GM discussion thread

[MichiganDude]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Because it would be VERY difficult to sustain stand alone Buick dealerships with the three models they currently have. Also, GMC is by far GM's second most popular brand after Chevy. GMC is the premium version of Chevy trucks geared toward a more professional customer base, and it is obviously a sizeable base. GMC trucks are much more upscale than the Chevy variants, much in the same way that Buick is a much more upscale brand than Chevy. Basically Chevy is the base-level brand, Buick and GMC are the premium brand, and Cadillac is the upscale brand. If it were like beer, Chevy would be the "Busch" brand, Buick-GMC would be the "Budweiser" brand, and Cadillac would be the "Michelob" brand.



LOL! I literally live across the street from that strip club! Haven't been inside though.

Ford is easier. Ford was like the average guy who slept with Lincoln who happened to be a washed up but wealthy socialite. They had sex and produced Mercury who was ignored because Ford and Lincoln were too busy doing lines of cocaine with Jaguar and Land Rover.

GM is more like Jon & Kate + 8.

[NaptownBoy]

Originally Posted by I-275westcoastfl

Hilarious. I think it would be even funnier if much of what was said wasn't actually true.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

That's what I figured.

I know what you're trying to get at, that I'm biased against GM and couldn't possibly know anything about it without owning one.

I know enough about GM to know I wouldn't have even considered anything from them up until very recently.

For a long time, during the 80s and 90s, the only people purchasing GM cars were government agencies, fleets looking for the best deal, or people biased/brainwashed towards GM (for example, people from Michigan). During the 80s and 90s, you could always find a better car than anything GM offered.

If I had owned a GM car, would my anecdotal experience really matter when you look at the big picture? The big picture being GM losing massive amounts of marketshare, losing billions of dollars, and ultimately going bankrupt?

I know you're big on claiming GM not getting a fair shake, but is GM being a mess of a company really just a perception issue, or might it just be a reality, because all signs point to it being reality.

Being from Michigan, you're really not in a position to look at this objectively.

[elrusodan]

Hey, does anyone know if the new Chevy Spark is going to be manufactured in Korea (like aveo) or in US? I am not really too patriotic, but during this economy I would rather buy an american-made Corolla than an foreign Aveo.

And how can GM still be considered an american manufacturer when most of their manufacturing is outsourced to different countries, while Toyota and Hyundai creating more new factories inside the US?...

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by The anti-cheesehead

I know what you're trying to get at, that I'm biased against GM and couldn't possibly know anything about it without owning one.

I've never denied that some of the cars GM was producing in the 80's and 90's weren't necessarily class-leading, if not downright terrible. I'm just making a personal observation that it appears that the biggest GM detractors are generally those who have never owned a GM vehicle. You would think that if the cars were so terribly bad, the people who've actually owned them would be bigger GM bashers than those that have no vested interest in the company...

It's kind of like how people feel about gay marriage. People are MUCH more likely to oppose gay marriage when they claim they do not personally know any gay people. However, when people do claim to personally know a gay person, they are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to support gay marriage.

I know that you have an idea of how bad GM products were in the 80's and 90's, and while I'm sure you're right on more than a few occasions, the quality issue was not nearly as bad as you think.

Do some gays listen to Liza Minelli and dress in drag? Sure. Is it fair to characterize all gay people in that manner? Not really. In the same sense, did GM have a few lemons in its portfolio? Sure. Is it fair to characterize the entire product line in that manner?

For a long time, during the 80s and 90s, the only people purchasing GM cars were government agencies, fleets looking for the best deal, or people biased/brainwashed towards GM (for example, people from Michigan). During the 80s and 90s, you could always find a better car than anything GM offered.

Nobody in my family has ever worked for General Motors, nor do we have any specific connection to the company. My family has owned several GM products over the years, but we also have owned Ford products, and even Chrysler, Honda, Mercedes, Mitsubishi, Nissan, etc. The only major company my family hasn't purchased from is Toyota.

BTW, do you only eat General Mills cereal? You are from Minneapolis afterall. I'm sure everyone in your family has worked in a cereal packaging plant...

You can love a company without being "brainwashed". Of all the GM cars that I've driven/owned, I've never had a serious problem. If I did, I would have stopped buying GM products. It's that simple...

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I'm just making a personal observation that it appears that the biggest GM detractors are generally those who have never owned a GM vehicle. You would think that if the cars were so terribly bad, the people who've actually owned them would be bigger GM bashers than those that have no vested interest in the company...

