why is GM going down the tubes?

You watch the news and they are laying off thousands of workers,there car models suck,no more Camaros/firebirds,mean while we have Mustangs out the green bean cassarole hole,Toyota is sneaking up like the rats they are.
Yet GM stands by and its like screaming at a scary movie on tv not to open the closet door but they can't hear you!!!
I know they are shipping quit a few cars to China($392 a month saleries) figure that out?) and not really saying much about it plus maybe a military contrac or two,but is it worth breaking their plate in America???:confused: :death:

Fuel prices are so high. Gm is still using heafty cars with the old V-6. Their V-6 is basicly a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off. Just recently some Gms got the ECO tech 2.2 and new 3.5 liter DOHC. But, it was to little to late. Import cars run on less gas overall, have a better reputation, better warrenty coverage and price compared to GM's line.

there car models suck
HHR, Cobalt, Solstice, Sky, C6, GM900's, TBSS, Cadillac V Series, I guess they all suck, could have fooled me and everyone else.

no more Camaros/firebirds
Having an Fbody the last few years wouldn't have solved anything, and only would have made matters worse.

mean while we have Mustangs out the green bean cassarole hole
:confused: Green bean cassarole hole? :confused:

Toyota is sneaking up like the rats they are.
Why are they rats? Because they make reliable, decently priced cars and people buy them?

HHR, Cobalt, Solstice, Sky, C6, GM900's, TBSS, Cadillac V Series, I guess they all suck, could have fooled me and everyone else.



HHR is just PT cruiser in desguise...and other than the Cobalt...which is only good in SS design...the other stuff isn't practical or cheap...their designs have gotten plain weird...and soon they'll stick that god awful truck front end on the corvette cause they put it on everything else...

have you seen these in person...my god they're awful...

http://www.buick.com/terraza/index.jsp#top

Fuel prices are so high. Gm is still using heafty cars with the old V-6. Their V-6 is basicly a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off.

Wrong. While the 3.8 liter can be claimed to be that, the other V6's most certainly are not.

Rule of thumb:
GM V8's are categorically 90 degree engines, meaning that the angle between the line of action of the stroke in the respective cylinder banks is 90 degrees. Any V6 that does not have that 90 degree angle most assuredly is not based off of a V8. Internally, they can still share pistons, rings, rods, valves, valve guides, valve springs, retainers, locks, lifters, pushrods, rockers, main bearing and con-rod bearings, but that's about it.



***EDIT***
Oh yeah...

You can share some fasteners too. Nuts and bolts and screws and the like, but there is no real point in doing so since since fasteners like that are invariably made in a process known as "cold-heading" (jam steel wire into a one half of a die... smack wire hard with the other half of the die... lather, rinse, repeat until you get finished part minus threads...) and then have the threads cut (screw-machined) or rolled on.

The term "heading" comes from the process for putting the head on a nail, which is the same. The term "cold" means that no outside heat is added to the process, although the parts become wicked-hot just from the internal friction of flowing steel around like that and will burn you badly if you pick one up right off the header...

...ask me how I know that...

Anyway, in cold-heading, the tools are destroyed in the act of making the part, so there is no point in commonizing them from an investment standpoint once the volume of parts per year exceeds 40,000 or so.

With those parts, you're better off making the parts unique if it confers some benefit to the process (common driver sizes and torques in the plant), or allows you to save on engineering time or part piece prices.

***/EDIT***


Import cars run on less gas overall,

Utter crap.


have a better reputation,

Thanks to ignorance like that shown above.


and price compared to GM's line.

In any given class of vehicle, GM will option for option and through the overall price of the vehicle, be less expensive than the imports - note the incentives.

Fuel prices are so high. Gm is still using heafty cars with the old V-6. Their V-6 is basicly a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off. Just recently some Gms got the ECO tech 2.2 and new 3.5 liter DOHC. But, it was to little to late. Import cars run on less gas overall, have a better reputation, better warrenty coverage and price compared to GM's line.


if you are talking about the 3.5 DOHC that was in the intrigue and the aurora thats crap sure the 3.5 is smooth and is DOHC doesn't mean its better than the 3.8 litre

i've had experience with both in the intrigue one with the 3.5 and the other with the 3.8 the 3.8 had a lot more low end torque and even got better milage than the 3.5 i could get up to 32 mpg with the 3.8 and with the 3.5 i could only get a best of 27-28 mpg

Good Lord...

Thank you, Pacer, for shedding some light. It is amazing how much misinformation is constantly spewed out over and over again. No wonder GM has to struggle so much...

:no:

Fuel prices are so high. Gm is still using heafty cars with the old V-6. Their V-6 is basicly a V-8 with 2 cylinders chopped off.

What V6 is that???? The current 3.5L & 3.9L HV's aren't, neither are the 3.6L and 2.8L DOHCs. GM V6 also have some of the best gas milage around. GM cars in general have great milage, the only area they lack is the small 4cyls. GM could use a 40mpg+ Aveo.

Just recently some Gms got the ECO tech 2.2 and new 3.5 liter DOHC. But, it was to little to late. Import cars run on less gas overall, have a better reputation, better warrenty coverage and price compared to GM's line.

2.2L has been out for about 4 years, The olny DOHC 3.5L they make now is a inline 5 cyl.


Fuel economy isn't GMs problem, except in the 40mpg+ mini car segment.

Good Lord...

Thank you, Pacer, for shedding some light. It is amazing how much misinformation is constantly spewed out over and over again. No wonder GM has to struggle so much...

:no:

You're welcome!

Alas, you and I share the same mission...

Shedding the light of data on the world, one closed-head injury at a time.

Here's some learnin' for the unwashed:
http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en/product_services/r_cars/car%20eng%20trans.html

Everyone buys into the media WAY too much these days. They want you to think GM is drowning, that way you will stop buying from them and other manufacturers and then everyone will have to buy Japanese... :rolleyes:

GM is not failing, they are not going under. They under reorganization. When a company is set to break even w/ a 30 percent market share, and they are only at a 22% share right now, they have to cut costs somehow. Unfortunately the easiest way to cut costs is to cut labor, since you really can't skimp on production materials. GM got too big for its britches IMO. They spread out way too much, put their eggs in too many baskets when times were good, now that things are not so good, they have to reorganize to a business structure that fits the current time. Now if they had kept the way things were, then we would be seeing the demise of GM, and quite possibly the big 3...

What V6 is that????

I believe the 4.3 truck motor hasn't been purged from the system yet.

As an aside, does anyone know why GM never upgraded to an LS based V6 for trucks & SUVs?

I think there are many factors of why GM is struggling, but one that sticks out is, perception. The perception that the majority of the public has of GM. Most see their cars as not reliable, not enough goodies offered in the entry levels, and their models that do offer alot of their goodies are their top models and out of reach for some, price wise.

redglare23... you are right. My mother for example is one of those. She had a nissan forever that she loved. Never had any major problems except a fuel pump in 250k miles. Now she has a 93 Olds Cutlas Cierra that my grandfather gave to her when he couldn't drive anymore, and she bitches b/c little things break, like the parkign brake cable. Trim molding came off... etc. It takes forever to get over a bad impression...

I think there are many factors of why GM is struggling, but one that sticks out is, perception. The perception that the majority of the public has of GM. Most see their cars as not reliable, not enough goodies offered in the entry levels, and their models that do offer alot of their goodies are their top models and out of reach for some, price wise.

I agree, but need to add that GM has (or at least had) a lack of forward thinking. GM was the big man on the block and thought everyone would come to them for cars no matter what kind of crap they threw at us. Chrysler was not as popular as GM and did the things it takes to get people talking about and buying their cars. Just look at this forum. Many Camaro/Firebird fans are talking about the Challenger, Charger and 300c. I am willing to bet, not many people on the Chrysler boards are talking about any GM products ("hey, did you see the new Cobalt?, wow").

