The Fall of GM

click here for full size image (http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/fallofgmwallstats.jpg)

http://www.wallstats.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/fallofgmwallstats.jpg

General Motors return on assets is NEGATIVE 4.3%.

Profit margin is NEGATIVE 13.4%.

LOST $22.8 billion last year.

Stocks have 91.9% of it's value in 52 weeks.

GM's stock price as I write this is $2.08 per share.
1 year ago, it was $26.13 per share.
5 years ago, it was $48.89 per share.


GM has over $27.5 billion in debt owed to bondholders to the company. It's unsecured, so it was bought on "faith" of GM's turnaround. It's currently worth 15 cents for each dollar invested.

Hard to find any good new here.


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GM
http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/stock_perf/hist_price.jsp

Wow, if GM does a serious 180 degree turnaround, it might not be a bad idea to pick up some GM stock!

At least their stock is higher than FOMOCO right now.

Long live General Motors! :D

Wow, if GM does a serious 180 degree turnaround, it might not be a bad idea to pick up some GM stock!

At least their stock is higher than FOMOCO right now.

Long live General Motors! :D

I think the gov will keep them trucking, maybe re-organize them... I don't think I would dump my 401k into GM stock though ;)

Wow, if GM does a serious 180 degree turnaround, it might not be a bad idea to pick up some GM stock!

At least their stock is higher than FOMOCO right now.

Long live General Motors! :D

Well...you know what they say....

...till the day YOU actually put YOUR money on the line, all you're doing is talking out your.....er.... behind.

Wow, if GM does a serious 180 degree turnaround, it might not be a bad idea to pick up some GM stock!

At least their stock is higher than FOMOCO right now.

Long live General Motors! :D

Yet, Fords market cap is about 3X that of GM.

You have to remember that Ford has close to 4 times as much stock out there, as GM has.

If you are thinking of buying GM stock, think about it, like you would a weekend in Vegas. Just make sure that it is money that you don't really need.

Roulette > GM stock

what about F stock? they're not nearly as bad off and are expected to survive.

what about F stock? they're not nearly as bad off and are expected to survive.

With the 2009 global production estimates down to 9 million, I wouldn't invest in any company closely related to the automotive industry.

I'm not sure Hybrids/EV couldn't have been one chunk. They aren't making any impact on anyone's bottom line, and even if GM had went full steam ahead on an electric vehicle we don't have the ideal batteries now...

what about F stock? they're not nearly as bad off and are expected to survive.

I see no reason to invest in anything related to the auto industry until auto sales start climbing again. JD Power excepts both 2009 and 2010 to be 10 million sales or less.

"It's a perception issue, the media is biased, and truck sales are really hurting because of the economy."

Yup...Keep drinking to that and maybe the truth won't hurt as much. :cry:

Long live the Camaro! But basically I do not like anything else about GM. They better promise to do better in their next life, wherever and whenever that is.

Out of exasperation, I'd made up my mind to leave this site for a while due to all the anti-GM garbage that's allowed to be posted here. But on second thought, maybe I'll chime in now and then, just to lob in a grenade.

The very FIRST (topmost) item in that chart is incorrect. GM was the FIRST carmaker to sell an airbag-equipped vehicle to the public.

http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/air_bags.htm

Well...you know what they say....

...till the day YOU actually put YOUR money on the line, all you're doing is talking out your.....er.... behind.

All 3 vehicles in my driveway are GM. 4 out of 5 automobiles in my parent's driveway are GM. All 3 vehicles in my grandparent's driveway are GM. 6 out of those 10 were bought new. The 3 that weren't bought new are B-bodies and we didn't learn about them until after GM quit producing them. And the other was a program car bought from a GM dealer. And the 1 at my parent's is an S-class Mercedes. GM doesn't have anything to compare to it.

I would say that my family has done its part to help GM.

Out of exasperation, I'd made up my mind to leave this site for a while due to all the anti-GM garbage that's allowed to be posted here. But on second thought, maybe I'll chime in now and then, just to lob in a grenade.

The very FIRST (topmost) item in that chart is incorrect. GM was the FIRST carmaker to sell an airbag-equipped vehicle to the public.

http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/air_bags.htm

In the US yes but Mercedes had them on the market in Europe before GM did in the US. I can't find a source at this time but I do recall this to be true.

Wow, if GM does a serious 180 degree turnaround, it might not be a bad idea to pick up some GM stock!


Yeah, that's what a bunch of board members were saying when the stock was at six bucks...

Yeah, that's what a bunch of board members were saying when the stock was at six bucks...

and at $10 and $15 and $20

In the US yes but Mercedes had them on the market in Europe before GM did in the US. I can't find a source at this time but I do recall this to be true.

Ya-huh. Oh - you mean this source?

http://www.carpages.co.uk/mercedes_benz/mercedes-benz-airbag-part-1-31-10-05.asp

...After more than 250 vehicle crash tests, 2,500 sled tests and over seven million kilometres of trials in test cars, the airbag was finally ready for production in December 1980...

Let's face it. America invented the digital computer and was the first to the Moon. And GM pioneered the first production car airbags, not to mention COUNTLESS other safety innovations. Don't even get me started, on that list...

Ya-huh. Oh - you mean this source?

http://www.carpages.co.uk/mercedes_benz/mercedes-benz-airbag-part-1-31-10-05.asp



Let's face it. America invented the digital computer and was the first to the Moon. And GM pioneered the first production car airbags, not to mention COUNTLESS other safety innovations. Don't even get me started, on that list...

Actually I didn't quote a source now did I? No because I couldn't find one. My reading comprehension is quite good, enough so that I can read that that article's headline reads Airbag First Introduced As Standard At Mercedes-Benz 25 Years Ago

That means that all models had it. Not the year that they began offering them in production cars.

But to use YOUR article lets pull another quote from it Mercedes-Benz offered the airbag long before any other car manufacturer
Hmmm...Now what do you know you gave me a source that proved I was right. Thanks I appreciate not having to go looking for that. Feel free to do my senior research project for me if you like as well.

Didn't GM sell cars with airbags in 1974? I thought they did.

Actually I didn't quote a source now did I? No because I couldn't find one. My reading comprehension is quite good, enough so that I can read that that article's headline reads

That means that all models had it. Not the year that they began offering them in production cars.