Well, your personal observation makes no sense, because if everyone who has ever owned a GM vehicle kept buying GM vehicles and recommended them to others, then GM wouldn't have lost the marketshare that they have.....which would mean, logically, the biggest GM detractors are those who HAVE owned GM vehicles and stopped buying and recommending them.

It's that simple...

Originally Posted by hudkina

BTW, do you only eat General Mills cereal? You are from Minneapolis afterall. I'm sure everyone in your family has worked in a cereal packaging plant...

General Mills, or the cereal industry, does not dominate the Twin Cities the way GM and the auto industry does Detroit. That was a poor comparison.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by The anti-cheesehead

Well, your personal observation makes no sense, because if everyone who has ever owned a GM vehicle kept buying GM vehicles and recommended them to others, then GM wouldn't have lost the marketshare that they have.....which would mean, logically, the biggest GM detractors are those who HAVE owned GM vehicles and stopped buying and recommending them.

I would say the biggest factor in the Big 3's rapid marketshare decrease was the increased product line of the competition. While GM's marketshare began a slight downward trend when the tiny hatchbacks of the Asian brands gained somewhat in popularity during the 70's and 80's, it wasn't until the mid-late 90's, when the foreign brands started offering a full range of products (larger cars, trucks, minivans, SUVs, etc.) directly competing with the domestic brands, that GM's marketshare begin to see a rapid decline. Even with the failure of their initial compacts and subcompacts, most Americans were still buying the more traditional Big 3 products as late as 10 to 12 years ago, even if it was primarily SUVs and trucks.

The lack of quality of Big 3 products (perceived or otherwise) is a factor, but I also think it has as much to do with the myth that Toyota and Honda products are infallible. It's not so much "Wow, GM cars are really bad, I'm going to buy a Honda instead," as it is "Hey, everyone is telling me how great Honda is, I should check it out."

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

I would say the biggest factor in the Big 3's rapid marketshare decrease was the increased product line of the competition.

The biggest factor was that GM wasn't competetive despite enjoying years of leading the market.

They used to dominate the US market and many of those customers simply were not repeat customers anymore. Many of those customers were loyal GM customers that came from GM families and bought GMs for years and years, when GM really did make a competetive product....back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. When those people stop buying GMs, you're in deep, deep trouble, as we're finally witnessing now. The bankruptcy may not have been such a bad deal for GM, but the government/UAW ownership is just terrible for GM.

Back to what I was saying, the biggest GM detractors are the former GM customers.....and their children.

[hudkina]

Again it's easy dominate the market when you're one of only a handful of companies.

The Big 3 didn't see their marketshare begin its rapid decline until the mid-late 90's, over 30 years after Toyota and Honda entered the market. Why is that? Why did it take over 30 years for the foreign brands to gain any serious marketshare? Was it because the foreign brands began offering a wider array of products?

Back in 1992, if you wanted to drive a Honda your only options were a tiny compact (Accord), and an impossibly smaller subcompact (Civic). There was no midsize sedan, SUV, truck, minivan, etc. Back in 1992, Honda had a very small share of the U.S. market, but its small lineup of tiny, cheap, fuel-efficient cars had a very good reputation, especially compared to the full line-up of the domestic brands. Honda's favorable reputation helped as it began to release cars that the American public was generally more interested in (larger cars, SUVs, minivans, trucks, etc.). "Well, everyone tells me Honda makes great cars, so I guess I'll check out this CR-V."

In the 80's and early 90's, the foreign brands really didn't have much to compete with GM. Now GM has to directly compete with at least six foreign brands that offer a full line of products. (let alone the rest of the Big 3.)

Even if every last vehicle that GM offered in the 80's and 90's was class-leading, it would have still lost a significant amount of marketshare...

It has nothing to do with "GM famillies" or whatever the hell you're arguing. It has to do with increased competition across its entire product line.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Again it's easy dominate the market when you're one of only a handful of companies.

The Big 3 didn't see their marketshare begin its rapid decline until the mid-late 90's, over 30 years after Toyota and Honda entered the market..

The big 3 have been experiencing declining marketshare since the late 70s, and it got worse throughout the 80's, 90's, 00's....all the way to bankruptcy.

That's what you would call being SMOKED by the competition.

Originally Posted by hudkina

Back in 1992, if you wanted to drive a Honda your only options were a tiny compact (Accord), and an impossibly smaller subcompact (Civic).

1992 was the second to the last year of that generation Accord. That Accord generation was on it's last legs. Either way, smaller or not, it was still a far better car than what Ford, GM, or Chrysler offered quality-wise.

In 1992, the redesigned Camry was far, far, far better than a Lumina or a Taurus.

In 1992, the Lumina and Taurus were outright PILES OF SHIT compared to the new Camry. The 1992 Camry even looked good, like a baby Lexus. And the big 3 never caught up until recently. Ford tried but failed miserably when they totally F-ed up the Taurus in 1996.

Originally Posted by hudkina

It has to do with increased competition across its entire product line.

It has to do with GM not upping their game, to the point that the competition broke GM's neck. Period.

[hudkina]

Look at the trend line! While it is true that the marketshare of the domestic brands started a slight decline when the foreign brands began to enter the market, it wasn't until the mid-late 90's that the erosion began to truly pick up. It's not a coincidence that many of the foreign brands started offering full lines in the mid-late 90's.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Look at the trend line! While it is true that the marketshare of the domestic brands started a slight decline when the foreign brands began to enter the market, it wasn't until the mid-late 90's that the erosion began to truly pick up. It's not a coincidence that many of the foreign brands started offering full lines in the mid-late 90's.

Whatever, I'm not sure what your point is. That the Japanese came out of nowhere in the 90s? The Big 3 marketshare trendline has been downward for 30 years, they've had quite a bit of time to adjust. The Big 3 lost massive marketshare in their home market that they've been operating in for 100 years to relatively inexperienced competitors. They dropped the ball big time, there really isn't any other way to look at it.

[hudkina]

No the Japanese didn't come out of nowhere. They went from being niche brands (think Mitsubishi or Suzuki) to being full line brands that competed directly with the Big 3. They went from selling a couple of decent small cars to offering larger cars, SUVs, trucks, minivans, etc.

There are over a dozen major foreign companies directly competing against the Big 3. The fact that 3 companies are able to still retain about half the market despite the fierce competition from 12+ foreign companies says a lot.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The fact that 3 companies are able to still retain about half the market despite the fierce competition from 12+ foreign companies says a lot.

It doesn't say a whole lot when you consider that they went from absolute dominance to bankruptcy.

The fact that the once mighty Big 3 have fallen so far at the hands of the once niche brands from a country previously known for making crap says a lot, and it's very sad.

[hudkina]

You could say the same thing about the Big 3 networks. ABC, NBC, and CBS once dominated the television viewing market. Then came along cable, Fox, the CW, etc. Today the traditional three networks are only able to draw a fraction of the audiences they did 50 years ago.

You act like the Big 3 should have maintained 100% of the market, when it would be nearly impossible to do that...

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

You act like the Big 3 should have maintained 100% of the market, when it would be nearly impossible to do that...

I act like they should've never made the substandard products that they have. I act like they should've stepped up to Honda and Toyota before it was too late. I act like they should've stood up to the UAW before it was too late. I act like they should've never went bankrupt. Great companies adapt and avoid bankruptcy.

You act as if it's external forces that are the cause of where they are today, not their own fault.

[hudkina]

No I think it is a combination of MANY different things, both internal and external. You're the one who always tries to pin everything on the UAW...

I'm just saying that the loss in marketshare isn't entirely attributed to the supposed lack of quality of the Big 3. I'm saying that even if the Big 3 had made the best little compacts around they would have still seen their marketshare drop as more and more companies began offering more and more products.

Again, it's just like the traditional three TV networks. I'm sure they made a few mistakes that turned off viewers, but ultimately they really couldn't have done too much to stem the flow of viewers to the other broadcast and cable networks.

[tonyboy]

i'm enjoying this discussion ...very much ...carry on..

[hudkina]

We'll try. These threads generally peter out after about 10 or so pages, but we always find new ways to argue over the same things.

[The anti-cheesehead]

Originally Posted by hudkina

You're the one who always tries to pin everything on the UAW...

The UAW is a HUGE part of it.

You're right in that it was inevitable that they would cede some marketshare because of increased competition, but they didn't need to lose as much as they have. Since they did lose the marketshare, they needed to become leaner, smaller, more efficient companies and the UAW fought fiercly against these goals the whole time leading to.....moving production out of the United States...and bankruptcy. It's a direct correlation, there is no debating this. Great job UAW!!!!

I seriously can't believe it's come to bankruptcy and there are still defenders of the indefensible organized crime mafia UAW.