Fear of owning a car made by a defunct car company...

...seems to be making a huge impact on the buying decision of everyone around me.

My dad who has always bought American so long as they had an offering somewhere in the realm of the foreign competition was just mentioning that to me last night when I told him I really liked the new LaCrosse and was pointing out the stellar deal that could be had on a 2009 Malibu at the moment.

He really likes the new Malibu and is interested in the LaCrosse like I am, but he's pretty concerned about the future of GM. So are my friends and coworkers. It seems right when GM is making the right products that people like, they no longer have the image of stability that they need to back the product.

Here are the questions I pose:
-What do you think the odds are that GM will go completely under within the next 10 years?

-What do you think is the difference between what consumers fear will happen and what most likely will happen if GM does go under?

-What can GM do to alleviate those fears? It's like the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about... including GM. "What if"?


Bonus thought:
If GM does go under, I expect it to wake up a stronger sense of national pride among a lot of people in the US who will try harder to buy US-made products. I also expect many of GM's customers to go to Ford (far more than will go to Toyota, for example).

If GM does go under it could provide a substantial boost for Ford... let's hope if that does play out that Ford rides that wave into success and dominance and doesn't let it make them get lazy and complacent, much as I feel GM did to get themselves into their position today.

GM needs to start a SERIOUS ad campaign with the theme of, "It's up to you" comparing their current offerings to the competition on a brutal, point-by-point, value-for-value basis. Maybe even in 2-minute infomercial format.

They need to communicate that the quality gap is closed, or even tilted in their favor. And when it's readily apparent that there's really no difference between Camcord and Malibu, (or whatever and whatever) except on the most insanely nit-picky or opinion-based levels, they need to lay it out: One is a vote for the future and for your country, the other is a vote for immediate selfish gratification, based on no sound foundation.

And put it right there: "It's up to you."

-What do you think the odds are that GM will go completely under within the next 10 years?
i think it is very possible, but I personally feel they are going to tough through it and we will all be able to buy our 2025 vette or camaro. :cool: *have faith ppl

-What do you think is the difference between what consumers fear will happen and what most likely will happen if GM does go under?
as much as it saddens me to say it. the way our country/govnt is leaning if they DID happen to go out in the next adm., the feds would prob take over the warranties on the vehicles.

-What can GM do to alleviate those fears? It's like the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about... including GM. "What if"?
isnt this the million... o, i mean trillian is the new million to the feds.. dollar question?

-What do you think the odds are that GM will go completely under within the next 10 years?
Zero.

-What do you think is the difference between what consumers fear will happen and what most likely will happen if GM does go under?
I think the typical consumer things that GM and all of its dealerships will magically disappear, and they haven't put any further thought into it.

What would actually happen is economic catastrophe. Fully one quarter of United States workforce will lose their jobs. Our GDP will fall by 10% or more. The value of the dollar will go in the tank (farther). The results would get worse and worse in a chain reaction that would not end for a long, long time. The total cost of this failure would likely exceed one trillion dollars.

-What can GM do to alleviate those fears? It's like the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about... including GM. "What if"?
GM should come right out and say, publicly, that they screwed for many years. Their board and their executives focused too much on short term profits on Wall Street, and not enough on the product. They should apologize, and then they should say that it has finally come back to bite them.

They should then describe the catastrophic chain reaction I described above, to the best of their ability, without going into too much financial detail (because that will make the average consumer confused and they'll stop listening). They should give an estimate of the total cost of that failure, and point out that said failure would fall on taxpayers. Then they should say that the only viable way out of this is with government assistance, and plead with the general public to continue funding them while they turn around.

As a token of good faith, GM should point out all of the great cars they've made recently, and they should announce major changes in the lineup that eliminate or replace all of the not-so-great cars within a specified timeline (I think five years would be reasonable, given sufficient funding). They should be public and honest about the cars that weren't so great.

They should point to the Malibu, CTS, G8, Camaro (once it's out), Corvette, the Lambdas and the GMT900s, the new Lacrosse, etc., and say, "look, this is what we're capable of." And then they should point to cars like the Pontiac G3 and say, "but this is what happens when we're short on cash and need to make a quick, easy buck just to keep the doors open."