But to use YOUR article lets pull another quote from it
Hmmm...Now what do you know you gave me a source that proved I was right. Thanks I appreciate not having to go looking for that. Feel free to do my senior research project for me if you like as well.
You will be needing help... if you read the article closer you will understand that 1980 was the FIRST YEAR that Mercedes offered an airbag in a production car, 'standard' or not. Here, I will help you out a little more with your research:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/airbags/airbags_invented.html

Other Key Dates
• 1973 - The Oldsmobile Toronado became the first car with a passenger airbag;
• 1974 - Buick, Cadillac and Oldsmobile offer dual airbags as an option on several of their full-sized cars;
• 1980 - Mercedes-Benz re-introduced the airbag in Germany as an option on its high-end model W126;
• Mid-1980's - Ford and Chrysler introduce airbags in their vehicles...


Now go do the rest of your homework: http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/safety/safety_firsts/index.jsp

The great thing about America is that we're stocked full of inventors. We come up with GREAT ideas like the digital computer, the VCR, vehicle safety features. And then some other country puts a $2 digital clock on it, and sells it as an "innovative product superior to the competition."

GM of 1974 and GM of 2004, 2009 are different companies. Their products have trailed the competition in safety features (How long did it take to get side airbags in an Impala, Trailblazer, or Chevy Malibu?) Did they even offer ESP (No, not traction control) on those cars until it was federally mandated?

They were even a different company in the 1980's. GM started offering ABS brakes as standard on even their cheapest cars (Cavalier VL). However, that spirit of safety was quickly lost. The Lumina wasn't offered an airbag until 1995, along with S and C/K series trucks. They didn't get passenger airbags until 1998.

S and T series trucks were abominable in just about any type of crash. Then, GM went and engineered the 1997 Pontiac Transport/Chev Venture/Olds Silhouette which was truly "Looney Tunes" (remember that option package?)--not because of the cartoons, but designed as a family vehicle, it failed absolutely MISERABLY in crash tests. Low seatbacks contributed to whiplash, and the engine cradle too heavy for the front end would bend the a-pillars at the window and roof, and push the front wheels up through the floorboards, breaking off mom and dad's legs and literally blowing the airbags directly in the occupants faces. Thanks, GM.

GM comes up with a lot of great stuff, but they don't often produce something with real substance when you sum up all its parts. The Camaro was an exception when you discuss safety. Dual airbags were offered in that car starting in 1993 along with standard ABS and traction control devices. And the vehicle crashed very well...passenger compartments stayed in tact, naturally reinforced roof for the t-tops, and frontal collisions catapulted the rear into the air to transfer as much energy as possible through the car into kinetic motion.

As much as you guys hate VW, they've been offering side airbags STANDARD since 1999. GM didn't even start offering them until 2003, and as of 2007, they were still optional. Side curtain airbags were introduced in some GM models as of 2007. They were offered in VW's since 1999. The NHTSA started doing serious side-impact testing in 2004. None of GM's did a good show except for the Malibu which scored "acceptable." I'll reference my favorite little crappy car company from Germany here, but let's not even discuss what Volvo, Mercedes, hell...even FORD was doing (other than it's disaster of its 1997-2001 F150).

Safety is a weird animal at GM. In the early days it looks like they were really chartering new waters and doing great research. And then it became a game of catch-up as their own American counterparts and the Europeans whipped their collective asses.

Buying GM stock is less risky than the hit you will take buying one of their cars if they go bankrupt.

The only way (IMHO) GM will win back customers is if they once again deliver cutting edge product at value prices. They just have to figure out how to get to that point first.

The great thing about America is that we're stocked full of inventors. We come up with GREAT ideas like the digital computer, the VCR, vehicle safety features. And then some other country puts a $2 digital clock on it, and sells it as an "innovative product superior to the competition."

GM of 1974 and GM of 2004, 2009 are different companies. Their products have trailed the competition in safety features (How long did it take to get side airbags in an Impala, Trailblazer, or Chevy Malibu?) Did they even offer ESP (No, not traction control) on those cars until it was federally mandated?

They were even a different company in the 1980's. GM started offering ABS brakes as standard on even their cheapest cars (Cavalier VL). However, that spirit of safety was quickly lost. The Lumina wasn't offered an airbag until 1995, along with S and C/K series trucks. They didn't get passenger airbags until 1998.

S and T series trucks were abominable in just about any type of crash. Then, GM went and engineered the 1997 Pontiac Transport/Chev Venture/Olds Silhouette which was truly "Looney Tunes" (remember that option package?)--not because of the cartoons, but designed as a family vehicle, it failed absolutely MISERABLY in crash tests. Low seatbacks contributed to whiplash, and the engine cradle too heavy for the front end would bend the a-pillars at the window and roof, and push the front wheels up through the floorboards, breaking off mom and dad's legs and literally blowing the airbags directly in the occupants faces. Thanks, GM.

GM comes up with a lot of great stuff, but they don't often produce something with real substance when you sum up all its parts. The Camaro was an exception when you discuss safety. Dual airbags were offered in that car starting in 1993 along with standard ABS and traction control devices. And the vehicle crashed very well...passenger compartments stayed in tact, naturally reinforced roof for the t-tops, and frontal collisions catapulted the rear into the air to transfer as much energy as possible through the car into kinetic motion.

As much as you guys hate VW, they've been offering side airbags STANDARD since 1999. GM didn't even start offering them until 2003, and as of 2007, they were still optional. Side curtain airbags were introduced in some GM models as of 2007. They were offered in VW's since 1999. The NHTSA started doing serious side-impact testing in 2004. None of GM's did a good show except for the Malibu which scored "acceptable." I'll reference my favorite little crappy car company from Germany here, but let's not even discuss what Volvo, Mercedes, hell...even FORD was doing (other than it's disaster of its 1997-2001 F150).

Safety is a weird animal at GM. In the early days it looks like they were really chartering new waters and doing great research. And then it became a game of catch-up as their own American counterparts and the Europeans whipped their collective asses.

