Autoextremist Rant on GM
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Originally posted by PacerX
Peter is a complete f*****g moron, end of story.
GM gained market share last year. They will again this year. GM in total sold more trucks than did Ford.
But think about how much more they could have earned if they just had "chevrolet" trucks and sold just as many. Development costs would be lower (although not much in the case of GMC) but there are those advertising expenses, plant complexities, and a whole other dealer network to support.
Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct. Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other? Do they really need the cavalier and saturn? How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars.
When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models.
NOBODY IN THE US WANTS STATION WAGONS, and TRUCKS have been taking sales away from minivans, not freaking station wagons.
I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission. Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover.
I don't know where the automotive press (including ******** here) came up with the idea that folks are going to give up an SUV for a station wagon, but they are FLAT OUT, A#1, completely, totally and in all other ways WRONG.
No, they aren't. Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are.
Europe wants diesel station wagons because gas costs a ton and they still need to haul their crap around. In the US, gas is cheap and everybody and his brother knows that it's much easier to haul kids and crap around in a Tahoe than it is in a station wagon.
Here's your choice:
You're going to take your wife and two kids out for a week long boating and camping vacation. You have to tow the boat, bring all you camping gear and maintain your sanity with the two kids in the car.
A friend has offered either of his two vehicles for you to use because your Explorer just rolled over and exploded. You can have the Volvo station wagon or his Tahoe.
Which do you want?
The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops.
Add to that the fact that you can drop a 500hp motor into a station wagon and it would STILL never even remotely be considered an enthusiast's car.
Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market). How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension? Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"? They aren't in SUV's, that's for sure.
Station wagons are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Chevy Nomads are cool... but THAT'S IT.
SUVs are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Jeep Wranglers are cool... but THAT'S IT.
Christ, GM makes tons of money this year, gains market share, is named to the top 3 in overall initial quality, is declared the most efficient manufacturer in the United States (including transplants), and generally kicks the crap out of everyone else with the incentive program, and this moron claims the sky is falling.
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
Peter is a complete f*****g moron, end of story.
GM gained market share last year. They will again this year. GM in total sold more trucks than did Ford.
But think about how much more they could have earned if they just had "chevrolet" trucks and sold just as many. Development costs would be lower (although not much in the case of GMC) but there are those advertising expenses, plant complexities, and a whole other dealer network to support.
Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct. Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other? Do they really need the cavalier and saturn? How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars.
When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models.
NOBODY IN THE US WANTS STATION WAGONS, and TRUCKS have been taking sales away from minivans, not freaking station wagons.
I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission. Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover.
I don't know where the automotive press (including ******** here) came up with the idea that folks are going to give up an SUV for a station wagon, but they are FLAT OUT, A#1, completely, totally and in all other ways WRONG.
No, they aren't. Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are.
Europe wants diesel station wagons because gas costs a ton and they still need to haul their crap around. In the US, gas is cheap and everybody and his brother knows that it's much easier to haul kids and crap around in a Tahoe than it is in a station wagon.
Here's your choice:
You're going to take your wife and two kids out for a week long boating and camping vacation. You have to tow the boat, bring all you camping gear and maintain your sanity with the two kids in the car.
A friend has offered either of his two vehicles for you to use because your Explorer just rolled over and exploded. You can have the Volvo station wagon or his Tahoe.
Which do you want?
The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops.
Add to that the fact that you can drop a 500hp motor into a station wagon and it would STILL never even remotely be considered an enthusiast's car.
Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market). How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension? Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"? They aren't in SUV's, that's for sure.
Station wagons are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Chevy Nomads are cool... but THAT'S IT.
SUVs are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Jeep Wranglers are cool... but THAT'S IT.
Christ, GM makes tons of money this year, gains market share, is named to the top 3 in overall initial quality, is declared the most efficient manufacturer in the United States (including transplants), and generally kicks the crap out of everyone else with the incentive program, and this moron claims the sky is falling.
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by WERM
Originally posted by PacerX
Peter is a complete f*****g moron, end of story.
GM gained market share last year. They will again this year. GM in total sold more trucks than did Ford.
