Consider buying American!

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02auto.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin>

You can read it yourself.

 

No, nothing at all.

But in Jeff's world, the improved sales last month means GM is the
leader in automakers.[/QUOTE]

No it doesn't. It means that GM makes at least some vehicles that people
like. Or offers better incentives.

Jeff

 

This is the list after cutting FWD crap and SUV's.

They're all too big and ungainly, unfortunately. I had high hopes for
the new CTS, but what a pig it's turned-out to be. Maybe if I was a
big fatass like most Americans, it would be OK.

 

You're thinking is flawed. It does not matter how many years have
passed - an expensive care will always "beat" an inexpensive car in
many of the areas you mentioned.

On the other hand, newer cars should be expected to perform better on
a per-dollar basis, have more and better safety features, and more
modern conveniences.

 

Because they stuck to their guns and designed cars right, instead of
making FWD crap?

 

Well, what worked for decades for them was building junk, and hoping
for repeat business anyway, with their (stupid) customers thinking
"maybe they've gotten their act together by now", as if 100 years
isn't enough.

 

Then don't.

That is total non-sense. It depends on what car you are talking about.

Then why do European cars have more problems than Japaness and American? Not
to mention they cost a fortune.

 

c/You're/Your/

 

I haven't heard of a lot of major problems for Mercedes Benz or BMW. but
they are expensive to repair. I remember in my younger days, I took
apart a MB engine, I think from a late 70s MB. The engine was much more
complicated to disassemble than a US V8. There were more head bolts, the
oil pan came in two pieces, and there were a lot more parts than in a US
V8. I didn't see the bill for the engine rebuild, but I bet it was more
than for a Chevy 350.

And in the old days, the electrical systems on Jags were just bad. I
remember hearing about a metal rod that was supposed to conduct
electricity in a Jag. It just stopped conducting electricity beyond a
point on the rod. I don't remember what the rod was for, though.

VWs and presumably Audis have a lot of problems, though, according to
the reports I hear. And they aren't cheap to fix, either.

Actually, I don't remember too many problems with Swedish cars. i don't
remember if it is because they were better than the other or just less
common.

Jeff
Jeff

 

Excellent point.

 

You'd think so, but look at the current Cadillac offerings... they sure
cost plenty, but the doors still don't fit right...
--scott

 

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02auto.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref
=slogin>

You can read it yourself.[/QUOTE]

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't true. But it's a bedtime story, intended
solely to make you warm and fuzzy. There is no meaning to that
particular data point at all.

 

What a BS... You should not believe in everything you hear!

For some people it is not big money and they can aford a new toy
every so often. I can understand driving same car for 10 years
can be boring experience but I am too cheap myself to buy new
cars often So for such people "best usage" for money might
to buy toys => new cars.

 

I dont feel a bit sorry for G.M and their losses. I worked at a Chevy
dealer for 33 years and saw how their products were. I have owned Honda
and Toyota products for over 20 years and loved every one. We can only
hope in the near future that G.M.'s new name might be:
General Motors division of Toyota Motor Corp.
Scott

 

I have never seen Honda antifreeze "on sale" or really for sale at all
beyond the dealer. It is also half the strength. A gallon costs at
least twice what a national brand costs and you need twice as much of
it.

 

How often you need it?
Why do you make big fuss about $20 dollars spend once per 2 years?

 

I am not sure if it would be good for toyota or honda
to carry so much of dead weight.

 

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't true. But it's a bedtime story, intended
solely to make you warm and fuzzy. There is no meaning to that
particular data point at all.[/QUOTE]

And tell us what the meaning of the GM loss is.

You might want to note that $38.3 billion of the loss is related to the
way deferred tax assets are evaluated.

GM certainly is not doing great in North America, but it is making some
progress.

jeff

http://www.gm.com/corporate/investor_information/earnings/index.jsp

 

There was a comparison in one of the magazines, recently, between GM's
LS7 and the Mercedes/AMG 6.2L engine. Very similar performance, but
the GM engine was was under $10k, while the AMG engine costs $50k!

As much as I admire the engineering in engines like the AMD and BMW's
4.0 V8 in the M3, I really question the expense of wringing so much
power out of "smaller" motors like that.

 

stupid... wringing?
it is called efficiency.
M5=V10 with 507 HP
More than 100hp per Litre capacity.... BRILLIANCE.