...Not sure if you're responding to my points, or just making general observations. Regarding mine, I've not tried to claim GM has been mistake-free (neither BTW have the foreign makes). GM definitely lost some ground in the 1980's in both quality and in some of the safety offerings.

But I'm focusing mostly on the original graphic in the start of this thread. It's blatantly biased against GM and I've proven it incorrect in the very first item I read in it. So to accept that kind of garbage, one has to overlook real history in product design pioneering to do so.

Who was first with other safety-related innovations such as OnStar and the Head-Up Display? GM of course...

You will be needing help... if you read the article closer you will understand that 1980 was the FIRST YEAR that Mercedes offered an airbag in a production car, 'standard' or not. Here, I will help you out a little more with your research:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/airbags/airbags_invented.html



Now go do the rest of your homework: http://www.gm.com/corporate/responsibility/safety/safety_firsts/index.jsp

Hey congrats, you were right and I was wrong. :thumb:

The great thing about America is that we're stocked full of inventors. We come up with GREAT ideas like the digital computer, the VCR...
Not to throw water on the parade here but if by "VCR" you do mean (as I assume) the Video Cassette Recorder; that system was invented by Sony corporation in 1969 and hit the home market in '76.

However, it was a Charles Ginsburg and Ray Dolby who invented the first real-to-real video recorder (in 19556).

Buying GM stock is less risky than the hit you will take buying one of their cars if they go bankrupt.
I realize that get's thrown around a lot but I'm really not sure it's an accurate observation.

A vehicle (GM's or anyone elses') doesn't suddently become less reliable just because the manufacturer goes out of business. And, with as many vehicles GM has on the roads, there is likely going to be no shortage of parts for repairs for years to come.

The only real harm from a manufacturer going out of business is the "factor" warranty which would likely become void but warrant's don't make vehicles more reliable...they are mostly a marketing tool to placate consumer fears about repairs. After all, except for the occasional lemmon, most vehicles don't ahve serious problems while they are still in warranty anyway.

...Not sure if you're responding to my points, or just making general observations. Regarding mine, I've not tried to claim GM has been mistake-free (neither BTW have the foreign makes). GM definitely lost some ground in the 1980's in both quality and in some of the safety offerings.

But I'm focusing mostly on the original graphic in the start of this thread. It's blatantly biased against GM and I've proven it incorrect in the very first item I read in it. So to accept that kind of garbage, one has to overlook real history in product design pioneering to do so.

Who was first with other safety-related innovations such as OnStar and the Head-Up Display? GM of course...

My post was mostly general observations about the decline to a "trailing" mentality regarding GM and safety. However, that one box isn't an anti-GM bias, it's just an incorrect fact. Quite honestly, I'm more worried about what they're doing today versus 35 years ago regarding airbags.

You're right about OnStar being a great feature. However, GM has used it as a crutch in place of true in-dash navigation units (which we still can't get on the Camaro, Impala, or Malibu). Nav isn't exactly a "safety" feature, but it's one of those things where all you get from GM is dumb looks about why they haven't included it as an option, especially on a "savior" car like the Malibu. Just another box to add to the stack...

Not to throw water on the parade here but if by "VCR" you do mean (as I assume) the Video Cassette Recorder; that system was invented by Sony corporation in 1969 and hit the home market in '76.

However, it was a Charles Ginsburg and Ray Dolby who invented the first real-to-real video recorder (in 19556).

Alrighty...so it was Charles Ginsburg, an American born in San Francisco, and Ray Dolby according to the interwebs. But do you see what I mean? The Sony Corp then made an "in home" model for the masses based on that technology. And by 1980 I'm guessing most people owned Foreign VCR's, right?

The very FIRST (topmost) item in that chart is incorrect. GM was the FIRST carmaker to sell an airbag-equipped vehicle to the public.

http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/air_bags.htm

That's not all, GM was also integral in the development of Catalytic Converters.

http://www.gm.com/experience/technology/news/2008/converter_101508.jsp

Although the concept of the catalytic converter was not invented by GM, the company is credited with the innovations that enabled the catalytic converter to work in the wide range of operating environments seen by cars and trucks, including the special materials and chamber design that made the converter more effective.

Prior to GM’s introduction of the catalytic converter, there were daunting reliability, durability and vehicle drivability challenges that prevented the introduction of catalytic converters on automobiles. GM’s pioneering work on the catalytic converter was spearheaded by a team of GM and AC Delco scientists and engineers in the early 1970s. This work led then-GM President Edward N. Cole in 1971 to announce unilaterally that all GM engines would have lower compression ratios and hardened valve seats to make them compatible with unleaded gasoline and its lower octane level. That decision prepared the automotive and oil industries for the adoption of catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline for the 1975 model year.

Alrighty...so it was Charles Ginsburg, an American born in San Francisco, and Ray Dolby according to the interwebs. But do you see what I mean? The Sony Corp then made an "in home" model for the masses based on that technology. And by 1980 I'm guessing most people owned Foreign VCR's, right?
I was just trying to be precise; not pass judgment. :)

As to the foreign VCR's I'm not sure there were ever any other kind; the only patents held (that I can recall) was Sony with the Betamax and JVC with the VHS format - everything made by anyone would have been made under license and even if any VCRs carried "American" nameplates, they were likely made in offshore factories in Asia so no matter what brand people owned, there I'd call them foreign, yes.

All 3 vehicles in my driveway are GM. 4 out of 5 automobiles in my parent's driveway are GM. All 3 vehicles in my grandparent's driveway are GM. 6 out of those 10 were bought new. The 3 that weren't bought new are B-bodies and we didn't learn about them until after GM quit producing them. And the other was a program car bought from a GM dealer. And the 1 at my parent's is an S-class Mercedes. GM doesn't have anything to compare to it.

I would say that my family has done its part to help GM.

I would certainly say so! :thumb:

Out of exasperation, I'd made up my mind to leave this site for a while due to all the anti-GM garbage that's allowed to be posted here.

Perhaps I can only speak for myself, but I think there is an air of utter exasperation at GM for getting itself so far into this disasterous situation.

I may not be a 150% GM fan as are many here, but I 150% support the US auto industry. Never owned an import brand. Over the years, you would have been just as likely to see a GM car in my parking space as a Ford. I know alot of people in both companies, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for both company's strengths. But at the same time, like every other company, there are weaknesses. It's just that it's rare for a company the size of GM, with the resources it has available and the many years it's all but admitted it needed to change, to turn into the Titanic and take most everyone down with it.

