85 Buick, which is very decent (18+ years going strong). My *first* auto was a ‘60 Chevy 2Dr Impala Hdtp. Tell you about rust on an otherwise classic car .. .
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And the only cars I ever owned that failed were the Japanese models. Bodies > of 2 Z cars rusted away so badly. Very poor brake rotors on Toyota. Never > owned a Honda fearing for my life after that incident recorded with the hood > being bent with someone trying to get a bra on it… > Psst. .. buddy .. . shipping all Vegas to you in "plain brown > paper > wrapper." One 10 lb box! Give me your address and I’ll estimate the S&H > via Hummer. I remember a gal I used to work with bought a brown metallic > Vega new. Inside of three years it had a new engine (free) but rust holes > all over .. . swiss cheese car. Hilarious! She was a very good sport. > GM > uses a common "planned obsolescense" trick to get car turnovers .. . they > annoy you to death with little things that can’t be replaced or are too > expensive. For cheap GMs .. . the cars fail and you "buy up" or out. > It’s > all about profit. > > Please ship all unwanted Vegas to me. > > I will gladly take all them you can find. > > I have money. > > This argument can go on all day, but cars in general are not made to > last > 40 > > years like they used to be. > > They are made to be light weight and get good fuel mileage. > > That means they will not be made as robust. > > Sounds like the guy that started this post had a bad experience with one > > p-o-s cavalier and thinks all GM’s are that way… > > > Try http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm for GM’s story. > > When > > > GM can improve their reliability in C.U.’s "annual auto issue" to that > of > > > Honda, Toyota and Subaru .. . they’ll have part of the battle. When > GM > > can > > > race a car again, maybe they’ll learn the engineering part of the auto > > > business. GM lacks enthusiastic auto engineers, stylists, salesmen > and > > > inspired leadership. GM’s market share reflects its quality. If you > > > believe GM’s current "campaign," boy have I a "Vega" for you! Any > color > > you > > > want. . . > > > > Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No > argument > > > > there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to > two > > now > > > > here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over > the > > > > decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market > share > > > need > > > > to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? > > > > I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, > the > > > > results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few > > > decades > > > > tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying > > > > public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. > > > Anecdotally, > > > > my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has > become > > > > quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive > > > > manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly > lot > > > for > > > > sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience > that > > > > brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel > > comfortable > > > > with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by > word-of-mouth, > > > > which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively > > > > speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that > goes > > > > beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very > confident > > > that > > > > GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the > > > management > > > > step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig > deep > to > > > > find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move > > > > forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope! > > > > | I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all > > were > > > > good > > > > | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have > been. > > > Be > > > > | thankful GM exists.
Response:
And the only cars I ever owned that failed were the Japanese models. Bodies of 2 Z cars rusted away so badly. Very poor brake rotors on Toyota. Never owned a Honda fearing for my life after that incident recorded with the hood being bent with someone trying to get a bra on it…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Psst. .. buddy .. . shipping all Vegas to you in "plain brown paper > wrapper." One 10 lb box! Give me your address and I’ll estimate the S&H > via Hummer. I remember a gal I used to work with bought a brown metallic > Vega new. Inside of three years it had a new engine (free) but rust holes > all over .. . swiss cheese car. Hilarious! She was a very good sport. GM > uses a common "planned obsolescense" trick to get car turnovers .. . they > annoy you to death with little things that can’t be replaced or are too > expensive. For cheap GMs .. . the cars fail and you "buy up" or out. It’s > all about profit. > Please ship all unwanted Vegas to me. > I will gladly take all them you can find. > I have money. > This argument can go on all day, but cars in general are not made to last > 40 > years like they used to be. > They are made to be light weight and get good fuel mileage. > That means they will not be made as robust. > Sounds like the guy that started this post had a bad experience with one > p-o-s cavalier and thinks all GM’s are that way… > > Try http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm for GM’s story. > When > > GM can improve their reliability in C.U.’s "annual auto issue" to that > of > > Honda, Toyota and Subaru .. . they’ll have part of the battle. When GM > can > > race a car again, maybe they’ll learn the engineering part of the auto > > business. GM lacks enthusiastic auto engineers, stylists, salesmen and > > inspired leadership. GM’s market share reflects its quality. If you > > believe GM’s current "campaign," boy have I a "Vega" for you! Any color > you > > want. . . > > > Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No argument > > > there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to two > now > > > here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over > the > > > decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market > share > > need > > > to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? > > > I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, > the > > > results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few > > decades > > > tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying > > > public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. > > Anecdotally, > > > my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has > become > > > quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive > > > manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly > lot > > for > > > sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience that > > > brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel > comfortable > > > with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by > word-of-mouth, > > > which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively > > > speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that goes > > > beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very > confident > > that > > > GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the > > management > > > step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig deep > to > > > find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move > > > forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope! > > > | I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all > were > > > good > > > | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have > been. > > Be > > > | thankful GM exists.
Response:
Psst. .. buddy .. . shipping all Vegas to you in "plain brown paper wrapper." One 10 lb box! Give me your address and I’ll estimate the S&H via Hummer. I remember a gal I used to work with bought a brown metallic Vega new. Inside of three years it had a new engine (free) but rust holes all over .. . swiss cheese car. Hilarious! She was a very good sport. GM uses a common "planned obsolescense" trick to get car turnovers .. . they annoy you to death with little things that can’t be replaced or are too expensive. For cheap GMs .. . the cars fail and you "buy up" or out. It’s all about profit.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Please ship all unwanted Vegas to me. > I will gladly take all them you can find. > I have money. > This argument can go on all day, but cars in general are not made to last 40 > years like they used to be. > They are made to be light weight and get good fuel mileage. > That means they will not be made as robust. > Sounds like the guy that started this post had a bad experience with one > p-o-s cavalier and thinks all GM’s are that way… > Try http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm for GM’s story. > When > GM can improve their reliability in C.U.’s "annual auto issue" to that of > Honda, Toyota and Subaru .. . they’ll have part of the battle. When GM > can > race a car again, maybe they’ll learn the engineering part of the auto > business. GM lacks enthusiastic auto engineers, stylists, salesmen and > inspired leadership. GM’s market share reflects its quality. If you > believe GM’s current "campaign," boy have I a "Vega" for you! Any color > you > want. . . > > Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No argument > > there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to two > now > > here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over the > > decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market share > need > > to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? > > I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, the > > results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few > decades > > tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying > > public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. > Anecdotally, > > my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has become > > quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive > > manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly lot > for > > sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience that > > brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel > comfortable > > with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by word-of-mouth, > > which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively > > speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that goes > > beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very confident > that > > GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the > management > > step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig deep to > > find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move > > forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope! > > | I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all > were > > good > > | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have been. > Be > > | thankful GM exists.
Response:
Please ship all unwanted Vegas to me. I will gladly take all them you can find. I have money. This argument can go on all day, but cars in general are not made to last 40 years like they used to be. They are made to be light weight and get good fuel mileage. That means they will not be made as robust. Sounds like the guy that started this post had a bad experience with one p-o-s cavalier and thinks all GM’s are that way…
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Try http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm for GM’s story. When > GM can improve their reliability in C.U.’s "annual auto issue" to that of > Honda, Toyota and Subaru .. . they’ll have part of the battle. When GM can > race a car again, maybe they’ll learn the engineering part of the auto > business. GM lacks enthusiastic auto engineers, stylists, salesmen and > inspired leadership. GM’s market share reflects its quality. If you > believe GM’s current "campaign," boy have I a "Vega" for you! Any color you > want. . . > Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No argument > there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to two now > here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over the > decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market share > need > to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? > I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, the > results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few > decades > tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying > public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. > Anecdotally, > my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has become > quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive > manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly lot > for > sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience that > brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel comfortable > with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by word-of-mouth, > which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively > speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that goes > beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very confident > that > GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the > management > step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig deep to > find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move > forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope! > | I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all were > good > | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have been. > Be > | thankful GM exists.
Response:
Try http://www.gm.com/vc/story/home_flash.htm for GM’s story. When GM can improve their reliability in C.U.’s "annual auto issue" to that of Honda, Toyota and Subaru .. . they’ll have part of the battle. When GM can race a car again, maybe they’ll learn the engineering part of the auto business. GM lacks enthusiastic auto engineers, stylists, salesmen and inspired leadership. GM’s market share reflects its quality. If you believe GM’s current "campaign," boy have I a "Vega" for you! Any color you want. . . – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No argument > there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to two now > here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over the > decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market share need > to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? > I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, the > results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few decades > tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying > public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. Anecdotally, > my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has become > quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive > manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly lot for > sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience that > brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel comfortable > with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by word-of-mouth, > which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively > speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that goes > beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very confident that > GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the management > step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig deep to > find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move > forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope! > | I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all were > good > | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have been. Be > | thankful GM exists.
Response:
Agreed, we need GM and I’m very glad they’re still here. No argument there!! With Chrysler now German owned by Daimler, we’re down to two now here in the US. My family has purchased dozens of GM vehicles over the decades and would very much like to continue to. But will market share need to erode to 15% or 10% before GM finally wakes up? I can’t argue with the general premise of your statement. However, the results (which is what really counts, after all) over the recent few decades tells the story of the apparent general perceptions of the buying public…and that is continued gradual slide of market share. Anecdotally, my personal experience as a customer is that dealing with GM has become quite maddening in general, especially in comparison to competitive manufacturers I’ve dealt with…far from the most customer friendly lot for sure! Quality is only a component of overall customer experience that brings people back (or, more importantly, allows them to feel comfortable with selling/recommending to friends/family/co-workers by word-of-mouth, which is where the really big dividends come from!). Comparatively speaking, GM has a great deal of work to do in several areas that goes beyond only the quality of their cars, sad to say. I am very confident that GM has the people and resources to turn it around. Now will the management step up and make the hard decisions on necessary reforms and dig deep to find the will to provide the right vision and direction to move forward…that’s the _real_ question! We can only hope!
| I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all were good | in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have been. Be | thankful GM exists.
Response:
I’ve owned cars from all the manufacturers over 60 years. They all were good in their own way. Not even my Porsches were all they should have been. Be thankful GM exists. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Didn’t see it, but heard a lot about it over the news. Lessons and > solutions to the problems abound in the industry…which actually go well > beyond quality but also to address sales/service channel issues, overall > customer service/experience and the empowering of consumers to be active > participants in the design and features of the cars!!! Why do they force > "gimmicky features" on consumers that many consumers didn’t ask for or want? > Why can’t GM execute the necessary structural reforms after all these years? > They certainly have the resources to do so…where is the will?! Where is > the management commitment? > I also "heard" that their answer to the situation was to begin to > "out-feature" the competition. If that is there strategy, then those of us > that want to see GM regain market are going to be disappointed. They’ve > already done that, in my opinion…more of the same "stuff". > I hope they wake up and clean house soon. Maybe us stockholders can begin > by sending a message to the board!! Clean the management house!!! GM has > the capability to outshine anyone…let’s get to it!! > | Has anyone read the new 2-page article where GM confesses that their > | vehicles are inferior to other auto manufacturers? Could it be that they > | see the writing on the wall when it comes their sales? People have wised > up > | and don’t buy their JUNK. GM vehicles are inferior to any > | manufacturer…just look them over. Chintzy ill-fitting components, poor > | reliability, non-existent quality—the list goes on!!! > | > | I see where their share of the auto market has dwindled 20% in the past 10 > | years!!! Remember when it was over 50%??? Today it’s a meager 25% and > | falling… > | > |
Response:
Didn’t see it, but heard a lot about it over the news. Lessons and solutions to the problems abound in the industry…which actually go well beyond quality but also to address sales/service channel issues, overall customer service/experience and the empowering of consumers to be active participants in the design and features of the cars!!! Why do they force "gimmicky features" on consumers that many consumers didn’t ask for or want? Why can’t GM execute the necessary structural reforms after all these years? They certainly have the resources to do so…where is the will?! Where is the management commitment? I also "heard" that their answer to the situation was to begin to "out-feature" the competition. If that is there strategy, then those of us that want to see GM regain market are going to be disappointed. They’ve already done that, in my opinion…more of the same "stuff". I hope they wake up and clean house soon. Maybe us stockholders can begin by sending a message to the board!! Clean the management house!!! GM has the capability to outshine anyone…let’s get to it!!
| Has anyone read the new 2-page article where GM confesses that their | vehicles are inferior to other auto manufacturers? Could it be that they | see the writing on the wall when it comes their sales? People have wised up | and don’t buy their JUNK. GM vehicles are inferior to any | manufacturer…just look them over. Chintzy ill-fitting components, poor | reliability, non-existent quality—the list goes on!!! | | I see where their share of the auto market has dwindled 20% in the past 10 | years!!! Remember when it was over 50%??? Today it’s a meager 25% and | falling… | |
Response:
Has anyone read the new 2-page article where GM confesses that their vehicles are inferior to other auto manufacturers? Could it be that they see the writing on the wall when it comes their sales? People have wised up and don’t buy their JUNK. GM vehicles are inferior to any manufacturer…just look them over. Chintzy ill-fitting components, poor reliability, non-existent quality—the list goes on!!! I see where their share of the auto market has dwindled 20% in the past 10 years!!! Remember when it was over 50%??? Today it’s a meager 25% and falling…