Having pointed that out, they should come up with an honest estimate of how much money they need to turn things around. Here's a hint: it's at least $125 billion (that may be reduced somewhat by the money they've received recently). They should say, "we know that's a lot of money, but it's a tiny fraction of what would cost you to let us fail, and we believe in this country and want it to prosper. This option is the lesser of two evils, and believe us, we wish we didn't have to ask. With your support, we will turn GM around and reclaim our long-lost status as the world's best automaker."

They should commit publicly to a reasonable executive salary cap, and to as many other transparent (i.e. obvious to the public) reductions in their expenses as they can find.

They've already done some of these things, but I don't think they've gone far enough yet.

If GM does go under it could provide a substantial boost for Ford...
Fail. If GM goes under, the suppliers go under too. And if the suppliers go under, Ford goes under. As JasonD is fond of saying, there is no safe distance.

Here are the questions I pose:
-What do you think the odds are that GM will go completely under within the next 10 years?

-What do you think is the difference between what consumers fear will happen and what most likely will happen if GM does go under?

-What can GM do to alleviate those fears? It's like the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about... including GM. "What if"?


Bonus thought:
If GM does go under, I expect it to wake up a stronger sense of national pride among a lot of people in the US who will try harder to buy US-made products. I also expect many of GM's customers to go to Ford (far more than will go to Toyota, for example).

I think the odds of them going totally under, as in Chapter 7, are low no more than 25% and I think even if they did the feds would step in one way or another. Some sort of radical reorganization is still possible though.

Most of the people I know aren't thinking about what would happen if they bought a new car because it's not really on their radar, I'm sure it's a consideration for people in higher income brackets though. What I think would happen is that the brands, dealers and everythign else would get sold piecemeal, which could be really bad for warranty holders. The government becoming responsible for all those warranties though, would be a Kafkaesque nightmare.

I don't think there is much they can do change it, other than stop the bleeding, which will be difficult.

And to that last point, the people who honestly believe a collapse of a major automaker would be good for this country will continue believing it, for at least 6 months or so, until thousands of midwesteners start migrating to the coasts and the sunbelts and saturating the job market as well as every public service.

Zero.
Impossible.


What would actually happen is economic catastrophe. Fully one quarter of United States workforce will lose their jobs. Our GDP will fall by 10% or more. The value of the dollar will go in the tank (farther). The results would get worse and worse in a chain reaction that would not end for a long, long time. The total cost of this failure would likely exceed one trillion dollars.

I think your lack of distance from the situation has you blowing it out of proportion. There is no way that GM's going under would cause one quarter of the US to lose their jobs.


GM should come right out and say, publicly, that they screwed for many years.
They already have. In two different ad campaigns in the last 5 years. If you're unfamiliar with those campaigns then maybe they need to do another one that's more far-reaching.

They should then describe the catastrophic chain reaction I described above, to the best of their ability, without going into too much financial detail (because that will make the average consumer confused and they'll stop listening). They should give an estimate of the total cost of that failure, and point out that said failure would fall on taxpayers. Then they should say that the only viable way out of this is with government assistance, and plead with the general public to continue funding them while they turn around.

As a token of good faith, GM should point out all of the great cars they've made recently, and they should announce major changes in the lineup that eliminate or replace all of the not-so-great cars within a specified timeline (I think five years would be reasonable, given sufficient funding). They should be public and honest about the cars that weren't so great.

They should point to the Malibu, CTS, G8, Camaro (once it's out), Corvette, the Lambdas and the GMT900s, the new Lacrosse, etc., and say, "look, this is what we're capable of." And then they should point to cars like the Pontiac G3 and say, "but this is what happens when we're short on cash and need to make a quick, easy buck just to keep the doors open."

Having pointed that out, they should come up with an honest estimate of how much money they need to turn things around. Here's a hint: it's at least $125 billion (that may be reduced somewhat by the money they've received recently). They should say, "we know that's a lot of money, but it's a tiny fraction of what would cost you to let us fail, and we believe in this country and want it to prosper. This option is the lesser of two evils, and believe us, we wish we didn't have to ask. With your support, we will turn GM around and reclaim our long-lost status as the world's best automaker."

They should commit publicly to a reasonable executive salary cap, and to as many other transparent (i.e. obvious to the public) reductions in their expenses as they can find.

