Honda Car Forum

"HLS" <nospam@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:jaj0l.10337$YU2.7069@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
>> From what I see, GM is in very desperate need of the cash, and will say
>> anything to get it. There survival (and possibly the survival of the
>> other Big3) depends on it. What a shame that a good auto manufacture has
>> to beg, and lie (lies that will actually hurt them) to get $35 million,
>> when the big banks were handed $700 billion on a gold platter.
>
>
> GM wanted billions from the government, not a lousy $35 million.

Yes, they wanted $35 (B)illion. That was clearly a typo. However, compared
with the $700 Billion already given to the banks, $35 Billion is pretty
lousy.

According to many Toyota owners, Toyota builds unbreakable Gifts from God.
Why don't they and all the other manufactures offer a 6 year bumper to
bumper warranty?


"Art" <begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:HYedndpEwITHSNzUnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@earthlink.co m...
> So why don't they put their money where their mouth is....... shake up
> the industry with a 6 year bumper to bumper warranty on all their cars,
> retroactive to 5 year old cars.
>
>
>
> "me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p94ga@4ax.com...
>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>
>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>
>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>
>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>
>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>>
>>
>
>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:26:13 -0500, a top poster named "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:

>
>"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
>news:ek43k4dl4rphla79kg3d7lua158efus6ju@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:07:15 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote:
>>
>>>The only time Americans bought small cars was when the were forced to by
>>>them by the government when Carter cause the gas supply problems.
>>
>> Nonsense. Americans started buying smaller, better handling, more fun
>> to drive, better mileage cars in the late 1960s because they wanted
>> them. There was no gas crunch at the time. The only thing American
>> cars had going for them was v8 power in a straight line.
>>
>>> Once
>>>Reagan did the right thing and let the market decide, they return to
>>>buying
>>>the larger saver cars they want to buy.
>>
>> No, they didn't. Maybe a few swing votes bought smaller cars
>> specifically for mileage reasons and then swung back. Most didn't.
>>
>>>Where the hell does the government, in a free society, get the right to
>>>tell
>>>manufactures what they must produce and to tell the buyer what they must
>>>buy, in any event?
>>
>> Who is telling anyone what to produce or buy? The only exception I see
>> is if Gm and Chrysler want to borrow money - then the lender can
>> dictate any terms s/he wants to insure his investment.
>
[top-post corrected]

You have a specific point? Make it. Otherwise you really should not
bother posting.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> wrote in message
news:J5ydndoyccoe6NzUnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@ptd.net...
> Don't you know Toyota never makes mistakes for which they would need to
> admit?
>
> I heard the guy that convene Toyota to make a full size pickup was
thinking
> of killing himself. LOL
>
>

Did the guy at Toyota that designed the Tercel with the sinking valve
seals that caused the engine to emit huge quantites of blue smoke
right after the warranty expired also kill himself?

Ted

Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p94ga@4ax.com>,
> me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>
>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>
>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>
>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>
>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>
> "unsigned open letter". Maybe from the autoworkers union?

Doubt it

dbu' wrote:
> In article <grovgrgrovel@ grovel >,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>> Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
>>> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p94ga@4ax.com>,
>>> me <noemail@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>>>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>>>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>>>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>>>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>>>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>>>
>>>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>>>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>>>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>>>
>>>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>>>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>>>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>>>
>>>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>>>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>>>
>>>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>>>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>>>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>>> "unsigned open letter". Maybe from the autoworkers union?
>> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
>> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
>> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
>> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
>> I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
>> What a spineless wanker. Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that
>> just makes you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at
>> the "begging" point now...)
>>
>> unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
>> shortly.
>>
>> nate
>
> They are groveling for money like pigs at the trough and will say
> anything to get it, snort.....

Spot on, man!