The service sucks also. As a GM person born and raised I have recently purchased a few Fords due to better service. The GM service centers (dealerships) I have been utilizing in Michigan and Florida think they are gods and rarely get problem fixed correctly the first, or even second time. I am not talking of small dealerships for Geos either, I am talking large Cadillac and Chevy dealerships. I have contacted GM numerous (four) times about the problems with the service I have received and I get a form letter back, saying blah, blah, blah...

Until GM starts thinking about the consumer and starts to regulate the service departments at their delaerships, they will have problems. I actually think that the big wigs at GM do not really give a crap about the consumer, or their own workers (who are the biggest consumers). As long as the executives get their money they will be satisfied. I am not a fan of the unions, but how can someone who makes over $250,000 a year tell the actual workers who build their product that paying them $30.00 an hour is too much. The typical human nature dictates that if someone "keeps" telling you that you are overpaid, you will do the least amount of work possible to still keep your job. Therefore the quality sucks and the circle of life starts again.

Sorry for the rant, but it upsets me that I "had" to switch to Ford products. GM left me no other choice.

PacerX, et al: You guys can complain all day long that GM is getting a bad rap from media bias, misinformation, etc, but he fact remains that GM is doing poorly across the board. This isn't football, where you can call foul, and play over. So yeah, maybe GM has gotten a few bad calls, but the team has no offensive plan whatsoever, and its defense sucks. If GM got every call in its favor, they'd still be losing by 40 in the first quarter.

I too do my best to educate those around me regarding the misinformation, but that does little to stop blood gushing from the gaping flesh wounds GM suffers from.

At this point, even if GM magically introduced an entire line up of cars that exceed their competition, GM's problems still wouldn't go away. For every GM success, it garners 5 gross failures. GM has no plan of action. Consumer loyalty is almost non-existent. Employee morale has got to be at its worst. Public perception is wretched. Average quality across the board is below average. And before you point out how good the Caddy or Vette is doing, take a look at the consumer reviews for their new products such as the Cobalt and Equinox. Brand new Equinox owners are having to take their vehicles back to the dealership on a regular basis for a number of engine problems. Again, for every Corvette, there are 5 Azteks out there. We can't point at GM's successes and ignore their failures that stare us in the face.

GM is missing an entire demographic - late 20 somethings and under. When the baby boomers die off, GM will have an even bigger problem on its hands. An entire generation of "buy American, even if it is crap" is retiring and will soon not be purchasing cars anymore.

Their Union problems don't help either.

I have a sick feeling inside, that GM's roadmap over the next few years could very well look like this: They introduce more competive models. Sales go up and they start to break even. People get happy and think that GM's woes are all gone. As a result, they abandon corrective measures and turn course back to business as usual: Bean counting, not giving a hoot about consumers, conceding to the Union, return to bland styling, promoting incompetent business leaders. Then they die.

I think now is make or break for them. What they do now will determine if they (a)die within the next 5 years, (b)if they limp in crippling pain for the next 15 years and then die, or if they (c)start a steady return to excellence and dominance.

"b" is my least favorite, yet most likely scenario.

I have a Park Ave, 3800 Supercharged, 26+ mpg, dragging a 4100+ lb car, and crosses the 1320 in mid 15's...and it's only a Series 1 version.
Not bad for an "Old V6"...
One note: displacement didn't change on the venerable 3800, but it sported massive evolutions over the years.

Another thing I see is when the big 3 make new "hotrod"types,Chrylers makes hemis,chargers,rumble bees,ETC,ford come out with the T-birds and the Mustangs,Whats GM do put out a space bubble looking ugly ass truck that is to heavy,too expensive and did I mention ugly,
So mean while Ford is racking in money left and right from the stang,Gm sells a few SSRs to rich people to drive to the country club and get laughed at.
Thats why I hate to even hear GM might bring back the Camaro for a while because its going to be an overpriced moon buggy with a corvette engine(why not a 427 small block so at least they sould put on some cool looking emblems) that will be a flop and they will sit back and say "we told you so" now lets build another SUV for the soccer moms!!!
Somedays I have thoughts of buying a new Mustang,add some power goodies and relive the 60/70s again.

I think the Cobalt SS was a smashing success. A friend of mine is a die hard euro fan, and has a very nicely done Corrado VR6. I took him along to test drive a Cobalt SS supercharged, and he commented that he would actually buy one if he was looking for a car. I firmly believe that if GM did this with all of their vehicles, they would easily dominate the market.

It really does crack me up that people defend GM's lineup by saying how great the Vette, V and SS series Caddy's (Or any Cadillac) are. Yes, they are very nicely done vehicles. However GM has to start making money on volume, and the way you do that is by having well contented entry level product. If the base model is an acceptable downgrade from the halo version, people will buy it. Plain and simple.

I think if GM started building base model vehicles with exemplary fit and finish and options lists, their sales would grow exponentially. I think right now the only vehicle they have that fits that bill is the Cobalt. I'll say it again, I'm very impressed with what they did with the Cobalt, but they should put that much effort into their other vehicles that will sell to people in the entry to mid-level market. When I saw pictures of the G6 interior online, I couldn't wait to drive one. I rented a GT in Los Angeles, and I was severely disappointed in it. F&F was horrible inside (To quote the movie "The Scarecrow": All these things are the worst I ever seen), it lacked power (Even for an entry level motor option), and the auto tranny didn't know what to do with itself. I mean how does VW put together an amazingly tight interior into their base model vehicles and GM, with all of it's resources, can't match that?

I'm about to go on a rant here, but you can really see that GM has too many costs above and beyond the cost of just producing a vehicle.

Thats why I hate to even hear GM might bring back the Camaro for a while because its going to be an overpriced moon buggy with a corvette engine(why not a 427 small block so at least they sould put on some cool looking emblems) that will be a flop and they will sit back and say "we told you so" now lets build another SUV for the soccer moms!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol:





It really does crack me up that people defend GM's lineup by saying how great the Vette, V and SS series Caddy's (Or any Cadillac) are. Yes, they are very nicely done vehicles. However GM has to start making money on volume, and the way you do that is by having well contented entry level product. If the base model is an acceptable downgrade from the halo version, people will buy it. Plain and simple.

I mean how does VW put together an amazingly tight interior into their base model vehicles and GM, with all of it's resources, can't match that

:thumb:

Been taking a break for a while. But then I read something like this, and I just gotta say something:

Another thing I see is when the big 3 make new "hotrod"types,Chrylers makes hemis,chargers,rumble bees,ETC,ford come out with the T-birds and the Mustangs,Whats GM do put out a space bubble looking ugly ass truck that is to heavy,too expensive and did I mention ugly,
So mean while Ford is racking in money left and right from the stang,Gm sells a few SSRs to rich people to drive to the country club and get laughed at.
Thats why I hate to even hear GM might bring back the Camaro for a while because its going to be an overpriced moon buggy with a corvette engine(why not a 427 small block so at least they sould put on some cool looking emblems) that will be a flop and they will sit back and say "we told you so" now lets build another SUV for the soccer moms!!!
Somedays I have thoughts of buying a new Mustang,add some power goodies and relive the 60/70s again.

Now, everyone know me as someone who's not afraid to slam GM if they are wrong about something, but I at least try to back up my opinions with something resembling facts, and avoid flaming just because I can form words on a keyboard.

Tim, I'm assuming you crawled in here from the lounge, along with a couple of other people on this thread, so I'll be gentle.

First off, I like the Mustang & Chrysler's LXs. I am probally even one of the 2 or 3 people here that even like the Thunderbird. But you are way off base in almost every way imaginable.

Ford has a MAJOR problem right now. Outside of the Mustang and the F-series, they are hemoraging money. Thunderbird (which I suspect you don't know was killed off back in June) was an image car that made little money. Expedition sales drops have deprived FoMoCo of their cash cow. Lincoln is a disaster. Mercury isn't faring much better. 500 has been less than a roaring success, and the Fusion, though off to an impressive start, won't turn a profit for quite a while. Ford isn't making money. They just aren't as bad off as GM.

