Saving GM

The problem in the past with bringing over small cars hasn't been the product (we had a merkur and LOVED it) it has been the demographic of buyers.

Look at the 80's , gas was cheap , cars were big. Why the hell would I drive a small car.

Now society's mindset has done a complete 180. GM has the beat , a car lutz says we arenot going to see , but it's a tick over 2000Lbs with a 1.4Ltr Turbo. That has fun written all over it. .No I-beam rear suspension , all independent, looks good...ect.

Canada recently aligned it's bumper laws with the US and the UK , this was a stumbling block before for GM because bringing in Small cars for the US market only didn't make sense due to Canada (sorry guys) thats why the only real imported car we saw until now was the GTO. A Car that delivered the goods in the performance dept, but mundane looks and a real lack of pannache killed it.

The G8 is getting rave reviews , but it's such a small target market that will buy a big RWD V8 sedan. The Ad campaign compares it to the BMW on the basis of value ,but a buyer in that demographic isn't looking for value ,they want status. Wrong car at the wrong time.

If someone at GM was smart they would have stuck with the saturn EV1. Initially it was called a failure , but as with any new technology it would have progressed nicely. The problem with all of these electric cars / hybrids is not the car , the motors , the power ...it's the batteries.

The nickel for the batteries in the prius is mined in Canada , sent across the world and back again before it actually gets in the car , and they are in-efficient. What the car makes up in it's impact on the worlds environment while on the road , it more then offsets with it's production techniques and long term effect (Old batteries anyone?)

The EV1 would have been a great project for them to continue , but there was no economic reason for it. Imagine 10 years of real world development on a fully electric car. GM would be laughing right now.

poor Gm , all the wrong people at the helm. Too bad Im a low level PeeOn

The thing about comparing American execs to Japanese execs, is that here, we want profit today, overseas, they want profit 10 years from now.

The ability to take a step back, and look at the big picture is what makes them, but breaks us.

Saying GM has built crap cars for 30 years ignores all the rusty crap piles that came out of Japan. If you dig deeper then the evening news , you will find that they ALL have there fair share of skeletons in the closet.

The main japanese players have been much better at managing situations then their US counterparts. Proactive when a problem occurs , not reactive. The US players have the "Lets see what happens" mentality whenit comes to recalls. They wait for it to be all over the news , the Japanese don't wait. They perform voluntary recalls. They know that the money lost in the interim is a small price to pay to protect their reputations. The US guys look at recalls as nothing more then a cost to them, even though any one of them would pay every last cent to have the rep of Toyota or Honda.

just a different mindset.

That's true, when Japan first brought their cars over here, they went through the same thing the Koreans went through with their first America offerings, which the Chinese are going through right now with their current offerings.

Everyone eventually learns from their mistakes, but the Asian companies have a knack for quicker response.

One of the US manufacturers need to Jump in bed QUICK with Tesla.. Secure rights to sell them through their dealer-body..

Stock prices would jump significantly..

We all talk about GM , but it's my impression that Chrysler is the one that will need saving...again. They are the only ones without a strong foreign contingent.

Funny you should say that, cause I was just talking with a friend about them and apparantly they are going to stop leasing vehicles.

Here's where he claims that info came from,

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/06/news/companies/big_three_woes/index.htm?cnn=yes

GM has stopped leasing in Canada as well as of Aug 1.

and the chrysler thing is 100% true!

Ford lost Billions last quarter due to trucks coming back off lease and residuals being far off actual market value.

Technology has marched on. All the cars from the late '80's on back were bad about rusting no matter where they were made, because the technology to produce reasonably corrosion resistant steel at a reasonable price did not exist. So yeah Japanese, British, German, French and American cars all rusted. That's where rustproofing systems like Rusty Jones came from, the aftermarket's attempt to stave off corrosion.

When all the 4 banger cars started arriving from the various manufacturers worldwide, the prevailing wisdom among the American car buying public was that the engines simply weren't going to last because of the RPM involved. Guess what- they did last and got better and better, not to mention the better gas mileage.

The SUV craze IMHO is part of a backlash against mandated safety equipment. For a while, pickups and similar were exempt from air bags, motorized seat belts, etc. and people did NOT like being told they had to have that stuff. So for a while, people would buy trucks and SUVs to get around that stuff and they sorta caught on.

Still, GM etc should have had the foresight to see the eventual demise of the outrageous fuel hog. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out; warnings about the planet's oil eventually running out were sounded as far back as the 1920s.

The fact that GM bought HUMMER shows their attention to short term profits over long term viability. I guarantee you all the dealers who spent big $$$ to build those signature HUMMER stores (at GM's direction, BTW) are regretting that decision.

ignorant wrote: maybe.. I think they're on the right track... just way behind the 8 ball Some interesting notes from an MBA... (atleast crap that they told me that made an impression, trust me it's earth shattering..) 1. its about the products, always. without new, innovative and constantly developed products you will lose. 2. its better to go forward than fix stuff. Gm wasted valuable top talent resources shedding legacy costs. Yes it should have been done, but it seems like they did it at the expense of the products. Almost like they thought that if they could save some money they could continue going along at the same pace.. Very odd strategies at work.

Very odd indeed. I've been gripping about the company's direction for 5 years now. I couldn't believe that the US automakers thought Hybrids were a fluke. GM should be the leader in developing electric cars, motors and batteries. They had a massive head start, but then when the SUV rose to power they forgot about alternative powertrains and wrote off their research.

Ford is going to do turbos on small displacement engines, and Chrysler, well I think their days are numbered unless gas prices come down. How could they not see the writing on the wall?

Jensenman wrote: The SUV craze IMHO is part of a backlash against mandated safety equipment. For a while, pickups and similar were exempt from air bags, motorized seat belts, etc. and people did NOT like being told they had to have that stuff. So for a while, people would buy trucks and SUVs to get around that stuff and they sorta caught on.

People bought those things because they were/are big powerful vehicles. In west Texas having a suburban or some other huge SUV is a status symbol. Might not ever need all that power but you have it.

I've heard a number of people say they didn't feel safe in smaller cars. I always laugh and tell them I'd feel safer if they drove a smaller car instead.

When I saw this topic the first thing that came to mind was "why GM, this is affecting all three domestic car makers". My whole point of the modular cars was to be able to refit cars to make them US legal (DOT and EPA/CARB stuff). Right now the US buyers are salivating at the smaller cars that are available elsewhere but they can't have them - not because of the cultural or the demographics but because those cars are not legal to be imported here. The domestic car makers have an advantage over FIAT, Alfa Romeo etc in that they already have dealers and service departments and two have similar smaller cars here and they could've used the same parts bin for them as for their European counterparts. I'm well aware of how much nicer the non-US model cars are as I spend time outside the US once or twice and year and get to rent Ford Fiestas etc in Europe. Indeed they're higher quality cars and very practical I might add. It sucks to see/feel driving a 5000lb car/truck alone every morning. Living in SoCal with no public transport it pains to see we have so much of the premium real-estate allocated to the parking lots and structures because everyone drives alone so if you work at a 3000 employee building you see a university campus like parking lot attached to it.

We are getting the Fiesta here in North America , and the 335D BMW..

god I love diesel!

as hard as things are for GM, I still think that Chrysler is in more trouble. The best milage in a dodge is 30 HW, and thats in the mid size, the "compact" calibur only gets 29.

neon4891 wrote: as hard as things are for GM, I still think that Chrysler is in more trouble. The best milage in a dodge is 30 HW, and thats in the mid size, the "compact" calibur only gets 29.

No kidding. I haven't seen much in the way of proposals about what Chrysler's doing to make it through this, either.

Strangely, when I think American car companies, it takes a few moments before I think of Chrysler. They just seem so out of touch with... everything. It's like they were designed to be rental cars.

jikelly wrote:

Jensenman wrote: The SUV craze IMHO is part of a backlash against mandated safety equipment. For a while, pickups and similar were exempt from air bags, motorized seat belts, etc. and people did NOT like being told they had to have that stuff. So for a while, people would buy trucks and SUVs to get around that stuff and they sorta caught on.

People bought those things because they were/are big powerful vehicles. In west Texas having a suburban or some other huge SUV is a status symbol. Might not ever need all that power but you have it. I've heard a number of people say they didn't feel safe in smaller cars. I always laugh and tell them I'd feel safer if they drove a smaller car instead.

I should have clarified. When airbags and other passive restraints became mandatory in passenger cars, pickups and SUVs were considered commercial vehicles and as such did not have to have passive restraints. I had quite a few Ford customers who switched from cars to pickups because of that. A lot of those people decided to keep driving big ol' horkin' SUVs even after the same systems became mandatory on those as well. I think that was the genesis of the SUV craze, or fad, or whatever.

Yeah, I see Chrysler facing tough times. Maybe they can re team with Mitsubishi like they did the first time around, maybe not.

Follow me on this:

Chrysler and Ford need to get into bed with Asian (Mitsu and Mazda) and European (VW, Fiat) and create a new world manufacturing program. (Specifically Chrysler + Mitsubishi + Volkswagen and Ford + Mazda + Fiat)

Using modular platforms and streamlined engineering to build cars and trucks in a REGIONAL manner.

Build a range of cars for each manufacturer locally (similar to the 626/Probe or the B3000/Ranger) but on a larger scale. EVERY region has one facility that pumps out 4 or 5 cars and brands and a facility that pumps out trucks/SUVs. The facilities would produce a smaller amount of cars and the delivery time would be reduced. Shipping costs would be reduced and more important regional parts supplier jobs could be created to help grow more American (Japanese, Russian, Etheropian whatever) jobs.

Reduce manufacturers lines Reduce stagnant inventory Increase global unity.

Mitsu does not currently sell anything in the US that gets better MPG than what Chrysler already has.

Their best is the Lancer at 22/25/30

True, Mitsu has resources to others foriegn versions

I mentioned the Mitsu connection because of the Colt/Arrow etc of the 1970's.

Having been a VW service manager, I don't think I would advise any of the Big 3 to climb in bed with VW unless they want their products to look worse than they already do from a reliability standpoint.

Chrysler is already working with Cherry automotive , having taken away the rights to US partnership from Malcolm Bricklins "Visionary Vehicles" now called simply "V cars"

Jensenman wrote: Yeah, I see Chrysler facing tough times. Maybe they can re team with Mitsubishi like they did the first time around, maybe not.

If anything, Mitsubishi is in more trouble than Chrysler.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Evo the only reason that Mitsubishi hasn't gone under?

Contrary to belief, the Evo isn't what saved Mitsubishi Motors. They received a huge cash infusion from the parent Mitsubishi Group and were placed under the leadership of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.

the success of the ever fatter 4th gen eclipse saved them (in sales terms) i thought?