It's a first step, but it still doesn't address two MAJOR problems GM faces:

- the UAW

- building redundant vehicles across it's line: case in point, the Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac Pursuit. It's the same bloody car for crissake!

Until the method by which they build cars is fundamentally changed, I fear these alterations will only be a short term solution.

I heard one automotive journalist remark that if GM built ALL its cars with the same level of attention and technology innovation as the new Corvette Z06, the company's troubles would be over. Here, here.

 

Ya, these plant closings were definitely innevitable, as they are for ford too. When you've got a #1 car company that's got the capacity to build more cars than anybody else, and then gradually its selling fewer and fewer cars cause other companies are taking over, you've gotta adjust that capacity. If they keep the same number of plants open, but are selling fewer and fewer cars, they're gonna start losing lots of money. So they've gotta downsize quite a bit, i think. And ya, that also means trimming down their lines, i think... Or maybe it doesn't really make much of a difference if they've got two versions of the same car. Like it can't cost that much to tack on a different badge and grill, and maybe it'll catch them a couple extra sales. Meh, either way, i think its stupid to have so many different names for the same car without any change in content, and they could definitely kill off at least a half dozen cars and possibly the entire GMC line or the chevy trucks.

I think they did a good job styling the new impala though. Classy like the 500 but more sporty looking, i wish the 500 looked a little more like the impala.

Keep in mind that ford has possibly similar closings and job cuts coming in january, as part of their major restructuring. Its not like this is more bad news for the company though. Its bad news for the people losing those jobs, but as far as the company is concerned, these closings are adjusting the company to become more profitable.

 

GM needs to restructure. The current arrangement dates to the 1930's - the concept of a series of product lines to carry the buyer through their life.

The concept began to come apart in the 60's and 70's, when the product lines began to become interchangeable. That cost saving measure made so much financial sence in the short-term. And now we can see how much sense it made in the long term.

Most folks see no real difference from one product line to another. Sure, GM markets them differently, but folks have been looking a the cladding added to the flanks of Pontiacs long enough now to see the Chevrolet underneath. The emperor has no clothes.

A Chrysler-style bailout MAY help - if GM does what Chrysler did and starts over on the inside as well as the outside. They might manage that too - imminent death has a way of focusing your attention.

Remember, the government only signed loan guarantees to carry Chrysler across the gap. No government money actually went into Chrysler. But GM doesn't have a Lee Iacocca. Say what you might about Lee, but he was a consummate salesman. The K car ( and the disposal of the nightmarish Chrysler product product "bank" concept that force-fed inventory into dealerships) is what turned Chrysler around. The apparent "invention" of a new product category - the minivan - relaunched Chrysler.

Lee was good at spotting missed market segments, wasn't he? I think he was involved in something like that at Ford too, once upon a time.


But can GM get their own Lee AND find an untapped market segment? They need both to remake the Chrysler miracle.

 

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

But they face so many problems - some of which may be beyond their control - that you have to wonder if it's simply too late now.

It's a simple formula: If they want to survive, then they need to bulld cars with the same operational methodology and to the same levels of quality, as the Japanese.

People on this board who go on and on and on about how it's all "perception" are entirely clued out (no offense). You don't argue about the color of the lifeboat as the ship is sinking around you.

GM and Ford remind me of the last dinosaurs scraping for food in a land that has seen the mass arrival of smarter, faster more agile mammals.

Sorry about all the colorful metaphors.

 

Let me clue you in: I base my opinion on personal experience. The one car I had that had to go back to the dealer more than any other was an Acura. My personal experience is that Japanese cars aren't that much better than domestics. That's not perception, that's MY reality. If you disagree, fine. But don't go around telling me to "clue in".

 

With all due respect, it's not my responsibility if you took that comment personally. Your Acura experience is NOT typical, it's atypical. And as such I was referring to the erroneous notion that Japanese cars are only better because they are PERCEIVED to be better.

Which is a load of crap. Japanese cars - as an aggregate - ARE better, and the public is proving it by giving Toyota more of their hard earned money than Ford. Now if you think it's because those same people are all so stupid that they merely PERCEIVE Toyota is better than Ford, then you should go back and check JD Powers, Consumer Reports and just about any popular statistical survey you care to name.

