no_really

you think GM got to the number one spot selling garbage? Please.

jah

[QUOTE=no_really,Sep 30 2006, 06:27 PM] you think GM got to the number one spot selling garbage?

Stu A.

Yes, in fact.

This is a classic domestic vs. japanese/european argument. Therefore, I will spit out the truth like it should be: Since I was a child I could understand the concept of getting something better for the money you paid. Then the question is raised of, "What makes a car better?" Well, that may be different from person to person, but most wouldn't focus on one thing, like an engine, that makes a car great. For example: The new GT500 has a great engine, but nobody would call it great JUST BECAUSE of that. The C6 might be considered the superior car because of the superior acceleration, handling, and braking. Why? Well, that's what sports cars are made to do, perform; so obviously the source of judgement will stem from that.

Let us look at the big picture, a world where people care about interior quality, reliability, power, and design. There are many different categories of cars, and in almost ALL of these categories there is an American, Japanese, and European counterpart. Almost every car in every category that the American companies spit out are an OVERALL INFERIOR product to their competition. Go ahead, name a car. You can bring up the Vette or the (new) viper, and they are impressive cars, but how about the everyday cars that most people drive??

Go ahead, name a car that had direct foreign competition and tell me it's a better overall package.

NFRs2000NYC

On the verge of being bankrupt, is hardly what I call #1.

NFRs2000NYC

[QUOTE=Stu A.,Sep 30 2006, 10:03 PM] Yes, in fact.

no_really

that answer says more about your logical reasoning abilities and your emotional response on certain subjects.

You can hardly claim that Toyota sells high quality cars, which is proved by their success in the marketplace, then argue that GM's sales success is not due to the very same qualities. IOW, why argue that Toyota sales being higher than Daimler/Chrysler unless that represents some sort of significant accomplishment?

If Toyota outselling a domestic manufacturer is to mean ANYTHING, it requires the domestic manufacturer to produce a product that the market considers a benchmark, otherwsie outselling them means nothing.

You can't brag about sales meaning quality unless you are willing to make the same assumption about the competition. IOW, if one says McDonald's burgers are "clearly superior" to the bar's by my house, they'd be misinterpreting sales numbers with product quality. Suppose my local bar goes on a tear, opening branches in cities all over America and foreign countries, selling their burgers on a grand scale, for roughly the same as McDonald's, dumping even more money into advertising and opening even more stores than McD's, wouldn't it be rather surprising if they DIDN'T sell more burgers than McDonald's eventually?

I don't think either Toyota cars and GM cars and trucks are McDonald's burgers. But clearly, we cannot assume that sales numbers equate directly with relative quality. So let's stop discussing things in those terms until you are ready to concede that GM sales are so high (and have been so high) for the very same reasons that Toyota sales are up.

jah

this is a honda forum, peeps here own at least one honda.

my reason i hate gm:
i just purchased a 92 honda civic hatchy with 140Kmiles, it runs and looks very fine. it functions as my daily drive but what ever gm was producing in 92 has already been crushed or shipped off to Cuba.

they are an old company w/o joy and a death wish.

no_really

no joy, eh? Seems like the C6 is a whole hell of a lot of joy. As is a S/C Cobalt, Sky, Soltice, and various Cadillacs. They make plenty of "joy" cars, full size work trucks, luxury sedans, etc. Write them off as you will, but at least be aware most people think such an opinion is a crock of shit flying in the face of reality.

Stu A.

Your post doesn't make sense in a couple different ways:

1. "...then argue that GM's sales success is not due to the very same qualities."
GM doesn't have sales success. It's in the business section of your local newspaper. They did, but don't now. Are you talking about in the past?

2. "... it requires the domestic manufacturer to produce a product that the market considers a benchmark, otherwise outselling them means nothing."
Why? Perhaps you are going too deep into this. If Toyota sells more car X than GM sells of car Y in the same car class, GM is effectively failing. The thing is, Toyota accomplishes this in many car classes and thus creates more revenue, which combined with efficient production standards creates mucho $$$. And it's not just Toyota taking them down either...

In fact, I don't have to argue about this at all. The consumer realized that GM has created inferior products many years ago, for they have been losing market share for 4 decades. It's just more of a major problem now than it was then because they are cash-flow-negative for the first time in a while and that can create huge problems later.

Poindexter

- it is simple math. If I build 10 cars and sell 10 cars, while you build 10 cars and sell 8 I'm pretty sure I sold more cars than you. What does it have to do with a benchmark?




Just got this in the email:

Subject: Fw: Toyota vs GM


A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese team won by a mile. The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the American's rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 Steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant Superintendent steering manager. They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Quality First Program," with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.