It's amazing how much thought and effort you've put into this considering you've already stated they have zero chance of failing. Especially since the question I posed was not how should they keep from failing, it was what can GM do to alleviate the public's fear of their potential failure (and the corresponding potential lack of warranty/parts support that would come as a result).

Fail. If GM goes under, the suppliers go under too. And if the suppliers go under, Ford goes under. As JasonD is fond of saying, there is no safe distance.
Some suppliers would go under, not all, and others that could hang on would reap the benefits... it's like survival of the fittest... when the economy turns south the weaker competitions dies out and makes a better market for the stronger guys that weathered the storm.
And whatever repercussions Ford suffered as a result would similarly impact any foreign car manufacturers using those same suppliers.


I seriously think your lack of distance from GM is keeping you from perceiving this realistically... you've bought into the uber doom and gloom scenario. Not saying it's not possible but you seem to be so sure of this, and yet so sure that GM will not fail, either.:think:

Even Toyota said that it would take an affect on their supplier network. GM may die, but Chevrolet , Cadillac, GMC and Buick(China only maybe) will be around.

And to that last point, the people who honestly believe a collapse of a major automaker would be good for this country will continue believing it, for at least 6 months or so, until thousands of midwesteners start migrating to the coasts and the sunbelts and saturating the job market as well as every public service.

I don't think it would be good for the country but I do believe the results wouldn't be ALL bad.

I think you've misinterpreted my post.

I also think that if you feel I've overstated the consequences of failure, that you don't know enough about the industry, and the industries that support it.

Impossible.
Without government aid, the odds of failure are 100%. I just don't see any way it could be allowed to fail, because that scenario is obviously unmanageable.

They already have. In two different ad campaigns in the last 5 years. If you're unfamiliar with those campaigns then maybe they need to do another one that's more far-reaching.
I am not familiar with those. Were they TV ads?

Regardless, they need to reiterate it as part of the rest of the stuff I am suggesting.

Some suppliers would go under, not all, and others that could hang on would reap the benefits...
Industry lead times are simply too long for this to work.

If GM goes under it will start an avalanche that will topple the entire industry. Is it possible? Yes. However if it does happen many more will follow. If you honestly believe the GM is doomed, you'd have a better chance buying a car from a chinese manufacturer if you want the best odds of the company still being around in 10 years.

I think that nothing will help until at least the March 31st deadline because everything up to that point is speculation. With the stimulus fight that just happened no one knows whether the President will have the same type of pull with the automakers coming back to town if the reports aren't so good.

...seems to be making a huge impact on the buying decision of everyone around me.

My dad who has always bought American so long as they had an offering somewhere in the realm of the foreign competition was just mentioning that to me last night when I told him I really liked the new LaCrosse and was pointing out the stellar deal that could be had on a 2009 Malibu at the moment.

He really likes the new Malibu and is interested in the LaCrosse like I am, but he's pretty concerned about the future of GM. So are my friends and coworkers. It seems right when GM is making the right products that people like, they no longer have the image of stability that they need to back the product.

Here are the questions I pose:
-What do you think the odds are that GM will go completely under within the next 10 years?

-What do you think is the difference between what consumers fear will happen and what most likely will happen if GM does go under?

-What can GM do to alleviate those fears? It's like the elephant in the room that nobody's talking about... including GM. "What if"?


Bonus thought:
If GM does go under, I expect it to wake up a stronger sense of national pride among a lot of people in the US who will try harder to buy US-made products. I also expect many of GM's customers to go to Ford (far more than will go to Toyota, for example).

If GM does go under it could provide a substantial boost for Ford... let's hope if that does play out that Ford rides that wave into success and dominance and doesn't let it make them get lazy and complacent, much as I feel GM did to get themselves into their position today.

Threxx, you point out the issues people are having with a company that had to go to the government or else they would go under. Now imagine how people would react if the company actually went into bankruptcy. That would be "Game Over".

"Buy American" isn't the problem, isn't the answer, and is simply whistling into the wind. The public will always spend their money on the best product possible for the price.

It's up to our industry to compete, not simply to send jobs offshore or pull resources out of a well balenced product line simply to focus on a high profit (and venerable) segment. Or to cut cost at the expense of the same level of quality or better than what other top competitors have.

