GM admits it flucked up big time

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by me, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. me

    me Guest

    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."
     
    me, Dec 10, 2008
    #1
  2. "unsigned open letter". Maybe from the autoworkers union?
     
    Oscar Finkleheimer, Dec 11, 2008
    #2
  3. me

    Nate Nagel Guest

    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
     
    Nate Nagel, Dec 11, 2008
    #3

  4. Sounds like something from James Brown's song "Think":

    "Think about the bad things
    I tried not to do"

    Well...I guess he did them....
     
    JoeSpareBedroom, Dec 11, 2008
    #4
  5. me

    dbu' Guest

    They are groveling for money like pigs at the trough and will say
    anything to get it, snort.....
     
    dbu', Dec 11, 2008
    #5
  6. me

    80 Knight Guest

    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.
     
    80 Knight, Dec 11, 2008
    #6
  7. me

    Jeff Guest

     
    Jeff, Dec 11, 2008
    #7
  8. me

    Jeff Guest

     
    Jeff, Dec 11, 2008
    #8
  9. me

    me Guest

    GM paid advertisement. Read the article.
     
    me, Dec 11, 2008
    #9
  10. me

    Nate Nagel Guest

    I think their costs are such that they *couldn't* rely on entry-level,
    efficient cars to be profitable and had to try to move upmarket instead
    (which they failed to do.) Unfortunately moving upmarket generally
    means lower volume, and with their union agreements that'd be a loser
    too. Importing from Korea actually seems like a smart move, although I
    would have buddied up with Hyundai long before Daewoo, who don't have a
    particularly stellar record of automotive excellence.

    nate
     
    Nate Nagel, Dec 11, 2008
    #10
  11. blah, blah, blah.

    Here's the ad they WANTED to run:

    http://www.buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg
     
    Elmo P. Shagnasty, Dec 11, 2008
    #11
  12. me

    80 Knight Guest

    House OKs $14B auto bill - but it's still in peril
    WASHINGTON - A $14 billion rescue package for the nation's imperiled auto
    industry sped to approval in the U.S. House Wednesday night, but the
    emergency bailout was still in jeopardy from Republicans who were setting
    out roadblocks in the Senate.

    Democrats and the Bush White House hoped for a Senate vote as early as
    Thursday and enactment by week's end. They argued that the loans authorized
    by the measure were needed to stave off disaster for the auto industry - and
    a crushing further blow to the reeling national economy.

    The legislation, approved 237-170 by the House, would provide money within
    days to cash-starved General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC. Ford Motor Co.,
    which has said it has enough to stay afloat, would also be eligible for
    federal aid.

    Republicans were preparing a strong fight against the aid plan in the
    Senate, not only taking on the Democrats but standing in open revolt against
    their party's lame-duck president on the measure.

    The Republicans want to force the companies into bankruptcy or mandate hefty
    concessions from autoworkers and creditors as a condition of any federal
    aid. They also oppose an environmental mandate that House Democrats insisted
    on including in the measure.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it represented "tough love" for U.S. auto
    companies, and "giving a chance - this one more chance - to this great
    industry."

    The White House, struggling to sell the package to congressional
    Republicans, said earlier that a carmaker bankruptcy could be fatal to the
    auto industry and have a devastating impact on workers, families and the
    economy.

    "We believe the legislation developed in recent days is an effective and
    responsible approach to deal with troubled automakers and ensure the
    necessary restructuring occurs," said Dana Perino, the White House press
    secretary.

    But the measure faces a difficult road in the Senate, where it needs 60
    votes to advance. Rank-and-file Senate Republicans skewered the bill during
    a closed-door luncheon with White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, who was
    dispatched to Capitol Hill to make a case for the rescue package.

    Besides providing cash for the auto companies, it would create a government
    "car czar," to be named by President George W. Bush to dole out the loans,
    with the power to force the carmakers into bankruptcy next spring if they
    didn't cut quick deals with labor unions, creditors and others to
    restructure their businesses and become viable.

    Behind the scenes, Senate Democratic and Republican leaders scrambled for a
    deal that would allow votes on the bill on Thursday. Some GOP senators were
    demanding votes on an alternative that would order the automakers to take
    specific actions to restructure - including steep wage cuts and debt
    restructuring - in return for any federal money.
     
    80 Knight, Dec 11, 2008
    #12
  13. me

    PerfectReign Guest

    Something wrong with SUV's and trucks?

    I'd rather have one of them than a car.

    I drove a compact Maxima for a few years. Way too small.
     
    PerfectReign, Dec 11, 2008
    #13
  14. me

    coachrose13 Guest




    Sad, sick, and disgusting.



    Bad enough having to defend GM from the likes of you, now, we have to
    defend them from the top-brass of GM, as well.



    "Vehicle trends"??????????


    THF is that?????



    The only "trend" is that EVERYONE, INCLUDING TOYOTA and HONDA are
    building LARGER vehicles.


    And they are the ones that SELLS!!!!!!!!!!!



    Quickly now, tell me, outside of the tax-credited supported Prius, how
    many cars does Toyota sell that are more fuel-effecient than American
    nameplates??????



    What are some of their most popular vechicles????


    Camry?????


    Does it get better gas mileagle than similar American nameplates?????


    Of course not, in many cases it gets worse gas mileage.


    Is it more reliable?????



    Of course not!!!!


    In many cases, it is LESS reliable.




    Toyota has also invested BILLIONS of dollars in its full-sized pickup
    truck line.