And until Ford and GM accept this fundamental truth, they will continue to march towards extinction.

 

When you make inflammatory comments you know good and well that some will take it personally so don't hand that load of poo that it's not your responsibility. Why else would you add the "no offense" statement if you didn't think it would offend someone?

I know several people that have these atypical experiences as you put it and these were proponents of Japanese cars (note the emphasis). I'm not saying Japanese cars are crap. I'm just saying that the difference in quality is much narrower than it once was but the perception continues.

EDIT: Since you brought up JD Powers, how about this quote taken directly from their website:

Here's the link.

 

Yup, all the quality surveys i've seen recently have shown domestics are improving, and are largely ahead of European competition, and catching up with, if not exceeding some japanese brands. There are so many of these surveys though, its easy to get them confused. Initial Quality, long-term reliability, the one about purchase satisfaction, like how good the dealer experience was, that one put jaguar at the top. But in general, we're seeing an improvement in domestics which is not being mirrored by increases in sales, and you can figure out for yourself that that's because it takes a couple years to convince the public things have changed.

I think that's the point trying to be made by a lot of people who are on the pro-ford side of these debates we've been having lately. Although sales aren't showing it yet, ford has come a long way in the last 5 years or so, and hopefully the general public will catch onto this over the next couple years.

 

BINGO!

 

Actually I like the colorful metaphors. . .

The perception issue is not internal to GM but external. What I was referring to is how people see GM, not how GM sees itself. GM needs to refocus in order to fundamentally change the perceptions of GM in the marketplace.

The marketplace doesn't need a lifeboat. They have all the purchase options one could ask for (except for maybe a Ford GT for $30K)

 

Sorry. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings or direct my assessment at you personally. OK?

<!--QuoteBegin-TomServo92@November 22, 2005, 7:49 AM
I know several people that have these atypical experiences as you put it and these were proponents of Japanese cars (note the emphasis). I'm not saying Japanese cars are crap. I'm just saying that the difference in quality is much narrower than it once was but the perception continues.

EDIT: Since you brought up JD Powers, how about this quote taken directly from their website:
Here's the link.

Quoted post

[/quote]
I'm not arguing that domestics have improved - they have. But here's the problem: so have the imports. And they've taken such a lead that it's tough to catch up.

That JD Powers quote demonstrates that problems per 100 vehicles for domestics have come along way (ahead of the Europeans, actually), but that's measuring overall reliability. When you get into stuff like fit, finish and amenities, domestics still have a ways to go. I mean, I love the new Mustang, but there's so much evidence of cost-cutting throughout that car.

As to GM, an automotive journalist summed it up: "Import manufacturers build cars right here in the U.S. that people want to buy, so why can't the domestics? The biggest problem for GM is that they don't build cars people want."

So if you don't provide your customer what they want or what they're looking for (or conversely, excite them with a new product that they feel they MUST have) then you're not servicing the marketplace.

And at the end of the day, EVERYTHING is based upon perception.

 

Ponder this BC_Shelby: You say the domestics have improved but so have the imports YET JD Powers says the domestics have narrowed the gap. Don't you think that's pretty extraordinary that the domestics closed the gap even while the imports are supposedly moving farther ahead?

BTW, if you look at total recalls over the last 15 years, the imports have been pretty consistent whereas the domestic's recalls have been trending downward. I'm not buying your assertion that the imports are getting better. The evidence tells me that the imports are maintaining the same level quality and the domestics are gaining just as the JD Powers report that I quoted states.

I think the domestics (at least Ford anyway) are starting to build cars that the publics wants. The Fusion is a prime example.

 

Mark, you said exactly what I feel!

Just to give my personal experience, my parents have had awful luck with numerous imported vehicles, with the exception of Subaru. Sure they've had recalls with their Subaru's but no major breakdowns like their Camry (stranded twice, once on the Tapanzee bridge, my father hated that car. I think the mechanics drove it more than my parents did LOL) and their VW Rabbit (numerous problems with the fuel injection system). Our 1986 Taurus went forever, we were one of the first in the town to have a Taurus !

By the way Mark, we can't keep the Fusion's on the lot! We've sold every one that has hit the lot within a week!