I don't want to beat up on just GM. Chrysler built their whole business model on trucks with cars as an afterthought (save the LX cars). Early this decade, Ford seemed to be cutting quality and customer service at every turn. GM's problems have been gone over many times.

But the answer is making a company competitive. If that involves changing management or mindsets, then that should be done. The day any of them can't compete, or has to hide behind a "Buy American" campaign instead of a g"Give us a look" campaign (ie: Lee Iacocca's "If you can find a better car, buy it!" Chrysler campaign) tyhat gets people to look and compare, then it's time for them to cash out and hand things over to someone else.

The Chinese seem eager to compete here.

And to that last point, the people who honestly believe a collapse of a major automaker would be good for this country will continue believing it, for at least 6 months or so, until thousands of midwesteners start migrating to the coasts and the sunbelts and saturating the job market as well as every public service.

You guys thought it was bad when New Orleans refugees started invading your towns?

Detroit alone has double the population of New Orleans. We won't even include the rest of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania...

The public will always spend their money on the best product possible for the price.

Only a tiny fraction of the public buys like that.

Most people buy the cheapest thing that will get the job done.

One of the Chevy Dealerships down the road here just closed a few days ago here in Greenville SC.

Y'know oddly enough a few years ago one of the reasons I bought my GT was because I thought Ford might not be around today. Given the exsistance of the aftermarket, number of Mustangs sold, and the prevalence of mod motors across Ford's various vehicle lines it didn't really bother me that they might not be here.

Y'know oddly enough a few years ago one of the reasons I bought my GT was because I thought Ford might not be around today. Given the exsistance of the aftermarket, number of Mustangs sold, and the prevalence of mod motors across Ford's various vehicle lines it didn't really bother me that they might not be here.

That's all well and good, but most new car models don't have that level of aftermarket support.

I don't think it would be good for the country but I do believe the results wouldn't be ALL bad.

For the midwest, I don't think the importance can be overestimated.

If GM went down hard, other makers will pick up some of the slack, yes, but the slack will not be equal to 100% of GM's volume, the cascading job loss and erosion of confidence would see to that.

Tons more people would pack up and leave, and then they'll be someone else's problem, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, and it's not as if those places didn't already have way more people than their infrastructure can handle...

The fear is certainly there and the media wields a lot of power if it continues to write negative material in the press.

Mitsubishi Motors Australia (MMA) underwent a similar scenario here when the media painted a less than rosey picture of their manufacturing future downunder... the media effectively killed their chances of success here in Australia despite the good product being built. Now Mitsubishi is a successful importer as opposed to a doomed local manufacturer... and the media can no longer write stories of doom about MMA.

I don't know if the American car companies will ever make a huge comeback.
They've been eroding market share for years.
People are continually switching away from American cars to foreign cars.

And now after this whole bail-out/loan debacle, it seems everyday Americans are making it a priority to make SURE they go down.
I read a lot of the non-auto message boards. I'd say 90% of the people on those forums are vehemently anti-American auto industry.

Hell, just look at this board, to all those people who came out of nowhere or signed up just to blast the American auto industry back in Nov. and Dec. (btw, what happened to all those people? If they weren't the definition of "troll" then I don't know what is. They'll probably be back in this thread, however).

I just think that the average American is done with the American auto industry and their products. I haven't seen anything that would make me think otherwise. And I don't think there is a damn thing the American auto industry can do about it.

I don't know if the American car companies will ever make a huge comeback.
They've been eroding market share for years.
People are continually switching away from American cars to foreign cars.

And now after this whole bail-out/loan debacle, it seems everyday Americans are making it a priority to make SURE they go down.
I read a lot of the non-auto message boards. I'd say 90% of the people on those forums are vehemently anti-American auto industry.

Hell, just look at this board, to all those people who came out of nowhere or signed up just to blast the American auto industry back in Nov. and Dec. (btw, what happened to all those people? If they weren't the definition of "troll" then I don't know what is. They'll probably be back in this thread, however).

I just think that the average American is done with the American auto industry and their products. I haven't seen anything that would make me think otherwise. And I don't think there is a damn thing the American auto industry can do about it.