As for Chrysler, though the 300 and Charger are getting all the press, the Durango is setting sales records. So is Jeep across the board. The dull Sebring is still inching out Mustang as America's best selling convertible. The soon to be replaced Stratus and Sebring sedans are also up in sales. Dodge Trucks are defying gravity by still selling well despite fuel costs.

Now about GM, you obviously haven't been paying attention for the past number of months, so let me educate you.

The Chevrolet HHR is a smash hit (the guy who said it's just a PT Cruiser in disguise can go s*rew himself). Cobalt is a smash hit. The Impala, which I think looks a bit too low keyed, is selling as a bit better than the old version. Corvette is doing well. So is Malibu. Cadillac is still on a winning streak. Solstice is essentially sold out for the rest of the year.

Not to say GM doesn't have problems. They are just coming out of what I feel is the short sightedness of the old "regime", and I don't feel they recognized how risky (or dumb) it was to bank on vehicles depended on low fuel prices despite past events at the expense of cars. Unfortunately, it takes years for new cars, let alone changes, to work it's way through a bureaucracy like GM.

GM has alot of stuff in the pipeline. They are cutting like crazy in order to pay for these startups.

Everyone at GM is painfully aware that their backs are against the wall, and they gotta play or else.

As for your statement about not bringing Camaro back, then like what I told the guy regarding the HHR..........

I think the Cobalt SS was a smashing success. A friend of mine is a die hard euro fan, and has a very nicely done Corrado VR6. I took him along to test drive a Cobalt SS supercharged, and he commented that he would actually buy one if he was looking for a car. I firmly believe that if GM did this with all of their vehicles, they would easily dominate the market.

It really does crack me up that people defend GM's lineup by saying how great the Vette, V and SS series Caddy's (Or any Cadillac) are. Yes, they are very nicely done vehicles. However GM has to start making money on volume, and the way you do that is by having well contented entry level product. If the base model is an acceptable downgrade from the halo version, people will buy it. Plain and simple.

I think if GM started building base model vehicles with exemplary fit and finish and options lists, their sales would grow exponentially. I think right now the only vehicle they have that fits that bill is the Cobalt. I'll say it again, I'm very impressed with what they did with the Cobalt, but they should put that much effort into their other vehicles that will sell to people in the entry to mid-level market. When I saw pictures of the G6 interior online, I couldn't wait to drive one. I rented a GT in Los Angeles, and I was severely disappointed in it. F&F was horrible inside (To quote the movie "The Scarecrow": All these things are the worst I ever seen), it lacked power (Even for an entry level motor option), and the auto tranny didn't know what to do with itself. I mean how does VW put together an amazingly tight interior into their base model vehicles and GM, with all of it's resources, can't match that?

I'm about to go on a rant here, but you can really see that GM has too many costs above and beyond the cost of just producing a vehicle.

Haven't been in a G6 yet, but have you seen VW's owner satisfaction scores lately? :no:

I'll tell you why GM's going down the tubes...because this is the type of customer they have to get back:

Random person 1:

"Once I had a 1986 malibu and it was the biggest piece of crap ever. It was total garbage. I'm never buying another GM car again."

Random person 2:

"Yeah, but that was nearly 20 years ago. Two decades ago! A lot has changed since then. GM cars are very reliable. In fact, nobody makes a terrible car anymore."

Random person 1:

"Well, I've had 5 Hondas over the last 19 years and none of them had any problems. Consumer retorts still says Hondas are better. Why should I switch?"

Random person 2: "........"

I'll tell you why GM's going down the tubes...because this is the type of customer they have to get back:

Random person 1:

"Once I had a 1986 malibu and it was the biggest piece of crap ever. It was total garbage. I'm never buying another GM car again."

Random person 2:

"Yeah, but that was nearly 20 years ago. Two decades ago! A lot has changed since then. GM cars are very reliable. In fact, nobody makes a terrible car anymore."

Random person 1:

"Well, I've had 5 Hondas over the last 19 years and none of them had any problems. Consumer retorts still says Hondas are better. Why should I switch?"

Random person 2: "........"

You've summarized Ford and GM's problem better than anyone I have read at any of the message boards. Although I am a fan of Ford and GM, I feel very negative about their future, no matter what products come out over the next few years.

Tim, I'm assuming you crawled in here from the lounge, along with a couple of other people on this thread, so I'll be gentle.

The Chevrolet HHR is a smash hit (the guy who said it's just a PT Cruiser in disguise can go s*rew himself). Cobalt is a smash hit. The Impala, which I think looks a bit too low keyed, is selling as a bit better than the old version. Corvette is doing well. So is Malibu. Cadillac is still on a winning streak. Solstice is essentially sold out for the rest of the year.



As for your statement about not bringing Camaro back, then like what I told the guy regarding the HHR..........


-:Crawls back in from lounge:-


Being a normal person with a normal income let me tell you how I view cars...the Cobalt although selling well looks like an el cheapo piece of **** except the SS...the HHR looks like a PT Cruiser once your off your period and the mood swings stop take a look...my mom confuses them...so when the average car buyer can't tell the difference you didn't break any mold...

http://images.intellichoice.com/images/AutoShows/Big/2006_Chevrolet_HHR.jpg

http://magazine.avtoindex.com/images/chrysler/2005/chrysler_pt_cruiser_2.jpg


hey bonus the new impala sells a bit better than the old one...well hell yeah a bland sedan...ooooh but they make an SS model thats uber bitchin :rolleyes: ...the Malibu is foul looking although cheap and practical and the maxx is ghey but hey they sell good...the Corvette does sell well...but it won't support GM...but only the rich can buy em...and GM makes cars for the common man...Cadillac HAHAHA yeah let me get my check book...oh the Soltice is sold out and what are production numbers for that...so what we have is what everyone has already said...anything appealing and worth a **** at GM isn't practical or affordable or looks good...when most people buy a CAR GM isn't where they are going to look...I can pick up a Corrolla for very resonable and get a Toyota reputation (whether it deserves it or not) and not lose my ass on resale...I workout with the sales manager for a local Toyota dealer and he has only 45 cars, trucks, and vans on the lot...he moves 250 cars a month...the local Chevy dealers have 250 cars sitting on the lot...to make it simple if your cars are not appealing people will not buy them...Toyotas are...

the HHR, although very ugly, looks a million times better than the PT Cruiser. the PT just looks so cheap in comparison, and that's really saying something

Well if GM is selling so well I would hate to see how many factories close and people lose their jobs if they were doing bad?
And the HHR is nothing more than driving afterbirth from a PT Cruiser when it was born!
How about those Cadilics that are on the Vettes frame,I think ;ll go buy 2,Oh wait I work for a living can't afford 1 because the counrty club dues are coming up!
GM doesn't want to sell to just anyone they have certain vehicals they want certain people to drive.
And when they shut down Oldsmobile They might as well closed their own doors=losers!!!!

Well if GM is selling so well I would hate to see how many factories close and people lose their jobs if they were doing bad?
And the HHR is nothing more than driving afterbirth from a PT Cruiser when it was born!
How about those Cadilics that are on the Vettes frame,I think ;ll go buy 2,Oh wait I work for a living can't afford 1 because the counrty club dues are coming up!
GM doesn't want to sell to just anyone they have certain vehicals they want certain people to drive.
And when they shut down Oldsmobile They might as well closed their own doors=losers!!!!Could you do me a favor and retype your posts, but in English this time? GuywithaZ, could you do the same? Thanks...

Obviously, GM is not selling as well OVERALL as they would like. However, people are pointing out the Cobalt and HHR and Cadillacs, etc. because you made the blanket statement that "their car models suck". Well, those models don't "suck" and are selling well, but you apparently think they are weak. The very models that you are deriding are some of the bigger success stories at GM.

Yes, the SSR has been a sales disappointment (priced too high for a limited use toy, and should have had the LS2 from the beginning). Much like the Plymouth Prowler before it, you know, from Chrysler. But much of the newer stuff is meeting with success in both sales and media reviews (like Cadillac, the HHR, the Cobalt, the Solstice, the Vette).

Right, GM doesn't want to sell to just anyone. They want to deprive the middle class and only sell Cadillacs to the rich. That would be great for market share...

If you can't read what we wrote then whats your gripe with it?

Maybe I don't see an accurate view of "the big picture" because I live in a GM town (well, on the border of Oshawa;)) but out on the highway everyday from home to work, or just out and about on the roads, you know what I see??

... a whole lot of mini-vans, sedans, SUVs and pick-up trucks;).

Mini-vans: probably more Dodge Caravans than anything, but a whole $h!tload of Montana/Ventures, and even a bunch of the Buick/Olds mini-vans. Sure, there are Honda and Toyota vans around, but not as many as the domestics.

Sedans: Sunfires and Cavaliers baby!!:D Do you know how many times I'll see "packs" of Sunfires driving down the road?!:rolleyes: Holy Sunfires Batman!;) Let's see, what else?:think: Oh right, Grand Ams and Grand Prix left, right and center. Then a bunch of Malibus, Aleros, and the newer cars (Cobalts, Persuits, G6's). Oh, and don't forget enough cop look-a-likes ... yes I mean Impalas ... they're everywhere!! I even had a chance to drive one and I liked it:).

SUV's/Pick-ups: hmm, again, maybe I see an inaccurate proportion because the Oshawa truck plant is ~10 miles from my house, but GM trucks are everywhere! There's even one in our driveway ('00 Sierra Z71). But the thing is, about ~75% of the trucks that Oshawa builds get shipped directly across the border to the U.S., so of the ~25% remaining that have to get dispersed in Canada, there must be a whole lot of trucks built 'cause there are still tons of them on the roads in my area!!

What's my point? Well, if GM's really are so BAD, and if "EVERYBODY" knows it, then why does it seem that the MAJORITY of people still drive them???? LOTS of them. Obviously there are lots of imports on the roads, but I never feel like I'm among "packs" of them like I am with GM's.

Like I mentioned, my Dad has a 2000 Sierra. The stupid issues with it are the really cheap door handles and tailgate latch that break really easily. Otherwise, it's a great truck. I wouldn't ever consider buying a different (brand) truck.

I used to own a '96 Sunfire before my Camaro. I bought it with ~75k on it, drove it for ~18 months, drove the living $h!t out of it, and all that went wrong was the typical head gasket failure around ~80k. What else is new, but it cost a couple hundred bucks and I was back in business.

I know that GM does need to work on their "image". Public perception IS bad (I've argued with friends and co-workers several times) but their cars aren't actually as bad as most people seem to believe. Although I'll agree that their service departments REALLY ARE that bad:rolleyes:. Maybe they should work on the customer service, and the cars can hopefully sell themselves.

Haven't been in a G6 yet, but have you seen VW's owner satisfaction scores lately? :no:

I didn't say anything about the reliability of a VW (Although yesterday I was hit by a lady in a 2001 Grand Am while driving my 84 Scirocco winter beater, and I fared way better than she did), I was saying that VW can pull off a much better interior on their new vehicles while targeting the same price points as GM (Give or a take a bit, since you do pay a bit of a 'premium' for a VW). I was saying that I don't understand how GM, a much larger and richer company than VAG can't do the same.


VW was also just an example. The interior on the new Civic is also put together so well, even if you can't get past how it looks (Which is opinion anyways). The 3 Cobalts I test drove all had decent, but not spectacular interiors. Seating was well done, however the door panels flexed when you pulled the doors shut, the plastic-faux aluminum trim piece on the passenger side dash looked like it had been radiused by hand by a rookie, and materials felt cheap.

I think buying a new car, or any car for that matter, is like taking a bet. Basically you're betting the cost of the vehicle that it will give you a few years of fairly trouble free service, at which point you can re-sell it for a decent amount. When shopping for a new car, you have very little time in the grand scheme of things to decide whether the car you're buying is worth the bet.

Most people would reason that if the interior looks this hacked together, what major parts of the car were also hacked together? Most people won't bet 20+ thousand dollars on whether or not their car will hold up after warranty is up.

I took a bet on an F-Body twice, and I lost big time. I was expecting to have a fun summer driver for a few years, and when life allowed it, would serve as a great platform to start modding. It turned into a sour experience, which call it ignorant or not, makes me hesitant to buy another GM product. Even when the 5th gen comes out, I would wait a couple years to see if it will hold up better than previous examples, even being a big fan of the cars.

Understand now?

-:Crawls back in from lounge:-


Being a normal person with a normal income let me tell you how I view cars...the Cobalt although selling well looks like an el cheapo piece of **** except the SS...the HHR looks like a PT Cruiser once your off your period and the mood swings stop take a look...my mom confuses them...so when the average car buyer can't tell the difference you didn't break any mold...

hey bonus the new impala sells a bit better than the old one...well hell yeah a bland sedan...ooooh but they make an SS model thats uber bitchin :rolleyes: ...the Malibu is foul looking although cheap and practical and the maxx is ghey but hey they sell good...the Corvette does sell well...but it won't support GM...but only the rich can buy em...and GM makes cars for the common man...Cadillac HAHAHA yeah let me get my check book...oh the Soltice is sold out and what are production numbers for that...so what we have is what everyone has already said...anything appealing and worth a **** at GM isn't practical or affordable or looks good...when most people buy a CAR GM isn't where they are going to look...I can pick up a Corrolla for very resonable and get a Toyota reputation (whether it deserves it or not) and not lose my ass on resale...I workout with the sales manager for a local Toyota dealer and he has only 45 cars, trucks, and vans on the lot...he moves 250 cars a month...the local Chevy dealers have 250 cars sitting on the lot...to make it simple if your cars are not appealing people will not buy them...Toyotas are...

1. Glad you speak for what passes as "normal people" in your view (or the lounge for that matter). However, in the real world of automobile sales and income from actual sales volume, not the sub-terrain enviroment shielded from sunlight and fresh air, the Cobalt is selling extremely well and is scoring well with buyers..... actual buyers.

BTW: the Cobalt SS is made of the same material as the base Cobalt, yet in your eyes, Cobalt looks "el cheapo" but SS doesn't? :rolleyes:


2. Sure the HHR is patterened after the PT Cruiser. However, the HHR is a better PT Cruiser. I'm glad you feel comfortable bringing your mom in the conversation to back you up, but the truth is that the HHR is a success in the general public as well. Out here in California, you can barely sneeze without hitting one. With all due respect to your mom, HHRs look awesome. That's without periods or mood swings...... you're still in high school, aren't you?

3. You slam the new Impala, yet you'd buy a Toyota. Now I don't know what type of deals you are arranging in the shower after working out with that Toyota sales manager you mention, but if he's talking you into buying a stripped Avalon at the price a loaded V8 Impala SS is going for, I can only say that whatever is happening to you to get this type of deal is happening to you twice.

4. As for Corvette being a rich person's car, at $45,000 it's a car "empty nesters" get. The kids are done with college and are on their own, the house is mostly paid off, the person now has some extra money, and he's always wanted a Corvette. You can also take a look on most military bases. You're bound to see a new Corvette here and there owned by enlisted men who saved money on deployments. Hardly a rich bunch of guys.

5. I can't afford a Cadillac, but that doesn't mean I'm going to criticize them for becoming a status symbol and doing extremely well in sales. Not intrested in buying sour grapes today, so you can sell yours someplace else.

6. Solstice production numbers are 20,000. The point is?

7. You want appealing and affordable at GM? I'm guessing you mean the average median household income in the US for 2004 ($44,384 according to the US Census) on a payment plan of 60 months at a sub-10% intrest rate), so here you go:

Chevrolet Impala base, LT, and SS
Chevrolet Cobalt base, LT, and SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GT & GXP
Pontiac G6 (entire lineup)
Chevrolet HHR (entire lineup)
Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS (I'm excluding the base model)
Pontiac Solstice
Buick Lecrosse

And if it's only you and your spouce sharing that $44K, you can throw in the Pontiac GTO & the Cadillac CTS (base model).