Jeff wrote:
> On Dec 10, 8:16 pm, "80 Knight" <nospam> wrote:
>> "Nate Nagel" <njna...@roosters.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ghpmqu0mhk@news6.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Oscar Finkleheimer wrote:
>>>> In article <o3l0k4lh1qe5ucvnn4i1p1kp93tq5p9...@4ax.com>,
>>>> me <noem...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>>> For all you GM defenders who refuse to admit that GM screwed
>>>>> themselves by refusing to recognize vehicle trends and build less
>>>>> SUV's and trucks and invest in other production; by building low
>>>>> quality cars; by building cars no one wants; and by generally
>>>>> mismanaging the company - here is it from the horse's mouth (or more
>>>>> accurately, horse's ass in the case of GM):
>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081208/us_nm/us_gm_ad
>>>>> "... we acknowledge we have disappointed you," the ad said. "At times
>>>>> we violated your trust by letting our quality fall below industry
>>>>> standards and our designs became lackluster."
>>>>> The unsigned open letter, entitled "GM's Commitment to the American
>>>>> People" ran in the trade journal Automotive News, which is widely read
>>>>> by industry executives, lobbyists and other insiders.
>>>>> In the ad, GM admits to other strategic missteps analysts and critics
>>>>> have said hastened its recent decline.
>>>>> "We have proliferated our brands and dealer network to the point where
>>>>> we lost adequate focus on the core U.S. market," the ad said. "We also
>>>>> biased our product mix toward pick-up trucks and SUVs."
>>>> "unsigned open letter". Maybe from the autoworkers union?
>>> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
>>> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
>>> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
>>> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
>>> still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical. What a
>>> spineless wanker. Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that just makes
>>> you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at the "begging"
>>> point now...)
>>> unfortunately I can't find a news link yet, but I bet it will show up
>>> shortly.
>>> nate
>> From what I see, GM is in very desperate need of the cash, and will say
>> anything to get it. There survival (and possibly the survival of the other
>> Big3) depends on it. What a shame that a good auto manufacture has to beg,
>> and lie (lies that will actually hurt them) to get $35 million, when the big
>> banks were handed $700 billion on a gold platter.
>
> What a shame that GM and Chrysler are in a position where they will
> run out of money. And what a shame that the big banks were not allowed
> to fail or go bankrupt. In addition, the Detroit 3 should be allowed
> to go bankrupt. That's why we have those laws.

Which laws?

"me" <noemail@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:ipi2k49d1slsckclv11o0vuiqa252bbh8v@4ax.com...

> Hey, don't expect me to defend Toyota. I've had my differences with
> them, right up to the corporate attorneys. But, I think the key
> point
> would be that this post is about GM, because GM is the one that is
> (or
> should be, lacking an infusion of money from your paycheck) going
> into
> bankruptcy. That's due to gross mis-management on their part.

So GM migh get 15 billion, AS A LOAN. Worst case, GM goes under, and
can't repay the loan. So the average taxpayer middle class taxpayer
losses a $300 investment in a company that employess thousands of
fellow taxpayers. Meanwhile, the goverment has shoveled 700 billion to
comanies that have blown billion on bad loans and hyper inflated
salaries.

> Despite their mismanagement being pointed out repeatedly by people
> from across the business spectrum for decades, they've stuck to
> their
> pig headed approach and ignored everyone who did not agree. Now they
> are reaping the rewards.

What exactly were the people pointing out that constitutes gross
mismanagement? What did GM do that is so different than what Toyota
did, or rather what has GM done, that Toyota hasn't tried to do as
well?

The things I usually hear as cases of gross mismanagement are:

* GM ignored the small fuel efficient car market. People who say this
seem to forget GM tried to get into this market in a big way with
Saturn. For decades, no American car company has made any money on
small cars despite repeated attempts. High unionized labor costs,
foreign competitors dumping small cars here at break even or below
prices, and the ready availability of cheap used cars have kept the
price of small cars below the break even point for decades. Plus,
American have always shown an inclination to go big
* GM built to many big expensive fuel sucking trucks and SUVs. This is
an easy one. These things were a gold mine. They were relatively
inexpensive to develop, and sold like hot cakes at prices that earned
GM a good profit. If anything GM was slow to ramp up production in
this market, allowing Ford to gain a larger than usual share of this
market segment. And if this was such a bad thing, then you have to
cite Toyota, Nissan, and even Honda management for the same
miss-management, since all of those manufacturers were doing their
best to compete in this segment - mostly with mediocre success and
some real goose eggs (can you say "T100" or "Tundra").
* GM management didn't do enough to fight the unions to hold down
costs. I suppose they could have done more, and gone out of business
10 years ago. The UAW has tunnel vision - they can't admit they have
over reached and crippled the US auto industry and they have a death
like grip on GM. If you were running GM, how would you have forced the
UAW to lower wages? If you were running the UAW and knew you were
killing the industry, do you think you could have asked members to
voluntarily cut salaries and kept your cushier job?
* GM didn't do enough to develop alternate/advanced technology
vehicles. Hmm, hard one here - GM didn't have the sort of government
support for developing hybrid technology that Toyota enjoyed in the
1980 and 1990's, so they had to go it alone. Until the last oil shock,
hybrids were pretty much a money loser (probably still are). I am not
sure you can actually make a case for hybrid cars from an engineering
standpoint. And I think until Toyota managed to break through with the
Prius, it didn't look like it made much sense from a gee whiz
marketing standpoint either. Outside of the Prius, I think you could
argue that hybrid cars are mostly a flop. Honda gave up on the Accord
hybrid. Toyota isn't having a lot of success marketing Camry and
Highlander Hybrids. The big Lexus hybrid is a bad joke. I suppose you
could say that if GM had marketed hybrids, even at a loss as Toyota
has done, then people would "like" GM more.
* GM has too many brands competing against each other. Toyota has
three over lapping brands in the US (Scion, Toyota, Lexus) plus many
others in Japan, plus other companies that are essentially Toyota
divisions. I don't see the difference. When I was young, people
actually perceived that the different GM brands were, well, different.
There were loyal buyer for each of the brands, and each brand seem to
target different segments of the market. I suppose you can blame GM
management for allowing the different brands to become indistinct, but
I suspect that had more to do with the desires of the dealer base than
with an actual desire by GM management to make all the division full
line suppliers for every marketing segment. And GM has tried to
consolidate brands. Unfortunately given the franchise laws in this
country, simply eliminating brands is not so easy.
* GM let quality slip. I suppose there is some truth in this. But I
think the real truth is that GM's quality did not slip so much as it
did not increase as quickly as the imports. 40 years ago, I think if
you were objective, you would not have claimed that Toyota were more
reliable than GM products. Cheaper, more fuel efficient and smaller
yes, but I remember the crap Toyota sold in the 70's and 80's.
Toyota's got a lot better over the years. GM products only got some
better. People always cite the Vega as an example of a bad car from
GM. Actually outside of the engine, the cars were much better designed
and built than anything in the same segment from Japan. Too bad GM
management let the engineers go out on a limb with a risky engine
design. I wonder what people would have said about the Vega if GM had
just imported a European 4 cylinder design to power the car. They had
excellent engines designs available from Opel they could have tooled
up in the US. But instead, they took a chance on technology that
didn't work out for them.

I still don't understand how the Government can throw hundreds of
billions at banks and mortgage companies that were so much more
mismanaged than GM and not even throw GM a little bone.

Ask yourself this - If this recession gets a lot worse and Toyota
start spiraling down, what will the Japanese government do? Toyota
blew billions on a factory in Texas that builds at inferior product
that they have to literally sell at a loss to move off the lots. How
come you guys are not trashing Toyota mismanagement?

Ed

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
news:ghpmqu0mhk@news6.newsguy.com...

> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but I'd
> still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical. What a
> spineless wanker. Don't apologize for s**t you didn't do, that just makes
> you look like you're begging (of course, he probably is at the "begging"
> point now...)

If he didnt try to show some shred of humility, then the (perhaps well
deserved ) perception of his arrogance and tunnel vision would have been
the end of this little party..

The weakest people in the world are those who cannot admit that they
have made mistakes.

"80 Knight" <nospam> wrote in message
news:wcmdnW8Ej7amAtzUnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com ...
> "Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote in message
> news:473df$49410894$927a2cda$30709@FUSE.NET...
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
>> news:ghpmqu0mhk@news6.newsguy.com...
>>> I heard on the radio today that Wagoner himself had apologized before
>>> Congress for not investing more in electric/hybrid technologies. That
>>> pisses me off... as much as I've been disappointed in GM they have done
>>> more than any other company (possible exceptions Honda and Toyota, but
>>> I'd still give the edge to GM) to try to make electric cars practical.
>>
>> Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are
>> hybrids?
>
> GM has more Hybrid vehicles they any other auto manufacture. Chevy Tahoe,
> GMC Yukon, Chevy Malibu, Chevy Silverado, GMC Sierra, Saturn Aura, Saturn
> Vue, and the Caddy Escalade.

So the answer to my question is Chevy Malibu and Saturn Aura.

Still the mileage of their hybrid cars is unimpressive. A gas powered
Saturn Aura or Chevy Malibu EPA estimate is 22 city 33 highway. The hybrid
version is 26 city 34 highway.

Of course, all but the smallest hybrids seem to get poor mileage. My wife's
Pontiac Vibe's EPA estimates are 25 city 33 highway. We'd never trade that
for a hybrid that gets essentially the same mileage.

The Chevy Volt could be a huge leap forward, especially for the "daily
commute". Too bad GM can't seem to get it to market quickly enough to be
seen as innovative.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson