GM admits that it dissappointed and betrayed consumers

[zoiks]

I think with alarms blaring about the company's future especially it's CEO's, GM is simply showing displaying crocodile tears about the course of its business. It's really hard to change a company and its culture overnight.
They'll take the money and probably will repay it back but I don't think anything is really going to change.
That is unless they don't die out first.
http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSTRE4B738W20081208

DETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp on Monday unveiled an unusually frank advertisement acknowledging it had "disappointed" and sometimes even "betrayed" American consumers as it lobbies to clinch the federal aid it needs to stay afloat into next month.

The print advertisement marked a sharp break from GM's public stance of just several weeks ago when it sought to justify its bid for a U.S. government on the grounds that the credit crisis had undermined its business in ways executives could never have foreseen.

It also came as Chief Executive Rick Wagoner, who has led the automaker since 2000, faces new pressure to step aside as GM seeks up to $18 billion in federal funding.

"While we're still the U.S. sales leader, we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry standards and our designs became lackluster."

The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.

In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics have said hastened its recent decline.

"We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."

But GM also says in the ad that it was hit by forces beyond its control as it tried to complete a restructuring earlier this year.

"Despite moving quickly to reduce our planned spending by over $20 billion, GM finds itself precariously and frighteningly close to running out of cash," the ad says.

A failure of GM would deepen the current recession and put "millions of job at risk," according to the ad, which also highlights the automaker's pledged restructuring and intention to begin repaying taxpayers in 2011.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said the ad was an attempt by the automaker to present "a pledge directly to the public."

"We believe we need to deliver this commitment unfiltered since quite a bit of media commentary has not kept pace with our actual progress to transform the company," Martin said.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat from Connecticut who is central to the effort to craft an auto bailout bill, on Sunday said GM should replace Wagoner.

GM says Wagoner has the support of the company's board.

(Reporting by Kevin Krolicki, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

 

[desy]

12 steps
# whatever - makes amends to those you've hurt in the past

 

[evident]

thanks but no thanks

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: evident
thanks but no thanks

if you don't want a Solstice/Sky (+GXP), Camaro, ZR1, G8 GT/GXP, or CTS-V... i will gladly take any of those

 

[JDub02]

We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs

Yep. They made exactly what US consumers wanted. Big trucks and SUVs. Wagoneer is sorry that the social engineers in Congress don't think that Americans should have them.

It's sad to see a CEO of such a large company strap on his kneepads and service Congress. What he needs to do is grow a pair, a put up the middle finger on each hand. One hand towards Congress and the other towards the UAW. GM is capable of making great cars and trucks. It's Congress and the UAW that keep them from being more competitive.

 

[Squisher]

You can't really blame them for expending effort on SUVs and Trucks. What you can point fingers at is not getting quality up until a few years ago. And, not putting any effort into a quality compact. People want a Civic beater, not something bare bones that is cheaply made and put together. They finally have something in the mid-size segment with the Malibu/Aura, now improve on that.

 

[The J]

I vaguely remember seeing another apologetic ad from GM in a Wired magazine about 6 or 7 years ago. It was basically saying they screwed up with their engines, but were showing off the new and improved one in the ad. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Throckmorton]

Bob Lutz already did that. And then they went on to make a bunch of lackluster cars that looked like bloated jellyfish.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: JDub02

We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs

Yep. They made exactly what US consumers wanted. Big trucks and SUVs. Wagoneer is sorry that the social engineers in Congress don't think that Americans should have them.

It's sad to see a CEO of such a large company strap on his kneepads and service Congress. What he needs to do is grow a pair, a put up the middle finger on each hand. One hand towards Congress and the other towards the UAW. GM is capable of making great cars and trucks. It's Congress and the UAW that keep them from being more competitive.

I can see how you can argue the UAW is holding them back but how is congress holding them back?

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

 

[scorp00]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

My rattletrap trans am agrees 100%. The corvette guys don't have the same problems it seems, so I still might give GM one last try and get the real thing.

I wish they would put their money where their mouth is and do something for the people who have their half ass cars.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: scorp00

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

My rattletrap trans am agrees 100%. The corvette guys don't have the same problems it seems, so I still might give GM one last try and get the real thing.

I wish they would put their money where their mouth is and do something for the people who have their half ass cars.

