GM admits that it dissappointed and betrayed consumers

[BassBomb]

That estimate sounds like they are taking it as if they sell 0 cars or something

 

[FeuerFrei]

GM's only apologizing for their '80s models.

Lutz interview

Lutz: It isn't. I think people were expecting this sort of message. What we're trying to do with an ad like that is live down this legacy of the '80s. Everybody agrees that American cars of the '80s were not very good and were not competitive with the Japanese. But that was a long time ago.

Guess the more recent missteps are harder to concede.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 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. SNIP

Well, I think they had that under control without the help of congress.

 

[cheesehead]

Originally posted by: JDub02

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.

Those retired people were promised healthcare. If they want to renegotiate with current workers, fine.

Also, the UAW rate you list is a bit optimistic. $50k a year is what you might expect to make after many, many years at the plant - not entry-level pay. And automotive manufacturing is not entirely unskilled work, either.

Until you've tried to raise a family of four on $35,000 a year, please go away and shut up about "Great money". Some people, for reasons beyond their control, never got a chance to go to college. Shouldn't they have the right to a decent standard of living for their kids?

Originally posted by: BUTCH1

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..

The new Malibu still has the same chassis and suspension as the old car. While the OHC V6 engine is all very well, what the market really needs is a nice, cheap four-banger (like you get in, say, an Accord or Camry or Ford 500.)

The current Malibu isn't a bad car. However, the Opel Insignia shows us what GM could do if they stopped being idiots and started building cars up to a standard, not down to a price.

And while many people claim "great economy" out of the old 3800, I might point out that the Mazda engines used in many newer Fords are even better. A 50-year-old design is just ridiculous.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: 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.

Rentals always drive weird to me at first and then grow on me once I get used to the feel of controls and how the car drives, steering effort, brake engagement points, etc.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: 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?

Heh. mine has 10k on it........ Everything rattles, it's just poor interior quality but I didn't buy it for the interior or creature comforts. It was all about the motor. 😉

Originally posted by: 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.

They shouldn't have to "improve" anything. I have ridden in MANY older cars that were not GM and they are not this sub-par. GM skimped, they are now paying for this cheapening. Not to mention many fords that are of the same age and older do not have this problem. GM charged a premium price for a basic car. This has now caught up with them.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead



Until you've tried to raise a family of four on $35,000 a year, please go away and shut up about "Great money". Some people, for reasons beyond their control, never got a chance to go to college. Shouldn't they have the right to a decent standard of living for their kids?

In a word, no. No one has any right to any standard of living. Everyone has the right to pursue whatever standard of living they want.

FWIW, my parents raised a family of four on far less money than that at times.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Cheesehead



Until you've tried to raise a family of four on $35,000 a year, please go away and shut up about "Great money". Some people, for reasons beyond their control, never got a chance to go to college. Shouldn't they have the right to a decent standard of living for their kids?

In a word, no. No one has any right to any standard of living. Everyone has the right to pursue whatever standard of living they want.

FWIW, my parents raised a family of four on far less money than that at times.

Well said. Even though we are headed that way, we are not yet a welfare state.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Cheesehead



Until you've tried to raise a family of four on $35,000 a year, please go away and shut up about "Great money". Some people, for reasons beyond their control, never got a chance to go to college. Shouldn't they have the right to a decent standard of living for their kids?

In a word, no. No one has any right to any standard of living. Everyone has the right to pursue whatever standard of living they want.

FWIW, my parents raised a family of four on far less money than that at times.

Right on. I was about to post the same thing.

Wages are determined by the scarcity of your skillset in your locale, not by your personal needs. (Unless a union is involved to artificially inflate labor costs)

For example, if the market wage for cruising around the assembly plant in a golf cart stocking welding stations is $35/hr ... there must be a crazy shortage of manpower.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: 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?

While the cobalt is no great vehicle by an means, it also isn't the worse car in the segment (ugliest...maybe). I'd also take a Cobalt SS in a second (2-door please to reduce some of the ugliness) if that is the price range I could afford. That car has some serious driving capabilities.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
GM's only apologizing for their '80s models.

Lutz interview

Lutz: It isn't. I think people were expecting this sort of message. What we're trying to do with an ad like that is live down this legacy of the '80s. Everybody agrees that American cars of the '80s were not very good and were not competitive with the Japanese. But that was a long time ago.

Guess the more recent missteps are harder to concede.

To be fair...a lot of the improvements over the last 7 years have been directly related to Lutz. Pontiac G8...check. Cadillac CTS...check. Corvette ZR-1...check. Chevy Volt...check. While GM has way to many brands and is woefully to fat for its own good...they can put out some decent cars with the right people involved. I'd happily own any of those vehicles (with the assumption that the Volt lives up to the others).

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

The new Malibu still has the same chassis and suspension as the old car. While the OHC V6 engine is all very well, what the market really needs is a nice, cheap four-banger (like you get in, say, an Accord or Camry or Ford 500.)

The current Malibu isn't a bad car. However, the Opel Insignia shows us what GM could do if they stopped being idiots and started building cars up to a standard, not down to a price.

And while many people claim "great economy" out of the old 3800, I might point out that the Mazda engines used in many newer Fords are even better. A 50-year-old design is just ridiculous.

You sound like Jeremy Clarkson always saying how "American's" still use archaic designs and other such nonsense. Porsche rarely upgrades major parts of their car with a full overall...it is almost always a slight evolution of the last car...with a major overhall (engine or chassis) very rarely. No one in their right mind would say a Porsche is a poor car because of this. Just because the Malibu is built on the Epsilon platform that many other cars are built on (Aura, G6, Saab 9-3, Vectra, etc) in no way makes it an equal of any of those cars. There is so much more to the car than just the basic platform it is based on.

The best example would be to go test drive a G6 and then go test drive a Malibu. Represents several years of development spread between the two cars and an unbelievable difference in teh level of refinement and poise. The G6 is barely passable in today's competition while the Mailibu easily contends with any companies best in that segment.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Rentals always drive weird to me at first and then grow on me once I get used to the feel of controls and how the car drives, steering effort, brake engagement points, etc.

Definitely true...especially when you're over in Europe and every few weeks you're getting used to a whole new clutch feel/shifter behavior when you switch cars.

That being said...it was always a nice switch getting in a BMW or Honda Accord I have to admit as the clutch/shifter are always nearly perfect on those cars (by my liking...Audi is sometimes included as well).

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

The new Malibu still has the same chassis and suspension as the old car. While the OHC V6 engine is all very well, what the market really needs is a nice, cheap four-banger (like you get in, say, an Accord or Camry or Ford 500.)

The current Malibu isn't a bad car. However, the Opel Insignia shows us what GM could do if they stopped being idiots and started building cars up to a standard, not down to a price.

And while many people claim "great economy" out of the old 3800, I might point out that the Mazda engines used in many newer Fords are even better. A 50-year-old design is just ridiculous.

You sound like Jeremy Clarkson always saying how "American's" still use archaic designs and other such nonsense. Porsche rarely upgrades major parts of their car with a full overall...it is almost always a slight evolution of the last car...with a major overhall (engine or chassis) very rarely. No one in their right mind would say a Porsche is a poor car because of this. Just because the Malibu is built on the Epsilon platform that many other cars are built on (Aura, G6, Saab 9-3, Vectra, etc) in no way makes it an equal of any of those cars. There is so much more to the car than just the basic platform it is based on.

The best example would be to go test drive a G6 and then go test drive a Malibu. Represents several years of development spread between the two cars and an unbelievable difference in teh level of refinement and poise. The G6 is barely passable in today's competition while the Mailibu easily contends with any companies best in that segment.

The Malibu isn't on the same platform as the old car. All those cars are on the new European platform from Opel or whatever.

 

[BUTCH1]

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

The new Malibu still has the same chassis and suspension as the old car. While the OHC V6 engine is all very well, what the market really needs is a nice, cheap four-banger (like you get in, say, an Accord or Camry or Ford 500.)

The current Malibu isn't a bad car. However, the Opel Insignia shows us what GM could do if they stopped being idiots and started building cars up to a standard, not down to a price.

And while many people claim "great economy" out of the old 3800, I might point out that the Mazda engines used in many newer Fords are even better. A 50-year-old design is just ridiculous.

The '50 year old design" has gone through a lot of evolution as well, my pushrod 213cid produces 200hp, older V6's came nowhere near that, and remember if you make it "breathe" better with multi-valve OHC designs it's gonna burn more fuel, period. HP ratings sell cars hence the popularity of OHC engines in the V6 configuration but do you really need the extra 60HP?. fine, it's gonna cost you in more fuel and a much more complicated engine design, there is no free lunch.

 

[swtethan]

*crosses fingers for Volt redesign* LOL

 

[Gillbot]

http://img222.imageshack.us/im...5/249678bailouthb4.jpg

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
http://img222.imageshack.us/im...5/249678bailouthb4.jpg

:laugh:

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Cheesehead



Until you've tried to raise a family of four on $35,000 a year, please go away and shut up about "Great money". Some people, for reasons beyond their control, never got a chance to go to college. Shouldn't they have the right to a decent standard of living for their kids?

In a word, no. No one has any right to any standard of living. Everyone has the right to pursue whatever standard of living they want.

FWIW, my parents raised a family of four on far less money than that at times.

Well said. Even though we are headed that way, we are not yet a welfare state.

Damn right. Life happens - don't make excuses, make things happen. If they are that poor and want a damn handout, GO BACK TO SCHOOL. The government would pay for every last cent of education for a low income adult. Teach a man to fish and all that...

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete

Originally posted by: Cheesehead

The new Malibu still has the same chassis and suspension as the old car. While the OHC V6 engine is all very well, what the market really needs is a nice, cheap four-banger (like you get in, say, an Accord or Camry or Ford 500.)

The current Malibu isn't a bad car. However, the Opel Insignia shows us what GM could do if they stopped being idiots and started building cars up to a standard, not down to a price.

And while many people claim "great economy" out of the old 3800, I might point out that the Mazda engines used in many newer Fords are even better. A 50-year-old design is just ridiculous.

You sound like Jeremy Clarkson always saying how "American's" still use archaic designs and other such nonsense. Porsche rarely upgrades major parts of their car with a full overall...it is almost always a slight evolution of the last car...with a major overhall (engine or chassis) very rarely. No one in their right mind would say a Porsche is a poor car because of this. Just because the Malibu is built on the Epsilon platform that many other cars are built on (Aura, G6, Saab 9-3, Vectra, etc) in no way makes it an equal of any of those cars. There is so much more to the car than just the basic platform it is based on.

The best example would be to go test drive a G6 and then go test drive a Malibu. Represents several years of development spread between the two cars and an unbelievable difference in teh level of refinement and poise. The G6 is barely passable in today's competition while the Mailibu easily contends with any companies best in that segment.

Bingo. So what if the Chassis and suspension is the same on the Malibu - what was wrong with that? It was overall design, refinement, and powertrain that lacked on the old one. Guess what they improved?