2 Problems I see with the new GM
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
General Motors Corperation is now the General Motors Company.
GM has everything they could ask for to turn the company around.
So why are they still making the same mistakes that got them in trouble in the first place.
Problem 1:
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
GM has everything they could ask for to turn the company around.
So why are they still making the same mistakes that got them in trouble in the first place.
Problem 1:
Most other automotive companies names are also a vehicle line. You buy a Ford from the Ford Motor Company. You buy a Chrysler from the Chrysler Corperation. You buy a Toyota from Toyota, or a Nissan from Nissan..... But you don't go into a showroom and buy a GM. I don't think GM realized that yet.
Problem 2:
GM is generall a risk adverse company, but they have still been able to throw some bombshells into the marketplace when it hasn't cost them much to do so, or when they have had to, or both. GM imported Opels and sold them in Buick shoiwrooms. GM also was the 1st to downsize it's automobiles... 2 years before everyone else, even though everyone had the same start (the fuel crisis of the early 70s). It may not seem so today, but the 3rd gen Camaro was revolutionary in handling development. But outside of the new Camaro, you see none of that GM today.
In many ways, the current Camaro represents what GM used to be, should have been to avoid it's stigma of dull cars, and needs to be if it expects to survive in the future. The Camaro was approved quickly without going through a approval process designed to kill new models instead of figuring out how to market them. It was developed quickly instead of having a GM bureaucrat at each step going over each item, most of which was gone over before or was pointless to begin with. It also made it to market with a stunning design that dominated most cars from GM prior to the early 70s.
Finally, and most importantly, GM isn't taking the Camaro and selling it in every division it can, whether it fits the lineup or not (Chevy Cruize as a Buick?). Or just as bad, selling the right vehicle in the wrong division (Holden Ute as a G8 instead of an El Camino?).
GM is generall a risk adverse company, but they have still been able to throw some bombshells into the marketplace when it hasn't cost them much to do so, or when they have had to, or both. GM imported Opels and sold them in Buick shoiwrooms. GM also was the 1st to downsize it's automobiles... 2 years before everyone else, even though everyone had the same start (the fuel crisis of the early 70s). It may not seem so today, but the 3rd gen Camaro was revolutionary in handling development. But outside of the new Camaro, you see none of that GM today.
In many ways, the current Camaro represents what GM used to be, should have been to avoid it's stigma of dull cars, and needs to be if it expects to survive in the future. The Camaro was approved quickly without going through a approval process designed to kill new models instead of figuring out how to market them. It was developed quickly instead of having a GM bureaucrat at each step going over each item, most of which was gone over before or was pointless to begin with. It also made it to market with a stunning design that dominated most cars from GM prior to the early 70s.
Finally, and most importantly, GM isn't taking the Camaro and selling it in every division it can, whether it fits the lineup or not (Chevy Cruize as a Buick?). Or just as bad, selling the right vehicle in the wrong division (Holden Ute as a G8 instead of an El Camino?).
I am a performance enthusiast. I personally hae owned nothing but RWD vehicles. But I'm not jaded so much that I think everyone wants performance RWD cars. If GM feels that the targeted buyer of a Cadillac DTS either prefers FWD or doesn't care which wheels are doing the driving, then FWD it is. But GM also has to understand that they must expand in both sales and acceptence to be taken seriously. FWD & AWD Acuras are nice cars and sell in good volume, but it's RWD BMWs and Mercedes Benz that are taken seriously.
GM needs to aim to hit each new vehicle over the fence inorder to change public opinion about them, not just have good cars like the current Malibu. Each new vehicle must have a showstopping quality much like the Camaro. That means taking some chances with styling, and that also means adding $10 more quality and charging $10.50 for it instead of looking at ways to trim a dollar of cost and charge the same price.
Listen guys - just listen. "Old GM" is the same as "New GM" just without the union costs - that is IT. Bankruptcy did nothing but rid GM of the old UAW agreements that they agreed to when they were drunk on power.