I still say the new Camaro represents everything that GM should have been. Not a large RWD coupe, but a company that can quickly get a highly styled, exciting, globally competitive, high quality vehicle from idea to the road. The Cruze is following up on Camaro's heels, and by all indications it's also going to be a great and exciting vehicle, but these are the vehicles GM should have been producing long ago.

GM has some of the most hard core car people of any manufacturer. While, once the ship was sinking GM seems to have finally thought about actually producing the vehicles that they displayed here, were fantastic ideas, then said they wouldn't be available here (ie: the Orlando & the Beat), but even vehicles that would generate excitement (ie: Pontiac's Zeta cars and the RWD Impala) were killed off. Even simple decisions like the RWD Buick Lucerne replacement was carried out in perhaps the most flawed way possible, killing the latest chance that Buick's popularity would expand beyond the rustbelt and have a median buyer age that was lower than 60 to dead.

To the layperson who follows automotive news but doesn't have the rare insight of someone involved in the process, they see the amount of money GM has lost, sees how much the company's worth, look at how many years GM has had to turn things around, notices that the large truck & SUV market collapse quite a few years ago and instead of redoubling efforts on cars, cars are shelved or delayed in favor of more effort on trucks, they see GM cancelling projects right and left, they see cars dumped without replacements while publically it seems GM wonders why their market share is decreasing, then they see how Toyota has overtaken GM in profits and is within striking distance of sales, they really start wondering what exactly is in the water being pumped into the executive areas.

There is alot of anti-GM items being posted. Some by trolls that show up here, lob their grenades to get people worked up, and then disappear because it's the only thing they have in their miserable existance.

However, those who are utterly frustrated who are also strong GM supporters far outnumber those guys. Some of those same people are faced with the conflicting belief of anti-government intervention and the fact that GM wouldn't be making a Camaro if it wasn't for government money. Some don't even think that far and believe that the government is taking over GM simply to force so-called "green" cars down everyone's throats.

The real issue is that GM's management has let an awful number of people who bleed GM blue down. Everyone knows we're in a very serious recession, but most remember that GM was lining up for government help just before the bottom dropped out... and before credit dried up. That means that someone knew the true condition of GM, and kept it hidden for some time.... maybe months... perhaps, many many months. And people feel betrayed because of that. I know I do.

So don't stay away from this site. People need to hear a voice like yours here, from the inside. Between you and Scott, you are the only view and face of the people inside General Motors of credibility that counters the events that have gotten GM to this point (independent of the economy).

It's no secret that GM's upper guys screwed up, but it's the guys like you who are going to play a role in saving what's left after all this plays out.

Don't throw in the towel till the towel throws you. ;)

http://www.christonium.com/automotive/ItemID=12351354136185

I would certainly say so! :thumb:

Perhaps I can only speak for myself, but I think there is an air of utter exasperation at GM for getting itself so far into this disasterous situation.
I can totally relate to the frustrations of GM fans. GM's made a number of mistakes (as have all the automakers, both foreign and domestic BTW) - and it's easy to point fingers of blame and chastise the General. But I hope when people look for targets of blame for this troubling situation, they will keep some perspective. There is PLENTY of blame to go around. The UAW - for demanding concessions far out of line with current realities (this actually goes back many years). The dealers and their state governments - for enacting so many hobbling rules and laws, they are strangling the very source of their treasure - new, appealing vehicle designs delivered at an attractive price. The federal government - for spending without limit, loaning without restrictions to home buyers who never should have qualified to buy a home, and for implementing entirely different standards of proof for Wall Street bank rescues, vs aid for our basic industries. And our trading partners like Japan - for their lopsided trade policies with us despite the free nuclear umbrella we have provided for decades. I could go on but you get the idea.
I may not be a 150% GM fan as are many here, but I 150% support the US auto industry. Never owned an import brand. Over the years, you would have been just as likely to see a GM car in my parking space as a Ford. I know alot of people in both companies, and I have a lot of respect and admiration for both company's strengths. But at the same time, like every other company, there are weaknesses. It's just that it's rare for a company the size of GM, with the resources it has available and the many years it's all but admitted it needed to change, to turn into the Titanic and take most everyone down with it.
I've said GM has made their share of mistakes. They're not doing as well as Ford for example, who is also burdened with the challenges I listed above. But it's natural though, for GM's problems to be more acute than Ford's - due to their relative sizes. Kudos to you though - for at least sticking with American brands. I've been driving for 34 years... and all I've owned have been Chevys or Pontiacs. I'm happy so far...
I still say the new Camaro represents everything that GM should have been. Not a large RWD coupe, but a company that can quickly get a highly styled, exciting, globally competitive, high quality vehicle from idea to the road. The Cruze is following up on Camaro's heels, and by all indications it's also going to be a great and exciting vehicle, but these are the vehicles GM should have been producing long ago.
I guess I'm a "glass half full" type of person. I look not at the past to say "gee why oh why didn't they have that then"... instead I tend to look at the present and future and say "gee I'm glad we have that now, and that other stuff coming very soon".
GM has some of the most hard core car people of any manufacturer. While, once the ship was sinking GM seems to have finally thought about actually producing the vehicles that they displayed here, were fantastic ideas, then said they wouldn't be available here (ie: the Orlando & the Beat), but even vehicles that would generate excitement (ie: Pontiac's Zeta cars and the RWD Impala) were killed off. Even simple decisions like the RWD Buick Lucerne replacement was carried out in perhaps the most flawed way possible, killing the latest chance that Buick's popularity would expand beyond the rustbelt and have a median buyer age that was lower than 60 to dead.
These are the kinds of statements, that I often react to here. I agree it would be nice to have more cool new designs for Buick to offer... but isn't the 2010 Lacrosse a pretty amazing machine? How can one complain about losing out on this hypothetical RWD Lucerne... with the new Lacrosse coming soon. That car, IMHO, is flat out gorgeous. Thoroughly contemporary powertrain, AWD, HUD... I believe it will be a major hit for Buick. And it will appeal to a lot of 'yuppies' under 60, heck even under 35-40.
To the layperson who follows automotive news but doesn't have the rare insight of someone involved in the process, they see the amount of money GM has lost, sees how much the company's worth, look at how many years GM has had to turn things around, notices that the large truck & SUV market collapse quite a few years ago and instead of redoubling efforts on cars, cars are shelved or delayed in favor of more effort on trucks, they see GM cancelling projects right and left, they see cars dumped without replacements while publically it seems GM wonders why their market share is decreasing, then they see how Toyota has overtaken GM in profits and is within striking distance of sales, they really start wondering what exactly is in the water being pumped into the executive areas.
I'm sorry but I quickly tire of the old saw about "wow why did GM make all those heavy trucks and SUV's". They made them because they were IN DEMAND. People demanded them, and still do... for pulling their boats, operating their small business cutting lawns, and farming support work just to name a few of the numerous examples. Demand for them collapsed because of idiotic "No Drilling Here" energy policies... not because of anything GM did. As for market share, GM lost a lot of buyers in the 1980's due to admittedly spotty quality. The biased mass media has helped since then, to perpetuate the myth of import superiority, despite the fact GM and the other domestics have been making world-class quality for many years now. Toyota's running scared now... it's just a matter of time until people realize Toyota quality is no longer a significant edge for car buyers.
There is alot of anti-GM items being posted. Some by trolls that show up here, lob their grenades to get people worked up, and then disappear because it's the only thing they have in their miserable existance.

