GM admits it flucked up big time

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?

 

[top-post corrected]

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

 

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

 

Doubt it

 

Spot on, man!

 

Which laws?

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

There is nothing great about it either. You can get a full size Impala will
get 19 mpg in the city and 29 on the highway (6 cyl, 3.5 L, Automatic
4-spd). Even with the 5.3 L V8 you'll get 16 mpg city and 24 mpg highway.

There is a reason that many people are getting fed up with seeing gas
guzzling full size SUV's on the road. They're even worse than gas guzzling
full size four door sedans!

Jeff

 

Not to mention the fact that it is a loan and i don't think the $700
Billion is a loan.

 

And the non-hybrid, VW Jetta TDI, set a new Guinness record for
averaging 58.82 miles per gallon. No batteries, no electric motors, and
a car that those that would never buy a Prius might be willing to buy.

What changed in the U.S. for diesel's is that diesel fuel is now
low-sulfer. A lot of diesel engines sold around the world can now be
used in the U.S.. Mitsubishi could really leverage this if they had a
marketing person working for them.

Of course the TDI comes to market at the one time in history when diesel
is much more expensive than gasoline. The $1300 federal income tax
credit might help offset that cost (not available on Prius).

 

Very true. I saw on TV today that one of the big banks has decided to fire
X amount of people, while giving the upper management a raise.

 

Very true, but there is a huge difference between an Impala, and an
Escalade, Yukon, or Tahoe.

I don't own an SUV, but I have no problem with them. People should be
allowed to drive what they want. I drive a huge Bonneville. It's a 1997,
has a supercharger, and is an awesome car. Even with 240 horsepower, it
still get's 29-30 MPG on the highway, and that car was built 11 years ago.
I don't think the government should be allowed to tell people what they can
and can not drive. If someone drives a Prius, they shouldn't bitch that
other people have bigger cars, and it scares them on the highway. You knew
bigger vehicles existed when you bought it. I'm not saying that the auto
makers don't need to work on those MPG figures for big SUV's, but I don't
think we have the right to tell people they can't have them.

 

That's really good. The early 80's Rabbit Diesels only got about 50 mpg.
My dad had one. When I drove it, I'd put 9 gallons of diesel in it every
two weeks. It cost me far less in fuel costs than any of my friend's cars.

Unfortunately, GM did *a lot* to hurt the reputation of diesels in the US.
Just another way they've really screwed up the US car market.

Jeff

 

Our Avalon has a 7 year bumper to bumper warranty.. Includes parking lot
nicks
in the doors, etc.

Retroactive aint gonna happen.

 

Yeah, it's called jealousy.

 

You're missing something here: There is a fixed percentage of marginally
competent drivers. Never mind the number, because nobody will agree on it.
Nothing will ever change the percentage, whatever the number is.

Now, put those marginally competent drivers into vehicles which kill more
easily than others*, and you've compounded the problem of having those
drivers on the road to begin with. This leads to a question: Why develop
more deadly vehicles with better mileage, since that'll just entice more
people to buy them?

*Not debatable without denying the laws of physics. Thanks for not debating
it.

 

Only someone with a small penis would say it's jealousy.