I purposely left out trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. You do know GM still owns 60% of the large truck & SUV market, right? ;)


I think the Impala & Lecrosse are pretty non exciting rides. But I also have to say that the Toyota showroom is nothing but an applience store. Honda is primarily a woman's-car dealer (FAR more women buy new Hondas than men). Outside of Infinity and the 350Z, Nissan is streaching the thin line between bad car design & pornography. And giving credit where it's due, Mitsubishi and Mazda are the only Pacific imports that seem to hit both the quality and design target.

But if you prefer a Corolla over something else for the same price and equiptment level, that's your preference. I'd pick a Charger R/T over an Impala myself. But I also realize that Impala is a very good and sucessful car for GM because I can separate my personal tastes from the actual marketplace.

The VW interiors look pretty decent but the problem is the car and the interior tend to fall apart.

That's without periods or mood swings...... you're still in high school, aren't you?

...I can only say that whatever is happening to you to get this type of deal is happening to you twice.

...Outside of Infinity and the 350Z, Nissan is streaching the thin line between bad car design & pornography.
Where is the banana on fire smilie? :)
:bananadea

Interesting article that give a little insight into GM's problems

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10265992/site/newsweek/

... :bow: :bow:

That may have been the most superb example of ownership I have ever witnessed in the years I have been lurking on this site. Kudos Guion, that was impressive!

While GM's design and marketing ability can be debated, what is for sure is something often overlooked...until mid April--taxes.

Its quite simple, yet, not the complete solution to the problem--again, GM's design and marketing ability can be debated.

Every car manufactored in America, with American hands, and by an American company (i.e GM--pretty much the only American company left) is subject to the most strict punishment any manufactor could ask for--the federal tax code.

How can we expect GM to compete with Mercedes (and every other foreign company) when they aren't subject to the same scrutiny?

Here's the math:

Current U.S tax system (income tax):

A Cadillac manufactured in the United States and sold in the US includes the cost of inclusive tax in it’s sale price sticker.

A Mercedes manufactured in Germany and sold in the US is reimbursed by the German government the taxes paid during production and avoids the American income tax.

Advantage: Mercedes.

Is it any surprise why our foreign competitors are leading in automotive sales when our country’s own tax system caters to foreign companies?

A comparison of competing products for sale in the United States to Americans under the FairTax* system:

A Cadillac is manufactured in the United States and sold in the US completely FREE of taxes during production. Taxes are collected one time at the retail level (meaning the consumer pays the tax—that’s called a sales tax.)

A Mercedes is manufactured in Germany and sold in the US similar to before, but now faces dramatically heightened competition due to the drastic release of production burden formerly cast upon the American manufacturer. Now that companies can manufacture goods in America and not pay ANY taxes during production—including taxes paid just to employ the hands needed to manufacture—the German company is encouraged to bring it’s assembly line to America to produce goods cheaper.

Advantage: America.

Abolishing the income tax will drastically reduce the burden of manufacturing in our country. It will bring jobs back into our nation, encourage savings which yield a dramatic increase in our nation’s GDP. It will eliminate the necessity of complying with rigorous IRS tax codes every year—since no longer are we taxing on income—which would, in return, put $250 Billion back into the consumer’s pocket.

Under a tax structure like the above mentioned, do you think we’d ever read articles like the one below written by Joseph Szczesny of thecarconnection.com, titled “Chrysler Eases By Ford, GM”?


While General Motors and Ford nurse serious battle wounds, the Chrysler Group continues to demonstrate that there is still a good deal of life left in the domestic auto industry.
The Chrysler Group reported a respectable if not spectacular four-percent sales increase in September, a time when the other domestic brands were faltering. It was the 18th consecutive month in which the Chrysler Group has managed to post a sales increase - one of the longest streaks in the industry.

Competitors such as GM groused that Chrysler raised incentives last month, but overall the DaimlerChrysler unit’s use of incentives, while generous, seemed to have been more strategic measures than the broad campaigns used by Ford and GM. In addition, while GM and Ford have been hit by a sharp fall in sport-utility vehicle sales, sales of Jeep-brand vehicles and the Ram pickup trucks have held up fairly well. Sales of the Dodge Durango have slipped, but Chrysler has gained ground from the robust showing of smaller vehicles such as the PT Cruiser and Neon, which jumped 15 percent last month.

* The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This non-partisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

** Mr. Loffredo, vice president of DaimlerChrysler, during a testimony before Congress offered the following in hopes to inspire tax reform; “The U.S tax system puts global companies at a decisive disadvantage. [W]hen the time came to chose whether the new company should be a U.S company or a foreign company, management chose a company organized under the laws of Germany.” The would-be “ChryslerDaimler” would face a 67.5% tax rate, while the actual DaimlerChrysler, headquartered in Germany, pays only 44%.

http://www.fairtaxforum.com/images/10-12anim_2.gif

Higher sales taxes?

No thanks.

Simple rule:
The government gets X amount of dollars per year from all tax sources.
The burden is the burden.

Shifting the burden from one place to another is just a shell game. Particularly when a sales tax penalizes those least able to pay with a higher tax burden.

Now, I'm all for lower taxes, but the way to get it done is to cut them across the board and lower the amount of money the government gets ever year, thereby forcing efficiency.

Cut taxes across the board 10%, and cut government spending by 10% and we've got something to work with.

Finally, your comparison misses a HUGE primary issue in the debate - Germans pay nearly the highest combined tax rates on the PLANET, Germany's economy is right now in the crapper, unemployment is rampant and they are being out-competed on their own home turf by Eastern Europe.

While the US automobile industry is certainly hurting badly, all in all we're kicking a$$ and taking names in lots of other industries.

We OWN computers and software lock, stock and barrel.
We OWN pharmacuticals.
We are the high-tech standard of the world, particularly in medical, military & aerospace.

Decreasing the tax burden on GM and Ford will certainly help. If that's your proposal, I'm for it. If you are merely going to shift that burden elsewhere, then save everybody the confusion and keep it the way it is.

Simple rule:
The government gets X amount of dollars per year from all tax sources.
The burden is the burden.

Shifting the burden from one place to another is just a shell game. Particularly when a sales tax penalizes those least able to pay with a higher tax burden.

...

Finally, your comparison misses a HUGE primary issue in the debate - Germans pay nearly the highest combined tax rates on the PLANET, Germany's economy is right now in the crapper, unemployment is rampant and they are being out-competed on their own home turf by Eastern Europe.


Two things Pacer.

One. This proposal is by no stretch increasing taxes. In actuality, it's decreasing the burden on everyone because (and for once) everyone pays into the system. With our current system, less than 1/2 of Americans pay for the taxes that everyone takes advantage of.

You're right. Taxes are a burden, but there is no reason why some have to put up with that burden 10-fold and others never even see it.

Two.
Germany may have higher taxes (although, they don't--that's why Chrysler moved there) but the German government reimburses Mercedes the taxes paid in Germany during manufactoring for every Mercedes sold in the US.

Yes, hypothetically we could center our tax reform around foreign sales as come up with some sort of tax credit system on American manufactoring, but then we're just playing the "shift the burden" game.

The only way to make it fair--if we ever want to make it fair--is to do what our founders had in mind, and that is make the tax voluntary.

You may not realize this, but a sales tax is a voluntary tax. You chose when to pay taxes. Whereas an income tax is direct. You may or may not be aware that it specifically states in the Constitution that direct taxes are NOT to be imposed upon the states (citizens). The founders knew that direct taxes would eventually lead to class warfare, voter-blck control, and corruption and abuse in political power.

Two things Pacer.

One. This proposal is by no stretch increasing taxes. In actuality, it's decreasing the burden on everyone because (and for once) everyone pays into the system. With our current system, less than 1/2 of Americans pay for the taxes that everyone takes advantage of.

It's a shell game.

Pay one way or pay the other.



You're right. Taxes are a burden, but there is no reason why some have to put up with that burden 10-fold and others never even see it.

Sure there is.

It's called "Ability to Pay".