It's not just the trolls but those with strong views on capitalism. But if you look around in every developed nation with a car industry, it's in urgent need of repair and govt loans are the last lifelines for some. Take France's ailing car industry for example, it's not just American companies. Capitalism just makes poor nations richer while eroding the manufacturing industries of the developed nations. This tends to suit the banks, oil companies and governments just fine, however, but then the government tries to step in when it's supposedly all too late.

Just my observations.

For the midwest, I don't think the importance can be overestimated.

If GM went down hard, other makers will pick up some of the slack, yes, but the slack will not be equal to 100% of GM's volume, the cascading job loss and erosion of confidence would see to that.

Tons more people would pack up and leave, and then they'll be someone else's problem, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, and it's not as if those places didn't already have way more people than their infrastructure can handle...

:yes:

I'd like to see the local job market absorb thousands of unskilled workers all dumped onto their plate at once. It would be impossible so many would leave, crowding into larger markets along with the other cast off workers who also had the same idea.

I can't even imagine how bad it would be for the mostly self contained economies of many places in the midwest. Cut millions of spending dollars out of an area in one fell swoop like that and things are likely to get extremely ugly quickly.

That's all well and good, but most new car models don't have that level of aftermarket support.

True, I was just commenting on how the possibility of Ford going defunct didn't deter me from my purchase - That said, I can certainly understand not wanting to buy, say a Volt if GM was about to go out of business since it would be next to impossible some years down the road to get parts for it.

... Just my observations.

Here's something Robert Reich's Blog (http://robertreich.blogspot.com/search?q=Distribution) that supports your observation a bit.

GM cannot fear people into buying thier cars. They cannot make a fear campaign again. That is a sign of weakness and it shines through. It scares people away from GM because we have the ability to sense weakness.

How can GM regain strength? Let me ask you this, what do women look for in a man?
Confidence.
Toyota is bleeding money, but are they scaring anyone?
Is Honda making commercials about millions of people losing thier jobs?

GM should stand there and show that they will be there for you. They need to come out and talk about how they will be there, they will be here for everyone, beyond making cars, but there for communities across the US, across the world.
GM needs to show people that they are not going away, they are not going to die and leave people with more problems.
Talk about the great cars, dont downplay others.

GM has a marketing and PR problem. It needs to be fixed asap. Everyone from LaNeve down need to be shown the door. These are the times where your strengths show through, and GM couldnt market the cure for cancer.

Only a tiny fraction of the public buys like that.

Most people buy the cheapest thing that will get the job done.

Fair enough.

However, I submit 2 items that both prove and disprove that thought.

The 4th gen V8 f-body had a 6 speed manual, better brakes, higher handling abilities, and IMHO, slightly better interior materials than a Mustang GT (yes, I said that being a Mustang fan... I'm nothing if not honest ;) ). Yet Mustang outsold all F-body combined by more than a 2 to 1 margin, despite both (in V8 form) having roughly the exact same price.

Same Camaro, different scenario.

The 4th gen Camaro was essentially dirt cheap at $22K. With incentives at the time, you could actually get a LS1 6 speed, 160+ mph Camaro for as little as $18K plus tax and registration. Roughly the cost of a well equpted Cavalier back then. A absolute steal, and should have had a line going out the door, right?

Yet, not only did no one buy it (all were loaded to the teeth or were more expensive SS models), in the final insult, although the Z28 was capable of 99/100s of what a Corvette was capable of and was half the base sticker price, the Corvette significantly outsold V8 Camaros the last couple if not few years both cars were in Chevy showrooms.


When it comes to economy and family cars, you are pretty accurate (though the fact that Hyundai hasn't dominated the market yet doesn't quite make it 100%). But as a whole, outside of those 2 exceptions, I think there's other factors that drive purchase decisions. Image and value likely trump simply getting the cheapest thing that works IMHO.

Only a tiny fraction of the public buys like that.

Most people buy the cheapest thing that will get the job done.

People don't buy the cheapest thing that will get the job done.

If they did that everyone would be buying hoopties off the used car market, nobody would be driving sports cars or luxury cars unless you define "job" as going fast or going somewhere in the lap of luxury, and SUV and light truck sales would probably be 1/5th of what they are today unless you define "job" as the preference of driving a vehicle much larger than you really need.