But think about how much more they could have earned if they just had "chevrolet" trucks and sold just as many. Development costs would be lower (although not much in the case of GMC) but there are those advertising expenses, plant complexities, and a whole other dealer network to support.
Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct. Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other? Do they really need the cavalier and saturn? How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars.
When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models.
NOBODY IN THE US WANTS STATION WAGONS, and TRUCKS have been taking sales away from minivans, not freaking station wagons.
I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission. Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover.
I don't know where the automotive press (including ******** here) came up with the idea that folks are going to give up an SUV for a station wagon, but they are FLAT OUT, A#1, completely, totally and in all other ways WRONG.
No, they aren't. Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are.
Europe wants diesel station wagons because gas costs a ton and they still need to haul their crap around. In the US, gas is cheap and everybody and his brother knows that it's much easier to haul kids and crap around in a Tahoe than it is in a station wagon.
Here's your choice:
You're going to take your wife and two kids out for a week long boating and camping vacation. You have to tow the boat, bring all you camping gear and maintain your sanity with the two kids in the car.
A friend has offered either of his two vehicles for you to use because your Explorer just rolled over and exploded. You can have the Volvo station wagon or his Tahoe.
Which do you want?
The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops.
Add to that the fact that you can drop a 500hp motor into a station wagon and it would STILL never even remotely be considered an enthusiast's car.
Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market). How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension? Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"? They aren't in SUV's, that's for sure.
Station wagons are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Chevy Nomads are cool... but THAT'S IT.
SUVs are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Jeep Wranglers are cool... but THAT'S IT.
Christ, GM makes tons of money this year, gains market share, is named to the top 3 in overall initial quality, is declared the most efficient manufacturer in the United States (including transplants), and generally kicks the crap out of everyone else with the incentive program, and this moron claims the sky is falling.
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
Originally posted by PacerX
Peter is a complete f*****g moron, end of story.
GM gained market share last year. They will again this year. GM in total sold more trucks than did Ford.
But think about how much more they could have earned if they just had "chevrolet" trucks and sold just as many. Development costs would be lower (although not much in the case of GMC) but there are those advertising expenses, plant complexities, and a whole other dealer network to support.
Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct. Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other? Do they really need the cavalier and saturn? How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars.
When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models.
NOBODY IN THE US WANTS STATION WAGONS, and TRUCKS have been taking sales away from minivans, not freaking station wagons.
I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission. Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover.
I don't know where the automotive press (including ******** here) came up with the idea that folks are going to give up an SUV for a station wagon, but they are FLAT OUT, A#1, completely, totally and in all other ways WRONG.
No, they aren't. Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are.
Europe wants diesel station wagons because gas costs a ton and they still need to haul their crap around. In the US, gas is cheap and everybody and his brother knows that it's much easier to haul kids and crap around in a Tahoe than it is in a station wagon.
Here's your choice:
You're going to take your wife and two kids out for a week long boating and camping vacation. You have to tow the boat, bring all you camping gear and maintain your sanity with the two kids in the car.
A friend has offered either of his two vehicles for you to use because your Explorer just rolled over and exploded. You can have the Volvo station wagon or his Tahoe.
Which do you want?
The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops.
Add to that the fact that you can drop a 500hp motor into a station wagon and it would STILL never even remotely be considered an enthusiast's car.
Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market). How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension? Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"? They aren't in SUV's, that's for sure.
Station wagons are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Chevy Nomads are cool... but THAT'S IT.
SUVs are LAME. They suck as cars and they suck as trucks. Jeep Wranglers are cool... but THAT'S IT.
Christ, GM makes tons of money this year, gains market share, is named to the top 3 in overall initial quality, is declared the most efficient manufacturer in the United States (including transplants), and generally kicks the crap out of everyone else with the incentive program, and this moron claims the sky is falling.
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
Also GM has eliminated alot of car models and even a brand. In the case of those two divisions I belive they would be well suited by a Minivan..because of the Saturn factor and that Buick is now in same area as Cadillac used to be.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Originally posted by WERM
Originally posted by PacerX
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
Originally posted by PacerX
They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda.
I would like to see which company makes more money too...since GM is very compeitive or beating both in terms of Quality
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Originally posted by formula79
Is it your job to have the exact opposite view of me EVERY post?
Also GM has eliminated alot of car models and even a brand. In the case of those two divisions I belive they would be well suited by a Minivan..because of the Saturn factor and that Buick is now in same area as Cadillac used to be.
Who Sells more cars?
I would like to see which company makes more money too...since GM is very compeitive or beating both in terms of Quality
Is it your job to have the exact opposite view of me EVERY post?
Also GM has eliminated alot of car models and even a brand. In the case of those two divisions I belive they would be well suited by a Minivan..because of the Saturn factor and that Buick is now in same area as Cadillac used to be.
Who Sells more cars?
I would like to see which company makes more money too...since GM is very compeitive or beating both in terms of Quality
2) They have added several models as well (more than they cancelled?), in addition to the Fiat Deal, the Daewoo deal, the addition of the Hummer brand and the remaining 50% purchase of Saab. Market share has increased only by incentives.
3) What is the saturn factor and how will it differ from the Chevy Venture (also low cost)?
4)Buick is not anywhere near where cadillac "used to be". It is the same as it was 5 years ago.
5)I don't have the figures (feel free to dig them up) but I believe Toyota sold more cars than BOTH FORD and CHEVROLET last year. They also posted record profits (mostly from their north american operations).
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
I know Ford is having a problem too. Everyone is. The economy is not doing to well right now.
The only reason I made my comment is because they said on cnn, that some wallstreet guys told everyone to sell their stocks and the value of GM stock took a big hit that day. It caught my attention. I am sure the same thing is happening to Ford. I just stated what I heard. And they also said that GM was not that happy with the wallstreet guys that said to sell the stock, but who would be happy with that.
The only reason I made my comment is because they said on cnn, that some wallstreet guys told everyone to sell their stocks and the value of GM stock took a big hit that day. It caught my attention. I am sure the same thing is happening to Ford. I just stated what I heard. And they also said that GM was not that happy with the wallstreet guys that said to sell the stock, but who would be happy with that.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,979
"But think about how much more they could have earned if they just had "chevrolet" trucks and sold just as many. Development costs would be lower (although not much in the case of GMC) but there are those advertising expenses, plant complexities, and a whole other dealer network to support."
If you want to talk about plant complexity, at least do it with a program where it matters - and GMT-800 is NOT that program.
"Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct."
OK, which program/division do you want to cut? Buick? Nope - can't do that, they make money. Pontiac? Nope - they make money too. GM WILL NOT get rid of Chevrolet or Cadillac. You can't get rid of GMC because they have a very marketable name and also sell to the medium truck market. How about Saturn? Well, I might give you that one.
"Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other?"
Unfortunately for the unwashed, they fail to realize that for every car and every platform there is a business case done that shows the vehicle as profitable. If the vehicle will not add to the bottom line, it will NOT be built. If the business case says they can make more money with 4 minivans than they can with 2, they build them. Otherwise, they don't. What moron fails to realize is that THERE IS NO BENEFIT to making only 2 minivans if I can make more money off of making 4.
"Do they really need the cavalier and saturn?"
Cavalier is a necessity. Saturn may not be, but Saturn has fiercely loyal customers - and losing them would be bad.
"How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars."
And that's the point (again...) that moron misses. GM MAKES MORE MONEY BY BRINGING MULTIPLE VEHICLES OFF OF THE SAME PLATFORM than they do BY BUILDING FEWER. I know complexity and how it effects the bottom line, but if I can sell 120,000 vehicles on two platforms instead of 80,000 on one, I'm building two.
"When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models."
And customers demanded fewer makes and models.
"I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission."
Agile station wagons? Are you high? Step away from the crack pipe. Longer wheelbases DO NOT equate with agility.
"Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover."
Last I checked, GM was not having blowout & rollover issues, Ford was. If you can't figure out how to drive one safely, then don't buy one, and stick to freaking station wagons. Are you getting yours with a vinyl wood sticker down the side?
"Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are."
Deluded or not, BUYERS DO NOT WANT STATION WAGONS. It's like driving around a billboard that announces to the world that you only have a single, partially functional, ********.
"The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops."
You have obviously NEVER towed a boat, and I submit that you WILL NOT make better time since those huge SUV's are available with correspondingly HUGE gas tanks. That is, of course, if you actually make it to your destination as the towing capacity of a station wagon is LAME and the brakes and transmissions can't take the beating.
"Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market).
Why in the hell would I ever want a manual transmission in a tow vehicle??? Why would anybody want a manual transmission in the snow??? I love driving my M6 Camaro SS, but own a car with an automatic for trudging around town. If you want to go fast - buy a car. If you want to tow stuff and sit up high and be safer - buy the SUV. If you want folks far and wide to ponder your sexuality when you drive by - buy a station wagon.
"How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension?"
Why would any labotomy outpatient WANT a high performance station wagon???? If you want to go fast and seat four, buy a sports sedan.
If you want your neighbors to ridicule you and women to question your masculinity, buy a station wagon... even a "fast" one. Fast station wagon.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
I can see it now... "Gee Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like the station wagon with the sport suspension so I can slug it out in the twisties with Camaros. After that I am going with my wife to help her pick out a new floral pattern wallpaper for our sitting room, and then we're going to have a talk about letting me wear pants around the house every once in a while."
"Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"?"
"Enthusiast" and "station wagon" DO NOT go together. "Interior decorator" and "station wagon" do. The ENTHUSIASTS are towing their cars to the track all the time, AND THERE IS NO STATION WAGON ON GOD'S EARTH THAT WILL TOW A CAR AND TRAILER RELIABLY.
"They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda."
Toyota and Honda are next on the hit list. Chevrolet is pushing into cars, GM quality is inferior to NO ONE's now, and GM can crush them on price. The rest of the market share is coming from the imports over the next 5 years or so, and mark my words - Nissan's truck will fall flat on its face, just like Toyota's pickup trucks have. Japanese trucks suck, period.
If you want to talk about plant complexity, at least do it with a program where it matters - and GMT-800 is NOT that program.
"Peter is in a lot of ways right. For the number of cars gm sells, they have too many models and too many divisions That is absolutely correct."
OK, which program/division do you want to cut? Buick? Nope - can't do that, they make money. Pontiac? Nope - they make money too. GM WILL NOT get rid of Chevrolet or Cadillac. You can't get rid of GMC because they have a very marketable name and also sell to the medium truck market. How about Saturn? Well, I might give you that one.
"Do they really need four minivans? Will they really win over more buyers or will they compete with each other?"
Unfortunately for the unwashed, they fail to realize that for every car and every platform there is a business case done that shows the vehicle as profitable. If the vehicle will not add to the bottom line, it will NOT be built. If the business case says they can make more money with 4 minivans than they can with 2, they build them. Otherwise, they don't. What moron fails to realize is that THERE IS NO BENEFIT to making only 2 minivans if I can make more money off of making 4.
"Do they really need the cavalier and saturn?"
Cavalier is a necessity. Saturn may not be, but Saturn has fiercely loyal customers - and losing them would be bad.
"How about the Buick Ranier and Izuzu SUV's - copies of the trailblazer. Does every division have to have a full line? Think about how much it costs them to build and distribute so many redundant cars."
And that's the point (again...) that moron misses. GM MAKES MORE MONEY BY BRINGING MULTIPLE VEHICLES OFF OF THE SAME PLATFORM than they do BY BUILDING FEWER. I know complexity and how it effects the bottom line, but if I can sell 120,000 vehicles on two platforms instead of 80,000 on one, I'm building two.
"When GM controlled 50% of the market, it had far fewer makes and models."
And customers demanded fewer makes and models.
"I do. I like agile handling, respectable fuel economy, and a manual transmission."
Agile station wagons? Are you high? Step away from the crack pipe. Longer wheelbases DO NOT equate with agility.
"Plus, I like knowing that I can swerve to avoid a deer or have a blowout and not rollover."
Last I checked, GM was not having blowout & rollover issues, Ford was. If you can't figure out how to drive one safely, then don't buy one, and stick to freaking station wagons. Are you getting yours with a vinyl wood sticker down the side?
"Those "crossover" suv's that are gaining in sales? Those are really station wagons (Freestyle, Pacifica, Highlander, Pilot) and minivans (aztek, rendevous) with taller roofs and tough styling. The buyers may be deluded into thinking they are an "SUV" but that doesn't mean they really are."
Deluded or not, BUYERS DO NOT WANT STATION WAGONS. It's like driving around a billboard that announces to the world that you only have a single, partially functional, ********.
"The Wagon. I'll take a car, thanks. One with a lower center of gravity and agile handling. I'll even take a Sedan over the Tahoe. I won't have to lift things up 5' to load in the back. I won't have to swing in and out of it like a monkey, and I'll make better time on my trip with fewer fuel stops."
You have obviously NEVER towed a boat, and I submit that you WILL NOT make better time since those huge SUV's are available with correspondingly HUGE gas tanks. That is, of course, if you actually make it to your destination as the towing capacity of a station wagon is LAME and the brakes and transmissions can't take the beating.
"Really. Go count the number of station wagons that you can get with a manual transmission and then count how many SUV's you can get with a manual trans (keeping in mind the sheer number of SUVs vs. wagons in the market).
Why in the hell would I ever want a manual transmission in a tow vehicle??? Why would anybody want a manual transmission in the snow??? I love driving my M6 Camaro SS, but own a car with an automatic for trudging around town. If you want to go fast - buy a car. If you want to tow stuff and sit up high and be safer - buy the SUV. If you want folks far and wide to ponder your sexuality when you drive by - buy a station wagon.
"How many of those wagons offer a true sport suspension?"
Why would any labotomy outpatient WANT a high performance station wagon???? If you want to go fast and seat four, buy a sports sedan.
If you want your neighbors to ridicule you and women to question your masculinity, buy a station wagon... even a "fast" one. Fast station wagon.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
I can see it now... "Gee Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like the station wagon with the sport suspension so I can slug it out in the twisties with Camaros. After that I am going with my wife to help her pick out a new floral pattern wallpaper for our sitting room, and then we're going to have a talk about letting me wear pants around the house every once in a while."
"Now, tell me where the "enthusiasts"?"
"Enthusiast" and "station wagon" DO NOT go together. "Interior decorator" and "station wagon" do. The ENTHUSIASTS are towing their cars to the track all the time, AND THERE IS NO STATION WAGON ON GOD'S EARTH THAT WILL TOW A CAR AND TRAILER RELIABLY.
"They are not kicking the crap out of toyota and honda."
Toyota and Honda are next on the hit list. Chevrolet is pushing into cars, GM quality is inferior to NO ONE's now, and GM can crush them on price. The rest of the market share is coming from the imports over the next 5 years or so, and mark my words - Nissan's truck will fall flat on its face, just like Toyota's pickup trucks have. Japanese trucks suck, period.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
I will have to disagree that Japanese trucks suck.
I live in Redneck Central. I have never seen a ford, chevy, or dodge that has withstood even half the crap I have seen the poor toyota trucks put through. Them Toyota motors are bulletproof.
I live in Redneck Central. I have never seen a ford, chevy, or dodge that has withstood even half the crap I have seen the poor toyota trucks put through. Them Toyota motors are bulletproof.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Wagons Rule
Originally posted by PacerX
OK, which program/division do you want to cut? Buick? Nope - can't do that, they make money. Pontiac? Nope - they make money too. GM WILL NOT get rid of Chevrolet or Cadillac. You can't get rid of GMC because they have a very marketable name and also sell to the medium truck market. How about Saturn? Well, I might give you that one.
How about GMC and Saturn? Why can't Chevy sell medium trucks?
Unfortunately for the unwashed, they fail to realize that for every car and every platform there is a business case done that shows the vehicle as profitable. If the vehicle will not add to the bottom line, it will NOT be built. If the business case says they can make more money with 4 minivans than they can with 2, they build them. Otherwise, they don't. What moron fails to realize is that THERE IS NO BENEFIT to making only 2 minivans if I can make more money off of making 4.
Wouldn't they be better off if they focused their efforts on making THE BEST minivan rather than diluting resources to have 4 average models? How many minivans does Toyota make? Honda? VW?
Cavalier is a necessity. Saturn may not be, but Saturn has fiercely loyal customers - and losing them would be bad.
Why both the cavalier and ion? are they not the same market? If the Cavalier was as good as the civic, would they need the ion?
And that's the point (again...) that moron misses. GM MAKES MORE MONEY BY BRINGING MULTIPLE VEHICLES OFF OF THE SAME PLATFORM than they do BY BUILDING FEWER. I know complexity and how it effects the bottom line, but if I can sell 120,000 vehicles on two platforms instead of 80,000 on one, I'm building two.
See above.
Agile station wagons? Are you high? Step away from the crack pipe. Longer wheelbases DO NOT equate with agility.
They are still CARS and are far more agile than any SUV - and can even be fun to drive.
Last I checked, GM was not having blowout & rollover issues, Ford was. If you can't figure out how to drive one safely, then don't buy one, and stick to freaking station wagons. Are you getting yours with a vinyl wood sticker down the side?
Nearly all SUVs have rollover issues -that pesky high center of gravity. I'd rather not deal with additional risk and waste gas just to look cool. Actually, I'm thinking of a 6-speed VR6 Jetta Wagon, Turbocharged WRX, or if I have extra money, an Audi or Saab wagon. Maybe even an ultra-efficient Diesel wagon (as an engineer, I find the possibility of a 50MPG wagon intriguing). Unfortunately, they don't offer wood on these models.
Deluded or not, BUYERS DO NOT WANT STATION WAGONS. It's like driving around a billboard that announces to the world that you only have a single, partially functional, ********.
Which is what SUVs say, except add insecurity and lemming mentality.
You have obviously NEVER towed a boat, and I submit that you WILL NOT make better time since those huge SUV's are available with correspondingly HUGE gas tanks. That is, of course, if you actually make it to your destination as the towing capacity of a station wagon is LAME and the brakes and transmissions can't take the beating.
Like 90% of SUV owners, I don't own a boat or tow a trailer. I'll still get there faster because the smaller tank lakes less time to fill.
Why in the hell would I ever want a manual transmission in a tow vehicle??? Why would anybody want a manual transmission in the snow??? I love driving my M6 Camaro SS, but own a car with an automatic for trudging around town. If you want to go fast - buy a car. If you want to tow stuff and sit up high and be safer - buy the SUV. If you want folks far and wide to ponder your sexuality when you drive by - buy a station wagon.
Manual Transmisisons are better in the snow. In a sport wagon, I can be safe, haul stuff, and go fast. You have to make the leap that lots of people don't like these monster SUVs.
Why would any labotomy outpatient WANT a high performance station wagon???? If you want to go fast and seat four, buy a sports sedan.
If you want your neighbors to ridicule you and women to question your masculinity, buy a station wagon... even a "fast" one. Fast station wagon.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Think I care? I'm married, and - I enjoy driving. I'll also have my sports cars to augment. They may even lable me as an independent thinker.
I can see it now... "Gee Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like the station wagon with the sport suspension so I can slug it out in the twisties with Camaros. After that I am going with my wife to help her pick out a new floral pattern wallpaper for our sitting room, and then we're going to have a talk about letting me wear pants around the house every once in a while."
"Enthusiast" and "station wagon" DO NOT go together. "Interior decorator" and "station wagon" do. The ENTHUSIASTS are towing their cars to the track all the time, AND THERE IS NO STATION WAGON ON GOD'S EARTH THAT WILL TOW A CAR AND TRAILER RELIABLY.
Well, someone's buying these cars with sticks and sport suspensions, or they wouldn't sell them. As an enthusiast, I want ALL my cars to be a joy to drive. I don't want to tow things - I want to DRIVE things.
OK, which program/division do you want to cut? Buick? Nope - can't do that, they make money. Pontiac? Nope - they make money too. GM WILL NOT get rid of Chevrolet or Cadillac. You can't get rid of GMC because they have a very marketable name and also sell to the medium truck market. How about Saturn? Well, I might give you that one.
How about GMC and Saturn? Why can't Chevy sell medium trucks?
Unfortunately for the unwashed, they fail to realize that for every car and every platform there is a business case done that shows the vehicle as profitable. If the vehicle will not add to the bottom line, it will NOT be built. If the business case says they can make more money with 4 minivans than they can with 2, they build them. Otherwise, they don't. What moron fails to realize is that THERE IS NO BENEFIT to making only 2 minivans if I can make more money off of making 4.
Wouldn't they be better off if they focused their efforts on making THE BEST minivan rather than diluting resources to have 4 average models? How many minivans does Toyota make? Honda? VW?
Cavalier is a necessity. Saturn may not be, but Saturn has fiercely loyal customers - and losing them would be bad.
Why both the cavalier and ion? are they not the same market? If the Cavalier was as good as the civic, would they need the ion?
And that's the point (again...) that moron misses. GM MAKES MORE MONEY BY BRINGING MULTIPLE VEHICLES OFF OF THE SAME PLATFORM than they do BY BUILDING FEWER. I know complexity and how it effects the bottom line, but if I can sell 120,000 vehicles on two platforms instead of 80,000 on one, I'm building two.
See above.
Agile station wagons? Are you high? Step away from the crack pipe. Longer wheelbases DO NOT equate with agility.
They are still CARS and are far more agile than any SUV - and can even be fun to drive.
Last I checked, GM was not having blowout & rollover issues, Ford was. If you can't figure out how to drive one safely, then don't buy one, and stick to freaking station wagons. Are you getting yours with a vinyl wood sticker down the side?
Nearly all SUVs have rollover issues -that pesky high center of gravity. I'd rather not deal with additional risk and waste gas just to look cool. Actually, I'm thinking of a 6-speed VR6 Jetta Wagon, Turbocharged WRX, or if I have extra money, an Audi or Saab wagon. Maybe even an ultra-efficient Diesel wagon (as an engineer, I find the possibility of a 50MPG wagon intriguing). Unfortunately, they don't offer wood on these models.
Deluded or not, BUYERS DO NOT WANT STATION WAGONS. It's like driving around a billboard that announces to the world that you only have a single, partially functional, ********.
Which is what SUVs say, except add insecurity and lemming mentality.
You have obviously NEVER towed a boat, and I submit that you WILL NOT make better time since those huge SUV's are available with correspondingly HUGE gas tanks. That is, of course, if you actually make it to your destination as the towing capacity of a station wagon is LAME and the brakes and transmissions can't take the beating.
Like 90% of SUV owners, I don't own a boat or tow a trailer. I'll still get there faster because the smaller tank lakes less time to fill.
Why in the hell would I ever want a manual transmission in a tow vehicle??? Why would anybody want a manual transmission in the snow??? I love driving my M6 Camaro SS, but own a car with an automatic for trudging around town. If you want to go fast - buy a car. If you want to tow stuff and sit up high and be safer - buy the SUV. If you want folks far and wide to ponder your sexuality when you drive by - buy a station wagon.
Manual Transmisisons are better in the snow. In a sport wagon, I can be safe, haul stuff, and go fast. You have to make the leap that lots of people don't like these monster SUVs.
Why would any labotomy outpatient WANT a high performance station wagon???? If you want to go fast and seat four, buy a sports sedan.
If you want your neighbors to ridicule you and women to question your masculinity, buy a station wagon... even a "fast" one. Fast station wagon.... BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Think I care? I'm married, and - I enjoy driving. I'll also have my sports cars to augment. They may even lable me as an independent thinker.
I can see it now... "Gee Mr. Car Salesman, I'd like the station wagon with the sport suspension so I can slug it out in the twisties with Camaros. After that I am going with my wife to help her pick out a new floral pattern wallpaper for our sitting room, and then we're going to have a talk about letting me wear pants around the house every once in a while."
"Enthusiast" and "station wagon" DO NOT go together. "Interior decorator" and "station wagon" do. The ENTHUSIASTS are towing their cars to the track all the time, AND THERE IS NO STATION WAGON ON GOD'S EARTH THAT WILL TOW A CAR AND TRAILER RELIABLY.
Well, someone's buying these cars with sticks and sport suspensions, or they wouldn't sell them. As an enthusiast, I want ALL my cars to be a joy to drive. I don't want to tow things - I want to DRIVE things.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 147
From: Atlanta, GA
Sax - I see the marketing gurus at the import brands are working with you. No motor is "bulletproof." Please dont be fooled into thinking Japanese motors, especially when speaking of trucks, are any more superior than their American counterparts.
The stereotype that America cars are cheap is no longer valid. We are past the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. The Deming-ized Japanese products have affected the American industry as well. I am so tired of people saying American cars are inferior to Japanese/European cars. Then they attempt to compare a BMW or Merecedes to a Chevy...c'mon now, lets compare apples to apples.
Volkswagon interiors are horrific...the seats are hard, the interiors are bland, dark and not very user-friendly. Then they try to throw a $25k price tag on a car that barely seats 2 up front and 2 cramped in the back....it's still a VW. You can't polish a turd. In retrospect, kudos to the marketing departments at these companies that actually fooled everyone into think their products are superior.
Ok...Im done. Im just vexed at the constant barrage on American quality. (Not on here really...just in the media and the general population).
-Rich
The stereotype that America cars are cheap is no longer valid. We are past the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. The Deming-ized Japanese products have affected the American industry as well. I am so tired of people saying American cars are inferior to Japanese/European cars. Then they attempt to compare a BMW or Merecedes to a Chevy...c'mon now, lets compare apples to apples.
Volkswagon interiors are horrific...the seats are hard, the interiors are bland, dark and not very user-friendly. Then they try to throw a $25k price tag on a car that barely seats 2 up front and 2 cramped in the back....it's still a VW. You can't polish a turd. In retrospect, kudos to the marketing departments at these companies that actually fooled everyone into think their products are superior.
Ok...Im done. Im just vexed at the constant barrage on American quality. (Not on here really...just in the media and the general population).
-Rich
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 604
From: Elgin,SC
INTENSS- I did not mean that they were literally bulletproof. I have been mudding in a few that have blown the engine. I am not a big fan of imports.
I just speak of my experience with people who have no respect or regard for their vehicles and what they do to them. Them little Toyota trucks see double the punishment with less than a third of the broke down time than the domestic counterparts.
This might just be my area that experiences this wonder. I just see to many domestics and imports when I go with the good ole local boys to mud ride. Usually the domestic trucks have more problems then their toyota counterparts.
I am not talking in a whole view of import vs. domestic trucks. Just in the how much crap can the engine take department.
I just speak of my experience with people who have no respect or regard for their vehicles and what they do to them. Them little Toyota trucks see double the punishment with less than a third of the broke down time than the domestic counterparts.
This might just be my area that experiences this wonder. I just see to many domestics and imports when I go with the good ole local boys to mud ride. Usually the domestic trucks have more problems then their toyota counterparts.
I am not talking in a whole view of import vs. domestic trucks. Just in the how much crap can the engine take department.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 102
From: Baltimore, MD, USA
I also agree with WERM. I love GM, but right now, when I get out of college and get a job, and it's my money on the table, I'll keep my SS as a toy, but all the rebates in the world wouldn't get me into any GM product except a saturn just because their customer service is so amazingly perfect. Sorry but for my money, a nissan, toyota or honda are still miles ahead in quality, reliability, and SAFETY. American cars make up for their quality issues in the styling and passion that I feel as though the foreign cars lack, but when GM is pumping out cars like tha malibu, cavalier, and impala, it seems as though that passion is dead, especially with cars like the camaro killed off. My dad just bought a subaru WRX wagon, coolest little car. Fun as hell to drive, one of the safest cars on the road, lots of space for crap(I know it can't haul a boat, we don't have a boat and none of our neighbors do either), and subarus run FOREVER, I know, I worked at a dealership and they were routinely coming in with over 200,000 miles, no joke. So GM, I love you but it may be time for some tough love, get your act together.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 420
From: Pasadena,CA,USA
In case anyone cares, GM's stock price fell last Oct. because Standard & Poor's downgraded its debt. It had nothing to do with last years earnings. Since then, the stock has held steady at about $35.