However, those who are utterly frustrated who are also strong GM supporters far outnumber those guys. Some of those same people are faced with the conflicting belief of anti-government intervention and the fact that GM wouldn't be making a Camaro if it wasn't for government money. Some don't even think that far and believe that the government is taking over GM simply to force so-called "green" cars down everyone's throats.
A lot of folks don't look around the world much. Many, if not most, modern industrial countries invest regularly in their own industries. It's natural for us to do it too, as long as it's done responsibly.
The real issue is that GM's management has let an awful number of people who bleed GM blue down. Everyone knows we're in a very serious recession, but most remember that GM was lining up for government help just before the bottom dropped out... and before credit dried up. That means that someone knew the true condition of GM, and kept it hidden for some time.... maybe months... perhaps, many many months. And people feel betrayed because of that. I know I do.
That's weird... I don't feel betrayed at all. I believe GM has done the best they can, with their share of natural human-caused mistakes along the way, and made some incredible new designs for people to enjoy, along the way. How can one feel betrayed, when we can go get a Z06 or ZR1 Corvette, HHR SS, Cobalt SS, Solstice GXP, CTS-V or G8 GXP at a very good price for the features offered? GM has provided some compelling vehicles lately so it's a stretch to claim they've just been flying to Hawaii in their jets like the AIG execs have been known to do.
So don't stay away from this site. People need to hear a voice like yours here, from the inside. Between you and Scott, you are the only view and face of the people inside General Motors of credibility that counters the events that have gotten GM to this point (independent of the economy).

It's no secret that GM's upper guys screwed up, but it's the guys like you who are going to play a role in saving what's left after all this plays out.

Don't throw in the towel till the towel throws you. ;)
Thank you for the feedback! I don't usually get that kind of encouragement here ;)

I've got to tell you all though... I do not work for GM. I do not speak for GM. I just love their vehicles. I have since I was a kid and my neighbors on one side had a red 1960 Impala convertible and my other neighbor had a canary yellow 1967 Camaro. My brother had a 1957 Chevy (which he rolled :rolleyes: ) and then a loaded 1964 Impala SS 327. My first car was a 1970 Chevelle 350 4BBL and I look forward to my next new GM car :cool:

Maybe GM fans like us can have a small effect, in influencing others who have become lost and misguided import owners, to again see the light and come back to the joys of owning a GM car or truck :usa:

Although we aren't 100% eye to eye on some things, we are certainly pulling in the same direction and the same team. :thumb:

I can totally relate to the frustrations of GM fans. GM's made a number of mistakes (as have all the automakers, both foreign and domestic BTW) - and it's easy to point fingers of blame and chastise the General. But I hope when people look for targets of blame for this troubling situation, they will keep some perspective. There is PLENTY of blame to go around. The UAW - for demanding concessions far out of line with current realities (this actually goes back many years). The dealers and their state governments - for enacting so many hobbling rules and laws, they are strangling the very source of their treasure - new, appealing vehicle designs delivered at an attractive price. The federal government - for spending without limit, loaning without restrictions to home buyers who never should have qualified to buy a home, and for implementing entirely different standards of proof for Wall Street bank rescues, vs aid for our basic industries. And our trading partners like Japan - for their lopsided trade policies with us despite the free nuclear umbrella we have provided for decades. I could go on but you get the idea.

I've said GM has made their share of mistakes. They're not doing as well as Ford for example, who is also burdened with the challenges I listed above. But it's natural though, for GM's problems to be more acute than Ford's - due to their relative sizes. Kudos to you though - for at least sticking with American brands. I've been driving for 34 years... and all I've owned have been Chevys or Pontiacs. I'm happy so far...

I guess I'm a "glass half full" type of person. I look not at the past to say "gee why oh why didn't they have that then"... instead I tend to look at the present and future and say "gee I'm glad we have that now, and that other stuff coming very soon".

These are the kinds of statements, that I often react to here. I agree it would be nice to have more cool new designs for Buick to offer... but isn't the 2010 Lacrosse a pretty amazing machine? How can one complain about losing out on this hypothetical RWD Lucerne... with the new Lacrosse coming soon. That car, IMHO, is flat out gorgeous. Thoroughly contemporary powertrain, AWD, HUD... I believe it will be a major hit for Buick. And it will appeal to a lot of 'yuppies' under 60, heck even under 35-40.

I'm sorry but I quickly tire of the old saw about "wow why did GM make all those heavy trucks and SUV's". They made them because they were IN DEMAND. People demanded them, and still do... for pulling their boats, operating their small business cutting lawns, and farming support work just to name a few of the numerous examples. Demand for them collapsed because of idiotic "No Drilling Here" energy policies... not because of anything GM did. As for market share, GM lost a lot of buyers in the 1980's due to admittedly spotty quality. The biased mass media has helped since then, to perpetuate the myth of import superiority, despite the fact GM and the other domestics have been making world-class quality for many years now. Toyota's running scared now... it's just a matter of time until people realize Toyota quality is no longer a significant edge for car buyers.