People aren't that mindless. They usually weigh a huge number of factors whether they realize it or not and quantify those into a rough value, and then see what car offers the most of their definition of value for the least amount of money. In other words, "bang for the buck", whereas bang is subjective on a person by person basis and buck is also a relative term depending on what that person can and wants to afford.

The 4th gen V8 f-body had a 6 speed manual, better brakes, higher handling abilities, and IMHO, slightly better interior materials than a Mustang GT (yes, I said that being a Mustang fan... I'm nothing if not honest ;) ). Yet Mustang outsold all F-body combined by more than a 2 to 1 margin, despite both (in V8 form) having roughly the exact same price.

i remember seeing in 03 two ads in the local paper. one was for a fairly loaded brand new at the time 2002 V6 camaro. the price was 31k. couple pages later there was an ad for essentially the same equipment in a 03 mustang GT. price? 28k.

same price they are not.


the only thing the camaro had more was t-tops.

i remember seeing in 03 two ads in the local paper. one was for a fairly loaded brand new at the time 2002 V6 camaro. the price was 31k.

I would have to assume that the price was inflated because Camaro had been cancelled, and the dealer was trying to sell it at a premium. "Be the last one to buy a Camaro!" or "Get it before it's gone!" etc.

People don't buy the cheapest thing that will get the job done.

Note: I said most people.

The new car market in the U.S. is what, 15 million cars (prior to the economic crash)?

So that's roughly 7.5% of the 18+ population (200 million) buying new cars. Let's imagine that the average new car buyer keeps their car 5 years, so I'll even multiply that percentage by 5. That works out to less than 40% of people, leaving more than 60% shopping on the used car market, or just sticking with what they already have.

60% is clearly an acceptable example of most. I know the math in my example is extremely vague, but I think that if you were to get more specific on the numbers, you'll find that the 40% figure is high, not low.

Most of the cars I see on the road are 3-10 years old. Which is exactly the kind of car that "gets the job done" for someone who doesn't do their own maintenance (which, again, is most people). In general, an older car than that is going to start costing more in maintenance, making it more expensive in the long run than a newer car. Most people go out and buy a new(er) car when their current one starts to get expensive to maintain.

Taking everything into account, that really is the cheapest thing that gets the job done.

Guy, regarding your example of Camaro vs. Corvette sales... neither buyer falls under the category of most people. If GM hits their ~50k/year target for the 2010 Camaro, that will still be less than 1% of the total new car market.

Note: I said most people.

Since you're getting all technical/legal with me on wording...immediately before your use of the word "most" you also said "Only a tiny fraction of the public buys like that." Strange how you ignored that line when you went back to make your case in this last reply. You had to have been looking right at it.;)

That would suggest your use of the word most was not referring to a simple majority (which 60% would be) but rather a vast majority (which 60% would not be).

The new car market in the U.S. is what, 15 million cars (prior to the economic crash)?

So that's roughly 7.5% of the 18+ population (200 million) buying new cars. Let's imagine that the average new car buyer keeps their car 5 years, so I'll even multiply that percentage by 5. That works out to less than 40% of people, leaving more than 60% shopping on the used car market, or just sticking with what they already have.

60% is clearly an acceptable example of most. I know the math in my example is extremely vague, but I think that if you were to get more specific on the numbers, you'll find that the 40% figure is high, not low.

Most of the cars I see on the road are 3-10 years old. Which is exactly the kind of car that "gets the job done" for someone who doesn't do their own maintenance (which, again, is most people). In general, an older car than that is going to start costing more in maintenance, making it more expensive in the long run than a newer car. Most people go out and buy a new(er) car when their current one starts to get expensive to maintain.

Taking everything into account, that really is the cheapest thing that gets the job done.

So your definition of a car that's 'the cheapest thing that gets the job done' is almost any used car? The same parameters still apply to used cars as new cars. If you are a soccer mom with 2 kids, you don't need a used Suburban, so you aren't just buying the cheapest thing that gets the job done. If you buy a used BMW or Lexus or Corvette or even Camaro for that matter you aren't buying the cheapest thing that gets the job done.

Unless you define "job" as what a person desires well in excess of what they actually need... but to me the job is the point A to point B practicality of a vehicle.

So all of the above math IMO doesn't change what you're saying... you can still very easily buy a used car that meets guionM's description that you said fits only a tiny fraction of the buying public

guion said:
"The public will always spend their money on the best product possible for the price."

And while the word always isn't correct, your statement that only a tiny fraction of the public buys that way, from where I sit, is also incorrect.

i remember seeing in 03 two ads in the local paper. one was for a fairly loaded brand new at the time 2002 V6 camaro. the price was 31k. couple pages later there was an ad for essentially the same equipment in a 03 mustang GT. price? 28k.

same price they are not.


the only thing the camaro had more was t-tops.

MSRP for a base 2002 Camaro Z28 coupe in 2002 was $22,700.

MSRP for a base 2002 Mustang GT hardtop in 2002 was $22,965.

.....Nuff said. ;)

MSRP for a base 2002 Camaro Z28 coupe in 2002 was $22,700.

MSRP for a base 2002 Mustang GT hardtop in 2002 was $22,965.

.....Nuff said. ;)

Man, my my 02 was 25k and was pretty loaded (only thing I didn't have was the shaker 1000) my 07 GT was loaded for its time and just lacked the Nav (which knocked out the Shaker 1000) and was 30k.

Wasn't the base GT 05-09 cars about 25k?

Ford wasn't kidding when they said the S-197 was very profitable looking at the difference in price between the base 02 and my 02 compared to the base S-197 to my 07

GM cannot fear people into buying thier cars. They cannot make a fear campaign again. That is a sign of weakness and it shines through. It scares people away from GM because we have the ability to sense weakness.

How can GM regain strength? Let me ask you this, what do women look for in a man?
Confidence.
Toyota is bleeding money, but are they scaring anyone?
Is Honda making commercials about millions of people losing thier jobs?

GM should stand there and show that they will be there for you. They need to come out and talk about how they will be there, they will be here for everyone, beyond making cars, but there for communities across the US, across the world.
GM needs to show people that they are not going away, they are not going to die and leave people with more problems.
Talk about the great cars, dont downplay others.

GM has a marketing and PR problem. It needs to be fixed asap. Everyone from LaNeve down need to be shown the door. These are the times where your strengths show through, and GM couldnt market the cure for cancer.

In case you missed it, Al, GM has been doing exactly what you are suggesting for the past 7-8 years..... and they aren't exactly rolling in the money right now... and haven't all decade.

All the whistling in the dark, and PR polishing doesn't cover for terrible planning and a flawed & reactionary management system.

People catch on.... even if it takes years.

MSRP for a base 2002 Camaro Z28 coupe in 2002 was $22,700.

MSRP for a base 2002 Mustang GT hardtop in 2002 was $22,965.

.....Nuff said. ;) in canada? plus i don't care. those were the prices. doesn't matter one ounce wtf you say about it.:p


and the camaro wasn't base.

I would have to assume that the price was inflated because Camaro had been cancelled, and the dealer was trying to sell it at a premium. "Be the last one to buy a Camaro!" or "Get it before it's gone!" etc.no i just think it was MSRP and the GT wasn't.

MSRP for a base 2002 Camaro Z28 coupe in 2002 was $22,700

no i just think it was MSRP and the GT wasn't.

See Guy's quote above -- a base Z28 MSRP was $22,700. My well-equipped '02 Z28 (all options except CD changer, convertible, and SS) was ~28k new.

Are you really suggesting that an '02 V6 stickered for 31K?

As discussed, there should be a govt task force charged with the responsibility of reviving the car industry.

OT: Btw, how is it that 'expensive to live' Germany can sustain 4 domestic automakers (VW/Audi, BMW, Merc and Opel(?)) but the USA cannot?

OT: Btw, how is it that 'expensive to live' Germany can sustain 4 domestic automakers (VW/Audi, BMW, Merc and Opel(?)) but the USA cannot?

Germany isn't filled with contemptuous hateful self loathing indignant bastards hell bent on destroying the very pillars of thier economy?

Germany isn't filled with contemptuous hateful self loathing indignant bastards hell bent on destroying the very pillars of thier economy?

No, they just transferred their issues to the USA post WW2.