Two.
Germany may have higher taxes (although, they don't--that's why Chrysler moved there) but the German government reimburses Mercedes the taxes paid in Germany during manufactoring for every Mercedes sold in the US.

Have you ever been to Germany?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're just flat-out wrong relative to tax burden. Germans pay OUTRAGEOUS taxes.


You may not realize this, but a sales tax is a voluntary tax. You chose when to pay taxes. Whereas an income tax is direct. You may or may not be aware that it specifically states in the Constitution that direct taxes are NOT to be imposed upon the states (citizens). The founders knew that direct taxes would eventually lead to class warfare, voter-blck control, and corruption and abuse in political power.

People have to buy things to live. Sales taxes are charged on those things.

So, let's say we have two households.

Household #1 is at the median income of $44,000.

Household #2 is between $100,000 and $200,000.

Both have 2 adults and 2 kids.

Now, it costs a certain amount of money to put gas in a car, to put clothes on their backs and all of those other things in life that people NEED that are not food (not WANT). Let's just call those things equal for the moment at $10,000/yr, even though the household with the higher income will tend to spend more by purchasing more expensive clothes or premium fuel for their cars... but they don't HAVE TO spend more - they choose to. The median income family HAS TO spend that much to go to work and keep themselves clothed and sheltered.

If, as you propose, sales taxes are used for taxation instead of a graduated income tax, then the household with the lower income pays a greater percentage of their yearly income in taxes than the household with the higher income.

Here's the math:

Household #1:
$10,000 x 8% = $800
$800/$44,000 = ~2%

Household #2:
$10,000 x 8% = $800
$800/$150,000 = ~.5%

And that's just flat-out dumb. While certain points about relative tax burden can be entertained (I personally feel that EVERYONE pays too much in taxes), shifting any part of the burden to those least able to pay is nothing short of stupid.

I make a very good living. Way above the national average. I'd sure like to see my taxes go down, but I'm not going to do it on the backs of those who are least able to pay.

Finally, the idea that a sales tax on clothes or gas is voluntary is bunk. Both, given our current societal situations, are NECESSITIES.

Did I miss HHR release date or, according to November GM sales numbers, is it gonna sell over 100K in 12 months??

If, as you propose, sales taxes are used for taxation instead of a graduated income tax, then the household with the lower income pays a greater percentage of their yearly income in taxes than the household with the higher income...

And that's just flat-out dumb. While certain points about relative tax burden can be entertained (I personally feel that EVERYONE pays too much in taxes), shifting any part of the burden to those least able to pay is nothing short of stupid...

Finally, the idea that a sales tax on clothes or gas is voluntary is bunk. Both, given our current societal situations, are NECESSITIES.
Good post.

I'm not exactly a proponent, but there are are a few compelling arguments for a flat tax.

1) No need for giant government bureaucracy to collect taxes
2) Hard for rich people to hide their income and not pay any taxes due to loopholes.
3) Average people can fill out their own tax returns
There are others, but I'm not that versed with the theory...

Eastern Europe is having good luck with it so far...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/04/nflat104.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/04/ixhome.html

Why are the big guys at GM trying to destroy our heritage? Look at Buick....there is nothing supercharged anymore, no two door models available. Buick is the backbone of GM, but yet they have nothing with curb appeal.
I'm a proud 95 riviera owner. Not to mention I have 228,xxx miles on the car and it still runs like brand new....with the same tranny, engine and the same blower. Okay so, I'm really lucky and I didn't get a Monday or a Friday car, as they say....jk but still I would mind if they came out with something that would attract the sports car enthusiasts (something like the grand national!)

Another thought.....look at your local newspaper or television ad.....Look at Lexus, Jag, or any of those luxury cars. It's all about the image. The advertisment reminds me of a beer ad, drink this and you will get whatever you want, the chick, the dough, the big house, and the bad ass ride. Drive this car and everyone will want you and you will have the respect you desire.
Drive a Impala or a Rendezous and everyone knows you're paying 199 a month....and you got 5000 off in rebates because you bought your new wheels during the red tag/everyone is a GM employee/it's march madness/art van is having there last sale EVER (until tomorrow) Biggest sale event of the year.
Great. So, we are a bunch of cheap bastards. Glad to know that I'm still in love with GM.

flat tax will never fly because the corporation's lobbyists in DC would throw a **** fit and start lobbing millions of dollars into senator's coffers to prevent it on the grounds that it would hurt corporate bottom lines

People have to buy things to live. Sales taxes are charged on those things.

So, let's say we have two households.

Household #1 is at the median income of $44,000.

Household #2 is between $100,000 and $200,000.

Both have 2 adults and 2 kids.


PacerX - I could continue to debate this but we're shying from the original topic. I've never been to Germany, and you've never read anything about taxes.
Fair.

However, fact is, Chrysler chose to HQ in Germany for one reason:
the difference in TAXES.

Mr. Loffredo, vice president of DaimlerChrysler, during a testimony before Congress offered the following in hopes to inspire tax reform; “The U.S tax system puts global companies at a decisive disadvantage. [W]hen the time came to chose whether the new company should be a U.S company or a foreign company, management chose a company organized under the laws of Germany.” The would-be “ChryslerDaimler” would face a 67.5% tax rate, while the actual DaimlerChrysler, headquartered in Germany, pays only 44%.

Other thing (and this is why I know you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the FairTax (or any other tax reform plan for that matter) is that under the FairTax everyone is compensated based on family size (not income) on the taxes expected to pay for the "necessities in life."

In short, all the necessities are TAX FREE. A poor person, and Bill Gates both have the ability to spend their money up to the poverty level...tax free. However, for every Bently Bill buys, he will pay into the fed. reserve.

Oh, and for the record this "each to his own ABILITY" is from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

I'm not trying to have the final word here, however, I suggest we continue this discussion where it is appropriate. Check out this site: www.fairtaxforum.com if your interested. Im on that quite a bit.

PacerX - I could continue to debate this but we're shying from the original topic. I've never been to Germany, and you've never read anything about taxes.

Well now, there's an unfounded assumption.




Other thing (and this is why I know you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the FairTax (or any other tax reform plan for that matter) is that under the FairTax everyone is compensated based on family size (not income) on the taxes expected to pay for the "necessities in life."

While never at the FairyTax site, I can assure you that I am well familiar with taxes.

And in the end, it's just a shell game.

If companies pay less, individuals are going to pay more.


In short, all the necessities are TAX FREE. A poor person, and Bill Gates both have the ability to spend their money up to the poverty level...tax free.

And there's the devil in the details right there.

What, precisely, is a "necessity" according to this plan.

Gasoline?
Clothing?
Food?

Fork over a comprehensive list of all the necessities and then explain how you are going to recover the lower net amount for the Federal Reserve (and don't forget state taxes...).

Specifically, who's pocket is it coming out of?


Oh, and for the record this "each to his own ABILITY" is from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

Junior, politically speaking I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, so save the "Pacer's a Pinko" crap for the labotomy outpatients you deal with on other boards.


I'm not trying to have the final word here, however, I suggest we continue this discussion where it is appropriate.

Then why did you post it here in the first place? Simple. You wanted to have the audience at this site see your little diatribe on how you're going to change the tax code and make life all peace and love and good happiness stuff.

Shell game.

All you're doing is shifting the burden around. The net intake of dollars remains the same, and if either you or I or DCX pay less, somebody else pays more, end of story.

Addressing that is the core issue, and I have yet to see in practical terms how you are going to cut taxes for one group - relatively high income folks like me and corporations, without increasing the tax burden on others. At best, the only benefit you get without doing the above is by simplifying the tax code and thereby lowering the amount of money budgeted for the IRS - which is kind of like treating a sucking chest wound (rampant spending at the Federal level) with an aspirin.

And the final fact of the matter is that you can't, no matter what scheme you come up with that changes the tax code, so spare me (and anyone else) the time and the electrons and come up with the better plan - cutting spending at the Federal level.

Buick is the backbone of GM, but yet they have nothing with curb appeal.