The UAW held out until the treasury got involved and guess what? Treasury said "agree to this and if it doesn't work out, we got you." That's all bankruptcy did. Oh, that and fired Wagoner which I agree with.
Lutz is too old to be a CEO so he came back on his terms - he runs the show. And by and large, Lutz runs the show without the fancy title. He wouldn't have it any other way.
What scares me is what GM is doing now with new product. They are a company that you and I own (and one that I recently went back to work for) that's building NEW $48 million facilities when they have dozens of empty plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.
The UAW held out until the treasury got involved and guess what? Treasury said "agree to this and if it doesn't work out, we got you." That's all bankruptcy did. Oh, that and fired Wagoner which I agree with.
Lutz is too old to be a CEO so he came back on his terms - he runs the show. And by and large, Lutz runs the show without the fancy title. He wouldn't have it any other way.
What scares me is what GM is doing now with new product. They are a company that you and I own (and one that I recently went back to work for) that's building NEW $48 million facilities when they have dozens of empty plants available at their disposal.
One thing I've learned is this - GM won't change. Bankruptcy didn't change upper management. It's the people that have to change and if you're not ready to change, hit the door. There IS no more UAW. There IS more clouded white collar ideas that don't jive with what's going on "day to day" at GM.
Whether it's good or bad, we'll see but I know if I get a vote, Fritz is gone. Change starts at the top. Just ask Ford.
How many of the old facilities does GM still own? Are they being sold in bankruptcy? I assume the new facility is the Volt battery facility. Any ideas on how much it would cost to renovate any of the old facilities to be like the new one? I don't know the numbers off hand, but old buildings aren't exactly easy to renovate to a new building with a completely different purpose.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,897
From: Greenville, SC
Most of the GM dealers in my area have signs like this one I found on the net real quick:
http://denneymotorsales.com/Building...Dec_2006_2.jpg
http://denneymotorsales.com/Building...Dec_2006_2.jpg
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,496
From: Roseville, MI, USA
Umm....no.
I speak from experience and sources.
Fritz isn't bad - in fact I DO like Fritz but the problem is this. To the general public - to the people that own GM (you and I) he's more of the 'same old' song and dance at GM.
Do you hear the same commercials we here in MoTown with Mike Rowe for Ford? He says...."Ford has a plan that works......it actually works...am I crazy? No... people are filling Ford showrooms as I speak."
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
I speak from experience and sources.
Fritz isn't bad - in fact I DO like Fritz but the problem is this. To the general public - to the people that own GM (you and I) he's more of the 'same old' song and dance at GM.
Do you hear the same commercials we here in MoTown with Mike Rowe for Ford? He says...."Ford has a plan that works......it actually works...am I crazy? No... people are filling Ford showrooms as I speak."
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,505
From: Charleston, WV
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
The new plant you mention is being built by the General Motors Company.
Believe it or not, they are 2 completely different entities now.
the General Motors Corperation is still in bankruptcy, and is liquidating itself.
The government and others bought various parts of the liquidating General Motors Corperation and formed the General Motors Company.
The agreement the union reached was to be part of the company that was to be formed from the parts bought from the GM Corperation.
The company could have been named the Chevrolet Motor Company, The Cadillac Motor Company, or the Peter Griffin Motor Company.
The only reason it kept the General Motors name is because no one saw the need to change it. And when you get down to it, there isn't a need. The change needed is inside the company.
Audis and Acuras are great cars, very well built, and have great worksmanship. But the only ones of the bunch that are taken as somewhat serious road cars are the various AWD Audis.
Umm....no.
I speak from experience and sources.
Fritz isn't bad - in fact I DO like Fritz but the problem is this. To the general public - to the people that own GM (you and I) he's more of the 'same old' song and dance at GM.