My primary problem with GM is their "base" cars. They went from the cheap and decent cavalier to a cobalt which was a cavalier under different sheetmetal and they jacked up the price. No wonder people wouldn't buy it.

The ONLY car i'd even consider buying from GM is the Corvette. The rest is pure garbage.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

What is rattling on your Camaro? My '02 Z28 still only has 34K on it. What should I be looking forward to?

 

[cheesehead]

I don't understand how everyone attacks the UAW. Auto workers work very hard for a not very impressive income. Sure, someone in some Chinese sweatshop could do it cheaper, but the whole point of America is that we don't permit that sort of thing. Unless you're making less than $30,000 a year and have no health benefits, I wouldn't complain about the UAW's demands.

Besides, Honda's been racking up huge profits not only working with the UAW but the British auto unions, too. (They're actually making cars in the same town that British Leyland did.)

Originally posted by: The J
I vaguely remember seeing another apologetic ad from GM in a Wired magazine about 6 or 7 years ago. It was basically saying they screwed up with their engines, but were showing off the new and improved one in the ad. I'll see if I can find it.

The LS7 V8 is an absolutely superb engine. Same applies to the direct-injected 32 valve "high feature" V6 in new Cadillacs and Camaros. And the Ecotec inline fours aren't too bad either (though the Mazda-derived engines in many Fords are arguably better.)

The engine he's most likely referring to is the "3800" V6 found in many of their cars as late as 2003. This engine was originally designed in the late 50s, sold to American Motor Company, bought back, equipped with a less-than-optimal fuel injection system, and bolted to many many cars. It, along with the torque-steer-tastic Pontiacs and rubbishy Oldsmobiles it was bolted to, are all mercifully gone.

Originally posted by: Gillbot

My primary problem with GM is their "base" cars. They went from the cheap and decent cavalier to a cobalt which was a cavalier under different sheetmetal and they jacked up the price. No wonder people wouldn't buy it.

Agreed. Amongst the sort of cars that American families realistically buy - the Cobalt and the Aura, for example - performance, durability, fuel economy, and luxury are all below that of their Japanese alternatives. GM often opts to simply slap new sheetmetal on an old car (see the new Malibu) instead of producing a more modern design already in production overseas (the new Opel Insignia) to save the cost of re-tooling. This is ridiculous.

Part of the problem is the sheer number of cars. In the econobox bracket, Ford will sell you a Focus, Toyota will sell you a Corolla, Honda will sell you a Civic, and GM will sell you a Cobalt, an Aveo, an Astra, or a G5. Can't they just make one car and make it four times as good?

The new Corvettes and Cadillac CTS are supposed to be very good, but most of us will never own either of them. The only ray of hope is the new Camaro, which should be nice to drive, reasonably powerful, and at below $25,000 for the base model with 306HP, quite cheap.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: scorp00

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

My rattletrap trans am agrees 100%. The corvette guys don't have the same problems it seems, so I still might give GM one last try and get the real thing.

I wish they would put their money where their mouth is and do something for the people who have their half ass cars.

My 04 Silverado has the usual plastic fantastic interior but I'm pleasantly surprised that it does not rattle at all and when i clean the interior it looks as good as new. Shrug, not sure how well you've taken care of your interiors but I can't really say i've babied mine.

 

[zoiks]

I'm currently renting a 2009 Saturn Outlook SUV that is similar to the GMC Acadia. The interior at first sight looks pretty striking. Faux wood panelling, nice lcd displays, dash has cool bright colors. All seem awesome until you drive it. The steering is exactly the same as an old chevy truck that I drove ages ago which is that it has no feel and you just don't feel connected with the truck or the road. A slight nudge when going 30mph feels like it'll topple the car over. The brakes are abysmal and seem inadequate to stop the heavy SUV within a short distance. The buttons on the doors are unrefined and sharp. The turn signal lever makes the exact sound like you're breaking a chicken leg (as Jay Leno puts it) and the blinker sound is just too loud. Looking at the signal lever, it looks sophisticated, has a lot of buttons and functions. Yet when you use it, you know they're using the same old shitty unrefined design underneath when it makes that sharp plasticky sound like you just broke a twig. I just don't get it. Is it that GM's standards are so low that they can't make cars more refined? Even the center console has no function. It slides back and forth but has no real purpose to it except perhaps to keep away the heater, AC controls on the back of it from the rear passengers.
It's a shame. You know that they can make a good car since they do a lot of things right. The SUV being so big does give good gas mileage and I have no doubt that the engine is well built. But its maddening to see that so many things are overlooked and are still clunky as if they were designed by some guy back in the 70's and whose design was never retouched, never revisited. GM needs to wake up and fast.

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
GM often opts to simply slap new sheetmetal on an old car (see the new Malibu) instead of producing a more modern design already in production overseas (the new Opel Insignia) to save the cost of re-tooling. This is ridiculous.

see the cavalier. it used the same original Jbody platform from its first generation in the 1970's. it was only when the cobalt came out that the POS was retired. and cobalt is still a steamer. ridiculous indeed. yes cts and corvettes are nice, but how about a normal joe the plumber type car that isn't half-baked?

these assholes had 30 years to fix their problems and only now are they finally catching up. how can you gm fanboys give them an excuse?

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JDub02

We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs

Yep. They made exactly what US consumers wanted. Big trucks and SUVs. Wagoneer is sorry that the social engineers in Congress don't think that Americans should have them.

It's sad to see a CEO of such a large company strap on his kneepads and service Congress. What he needs to do is grow a pair, a put up the middle finger on each hand. One hand towards Congress and the other towards the UAW. GM is capable of making great cars and trucks. It's Congress and the UAW that keep them from being more competitive.

I can see how you can argue the UAW is holding them back but how is congress holding them back?

They're about to .. by forcing them into making cars that no one wants. The vast majority of people do not want to drive a golf cart (hybrid). GM has spent a chunk of time and money into hybrids (Tahoe, Silverado, Volt, etc.) that no one wants, especially at the price they want to sell them at. They should have focused on making a better truck and a better automobile.

The Caddy CTS is a great example of GM focusing on making a good car. I'm convinced Americans can make better cars than the rest of the world for a better price. I wish someone would just do it (other than the Koreans who are already building cars here in the South without the UAW).

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
I don't understand how everyone attacks the UAW. Auto workers work very hard for a not very impressive income. Sure, someone in some Chinese sweatshop could do it cheaper, but the whole point of America is that we don't permit that sort of thing. Unless you're making less than $30,000 a year and have no health benefits, I wouldn't complain about the UAW's demands.

You're mixing up two very distinct groups... the UAW (union) and the actual workers. It's the union that's killing American manufacturing with the legacy pensions, health care costs for retired people, and jobs banks. And the hourly wage UAW is around $25-30 where factories in right to work states in the south are $17-20. I still think $17-20 is great money for non-skilled work. Alot of people with college degrees don't make that kind of money.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead
I don't understand how everyone attacks the UAW. Auto workers work very hard for a not very impressive income. Sure, someone in some Chinese sweatshop could do it cheaper, but the whole point of America is that we don't permit that sort of thing. Unless you're making less than $30,000 a year and have no health benefits, I wouldn't complain about the UAW's demands.

Besides, Honda's been racking up huge profits not only working with the UAW but the British auto unions, too. (They're actually making cars in the same town that British Leyland did.)

Originally posted by: The J
I vaguely remember seeing another apologetic ad from GM in a Wired magazine about 6 or 7 years ago. It was basically saying they screwed up with their engines, but were showing off the new and improved one in the ad. I'll see if I can find it.

The LS7 V8 is an absolutely superb engine. Same applies to the direct-injected 32 valve "high feature" V6 in new Cadillacs and Camaros. And the Ecotec inline fours aren't too bad either (though the Mazda-derived engines in many Fords are arguably better.)

The engine he's most likely referring to is the "3800" V6 found in many of their cars as late as 2003. This engine was originally designed in the late 50s, sold to American Motor Company, bought back, equipped with a less-than-optimal fuel injection system, and bolted to many many cars. It, along with the torque-steer-tastic Pontiacs and rubbishy Oldsmobiles it was bolted to, are all mercifully gone.

Originally posted by: Gillbot

My primary problem with GM is their "base" cars. They went from the cheap and decent cavalier to a cobalt which was a cavalier under different sheetmetal and they jacked up the price. No wonder people wouldn't buy it.

Agreed. Amongst the sort of cars that American families realistically buy - the Cobalt and the Aura, for example - performance, durability, fuel economy, and luxury are all below that of their Japanese alternatives. GM often opts to simply slap new sheetmetal on an old car (see the new Malibu) instead of producing a more modern design already in production overseas (the new Opel Insignia) to save the cost of re-tooling. This is ridiculous.

Part of the problem is the sheer number of cars. In the econobox bracket, Ford will sell you a Focus, Toyota will sell you a Corolla, Honda will sell you a Civic, and GM will sell you a Cobalt, an Aveo, an Astra, or a G5. Can't they just make one car and make it four times as good?

The new Corvettes and Cadillac CTS are supposed to be very good, but most of us will never own either of them. The only ray of hope is the new Camaro, which should be nice to drive, reasonably powerful, and at below $25,000 for the base model with 306HP, quite cheap.

The new Malibu isn't "new sheetmetal on an old car" they upgraded the V6 to a OHC 260 hp powerplant vs the pushrod 3.5 217hp engine. Also went with a 6 speed auto instead of the four. The 3800 V6, while dated, is as about as reliable as it gets, these things are known for modest output but very long lasting. My problem with GM (I own an '05 'Bu) is the cheap parts used to keep costs low, I've had to replace 5 switches, instrument cluster, radio ect. while under warrranty. now it's out of warranty and I hope it holds together..

 

[franksta]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: JDub02

We also biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs

Yep. They made exactly what US consumers wanted. Big trucks and SUVs. Wagoneer is sorry that the social engineers in Congress don't think that Americans should have them.

It's sad to see a CEO of such a large company strap on his kneepads and service Congress. What he needs to do is grow a pair, a put up the middle finger on each hand. One hand towards Congress and the other towards the UAW. GM is capable of making great cars and trucks. It's Congress and the UAW that keep them from being more competitive.

I can see how you can argue the UAW is holding them back but how is congress holding them back?

The completely arbitrary legislation that dictates the performance level of their products. In my mind it's on par with a law that would require Intel to make Pentiums that use X Watts of power. CAFE double-standard anyone?

 

[bruceb]

I agree. My 1999 Grand Prix has the 3800 V6 not supercharged version. Very smooth and lots of power with decent fuel mileage.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: JDub02
GM is capable of making great cars and trucks.

I'm still waiting for that to happen. My rattletrap Camaro says otherwise. They make GREAT engines but the cars are below sub-par.

Remember, the Camaro is minimum of 6, practically 7 years old now assuming you have a 2002 (mine is a 98 so it is practically 11 years old) and they have improved stuff like that. Plus, the camaro had never been a more refined car. The new Camaro is supposed to change all that though.

I really do think judging all their cars off one that is getting older now is a bit harsh. It would be like me judging all of Ford's cars off of my old taurus I had that was 12 years old and had significantly more shakes and rattles than my Camaro does, or judging all of honda off of my friend's old mid-90's civic that was a pile of crap.

 

[darom]

I was laughing at the 'breaking the chicken legs' comment about GM turn signal switches. Every GM car I drove had the same issue. I own a 98 z28 and every time I use that switch, I always wonder if it is going to be its last time. My 96 Honda Accord's switch was smooth and required no 15-lbs pull force to use it.

 

[desy]

Washington DC December 9, 2008; The AIADA newsletter reported that a bankruptcy filing by two of the Detroit Three would cost taxpayers more than four times what they would pay if Congress was to give them a $30 billion bridge loan, according to a report released by Anderson Economic Group and BBK, an international business advisory firm.

The study found the job loss would reverberate through the national economy, causing damage that would be "unequivocally much higher than the losses from company restructuring with the help of federal bridge loans," the study concluded.

The number crunching calculated that the bankruptcy of two automakers (assuming they would go into Chapter 11 and then be liquidated in Chapter 7) would cost taxpayers $65.9 billion over two years. That includes: $19.8 billion in lost federal income tax; $20.5 billion in lost social security tax; $5.1 billion in lost state income tax; $2.4 billion in lost state sales tax; $3.6 billion in lost property tax; $800 million in state unemployment tax; $8.3 billion in benefits paid out from the unemployment insurance fund; and $5.4 billion in underfunded pensions.