I disagree.

The backbone of GM is spelled "C-H-E-V-R-O-L-E-T".

I disagree.

The backbone of GM is spelled "C-H-E-V-R-O-L-E-T".

And the soul is spelled "C-A-D-I-L-L-A-C".

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Everything in the middle is in need of some fixin'...

A couple patients are nearly terminal (Saab, Buick...) so either shoot 'em or fix 'em.

I think, as long as the IRS treats individuals as coprorate entities, INCOME should be as defined in Websters, as Corporation, what positive cash flow you have after your anual expenses...but I'm not an Accountant, just a Lay person's observation.

The soul of Chevrolet is spelled C-A-M-A-R-O.....and it's obvious that it's been missing since it was put on hiatus.....

I think, as long as the IRS treats individuals as coprorate entities, INCOME should be as defined in Websters, as Corporation, what positive cash flow you have after your anual expenses...but I'm not an Accountant, just a Lay person's observation.

Hey, something we actually agree on.

I have heard of families incorporating. The PITA is you have to keep damn good records. Save your receipts!

The soul of Chevrolet is spelled C-A-M-A-R-O.....and it's obvious that it's been missing since it was put on hiatus.....

Don't get me wrong, the Camaro is my beloved friend...

...but the soul of Chevrolet has 2 less seats, crossed flags on the hood, is THE American automotive icon, and is doing just fine.

I'm not exactly a proponent, but there are are a few compelling arguments for a flat tax.

1) No need for giant government bureaucracy to collect taxes
2) Hard for rich people to hide their income and not pay any taxes due to loopholes.
3) Average people can fill out their own tax returns
There are others, but I'm not that versed with the theory...

Eastern Europe is having good luck with it so far...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/04/nflat104.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/04/ixhome.html

Russia recently went to a flat tax and have enjoyed a big boost in their economic growth as well.

Flat tax = fair tax if you ask me. Everyone pays the same percentage of their income. IMO everyone should have to pay something too, with an exemption for the poverty level. Something like 50% of americans don't pay in or get everything back now...so they are no longer stakeholders and don't care how the money's spent. I have a problem with that. I think political demographics would shift overnight if all the sudden everybody had to pay in something.

Further more, I think they should end witholding. Nothing will make you into a limited-govt, low-tax conservative like writing a big fat check to the IRS every spring.

The problem facing GM is not the tax code. While I symathize with the National sales tax crowd, you're just going to create a massive black market to escape the 23% tax on top of state and local sales taxes. Plus as Pacer X has pointed out, sales taxes are pretty regressive and impact the lower income folks more to some degree. Lets fix the system we have, get rid of all the crazy exemptions, deductions, armies of IRS auditors, and go to a 10 or 15% flat tax system with a deduction for any income under poverty level. So everybody's first $15,000 or so would be untaxed, everything over that at 10%

News flash: CONSUMERS PAY ALL TAXES. Corporations don't "pay" taxes at all. Sure they might write checks to the IRS, but the cost of their taxes are buried in their costs and passed on to the consumers. All businesses operate this way because they have to recover their costs to stay in business. Private consumers, aka you and me, end up paying all taxes. Business taxes we pay through the purchase prices of the goods.

Sales tax is a tax on the business too, it just gets passed through. The consumer is not required to pay it...the business owner is. Its added on at the end instead of buried in the sticker price like the other business taxes.

Don't get me wrong, the Camaro is my beloved friend...

...but the soul of Chevrolet has 2 less seats, crossed flags on the hood, is THE American automotive icon, and is doing just fine.


I've always considered the Corvette the Heart of Chevrolet...what they hold most 'dear' and the Camaro it's Soul....who they really are.

I've always considered the Corvette the Heart of Chevrolet...what they hold most 'dear' and the Camaro it's Soul....who they really are.

K, then we're just having a semantic issue.

One is an icon, the other is close in stature... and closer to the norm in intent... and they are symbiotic. The one feeds the other and vice versa.

Which is kind of why I never wanted to see Camaro fall underneath a VLE that was concurrently responsible for Corvette. They will always be related, but they are not the same thing, and shouldn't be considered in the same breath since Corvette will invaribly overshadow Camaro in most people's hearts.

If you can't read what we wrote then whats your gripe with it?

We can read it, it just gives us a headache :) Your opinion might come across a little better if we didn't need a Dictionary to Decipher Poorly Written Posts to figure out what the hell you just said :)

Is it just me, or is it really hilarious that those who knock cars like the Impala, Cobalt and HHR are those driving cars over 10 years old, and aren't even in the market for a new car anyway? Maybe if they were, and drove some of the new cars out there, they might actually find the merit to them?

I'm very sad GM can't cater to the 16-25 year old, 10+ year old F body crowd :( A pity...

And WERM, your paraphrasing of the typical conversation I have with Honda owners is the EXACT problem I have been bitching about around here for 4-5 years now. I don't see how it can change, short of a major media blitz :(

Your opinion might come across a little better if we didn't need a Dictionary to Decipher Poorly Written Posts to figure out what the hell you just said :)

Where do I download one of those?

Is it just me, or is it really hilarious that those who knock cars like the Impala, Cobalt and HHR are those driving cars over 10 years old, and aren't even in the market for a new car anyway? Maybe if they were, and drove some of the new cars out there, they might actually find the merit to them?
:(

Good point. And who cares if the HHR is a PT cruiser knock off if it sells well?

who cares how someone spells as long as you can read it?
Complaining about spelling is just a cop out on the original subject as to which you have no further useful argument.
So as we get older we should forget the 10+ cars and focus on 4-door impalas?
How about forget the Beatles,Rolling Stones and so on to listen to The "Backdoor boys"?

News flash: CONSUMERS PAY ALL TAXES. Corporations don't "pay" taxes at all. True, I've heard this from many sources, part of my reason for saying families should be allowed to file in the same manner.
Could you imagine if companies had to pay taxes off the top of their weekly earnings??
Didn't it used to be, just: Property Tax, Sales Tax, and Tarrifs on Imports??

If companies pay less, individuals are going to pay more.
...
And there's the devil in the details right there.
What, precisely, is a "necessity" according to this plan.

Gasoline?
Clothing?
Food?

Fork over a comprehensive list of all the necessities and then explain how you are going to recover the lower net amount for the Federal Reserve (and don't forget state taxes...).


Junior, politically speaking I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, so save the "Pacer's a Pinko" crap for the labotomy outpatients you deal with on other boards.



Then why did you post it here in the first place?

PacerX-
For someone who could possibly be barking up the same tree, you're becoming a bit hostle.

I'll go in order.

(1) If companies pay less, individuals are going to pay more.

And who do you think pays for the company's taxes now? If you think corporations pay an income tax, think again. We do. Taxes are a cost of doing business. They filter down until they reach the final cost of the good.

(2) What, precisely, is a "necessity" according to this plan.

That is the best part. YOU get to decide. Every month you are reimbursed the EXPECTED taxes paid what the necessities in life based on your household size. That figure is the same figure we use today, as determined by the HHC (Health & Human Services) for calculating the poverty level. Whatever the determined poverty level based on your family size, you are reimbursed for the EXPECTED taxes paid for necessities in life.

For example, if you are a single filing individual you would receive roughly $180 a month reimbursement on the taxes for these necessities. Now, this puts responsibility back into the hands of the people and gets rid of government telling us how we have to make decisions in life. With that reimbursment, you can either buy more crack, or invest in your savings. Your choice. There's no need for me to bother you with more details, this is "just a shell game," as you put it.

(3) Junior, politically speaking I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, so save the "Pacer's a Pinko" crap for the labotomy outpatients you deal with on other boards.

Name calling won't get you anywhere, Senior. And, for the record, your political affiliation really doesnt matter. Sure, we can make generalizations, but its pointless. You either get it or you dont.

(4) And, the reason WHY I brought this into the mix is clearly mentioned in my first post--because it is because of our INCOME TAX on American production we continue to witness our companies outsource, slip in rank, and lay off more and more individuals.

Pacer, it bothers me that you would rather justify an inefficient tax code than listen to a reasonable alternative. Is the FairTax truely possible? Only if we get enough people believing in it. Not everyone, just enough. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is. Is it an improvment? Yes, and many other ideas are simply because it is impossibleto define fair and effective when your tax system is as broken and unfair as ours. You bash my motivations as if I took a dump in your cereal this morning.

You know, the revolutionary war was also hatefully opposed. 75% of the colonists opposed the war. All it took was a few believers.

Sales tax was created by the devil.

who cares how someone spells as long as you can read it?
Complaining about spelling is just a cop out on the original subject as to which you have no further useful argument.
So as we get older we should forget the 10+ cars and focus on 4-door impalas?
How about forget the Beatles,Rolling Stones and so on to listen to The "Backdoor boys"?

1) Is there some comprehension threshold inherent to this post that some people posting in it have failed to achieve? How compelling of an argument can you make if it takes someone forever to figure it out? It weakens your message, and makes you look stupid in the process. Something tells me others on here will agree.

2) Uhm, I like your theory on 10+ year old cars. It shows me you have no clue what the hell I'm talking about, and it also shows you didn't even bother to read my post either...which brings me back to the whole level of comprehension argument, but I digress.

3) Anyway, the theory I am using is that the people on this thread complaining about the new designs are driving 10+ year old used F bodies, and probably range in age from 16-25. I have news for you. If you don't like the Impala, that's ok...GM doesn't care if you like it anyway. You probably don't like a Camry either, which is exactly the same market the Impala is going after! If you don't like the HHR, that's ok too...because you aren't a 40 year old female, which is typically the type of person who will buy an HHR. Basically, what I'm saying is just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean "it sucks." Neither of those cars are supposed to cater to you anyway. And seeing as how many whiners apparently own 10+ year old cars, how soon do you plan to purchase a brand new car anyway?

I hope my points are clearer now. I even used impeccable English, to help facilitate my point :D

Oh, and as for my "cop out" on the original message in this thread? I didn't cop out...I just think you're flat wrong.

3) Anyway, the theory I am using is that the people on this thread complaining about the new designs are driving 10+ year old used F bodies, and probably range in age from 16-25. I have news for you. If you don't like the Impala, that's ok...GM doesn't care if you like it anyway. You probably don't like a Camry either, which is exactly the same market the Impala is going after! If you don't like the HHR, that's ok too...because you aren't a 40 year old female, which is typically the type of person who will buy an HHR. Basically, what I'm saying is just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean "it sucks." Neither of those cars are supposed to cater to you anyway. And seeing as how many whiners apparently own 10+ year old cars, how soon do you plan to purchase a brand new car anyway?



Well put. However, allow me to throw this one out.

What if you aren't a 40 year old female and happen to like much about the HHR?
For example, I'm a mid-20s soon-to-be Dad. My wife and I before purchasing a Saturn Vue were considering the HHR due to the "Employee Discount" pricing.
I probably thought it looked cooler than she did, but inside, that thing is very nice! All the extra features, down to the iPod controlled stereo scream "youth-inspired."
What Im getting at is, maybe GM did have the younger gen. in mind. Maybe, they were trying to peel away from the Scion box (whatever they call that boxey, van thing), Toyota Matrix, and Pontiac Vibe market?
If they are trying to add youthful market appeal to a car, and the general response from the youth is "it sucks," then maybe they fell short in their design. ??

*Please note, it's probably very likely that our award winning, MTV-soaked, youth would use such advanced diction as "it sucks."

Personally, although Im kinda an "old-young guy" (mid 20s, homeowenr, business owner, married, family man typically do not describe 20 year olds), I did consider the HHR for a hot minute, but they fell short in their ability to really grab us. Ultimatley, we went with the Saturn, not because it was cheaper, but because we thought it looked better.

To me, the HHR is just a bit too long. If they got rid of that school-bus looking side, it would be pretty sweet. --Aside from the fact that it's also real late in the market... how many PT cruisers are out there now??

Just my $0.02

...So as we get older we should forget the 10+ cars and focus on 4-door impalas?
How about forget the Beatles,Rolling Stones and so on to listen to The "Backdoor boys"?

Actually it's like forgetting about Ataris and focusing on the X-box.

Keep up, will ya?

Well put. However, allow me to throw this one out.

What if you aren't a 40 year old female and happen to like much about the HHR?
For example, I'm a mid-20s soon-to-be Dad. My wife and I before purchasing a Saturn Vue were considering the HHR due to the "Employee Discount" pricing.
I probably thought it looked cooler than she did, but inside, that thing is very nice! All the extra features, down to the iPod controlled stereo scream "youth-inspired."
What Im getting at is, maybe GM did have the younger gen. in mind. Maybe, they were trying to peel away from the Scion box (whatever they call that boxey, van thing), Toyota Matrix, and Pontiac Vibe market?
If they are trying to add youthful market appeal to a car, and the general response from the youth is "it sucks," then maybe they fell short in their design. ??

*Please note, it's probably very likely that our award winning, MTV-soaked, youth would use such advanced diction as "it sucks."

Personally, although Im kinda an "old-young guy" (mid 20s, homeowenr, business owner, married, family man typically do not describe 20 year olds), I did consider the HHR for a hot minute, but they fell short in their ability to really grab us. Ultimatley, we went with the Saturn, not because it was cheaper, but because we thought it looked better.

To me, the HHR is just a bit too long. If they got rid of that school-bus looking side, it would be pretty sweet. --Aside from the fact that it's also real late in the market... how many PT cruisers are out there now??

Just my $0.02

I can't argue with your logic. All I can say is the thing is gaining market share for GM here in California, and it seems to have younger drivers than the PT does.

Not early twentysomthings maybe, but seemingly under thirty. :think:

And the soul is spelled "C-A-D-I-L-L-A-C".

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Everything in the middle is in need of some fixin'...

A couple patients are nearly terminal (Saab, Buick...) so either shoot 'em or fix 'em.

Need to fix quick. Kill Buick, like they did Olds, and watch that GM doesn't just become a distributor.

About my standings in the marketplace-
I have had my fair share of GM products. But through it all, my daily driver, the rivi, has been the one to outlast them all. God, I love that 3.8! And you chevy guys can appreciate that, after all it was under the hood of the Monte and the Impala for years....hands down, aside from the LS1/LS2 that was once of the most outstanding engine GM produced.
I'm a Buick chick, but that doesn't mean I don't throw chevy some love too, my dad has had C5s in the past, my boyfriend has a chevy ss camaro, and I have worked in retail for 3 years selling GM products I see some things that could use improvement, but don't we all.

If you kill our heritage, what do you have left?

All the extra features, down to the iPod controlled stereo scream "youth-inspired."


I don't know about you, but to me a radio that can accomidate MP3 players doesn't scream "youth-inspired" it screams "up to date." To me, a simple CD player screams "might as well be an 8 track player" these days. Before you go saying that I must be really young, well, I'm not.

I don't know about you, but to me a radio that can accomidate MP3 players doesn't scream "youth-inspired" it screams "up to date." To me, a simple CD player screams "might as well be an 8 track player" these days. Before you go saying that I must be really young, well, I'm not.

I wouldnt argue you. Id say since the iPods (and similar mp3 players) continue to revolutionize the music industry we're going to see a continuing trend to focus on mp3 playback instead of cd-players.

Therefore a iPod player in the car would be "up-to-date."

BUT, how many 40 year old women are seen wearing those clicky bright white earbuds?

I still think the "iPod feature" was geared to invite the youth.

I still think the "iPod feature" was geared to invite the youth.
How about to lead the way?? :confused: I have NO idea how many other companies are selling cars with "iPod" hook-ups, but maybe GM thought they'd try to be (one of) the first?:thumb: For a change;). That's been their problem for so long, is waiting to see what everyone else does first (huh, huh, I guess that's the whole argument about the HHR, eh?:D) but at least it's got an iPod, and the PT Cruiser doesn't!! :p