 

Let me chip in here, my parents have had japanese cars for the most part and I learned to drive in them - they never gave us any problems, other than normal wear and tear. My father never really was good with the maintenance part, but they still ran reliably. If you look at a used car buying guide as an example (CR being one I check time to time) the imports do have less problems compared to the domestics. The imports may have been consistent with the recalls over the last 15 years, but their numbers compared to the domestics is low(er). The US manufacturers sure as heck better be improving - "closing the gap" over that time period, it should be expected. If you look at problems associated with a "all-new" or substantially revamped model, again, the imports have less problems. They also substantially reduce that number over the life of the model's run. Not trying to bash American cars here, but I recommended the Focus to my brother when it first came out. I figured from what I was hearing Ford got its act together... Guess what he wants now? A Lexus. No more Ford or American cars for him. I sincerely want the domestics to succeed in the marketplace(especially Ford, since I love the Mustang) it just may take time they may not have.

 

Nothing there to ponder. For every stat I show you, you can show me another that says something else. The only stats that matter - that are irrefutable - are sales stats. And while Ford and GM continue to lose money, Toyota is gaining faster and faster.

That bears examination, not merely sticking one's head in the sand and claiming "it's all perception."

Whatever you want to blame it on: "perception," little green men, whatever, domestics have an enormous hurdle to overcome. And the truth is, when I look at the Mustang - and I love the Mustang despite its shortcomings - I see cost cutting EVERYWHERE: cheap plastic non-breakaway mirrors, cheap plastics in the interior, a front passenger seat that doesn't automatically spring forward, leather and carpeting that is wearing out prematurely (according to several owners), Shaker audio systems in constant need of replacing (according to MANY owners), door handles that sometimes stay stuck out after being pulled, doors that still don't have that solid "thunk" when you close them, a buggy axle suspension (that just about every other manufacturer in the world has long since given up on) and the list goes on and on...

Is it better than the last Mustang? Sure, by leaps and bounds. And yeah, the Mustang is selling well for now, because it looks hot and goes fast. But the buying public sees all the things I pointed out - some of which trickle into other Ford products - and thinks: "Meh, not quite there yet, are they?"

And back to the imports they go. And import sales continue to climb while domestic sales continue to fall.

The attitude at Ford and GM shouldn't be, "Look at us, we're doing better, we're ALMOST as good as the imports," it should be, "OK, things are improving, but it's not enough...what else can we do and how fast?"

 

I don't recall denying that Toyota et al are kicking Detroit's collective hineys in sales. The point some of us are trying to make (and is apparantely escaping you) is that many of the cars coming out of the domestics are pretty darn good right now but the public doesn't know it yet. One of the very sources you used early in this discussion (JD Powers) clearly backs up that fact.

 

"Pretty darned good" ain't good enough anymore, is what I'm saying. Sure domestics are getting better. I'll give you that. But they need to stop playing a zero-sum game and play to win. The higher you set your goals, the greater your achievements will be.

Good case in point: Ford should stop teasing audiences with cars like the Iosis that look amazing and generate lots of buzz but which will never see production because Ford doesn't have the ***** to build it. Until they start taking chances and delivering exciting, quality cars like that - rather than just engaging in stylistic masturbation - people have little incentive to take a chance on a domestic brand. They need to build the same level of excitement into the passenger car lineup as the Mustang has created in the performance coupe segment. The Mustang proves that people will buy an exciting domestic car, even if it's a little short on refinement.

As good as the Fusion is, it's not going to dethrone the Accord. And trying to dethrone the Accord is the only way to pull up sales. What Ford needs to do is take chances, and attempt to redefine that market segment, rather than offer another 8/10s competitor. That's how you win in this game.

 

The poor quality of my father in law's Tundra speaks for itself. Toyota uses the bumper, the cheap bumper as the primary means of support for the towing package. Now its all warped and angled downward.

That and he had to take the vehicle back twice to have the computer reflashed because of bad shift points

He did do something funny though, he put a small sign on the hitch when he took it in for an oil change that said "I should have bought a Ford!" LOL He's such a smart hiney!

He's gonna need a F-250 though in the future with the new boat he's looking to purchase.

 

If GM went down, it would be a big smack in the face for the world economy, IMHO.

 

You told me milion times that you can't said that car is bad because of one bad experience. So why are you then using that argument? :scratch: