General discussion


The new face of GM, reality or just another mask?

By Oz_Media ·
GM has been hitting the media hard with some really brazen marketing campaigns that they are not going out of business but 8 brands was just too much, that they are rebuilding and recreating a 'smarter GM' for tomorrow, yada-yada, gee haven't we heard all their promotional lies before?

"Reinventing the automobile and our company" ??

"General Motors expanded its significant battery research and development capabilities today by opening the largest and most technologically advanced battery lab in the United States on its Technical Center campus in Warren, Michigan. "

Since when has the US been known for battery technology at all? Would it take a facility more advanced than a 7-11 store to actually be "the largest and most technologically advanced in the United States"? Not a shot at the US but seriously, since when was battery technology a strength of US manufacturing?

How about Germany, Japan, Canada? THEY all have massive battery technology development plants. Plants such as Ballard, Better Place are massive and have been developing the most advanced battery technology is MASSIVE plants, often in several countries at once.

"GM has the most models with 30mpg EPA HWY fuel economy" ...based on 2009m "estimates"
(Of course that includes Saturn, Chevy and Pontiac brands combined).

"Best warranty in America"
While they have a LIMITED 100,000km/5yr warranty, the actual base warranty (which is not even close to being comparable to competitors) is 36,000km/3yrs. FAR below the standard others offer.

It just goes on and on, more garbage from America's worst vehicle manufacturer to date.

In the 80's we saw similar horrors from US manufacturers, GM and Chrysler. We were promised improvement through the 90's. After Chrysler BARELY keept their heads above water through the 80's, due to Iacoca's decision to make K-Cars and Lebarons, Horizon's and Luxury Dynasty's from identical parts (just with a bigger tag for their 'luxury cars') they managed to stay out of bankruptcy and continue into the 90's.

In the 90's all the 3-5 year econo-boxes that were sold by them in the 80's fell apart, including thei rluxury models that sold at nearly twice teh price but also used the same parts as econo-boxes.

Instead of improving vehicle quality, manufacturing quality and safety, as they had previously PROMISED the public, Chrylser went on a marketing campaign with cab forward designs of the Mitsubishi built Intrepid and the clone bodies that again used the same parts, whether an entry level model or top of the line.

GM stayed alive because of Buick and Cadillac products living on former merits which were selling well in the orient also.

But seriously, they are trying to show they are a good car manufacturer in TODAY'S competitive industry, while their past shows us just how well they have competed against the same companies in the past.

Onmi, Horizon, Firefly, need I say more? US manufacturer's have failed the public and failed themselves time and time again.

Sure people have built lemons like that before, Ford had the Pinto, Hyundai had the Pony, but they BOTH came back to build some of the best in class. Hyundai's Genesis has been voted car of the year by countless mags, industry shows, pros etc. It's a Lexus at sub-Honda pricing. Ford now makes some of the most advanced and evolved compacts on the market, while STILL deominating the truck segment, as they always have, they were unstoppable in he midsize market with the Taurua, while GM was playing with mid sized pigs and Chrysler pushed cab forward marketing games in the 90's too.

NOW, we are supposed to believe that this has all changed, GM's failure to live up to promises or compete in the last 3 decades is to be forgotten, they are now new and improved. But all I hear are empty promises, judging by their restructuring promises, nothing is changing, it's all just more of the same, smoke and mirrors with no actual substance to support it.

GM should e left to simply perish, they are not Ford, they are definitely not anything capable of Japanese competition or European cars.

I always understood capitalism as survival of the fittest, while I despise the practices of companies like WalMart, I still must accept that they are a result of capitalism, mixed with some questionable/unlawful business practices, but they initially got strong due to fair merits and fair business.

Why is it that GM, can fail, be beaten by FAIR competition time and time again, show that they are simply unable to compete or keep up to a market and then still get bailed out?

I don't get it, it's almost like principles are on a sliding scale for some. One company is justifiably closed due to competition, another in a different marketplace is bailed out to help when fair competition wins their share of the market.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I'm confused.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The new face of GM, reali ...

Is this about GM or Chrysler?

"After BARELY keeping their heads above water through teh 80's, due to Iacoca's decision to make K-Cars and Lebarons, Horizon's and Luxury Dynasty's from identical parts ... In the 90's all the 3-5 year econo boxes that were sold in the 80's fell apart, including their sister products from Chrysler's higher end. ... they went on a marketign campaing with cab forward designs of the Intrepid and the clone bodies ... They stayed alives because of Buick and Cadillac products living on former merits which were selling well in the orient also. ... Onmi, Horizon, Firefly, need I say more?"

You need to edit your post. By combining the names of multiple GM and Chrysler brands and products, it reads like you think Chrysler and GM are the same company.

"GM should e left to s]imply perish, they are not Ford, they are not Chevy, ..."

Actually, yes, they ARE Chevy.

I agree that GM should be allowed to fail if it cannot market a product that appeals to consumers, but your original post is all over the map.

Collapse -

You're right

by Oz_Media In reply to I'm confused.

Mistitled, I'll reword it, I was looking at an article form GM last night and was posting about eth GM/chrysler bailouts.

Back to teh drawing board, when I typed it it made sense, reading it doesn't.

Collapse -

price has always been the biggest factor

by jdclyde In reply to The new face of GM, reali ...

thanks to high union overhead and slow union mentality on the line, I am only surprised they lasted this long.

I have known many GM employees over the last few decades, and they are far from overworked. Something that all these changes will not address.

And because it all goes by seniority, it is the oldest and most set in their ways that will be left to man the lines.

I do not see them coming out of this tail spin.

And yes, and almost all of my cars have been either Chrysler or Chevy, with ONE mazda in the mix.

Collapse -

It started

by TonytheTiger In reply to price has always been the ...

back when robots took over some tasks. Less for employees to do but they demanded same pay.

Collapse -

Think so?

by Oz_Media In reply to It started

Robots increased quality in manufacturing.

In every other nation they have increased quality of the finished product and reduced overall costs.

Once again, it's not the union per se, but the stipulations of the UAW contracts. Either way, the resulting failure of these companies goes light years beyond the unions that they were built upon.

If unions were a key issue, GM could have closed their US doors and moved all operations to Japan, as many other companies do to sidle their union obligations.

They just thought they could do better and were invincible.

Collapse -

stipulations in contract, not the union?

by jdclyde In reply to Think so?

The contract is what makes the union.

When the union will not allow the phasing out of a job to make way for a new job, it is just one more reason that the union is behind a lot of the decline of the US manufacturing power. This goes well beyond UAW.

Collapse -

Behind a lot of the decline,

by Oz_Media In reply to stipulations in contract, ...

Fair enough. It is an important factor, especially as far as production speed and standards are concerned.

Your first comment seemed to pass the whole blame simply to a lazy union mentality due to seniority. While that is a key issue, there's a lot more to it than just the union, contracts, workers etc.

Collapse -

Lots of blame to be shared

by jdclyde In reply to Behind a lot of the decli ...

Becoming extremely top heavy with excessive management was a major issue.

And no, I don't believe for a second it has anything to do with making trucks. They made what people bought.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Lots of blame to be share ...

I didn't say it WAS due to making trucks though. That is just some tangent james is running on and I don't even understand the relevance or why.

Collapse -

It was you Oz who brought up trucks

by JamesRL In reply to Lots of blame to be share ...

And how Ford, according to you was "Dominating the market". When I show you the stats that prove otherwise, you try to weasel away.

The manufacturers did make big bucks with trucks, they didn't have to be made with the same safety engineering as cars and there was less emphasis on mileage as well. But no one put a gun to the buyers head and forced people to buy them. Sure many people need trucks, but I see a lot of trucks that have never ever seen a payload in the back, driven to office buildings.


Related Discussions

Related Forums