A lot of folks don't look around the world much. Many, if not most, modern industrial countries invest regularly in their own industries. It's natural for us to do it too, as long as it's done responsibly.

That's weird... I don't feel betrayed at all. I believe GM has done the best they can, with their share of natural human-caused mistakes along the way, and made some incredible new designs for people to enjoy, along the way. How can one feel betrayed, when we can go get a Z06 or ZR1 Corvette, HHR SS, Cobalt SS, Solstice GXP, CTS-V or G8 GXP at a very good price for the features offered? GM has provided some compelling vehicles lately so it's a stretch to claim they've just been flying to Hawaii in their jets like the AIG execs have been known to do.

Thank you for the feedback! I don't usually get that kind of encouragement here ;)

I've got to tell you all though... I do not work for GM. I do not speak for GM. I just love their vehicles. I have since I was a kid and my neighbors on one side had a red 1960 Impala convertible and my other neighbor had a canary yellow 1967 Camaro. My brother had a 1957 Chevy (which he rolled :rolleyes: ) and then a loaded 1964 Impala SS 327. My first car was a 1970 Chevelle 350 4BBL and I look forward to my next new GM car :cool:

Maybe GM fans like us can have a small effect, in influencing others who have become lost and misguided import owners, to again see the light and come back to the joys of owning a GM car or truck :usa:

I appreciate your take on the situation and agree with your bigger picture views.

I can recall numbers of folks here calling for GM to get rid of some brands, get rid of vehicle that are redundant, reduce dealer numbers, do what it take to make a profit...

Interestingly enough, when those things take place due to tough circumstance which make it more possible, it's now a massive failure and there's moaning and gnashing of teeth.

I'm in Dallas for the Auto Show, and Toyota has a very large area for folks to test drive 4x4 trucks and vehicles... I suppose they didn't get the memo that trucks and SUV's are the road to failure...;)

The previous business model GM worked under is not sustainable in this global market. Supporting retirees and giving healthcare, etc., paying folks who are not working, that range of stuff.

I hope our government learns a lesson from that. It seems to me as time goes along, the more the folks who run the USA excite voters with entitlements, the more they essentially follow the old GM, and other domestics unsustainable situation.

I can recall numbers of folks here calling for GM to get rid of some brands, get rid of vehicle that are redundant, reduce dealer numbers, do what it take to make a profit...

Interestingly enough, when those things take place due to tough circumstance which make it more possible, it's now a massive failure and there's moaning and gnashing of teeth.

Well part of the issue is of course, beyond Saab, no one was going to agree with who got the axe. The second issue is that it's three steps forward two steps back.

Yes, all of this should have been started ten years ago, and yes, better late than never, but had they committed earlier, it goes without saying they'd have been better off. If the decision to shrink Pontiac and jettison Saturn had come when they decided to revitalize Saturn, those millions could have been spent elsewhere. We could have had a competent small Pontiac, instead of one at death's door and probably a better Buick.

Pontiac Solstice, Vibe, G6 that didn't languish for years while money was being poured into Aura and Malibu, and G8 coupe and sedan would have been a great, efficient lineup, and if that lineup wasn't moving by now they could kill Pontiac and no one could blame them.

Then there is the issue of all the competent products that we're going to get at the expense of the stellar products we've been hearing about for years. W-Body is still trudging along, no small Cadillac and no big Cadillac worth talking about. Theta was supposed to spawn three clones, now we're at five, and it just seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Although we aren't 100% eye to eye on some things, we are certainly pulling in the same direction and the same team. :thumb:

100% agreed! BTW I always read your posts. I look down thru these many threads. I know well enough, to skip over the posts by *certain people* ... but I also know your words are likely to contain a lot of good insights, even if there are also some things I might not agree with in there.

I appreciate your take on the situation and agree with your bigger picture views.

I can recall numbers of folks here calling for GM to get rid of some brands, get rid of vehicle that are redundant, reduce dealer numbers, do what it take to make a profit...

Interestingly enough, when those things take place due to tough circumstance which make it more possible, it's now a massive failure and there's moaning and gnashing of teeth.

I'm in Dallas for the Auto Show, and Toyota has a very large area for folks to test drive 4x4 trucks and vehicles... I suppose they didn't get the memo that trucks and SUV's are the road to failure...;)

The previous business model GM worked under is not sustainable in this global market. Supporting retirees and giving healthcare, etc., paying folks who are not working, that range of stuff.

I hope our government learns a lesson from that. It seems to me as time goes along, the more the folks who run the USA excite voters with entitlements, the more they essentially follow the old GM, and other domestics unsustainable situation.

Agreed. The current situation for the Big Three is tragic and painful in a lot of ways... but people should also look upon it as a huge opportunity. It's a chance to fix what's messed up in our auto industry. I hope we use the chance well.

Well part of the issue is of course, beyond Saab, no one was going to agree with who got the axe. The second issue is that it's three steps forward two steps back.

Yes, all of this should have been started ten years ago, and yes, better late than never, but had they committed earlier, it goes without saying they'd have been better off. If the decision to shrink Pontiac and jettison Saturn had come when they decided to revitalize Saturn, those millions could have been spent elsewhere. We could have had a competent small Pontiac, instead of one at death's door and probably a better Buick.

Pontiac Solstice, Vibe, G6 that didn't languish for years while money was being poured into Aura and Malibu, and G8 coupe and sedan would have been a great, efficient lineup, and if that lineup wasn't moving by now they could kill Pontiac and no one could blame them.

Then there is the issue of all the competent products that we're going to get at the expense of the stellar products we've been hearing about for years. W-Body is still trudging along, no small Cadillac and no big Cadillac worth talking about. Theta was supposed to spawn three clones, now we're at five, and it just seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Like I said, we can look back and get all dejected, or look ahead and get excited. But while we're at it, let's try out this little game... but with Toyota. How on Earth did they end up fielding the hideous Echo? Why didn't the public jump on such a cute tiny fuel-sipper, and use it to pull their boats and campers? Why did the underpowered bland-o T100 pickup not catch on... what should Toyota have done all those years back to quickly fix the problem and dominate the pickup truck market? Why oh WHY didn't Toyota do better with the T100? LOOK at all the years of market success they could have had! Why didn't Toyota respond more gracefully to that engine oil sludge controversy a few years back? Why did they have to stonewall and alienate so many future buyers? Why does the CURRENT Toyota Tundra pickup truck have a tailgate that's too weak to handle an owner driving their ATV up onto the bed? And why did Toyota adopt such an arrogant attitude about resolving the issue for owners? See... we can play this blame game with the wondrous imports too :yes:

See... we can play this blame game with the wondrous imports too :yes:

And they can afford to lose. :p

And they can afford to lose. :p

Not really. All the makes are hurting today... and none are necessarily 'safe'. The more folks get laid off here in the USA, the more those folks will lobby for enactment of some fairer trade laws with Asia and Europe. I'm not a fan of trade restrictions... but they might well be coming. Add that potential onto the rising potential for military-political mischief by China in SE Asia... and the rapidly fading quality advantage the imports once held... I've got to say the future does not look good for Japan Inc.

Wouldn't Japan be surprised... if America suddenly said - "accept these new and fair trade rules.... or we start charging $50B per year for your strategic nuclear umbrella" :eek:

Not really. All the makes are hurting today... and none are necessarily 'safe'. The more folks get laid off here in the USA, the more those folks will lobby for enactment of some fairer trade laws with Asia and Europe. I'm not a fan of trade restrictions... but they might well be coming. Add that potential onto the rising potential for military-political mischief by China in SE Asia... and the rapidly fading quality advantage the imports once held... I've got to say the future does not look good for Japan Inc.

Wouldn't Japan be surprised... if America suddenly said - "accept these new and fair trade rules.... or we start charging $50B per year for your strategic nuclear umbrella" :eek:

Right, no one is "safe".

Korea and China should make the Japanese very worried when it comes to winning any export war.

There is no love lost by the Chinese for Japan. The Chinese are not encumbered with a short memory on Japan and WW2.

< I don't suggest this is what they should do, but it is what it is. > China is VERY nationalistic and has zero interest in any part of a global economy that doesn't benefit China in a MAJOR WAY. In a lowballing, who can subsidize the most to win a trade war,... China has cubic money, cubic control of wages, cubic political will.

Who is the world trying to do business with for cheap labor? China, Korea, India, or Japan?

If Japan isn't concerned, they should be.

I appreciate your take on the situation and agree with your bigger picture views.

I can recall numbers of folks here calling for GM to get rid of some brands, get rid of vehicle that are redundant, reduce dealer numbers, do what it take to make a profit...

Interestingly enough, when those things take place due to tough circumstance which make it more possible, it's now a massive failure and there's moaning and gnashing of teeth.

I'm in Dallas for the Auto Show, and Toyota has a very large area for folks to test drive 4x4 trucks and vehicles... I suppose they didn't get the memo that trucks and SUV's are the road to failure...;)

The previous business model GM worked under is not sustainable in this global market. Supporting retirees and giving healthcare, etc., paying folks who are not working, that range of stuff.

I hope our government learns a lesson from that. It seems to me as time goes along, the more the folks who run the USA excite voters with entitlements, the more they essentially follow the old GM, and other domestics unsustainable situation.

I pretty much agree with all of your points there. But there's just a few items to also to throw out there.

When people mentioned cutting GM divisions, I'm pretty certain no one expected GM to essentially kill of the 2nd biggest car division in favor of Buick, which isn't exactly a large car division by comparison. Saturn, Hummer, & Saab I suspect everyone saw coming. I think most of us expcted Pontiac to survive as a full division.

On the truck & SUV side, it's not that going to trucks and SUVs was a bad idea. The issue I feel is that it came at the expense of keeping cars competitive. Profit margins are bigger on large trucks and SUVs, but it leaves the company venerable when gas prices jump (which has happened many times over the years) or the economy sours (ditto). That's on top of the import brands continuing to improve their cars and move into the vacuum left by US makers putting all their eggs in one basket.

GM is by no means the worst following that. Chrysler is by far worse off in that they were essentially a truck company that did volunteer work on the side making a few cars (the LX almost seeming like a well made, profitable mistake).


Although the UAW has been very adult-like the past couple rounds in being realistic, there's clearly areas they need to compromise and others that need to be abandoned. The jobs bank should have never been created. Buyouts would have been far more cost effective. 100% medical coverage for life is no longer an option. But at the same time, scapegoating the UAW (many here do) doesn't get to the root of the issue either.


The biggest issue-concern I have with GM's plan is that GM will be selling alot fewer vehicles via the death of Pontiac (going from as large of a division as it is now down to a couple of niche models is essentially killing the brand). GM will also sell a whole lot fewer large trucks and SUVs from now on. GM is at least 60 billion in debt, and will owe at least 30 billion to the taxpayer on top of that for a total of $90 billion worth of debt... and this is assuming GM doesn't lose an additional red cent.

On a banner, everything-is-perfect year, GM realistically made, what?? 4 billion?? That's with all current divisions running on all cylinders, including trucks. To match that, GM's cut in expenses would have to match the lost profits from the vehicles they aren't selling anymore and the economy would have to be absolutely blooming. If GM averages $3 billion per year profit starting this year, it would take 30 years for GM to get rid of it's debt.

What's disturbing is that someone had to see this financial armegeddon coming at GM or at least knew enough to warn somebody.

If they didn't, that's even more disturbing.

The biggest issue-concern I have with GM's plan is that GM will be selling alot fewer vehicles via the death of Pontiac (going from as large of a division as it is now down to a couple of niche models is essentially killing the brand). GM will also sell a whole lot fewer large trucks and SUVs from now on. GM is at least 60 billion in debt, and will owe at least 30 billion to the taxpayer on top of that for a total of $90 billion worth of debt... and this is assuming GM doesn't lose an additional red cent.

On a banner, everything-is-perfect year, GM realistically made, what?? 4 billion?? That's with all current divisions running on all cylinders, including trucks. To match that, GM's cut in expenses would have to match the lost profits from the vehicles they aren't selling anymore and the economy would have to be absolutely blooming. If GM averages $3 billion per year profit starting this year, it would take 30 years for GM to get rid of it's debt.

What's disturbing is that someone had to see this financial armegeddon coming at GM or at least knew enough to warn somebody.

If they didn't, that's even more disturbing.

Whoa - that really puts it in perspective - how could the managers at GM be so blatantly ignorant?? They had to have been relying on some type of government bailout like this. Those figures make chapter 11 seem more appealing, I don't see how GM can pull themselves out this in this.

I think most of us expcted Pontiac to survive as a full division.

I didn't. The 1997 Grand Prix was a magnificent car for its time, but GM kept it around too long and then replaced it on the already dated W body platform (even though the GXP was a great car). The Grand Am was also too old, and the G6, though on a modern platform, had awkward styling. No wonder such a high percentage of Pontiacs ended up in fleets.

Whoa - that really puts it in perspective - how could the managers at GM be so blatantly ignorant??
Why?

- Because most large companies, GM included are bureaucracies rivaled in size and lack-luster performance only by the Federal government.

- Because most directors, vice-presidents and above don’t think much further than next quarter or mid-year; because they are in their position just to get their ticket punched so that they can more on to the next big thing in their career or the next job, whether it be with the same company or another company.

- Because so few business leaders are actually leaders today and because boards of directors and stockholders and bondholders and even our own Federal government will claim they want imagination and risk-taking and thinking outside of the box but will rarely reward that kind of activity. Consequently, those business leaders paly it safe which usually only works in the short-term and almost always fails eventually

Because most large companies, GM included are bureaucracies rivaled in size and lack-luster performance only by the Federal government.


Let's see now...

GM's notable failures over the past few decades:

- SAAB never returning a profit.
- Isuzu not making money.
- Opel's decline.
- Saturn brand.
- Pontiac's demise.
- Partnering Fiat.
- Too slow to release Camaro.
- Not productionising Zeta sedans in NA.
- Not doing enough despite continually flowing red ink.

GM's notable success stories over the past few decades:

- Reinventing Cadillac.
- Buying Daewoo.
- Leveraging off Holden's development.

Just off the top of my head.

It's quite obvious to me that GM has bitten off more than it could chew.

Let's see now...

GM's notable failures over the past few decades:

- SAAB never returning a profit.
- Isuzu not making money.
- Opel's decline.
- Saturn brand.
- Pontiac's demise.
- Partnering Fiat.
- Too slow to release Camaro.
- Not productionising Zeta sedans in NA.
- Not doing enough despite continually flowing red ink.

GM's notable success stories over the past few decades:

- Reinventing Cadillac.
- Buying Daewoo.
- Leveraging off Holden's development.

Just off the top of my head.

It's quite obvious to me that GM has bitten off more than it could chew.

Oopsy. In your rush to bias, you overlooked a few GM successes:

- Market-leading fullsize pickup trucks like the GMT800
- Safety innovations such as passenger airbags, OnStar, HUD
- The stunning, timeless and wildly successful third generation FBodies
- World-class performance and value in the C5 and C6 Corvettes
- Unmatched 2+2 performance value in the 4gen Fbodies, with their wonderfully simple and under-rated LS1 delighting thousands of enthusiasts
- Pontiac designs with unique presence and widespread popularity such as the Grand Am's and Grand Prix's of the 1990's
- Innovative SUV designs like the Avalanche, HHR and H2
- New and unexpected levels of road performance from FWD designs, like the Cobalt SS and Grand Prix GXP
- World-class quality in today's Buicks and other offerings
- All this, despite onerous constraints from the UAW, picky whiny biased mass media inputs/import-worshipping propaganda, unrealistic/absurd federal regulations too numerous to print with normal computer printers, and brutal state franchise laws supporting picky, whiny dealers.

(I imagine I've still missed a few)

Oopsy. In your rush to bias, you overlooked a few GM successes:

- Market-leading fullsize pickup trucks like the GMT800
- Safety innovations such as passenger airbags, OnStar, HUD
- The stunning, timeless and wildly successful third generation FBodies
- World-class performance and value in the C5 and C6 Corvettes
- Unmatched 2+2 performance value in the 4gen Fbodies, with their wonderfully simple and under-rated LS1 delighting thousands of enthusiasts
- Pontiac designs with unique presence and widespread popularity such as the Grand Am's and Grand Prix's of the 1990's
- Innovative SUV designs like the Avalanche, HHR and H2
- New and unexpected levels of road performance from FWD designs, like the Cobalt SS and Grand Prix GXP
- World-class quality in today's Buicks and other offerings
- All this, despite onerous constraints from the UAW, picky whiny biased mass media inputs/import-worshipping propaganda, unrealistic/absurd federal regulations too numerous to print with normal computer printers, and brutal state franchise laws supporting picky, whiny dealers.

(I imagine I've still missed a few)

I don't believe any of the things you mention got any press. Probably because they weren't anything out of the ordinary.

As I said before, I love GM, probably as much as you do. But given the poor leadership over the years, I do believe it's time for a change at the upper management level. The entire leadership group needs to give way to those who actually care about cars and GM and not just themselves.

I even remember Ross Perot saying something like "At GM, the first thing you do is organize a committee on snakes. Then you bring in a consultant who knows a lot about snakes. Third thing you do is talk about it for a year. "

Does that ring a bell at all? C-A-M-A-R-O was conceived the same way!

I still love GM too much to see it die. My comments might seem cruel to you but if I really knew... my comments might even seem too kind!

In the business world, the only true measure of success is the figure at the bottom of the page called Profit (or loss) and that is where GM has been failing and is failing; regardless of their notable successes with particular vehicles like the C5 and C6 Corvette.

The reasons for that failure are many and varied and everybody seems to have their favorite gremlins to point at but ultimately, even if a car company is making the “best cars and trucks in the world”; if they can’t sell enough of them or if they sell as many as can reasonably be expected in the existing world market but can’t make a profit because of their costs; then they fail.

GM's management had to known for two or three decades that they were heading for this cliff but I suspect they refused to deal with it for the reasons I noted earlier.