Stu A.

So, no_really, you're saying all this is acceptable? According to him, GM is VICTIM here people. A victim of unforseeable circumstances with healthcare hindering them financially, sales "success", and market share loss. How is this even a bad thing, right? In fact, GM is doing SO WELL that they gave up their 74 stint as the #1 automotive company. They also produce such wonderful cars that their recovery strategy includes specifically "building better cars". I ask you, why improve on perfection in engineering and profitable techniques that are obviously empoyed by the management at GM?

In fact, what is there to worry about when the foreign automakers are producing under powered cars, providing insufficient financing options, and horribly inflated prices that no_really points out to us in, I'm sure, an educated fashion. I would personally like to the see the numbers to back all three of those statements up.

Cheers! To the inevitable success of domestic automakers, for no_really has opened my eyes to the wise decisions they have, and will continue to make.

Chris Stack

I'll be the first to admit that I think GM and Ford's primary problem is not their cars, but their health care and legacy costs (I think their secondary problem is pissing off loyal customers and sitting on their hands in the 1980s when the Japanese were eating their lunch, however). But in relating that fact, that GM/F's problems are not entirely their fault, I don't see how you can argue they are not doing badly, business-wise. Their bonds are junk, their stock is in the tank, and they've got a ton of unused capacity. None of that is a judgement on the cars, but a simple evaluation of their business position.

no_really

I'll be the first to admit that I think GM and Ford's primary problem is not their cars, but their health care and legacy costs (I think their secondary problem is pissing off loyal customers and sitting on their hands in the 1980s when the Japanese were eating their lunch, however). But in relating that fact, that GM/F's problems are not entirely their fault, I don't see how you can argue they are not doing badly, business-wise. Their bonds are junk, their stock is in the tank, and they've got a ton of unused capacity. None of that is a judgement on the cars, but a simple evaluation of their business position. [/QUOTE]
take any company that has a huge legacy workforce draining their finances, and you'll see Wall Street react unfavorably. Take any company that had union contracts that guaranteed jobs for decade upon decade while sitting on the largest market share in the largest market, and you'll see excess capacity, especially when combined with market forces that increased competition with new players not saddled with the same long term pension obligations and union contracts. GM's situation may be unique in that they were king without question for a very long time, and now market forces/foreign trade policy over the last ten years has eroded that position.

You are right, none of the things you mentioned is an indictment of their cars. They are a result of changes in the market over the last decades. Does that mean people will stop pointing to those things as support for "GM cars/trucks are inferior" arguments?

no_really

I'm not sure your post deserves a response, but I'm bored.

WTF is your point?

Suzukaboy

Domestic's legacy costs are their own problem. They agreed to them. Toyota wasn't holding a gun to their head.

I suggest you look up sarcasm in your Websters.

clawhammer

GM's biggest problem is their marketing.

They're a product based company, meaning that they're producing whatever they want, hoping that people will buy them. When people don't buy them, they discount them. So in the end you're looking at spending $12,000 on a Cobalt or $16,000 on a Civic, even though a Civic may be much more desirable and it costs the companies the same amount to make.

Toyota and Honda are customer-oriented companies. They do their research on what kind of cars consumer want to buy, then they build those cars. That's why they're selling so many Accords and Civics.

s2kva

In some ways I think the old GM cars are more durable than the new ones. My dad still has his 1982 pickup truck and it just doesn't want to die. On the other hand I dont think GM and Ford are the biggest sellers necessarily because they make better cars. Model for model, Europe and Japan tend to have more refined, more fuel efficient and more durable cars. But American cars are cheaper. I think alot of people want to save a buck or two and more performance and more refinement arent always musts for point A to point B. That's my 2 cents.

DISCO_J

take any company that has a huge legacy workforce draining their finances, and you'll see Wall Street react unfavorably. Take any company that had union contracts that guaranteed jobs for decade upon decade while sitting on the largest market share in the largest market, and you'll see excess capacity, especially when combined with market forces that increased competition with new players not saddled with the same long term pension obligations and union contracts. GM's situation may be unique in that they were king without question for a very long time, and now market forces/foreign trade policy over the last ten years has eroded that position.

You are right, none of the things you mentioned is an indictment of their cars. They are a result of changes in the market over the last decades. Does that mean people will stop pointing to those things as support for "GM cars/trucks are inferior" arguments? [/QUOTE]


They could have cut cost by producing more exciting, better, reliable cars instead of the "Quick fix" old thinking of adding new cars to their line-up one after another which results in a bigger work force hence the health care and legacy cost. GM, Ford has so many cars and trucks competing in the same segment, they're flooding it and shooting themselves in the foot for it.

Oh and i'm not insecure, i have not defended the imports nor have i called the domestics POS. You on the other hand has been busy depending the domestics.

Lastly, you're not leading us to believe that the US gov have abandoned their car industry are you.

no_really

please share how "producing more exciting, better, reliable cars" cuts costs. I have the sneaking suspicion you just pulled that from your ass because you couldn't find anything logical to contribute.

jah

reality... they are bloat ugly cars