I feel the same way. It's kinda like back in the 90s when GM was going to have ABS as standard equipment on every one of their cars. They spent boatloads of money trumpeting how they were going to be the safety leader. Nobody cared, and eventually they started removing ABS again to save cost. And ABS was probably more highly regarded by the general public at that time than Stabilitrak & OnStar are now.

My guess is that he's looking for something, preferably something cheap, that he can use to set GM apart from the crowd as a supposed competitive advantage. Stabilitrak & OnStar are about all that GM has that fits that bill.

 

He used the word "Bah."

If you're going to call something a flop, use real sales figures.

Sales figures for Hybird cars? How about the profit made on each car sold?

The article was painful to read, and not because I disagreed with what he was saying. Just because he won the Pulitzer in the past doesnt mean everything is a home run.

 

He's just another California tree hugger who is against everything that isn't environmentally friendly. SUV=BAD to california tree huggers. He most likely won't give a positive review of anything GM ever, because they are the SUV people.
I think GM has to stick with what they know. No matter what they do, they can't be seen as equals of toyota or honda with a car. But how many companies will be able to trump the new tahoe and other SUVs when they come out? Not many probably. GM knows they can put out a winner with the SUVs, that's what they do right. So even though gas is up and SUV sales are down, they know that can put out a leader in it's class with SUVs. Unlike the car market where everything below a cadi is going to be "cheap interior" and "plain styling" in every review.

 

Didn't read the article, but it seems odd that he singles out GM (as is so common with the idiotic, sheeplike media) with respect to hybrids? Ford kinda/sorta has the Escape (delayed how many times?). What about Chrysler? Nissan? Mazda? BMW? Mercedes? VW?

Basically, of all the entire industry, only Toyota and Honda have some saleable hybrids. Yet somehow, of the entire industry, only GM "missed the boat"... I agree that GM did miss a boat... the boat full of all the positive press and spin that Toyota and Honda are getting from their hybrids (while the more logical GM/Allison hybrid city bus gets a few fleeting mentions and is forgotten). Hybrids are still very much an emerging segment, and if the ship has indeed already sailed, then it isn't just GM who missed it.

It's about time they start holding these morons in the media accountable.

 

Read the article and didn't find anything objectionable. Looks real similar to the honest looks at all of the problems with GM today. He called the G6 adequate but not great, which is exactly right, and made the point that the public completely agrees which is why it's selling like snow cones at the north pole.

You didn't read the article, but the guy writing it is a moron and GM is completely in the right? The article is a 2 minute read.

Sounds like GM can't take people being honest about them. They gotta advertise their rebates somewhere, not like they'll pull their ads from every auto rag on the planet. I was in defense of the comments by Lutz when he said them, but in the context of this article, it looks like GM is trying to blackmail their way into good press. Don't give our car a favorable review? Fine, we won't advertise for you. Turn it around and say hey Mr Auto Editor, give me a good review and I'll hook your mag up some some nice ad revenue.

Here's an idea, make a good car that rags can't say anything bad about. Where's all the bad reviews of the 300, Mustang or Corvette?

 

Nice, quote me and cut out the entire main point of the post. I made a general statement about the media, which you attributed just to this one guy.

GM not liking people being "honest"? Did you read the issue at hand? They pulled advertising because of numerous, incorrect (i.e. dishonest) statements in editorials in the paper. The article by Neil that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was not even a review of a car, but about GM and hybrids. It isn't like he wrote a bad review of a product and GM said "Screw you, we're pulling our ads". If they did that, they'd have pulled out of Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Automobile, Road & Track, etc. etc. years ago.

GM made a decision based on the history (or at least recent history) of the LA Times' coverage of the company and/or its products. They have every right to do so. What is the problem here?

And again, GM is late to the hybrid party, compared to Toyota and Honda. But so are Ford, DCX, Hyundai, Mazda, Nissan, VW, BMW, M-B, Jaguar, etc. etc. Yet Neil felt the need to write an opinion piece that singles out GM? Why?

EDIT: OK, I went and checked out the article by Neil (I had only read the articles about GM pulling the ads). I was wrong in this post (above this edit) to think the article was about the hybrid issue alone; that was one point that Neil brought up. I still think he is bring up a non-issue with that point, but the article was not exactly what I had initially thought. I also think some of his statements about the G6 are absurd and hyperbolous (which, it seems, is at least partially the kind of nonsense GM is mad about). He says the 200 hp V6 and 4 speed auto (insert snide remark about only 4 speeds, even though the car performs well and still has good fuel economy) is the reason why "thrashy and unrefined" is a cliche. Please. The 4T60/65 4 speed autobox is one of the smoothest in the industry, and the new 3500 V6 is rather smooth as well. It doesn't sound like the 8000 rpm-capable M3 inline 6, but I find it acceptable for its market segment.

Bottom line is that GM can spend its money where it sees fit, and they have decided not to screw with the Times anymore. That is their right. Some will think it is a good move, while others will see it as being weak. I tend to lean toward the former, since I think the media is unfriendly to the Big Three (or Two, at least), and GM in particular. See ProudPony's thread for other discussion in this area.

 

Even if he does make some good points about the products by GM, what car manufacture doesn't have problems with some aspect of their automobiles? Is every other car perfect except GM and Ford made cars? Toyota must have class leading power in every car they make. And Honda must have the absolute best interiors in all of the vehicles they make. If GM was as far behind the curve as most of the media makes them seem, they wouldn't even have cars on the lot. It would be pointless to even try if it was as bad as what is reported. But it's not, it's just that all you hear about is the negative side of their products. I'd be tired of it too if I was GM.

 

Actually, GM did pull ads from Automobile a few years ago for similar reasons. I can't recall how that one ended however