    Does that sound like THEY think pick-ups are vehicles "no one wants to
    buy"??????


    Of course not, it is the single most PROFITABLE vehicle made on the
    planet today, and they realize it.


    And of course, our BIg Three, led by Congressional mandates tied into
    loans they will recieve, will hand over truck sales to the Japaneses,
    and they will make a fortune on the market.


    All the Americans will do is lose more jobs.




    As far as admitting to building "low-quality cars", they are going
    against what many have been arguing about for years, that GM makes a
    damned-good car.


    I might believe them if I never owned a GM product, but having owned
    many of them over the years, I know this is another lie.


    My GM cars have not suddenly turned to junk simply because of an ad
    designed to help the company beg for money.


    But, I wonder about those who have never owned a GM product, but maybe
    were thinking about checking into it.



    Does this full-page as sound like a ringing endoresment?????



    Will it help sales??????


    Of course not!



    But, I guess I would resort to anything lies, if my family were
    starving to death.
     
    coachrose13, Dec 11, 2008
    #14
  15. me

    coachrose13 Guest

     
    coachrose13, Dec 11, 2008
    #15
  16. me

    Gosi Guest

     
    Gosi, Dec 11, 2008
    #16
  17. me

    badgolferman Guest

    Are you saying this is Bush's fault also or are you saying Bush is
    smart for not going along with this?
     
    badgolferman, Dec 11, 2008
    #17
  18. me

    Jeff Findley Guest

    Besides a few of their large SUV's, what cars do GM sell that are hybrids?

    I will agree that when (if?) the Volt comes out that it ought to sell very
    well and will be a much needed improvement over the existing Japanese
    hybrids which rely far too much on their gas engines. If GM could have
    released the Volt earlier this year, when gas was over $4 per gallong, they
    would have sold every single one they rolled off the production line. A car
    that used zero gas for my commute to/from work, but still has a gas engine
    for long distance traveling, would be freaking nirvana!

    Jeff
     
    Jeff Findley, Dec 11, 2008
    #18
  19. me

    Gosi Guest

    There are a lot of electrical cars coming.
    The dependency on oil is going down.
    Even if some places need to burn somthing to create electicity it
    needs not be oil.
    It can be coal, there are also several other methods of creating
    electricity in powerplants.

    Chevy Volt: The future is electrifying.
    The Extended-Range Electric Vehicle that is redefining the automotive
    world is no longer just a rumor. In fact, its propulsion system is so
    revolutionary, it's unlike any other vehicle or electric car that's
    ever been introduced. And we're making this remarkable vision a
    reality, so that one day you'll have the freedom to drive gas-free.

    Chevy Volt is designed to move more than 75 percent of America's daily
    commuters without a single drop of gas.(2) That means for someone who
    drives less than 40 miles a day, Chevy Volt will use zero gasoline and
    produce zero emissions.(1)

    Unlike traditional electric cars, Chevy Volt has a revolutionary
    propulsion system that takes you beyond the power of the battery. It
    will use a lithium-ion battery with a gasoline-powered, range-
    extending engine that drives a generator to provide electric power
    when you drive beyond the 40-mile battery range.

    Chevy Volt. Fully charged 2010.
    http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

    http://venturebeat.com/2008/01/10/27-electric-cars-companies-ready-to-take-over-the-road/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_electric_vehicle

    At 2008 fuel prices, battery powered buses are more economical than
    diesel or gasoline powered buses. The additional cost of the batteries
    is made up for[citation needed] by the low operating cost in the first
    half of the typical million to two million mile (three million
    kilometer) life of the bus.
    Chattanooga, Tennessee operates nine free (no fares) electric buses,
    which have been in operation since 1992 and have carried 11.3 million
    passengers and covered a distance of 1.9 million miles. They were made
    locally by Advanced Vehicle Systems. Two of these buses were used for
    the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.[3][4]
    Wrightbus has a new a hybrid-electric driveline for the StreetCar RTV
    which has been developed in conjunction with the ISE Corporation of
    California and incorporates Siemens ELFA traction components and a
    Cummins ISL engine. The chassis is built to Wright Group
    specifications by Swiss trolleybus specialists Carosserie Hess and is
    powered by Valence Technology lithium phosphate batteries .
    Beginning in the summer of 2000, Hong Kong airport began operating a
    16-passenger Mitsubishi Rosa electric shuttle bus, and in the fall of
    2000, New York City began testing a 66 passenger battery powered
    school bus, an all electric version of the Blue-Bird TC2000.[5] A
    similar bus was operated in Napa Valley, California for 14 months
    ending in April, 2004.[6]
    The 2008 Beijing Olympics used a fleet of 50 electric buses, which
    have a range of 130 km (81 mi) with the air conditioning on. They use
    Lithium-ion batteries, and consume about 1 kWh/mile. The buses were
    designed by the Beijing Institute of Technology and built by the
    Jinghua Coach Co. Ltd.[7] The batteries are replaced with fully
    charged ones at the recharging station to allow 24 hour operation of
    the buses.[8]
     
    Gosi, Dec 11, 2008
    #19
  20. me

    C. E. White Guest

    So where is Toyota's apology letter for some of their mistakes? How
    about an admission they screwed up something on thousands of engines
    that lead many people to have sludge problems, or that the monster
    Tundra is a huge mistake. Or that they have built some of the most
    boring vehicles ever conceived. How about an apology for the older
    4Runners that had one of the highest death rate for any vehicle ever
    sold in the US?

    Ed
     
    C. E. White, Dec 11, 2008
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.