Do you hear the same commercials we here in MoTown with Mike Rowe for Ford? He says...."Ford has a plan that works......it actually works...am I crazy? No... people are filling Ford showrooms as I speak."
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
I speak from experience and sources.
Fritz isn't bad - in fact I DO like Fritz but the problem is this. To the general public - to the people that own GM (you and I) he's more of the 'same old' song and dance at GM.
Do you hear the same commercials we here in MoTown with Mike Rowe for Ford? He says...."Ford has a plan that works......it actually works...am I crazy? No... people are filling Ford showrooms as I speak."
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
So far, Fritz has done an exceptional job with what he has had to work with. About the only thing I can fault him with is not pushing the G8 over to Chevrolet, but overall he's done far better than even I expected.
As for Ford, the big difference between Ford and GM and Chrysler is that Ford has NOT been operating under any delusions the past few years. Here's what I mean.
Before Mulally got there, Bill Ford focused pretty much every resource towards turning around Ford's quality and trimming plants. When Mulally got there, he sold off everything he could get his hands on includiung the Ford name and logo to raise money, and kept Volvo and a portion of Mazda as a backup if things went bad.
Meanwhile, GM continued to borrow money like there was no tomorrow, running up impossible debt until everyone cut them off. GM depended on sales of big trucks and SUVs and dirt cheap gas, while pushing it's recovery date over the horizon. The reality was they were never going to recover.
Over at Chrysler, after being bled dry by Daimler, and Cerberus looking to flip the company and sell it off at a profit, no one was putting money to new products and the line grew stale. Then Chrysler tried to up it's sales by bullying dealers to buy cars that weren't selling instead of simply cutting production.
Then there's the small but not insignificant fact that unlike GM and Chrysler, Ford is actually run by a family with their name on the building, not a board of stockholders.
While a corperation will do whatever it takes to make a buck (or survive), even if it means getting it from the Feds, you can bet your life and the life of those around you, the only way the Ford family is going to turn their business over to someone else is if it's pried from their collective cold dead hands.
Ford may have been in the same boat as GM...... 7 or 8 years ago.
But over the past 4-5 years, Ford has certainly NOT been in the same boat as GM.
Ford's had more available cash for it's size than GM since about 2005.
Even when GM and Chrysler were sitting in front of Congress, Ford had roughly 3 times the money (on hand cash and available line of credit) of General Motors.
Even Chrysler had more money for it's size and cash burn (as later came out) than GM had, and could have very well survived at least through the year without bankruptcy. GM on the other hand, as it turned out, had less.
(GM came within a whisker of shut their doors January 1st after first saying they could get through the winter, Chrysler said it had enough money to last through the summer, but it was later found that Chrysler had a bit more money than they let on)
Last edited by guionM; Aug 19, 2009 at 12:47 AM.
West South Central Moderator
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Do you hear the same commercials we here in MoTown with Mike Rowe for Ford? He says...."Ford has a plan that works......it actually works...am I crazy? No... people are filling Ford showrooms as I speak."
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
There are no negative feelings towards Ford even though they were in the same boat GM was in. In fact, Ford has gained share and their losses' weren't has drastic as GM's.
Lest I remind you Ford has yet to accept a $ of Goverment money. That's all huge to the public.
Yeah, Ford didn't take the same "loans" that GM and Chrysler did, but they did take $5.9 Billion in Government money in other forms: http://green.autoblog.com/2009/06/23...vmp-funds-for/
Chrysler only took another $700Million.
Last edited by AdioSS; Aug 19, 2009 at 01:29 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
Besides, if it is a flagship sedan that Caddy is offering, it won't be a "serious road machine" anyway. Who buys a MB S Class or BMW 7 series for its performance?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Oh.... is that a spellcheck button on my computer??
Yes.
But the point I was making is that GM is no longer a single company. If you see an abandoned GM factory, and a new one is being made down the street, it's 2 different companies that own them.
Good points all.
But consider that most everyone who buys a BMW or a Mercedes is buying the name. That name conjures up an image. That image is what sells the car. BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" tagline (ironically done when Bob Lutz ran BMW's marketing!) is what the person going into a BMW showroom buying the most basic to the 7 series BMW is thinking.
True item:
A high percentage of accountants buy Acuras. Number one reason for buying an Acura besides quality?
Value.
But the point I was making is that GM is no longer a single company. If you see an abandoned GM factory, and a new one is being made down the street, it's 2 different companies that own them.
How many people are actually looking for a "serious road machine" when they go into a BMW or Mercedes dealership? I was under the impression that people would go and buy a car based off of looks, features, and price. Performance enthusiasts do care about which wheels power the car, but I am not thinking that most BMW, Mercedes, Caddy, Acura, Audi, and Lexus buyers are looking for performance. Sure, some of them are, but even the ones who do care are likely to look at horse power and 0-60 times. The real performance enthusiast, when looking for a "serious road machine," will require RWD. I don't have a problem with that either, I just don't think that it is a requirement for luxury brands to have every vehicle be RWD.
Besides, if it is a flagship sedan that Caddy is offering, it won't be a "serious road machine" anyway. Who buys a MB S Class or BMW 7 series for its performance?
Besides, if it is a flagship sedan that Caddy is offering, it won't be a "serious road machine" anyway. Who buys a MB S Class or BMW 7 series for its performance?
But consider that most everyone who buys a BMW or a Mercedes is buying the name. That name conjures up an image. That image is what sells the car. BMW's "Ultimate Driving Machine" tagline (ironically done when Bob Lutz ran BMW's marketing!) is what the person going into a BMW showroom buying the most basic to the 7 series BMW is thinking.
True item:
A high percentage of accountants buy Acuras. Number one reason for buying an Acura besides quality?
Value.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 824
From: North of Cincy
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
I've recently test driven a Lexus IS; my son owns an Audi A4 Quattro, and previously owned a BMW M3, both of which I have driven. I have been inside (but not driven) the Cadillac CTS. To me the Cadillac is bulky compared to the other three, so I'll agree that GM definitely needs Alpha. However if I was in the market for such a vehicle (and I would be if Camaro did not exist) I would be all over the Audi. To me it hits mark on more options than the others. However as a diehard bowtie man, I'd have a difficult time buying something that isn't a Chevrolet. However I'm not sure Chevy needs their own Alpha sedan if Cadillac is getting one as they already have Malibu and most "budget" Chevy buyers don't care about FWD v. RWD.
That said, I honestly think GM is headed in the right direction with Chevy carrying the torch for budget/eco friendly cars/crossovers/trucks, and Buick/Cadillac handling the luxury side of the house and Cadillac being the performance/luxury side with the obvious exceptions of Corvette and Camaro.
I still think GM is making a mistake by not getting Cruze out ASAP, and the Volt is being way overhyped.
That said, I honestly think GM is headed in the right direction with Chevy carrying the torch for budget/eco friendly cars/crossovers/trucks, and Buick/Cadillac handling the luxury side of the house and Cadillac being the performance/luxury side with the obvious exceptions of Corvette and Camaro.
I still think GM is making a mistake by not getting Cruze out ASAP, and the Volt is being way overhyped.
Disciple
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,479
As a diehard purchaser of GM vehicles for 31 years, I can tell you that in my case, when I darkened the doorway of a BMW dealership I was looking for features: specifically a RWD, manual transmission, 4 seat convertible with a trunk (roof up or down) and a top AND tonneau cover that operated at the push of a button. A 1 series cabrio fit the bill. I wouldn't describe it as being any more a "serious road machine" than the new Camaro. The tires are narrow, the suspension, even with the M sport package is soft, and the front suspension is camber challenged.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Magenta_Hearts
New Member Introduction
4
Mar 25, 2015 10:24 AM