News GM says it "disappointed" and "betrayed" consumers

Morganthe said:

Very true on what you say, unfortunately, the Big 3 has not put out any comprable quality Sedans or wagons. For those of us who don't want a large vehicle, in quality level, there's not much choice except to turn to a Japanese or European vehicle. And therein lies the screwover that the high mucky mucks at the Big three failed to remember from the 1970s. ALL vehicle sizes are necessary for success. Styles change, gas prices go up & down, you have to have an inventory that appeals all over, not just to those who who yearn for large vehicles. :shrug-shoulders:

Click to expand...

I was just comparing to comparable vehicles that I had 1st hand experience with.

You can't dredge up the 70's because NONE of them were making good quality vehicles back then.

Ford & GM have been putting out good quality sedans for years but everyone is so hung up on the past. The new Malibu has won many awards and is one of the top quality vehicles on the market. The new CTS is the North American car of the year. The Chevy Tahoe has won the green vehicle of the year award. The Saturn Aura won all kinds of awards when it first hit the market. So GM alone offers more versatility and models then Toyota & Honda combined. They offer more hybrid models that are less cost to the consumer & have better mpg. Their safety ratings on all vehicles keep getting better and better. So tell me where GM & Ford are lacking? Did you forget that the recent safest vehicles report just put a few months ago had more domestic vehicle then foreign makers? Most being held by Ford/Volvo.

You have also have to remember not everyone wants and econo box either. They want styling & power and something that stands out from the rest which Honda & Toyota do not know how to do and don't have.

codex57 said:

They're doing that. Well, GM admitted fault anyways. But they are getting their acts together. They just need about another decade in time at the rate they're going. With all their other problems, in addition to the biggie one of the tanked world economy, they might not last long enough.

The Fusion and Impala aren't that bad. I don't think they're as good as the media makes them out to be (media actually doesn't like the Camry; they just grudgingly admit that the buying public loves it even as they spew disdain for it), but they're a definite step in the right direction. The Camry and Accord aren't as nice as they used to be. Well, they're nice, they're just not as "perfect" as they used to be and not as dominating over the competition. Since they're not doing as well maintaining top dog status and the Fusion/Impala are making improvements, their next gen versions have a chance to catch up to the Japanese.

The Acadia and siblings are great crossovers. Ford has the Mazda CX-9 and Flex. They're showing life there. The Pilot and Highlander are overrated. The domestic minivans still suck, but no one buys those things much anyways. In another decade, Detroit should have the products to legitimately worry the Japanese. It's just a matter of them surviving long enough (and having enough money) to produce these new vehicles. CUz even if they produce it, they also need time for the public to feel they're worth buying and look past their horrible history and realize it's a new era finally.

Course, this is all assuming that old Honda/Toyota buyers switch to Detroit instead of Korea. Yet another wrinkle in all this.

Click to expand...

The only domestic minivan is the Dodge/Chrysler which from the last report I saw still they were still the #1 selling minivan. Ford & GM pulled out of that market because it wasn't a money making area for them. Which I don't blame them at all because minivans are just plan boring to me but everyone knows my feeling on minivans. So that shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone here. LOL!

Jenny, can I ask you something that I have been wanting to know for a long time? (duh, no point in asking if I already asked, huh? :ROTFLMAOIt is an honest question...Do you work in the automotive industry? As in, one of these big 3 companies? You seem to be very invested in them, and I have always noticed how passionate you are about American cars.

mommy2env said:

Jenny, can I ask you something that I have been wanting to know for a long time? (duh, no point in asking if I already asked, huh? :ROTFLMAOIt is an honest question...Do you work in the automotive industry? As in, one of these big 3 companies? You seem to be very invested in them, and I have always noticed how passionate you are about American cars.

Click to expand...

Nope, I work for a hospital as an Injury Prevention Specialist and I have no ties to the automotive industry at all. I am passionate about my country and I go out of my why in everyday life to buy America products. Just the way I & dh were raised. My step father was a unionized factory work and I have seen the good unions do for their employees. Before kids I worked for AT&T and we had unions. So I have 1st hand experience with unions and the good they do bring to big corps. like the Big 3. We as the employees demanded safe working environments. When we felt something was being over looked and the big upper bosses wouldn't listen we had someone to go that took us serious and helped in our requests.

Thanks for feeding my curiosity.

I will admit, I am not that into the automotive world. I have owned both domestic and foreign cars. Sadly, I was very disappointed with the domestic ones I have had.

Well, I work for the automotive industry and I think Jen_nah made some good points

I think one huge thing you have to look at is who is buying these vehicles. When you spend $25k+ on a car/sedan it's because you want luxury items and you're usually the type that's going to trade in pretty frequently. If you're spending that much on a truck it's because you're looking for reliability and performance and alot of times that truck's going to get run into the ground before it's even thought about being replaced.

Stories like this certainly don't help things:

http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/2009/03/03/do-not-buy-a-car-from-curry-chevrolet-in-scarsdale/

http://consumerist.com/5162727/jeep-incapable-of-selling-to-man-with-24000-in-cash

jen_nah said:

I was just comparing to comparable vehicles that I had 1st hand experience with.

You can't dredge up the 70's because NONE of them were making good quality vehicles back then.

.....You have also have to remember not everyone wants and econo box either. They want styling & power and something that stands out from the rest which Honda & Toyota do not know how to do and don't have.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. I dredge up the 1970s because the Top 3 lacked vehicles that were fuel efficient and smaller vs the foreigns. The past 10 years, they have put all the marketing & design efforts into LARGE vehicles, such as SUVs & Trucks, even MiniVans have been ignored in comparison.

I've driven quite a few American & Foreign sedans/small cars because I end up renting a lot. So far, the best bang for the buck was the Mazda 3 series that had actually more interior space than than the larger category Toyota Corolla.

No, I don't like driving econoboxes at all. I like a firm drive with lots of space in my sedan. Camry, Accord, Passat, Taurus, 300, Impala, Charger -- round that size & quality. Of the American vehicles I've driven, only one I'd ever consider purchasing is the Impala. But it's a rear wheel drive and a very heavy car for acceleration, sheer power. I liked it though. Fahrfahgnugen and all that

I really don't pay attention to the awards, since whenever I read about them, the 'testing' & consideration isn't what I"m interested about. It seems that American cars have become image driven & cheap plasticky with road noise or too soft of a ride.
-- yes, Japanese cars (except for Mazda) are bland. No problems agreeing with that. I do prefer Euro models, but I don't have the $$s to waste on image.

I want a firm ride with steady handling, Well insulated for sound, good acceleration/braking, adjustable driving position, reliability, reliability, reliability... and a vehicle not considered 'old' because it's over 100,000 miles. Oh and preferably in a manual transmission too -- another impossibility to find in American cars these days, except for sports versions.

If I could find something in an American used sedan that fit all that, I'd happily consider it. Sorry, I don't buy 'new'. I want to buy American, truly I do. Heck, I attempted it in the candy aisle today at the dollar store. That was virtually impossible But I'm not spending hard earned money on a vehicle that doesn't do the job for us just to support the industry. Wish I could, but I can't.


I drive a 10 year old Camry. It's in great condition. (yeah, I know, my car was made in America. ) In comparison, 10 year old American sedans around here are on their last legs. Paint is peeling off like crazy. Unfortunately, I've had transmission problems, but that could h appen to anyone over 120k miles. Unlucky me. C'est la vie.

Other than that, it's been a steady decent car with good gas mileage for a 6 cyl at 130k miles. I don't know of any US sedan that could take the punishment and still sell for around $4,500 as I could this vehicle, if I needed to do so. :shrug-shoulders:

If US automakers had focused just as much on the sedan & wagon fleet as they had their SUVs & Trucks, they would be in better shape. They could sell more units just over cost production to people who cannot afford to run those expensive large vehicles. Believe or not, there are more people who could afford the lesser amounts than high end or don't even want them in the first place.

I hope this makes sense.

Yes, I am talking auction price - however do you think a dealer that can buy a domestic brand for say $2,000 less than a foreign brand is going to ask more money for it since they can buy it for less? No, most dealers will mark up their used cars for $4,000 over their cost - (what they bought it from the auction for + any shop expenses + other costs).

In regards to the Impala vs the Camry...the current Impala platform was introduced in 2006...the current Camry platform in 2006 as a 2007 model...so the age difference between the two is only months to 1 year -

In regards to the resale price.....what a dealer asks for a car certainly isn't what they will get, however there is an article that was published in a dealer magazine (I believe it was Wards) is that a consumer will pay more money for a used Honda or Toyota VS a domestic brand based on their perception of quality in the vehicle (not that the true quality of a domestic brand is bad cause in reality they have improved quite a bit). Also, I am not sure where you are getting your info but here are the national average prices for a 2008 Chevy Impala LS VS. a 2008 Toyota Camry LE V6 (similar models equipment wise, and I used the V6 on the Camry since the Impala does not offer a 4 cyl) - this comes straight from Manheim Market report the Camry is bringing upwards of $4,000 more than the Impala - and yes, it is comparing Oranges to Oranges as the vehicles have similar equipment, and your argument on the Impala being an older style than the Camry simply isn't true as I had pointed out in my previous statement. And YES this is auction data - but what a dealer can buy a car for at auction will also determine how much said dealer can retail the car for as well - if a dealer pays $4,000 less for an Impala you can be sure he won't get as much money for it as he would for a Camry etc...its simple math....dealers don't get those profits anymore. The average used car gross profit a dealer will make on any given vehicle, Chevy-Honda-Toyota-Ford (excluding highline such as Mercedes, Bentley,etc etc) is $1,490....so don't think they are gonna make anymore money on an Impala than a Camry just because they got it for less - that simply isn't the case.

In regards to the UAW - yes they have done good things to build this country, but that was back in the day and things have changed....for a very eye opening article you may want to read this:

http://blogs.automotive.com/6205652...-toyota-workers-are-not-interested/index.html

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/bailout-watch-392-the-uaw-walks/

jen_nah said:

Your talking auction price. Remember resale is only going to be what someone is willing to pay. Also comparing a 2008 Camry to a 2008 is still comparing apples to oranges. The 2008 Camry is a new platform and newly redesigned where as the 2008 Impala has been around for over 5yrs with very little changes to it's current model. Now compare the Malibu to the Toyota (simular trim levels). Both are reselling for simular prices on the used car market and also at auctions (my SIL is in the auto auction business in OK). I do agree rebates are not a good thing but blame that one all your fellow neighbors. Everyone wants something for nothing. GM & Ford has done away with a large portion of their rebates (can't talk for Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep). The only thing they have done recently (well last year) was their employee pricing which they do every year on their previous year models. Toyota & Honda do the same thing.

As for your links the CR finding is so biased it's not even funny. They have been biased for a very long time and majority of the time have always dogged the American brands when other leading auto magazines have raved about that model. I tend to believe real auto magazines (Motor Trend, Car & Driver, etc...) that have true car enthusiast and even race car drivers behind the wheels of these vehicles.

Again, Tell me why should the worker have to keep giving up their benefits? Also those #'s are not acute at all. What they do is take to cost of benefits and average it with actual working hour employees and don't take into account that those health benefit costs also imply to all the retired employees. Those workers are not making $69 with benefits.

Are you also aware that a unionized factory of any kind is more efficient & has less on the job injuries then a non union factory? Also are you aware that unions are what created this country? If it weren't for unions we the employee wouldn't have the rights we do today. We wouldn't have 40hr work weeks with over time, sick time, paid holidays, etc... that we do today. So don't dog the horse that made this great country.

What we as citizens of this country should be demanding is more products to be made in this country and that foreign imports be reduced or at least be equalized. We shouldn't be importing more goods then we export. We need to get back to buying American products and supporting our country instead of making other countries big, stronger & soon more powerful then us.

Click to expand...

Well, now Ford needs to issue a similar apology. I think Ford has come a long way, but after being pretty much ruined as a grad student when my 1995 Escort needed a $2500 new tranny after only 80,000 miles, it will be a long, long time before I buy American again.

FWIW, Ford's response to my demolished transmission was, "Oh, that happens sometimes." :thumbsdown: Not on a six year old car, it shouldn't.

Complicated issue with some difficult decisions which need to be taken soon. Unions have done /do good things but I feel they play a big part in the downfall of the companies. Even now, when bankruptcy is more or less certain, they refuse to give anything. It seems like it's better that all three companies go bankrupt and many thousands of people lose their jobs than benefits being decreased somewhat. Very nice benefits I might add.

I think it's fine to have those benefits when great cars are being made but when others are more or less running circles around the cars something is wrong.

What we as citizens of this country should be demanding is more products to be made in this country and that foreign imports be reduced or at least be equalized. We shouldn't be importing more goods then we export. We need to get back to buying American products and supporting our country instead of making other countries big, stronger & soon more powerful then us.

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. This is not a long term solution and only helps to dig a deeper hole. If everyone has to buy american quality and efficiency is going nowhere. People will/want to buy good products and have great service. Competition is fierce today but I think it's though to convince customers to pay more and receive less. This strategy sounds like Soviet Union in 1960, we live in a global economy where customers have many choices. I don't people would be willing to pay more for far less.

Again, Tell me why should the worker have to keep giving up their benefits?

Click to expand...

Desperate times calls for drastic measures. And that does not mean just increasing the green fee at the fancy UAW golf course. It's really a matter of survival. Decreasing benefits is painful but might mean tens of thosands of people get to keep theri job. When things get better benefits/pay may be increased again. I think any autoworker not willing to decrease some benefits is not seeing clearly. Which is part of the problem. Making demands while at teh same time receiving tens of billions of dollars make no sense IMHO.

Keep in mind the US car companies are supposed to cut expenses drastically, improve service a LOT, develop new models which customers love, improve fuel efficiency drastically, and restore confidence with consumers in a very short time.

That doesn't sound very likely to me. It's a classic case of what happens when management relaxes during good times and unfortunately many people have to pay dearly for that now.

Quote:
Again, Tell me why should the worker have to keep giving up their benefits?
Desperate times calls for drastic measures. And that does not mean just increasing the green fee at the fancy UAW golf course. It's really a matter of survival. Decreasing benefits is painful but might mean tens of thosands of people get to keep theri job. When things get better benefits/pay may be increased again. I think any autoworker not willing to decrease some benefits is not seeing clearly. Which is part of the problem. Making demands while at teh same time receiving tens of billions of dollars make no sense IMHO.

Keep in mind the US car companies are supposed to cut expenses drastically, improve service a LOT, develop new models which customers love, improve fuel efficiency drastically, and restore confidence with consumers in a very short time.

That doesn't sound very likely to me. It's a classic case of what happens when management relaxes during good times and unfortunately many people have to pay dearly for that now.


...very well said and this is the point I was trying to get at. Especially when it is taxpayer money keeping them afloat right now - they need to make some concessions or they will create their own demise...then who will they blame -

Adventuredad said:

Desperate times calls for drastic measures. And that does not mean just increasing the green fee at the fancy UAW golf course. It's really a matter of survival. Decreasing benefits is painful but might mean tens of thosands of people get to keep theri job. When things get better benefits/pay may be increased again. I think any autoworker not willing to decrease some benefits is not seeing clearly. Which is part of the problem. Making demands while at teh same time receiving tens of billions of dollars make no sense IMHO.

Keep in mind the US car companies are supposed to cut expenses drastically, improve service a LOT, develop new models which customers love, improve fuel efficiency drastically, and restore confidence with consumers in a very short time.

That doesn't sound very likely to me. It's a classic case of what happens when management relaxes during good times and unfortunately many people have to pay dearly for that now.

Click to expand...

One thing to remember is that Unions & workers (rightly so, imo) have deep suspicion of reducing benefits in hard times because when the times are "better", they're rarely ever restored without fights, strikes, & image damage to either side. Instead, CEO & upper management pay/bennies have soared in comparison each time there's a recovery. The airlines have really suffered for high mismanagement. Remember the strike 3 or 4 y ears back because the pilots & airline attendents had to take a paycut while the execs were able to retain their full contract packages? Nuts. So yes, there is an extreme mistrust. Unions know that if the businesses could go back to t he 'good ole days' with long hours & less pay with employees slavishly grateful TO have a job, they would in a heartbeat. Doesn't mean they all would, but the majority would . But to trust Business ethics is extremely naive. 'Greed is good' and all that.

I think the biggest battle going on is regarding retirement pay, not with actual workers. I think I heard that for every one worker being paid, there are 12 retirees on pension and it's a mess with the accounting. I think I heard that if t hey go into bankruptcy restructuring, the companies can shed their retirement requirements or responsibilities or something like that. It's the reason why they're pushing hard for it. I don't know all the details. But health insurance & retiree pensions are much of what has been the reall difficulty between the union vs business debates lately.

jmho, I could be wrong. :shrug-shoulders:

Morganthe said:

I think the biggest battle going on is regarding retirement pay, not with actual workers. I think I heard that for every one worker being paid, there are 12 retirees on pension and it's a mess with the accounting. I think I heard that if t hey go into bankruptcy restructuring, the companies can shed their retirement requirements or responsibilities or something like that. It's the reason why they're pushing hard for it. I don't know all the details. But health insurance & retiree pensions are much of what has been the reall difficulty between the union vs business debates lately.

jmho, I could be wrong. :shrug-shoulders:

Click to expand...

No, you're right. That's why a lot of outside observers are promoting bankruptcy. I'm for it too, if it can be done. The prob is that it's going to require the gov't to guarantee and even toss in a ton of money in order to get banks to agree to a prepackaged bankruptcy.

As I said earlier, current pay btw union and non-union workers is fairly similar. It's the former workers who are all the dead weight.

Is it fair for them to lose all the benefits they'd been depending on? Maybe not. But the reality is if the companies really go under, they get squat. They're facing drastically cut benefits either way. Better to offer to give up some and preserve as much as you can.

There's a pretty simple way to fix it. Unfortunately, it's not realistic due to politics. Basically, yank the funding from the bank bailout. They don't deserve it as shown by their actions. They're not increasing lending with the money and have admitted they thought the money was for other stuff, despite all that was in the news. Use a chunk of that 700 Billion to guarantee funds for a prepackaged bankruptcy. Then, take whatever's left and use it on the banks. Throw in executive pay caps everywhere, for the automakers and the banks. The argument against pay caps holds no water. The primary argument is that it takes a very skilled individual to run a large corp. Well, a monkey could lose billions of dollars. How much is monkey labor worth? That's how much an exec is worth. $500,000/yr is actually generous. And restrict stock payments by tying them to the company down the line so they're looking at long term health, not short term profits.

mominabigtruck said:

Well, I work for the automotive industry and I think Jen_nah made some good points

I think one huge thing you have to look at is who is buying these vehicles. When you spend $25k+ on a car/sedan it's because you want luxury items and you're usually the type that's going to trade in pretty frequently. If you're spending that much on a truck it's because you're looking for reliability and performance and alot of times that truck's going to get run into the ground before it's even thought about being replaced.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I don't want a truck. I want a car. My budget doesn't run to $25K cars right now, but if it did, I would spend on safety and reliability. And I have only retired one car before 150K miles (it was a newbie at 90K), and if I did spend $25K on a car, I sure wouldn't be trading it in.

Being in SE Michigan, this whole situation sucks. I know the car companies screwed up but it's scary how everyone gets when the not-so-big-3 are in danger.

We bought a 2008 Chevy Cobalt on January 3rd of last year. Brand spanking new car. Within a week it left me stranded at school because it locked up for seemingly no reason. Turns out the whole gear shift was faulty and needed to be replaced. A month later it locked up again, luckily in our own driveway. That time the battery needed to be replaced. Then a month later the tire pressure gauge kept giving us an error message and would beep. We waited months to get that fixed. Last month it locked up again when I was about to leave for class. The ignition needed to be replaced. It has a little over 15,000 miles on it and we've had it just over a year. I'm scared of what will happen when we're out of warranty and where it will leave me stranded next.

DH's grandfather (who just passed away) and his great-grandfather both retired from GM. The family discount was the main reason we went with GM. The great-grandparents are about to turn 80 and live on his pension and SS. They live in a mobile home in a retirement park and have one car. His wife never worked or learned to drive. They live comfortably but stay close to home and have seriously cut back on spending from when he first retired years ago. Back then it was believed you could get paid a great wage, retire at 50, and live the good life just because you worked for the car companies. I think GM (and others) were setting themselves up to fail when they offered such good benefits. Sure times were good and you were making money, but they should have realized that eventually they'd be supporting millions of retirees for years and years. How many cars could they possibly sell to keep that up?

Something that you might want to remember or know -- the Big three (and other non-vehicle businesses) were "requested" by the government in 1941 to not have a wage battle to attract good employees in war time. That's where all these so-called "big" benefits originated. Health Care, Retirement, pensions.. for average workers were the point of competition instead. This had never happened before and y'all know how it is --when business is good, it's never ever going to drop.
(Housing values always increase & supposedly never ever fluxuate -- remember? )

Then the 80s came about and Unions became the lone bad guys against free trade, profits, and soaring investor gains. :shrug-shoulders:

My fear is that if the automotive companies are allowed restructuring in bankruptcy and shed their pensions to the National fund (which is now over tasked anyway) what does that mean for the American people who now have to deal with the Companies AND the retirees. These aren't people living it up on the govt dime. They're on limited incomes and are older or elderly or infirm.

BLECH!! There is no right or good short term answer to any of this mess. It's vast.

Are you all aware that if any of the Big 3 do file bankruptcy that we the people are stuck with paying those retires pensions? Pensions are guaranteed by the government so no matter what happens we the tax payers are going to pay.

UAW workers have already taken pay cuts & reductions in benefits in the past year and are slotted again to in 2010. Look at AA a few years ago when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. The pilots & flight attendants took pay cuts & reduction in benefits but once they company was back in black they weren't back at the original pay but the big guys were making big bonuses and million dollar salaries the whole time. Why should the little guys give up their pay & benefits when upper management needs to be the ones to feel the pinch.

I think some that are saying they should file bankruptcy really needs to go read up on it. It will mean disaster for them and they will not be able to recover from it no matter how you swing it. Shedding pensions isn't going to save any of them. They need for the economy to take a turn. They need for Americans to start buying cars again. They need for banks to start lending money.

I am tired of big corps like AIG to keep getting billions of bail out dollars only to go on big luxury vacations and government not doing a darn thing about it. You don't see GM doing that. They are trying to save their company.

Everyone is willing to turn their back on a company that stop vehicle production during WWII to produce military equipment (vehicles/planes/tanks/etc...). They helped keep the red, white & blue flying on our soil b/c it could have easily been a red & white flag flying over our country right now.

No manufacture builds on absolute perfect vehicle. We all have to remember that. I have known many of people that have owned Honda & Toyota's that break down constantly. Ex: A friend of our's brand new Pilot (she hadn't even made a payment on it) PCM (the computer/heart of the vehicle) fried. A co-workers brand new Honda Accord (3 days old) a/c locked up. They fixed it and 2wks later it did it again and again 3wks after that. They ended up giving her a another Accord all together. Remember it's a piece of machinery.

chickabiddy said:

I strongly disagree. I don't want a truck. I want a car. My budget doesn't run to $25K cars right now, but if it did, I would spend on safety and reliability. And I have only retired one car before 150K miles (it was a newbie at 90K), and if I did spend $25K on a car, I sure wouldn't be trading it in.

Click to expand...

While in your case you may keep your vehicle for long lengths of time that is not the majority of America. More trucks on the road are used as work vehicles and are not luxury trucks. Trucks serve their purpose just like sedans do.

So your saying those that buy trucks don't car about safety and reliability? Go look at statistics and GVW does play into a huge factory in head on collisions. So some of the times it's good to be the big boy at an accident. And your also assuming trucks aren't as reliable as sedans. Can you show me proof on that?

How someone spends their money is no one elses business. If I choice to buy a $25k vehicle it's my right to trade it in as frequent as I want as long as I am making my payments per my contract. To each their own is my opinion.

The politics of bankruptcy & bailouts, and the pros & cons of unions are outside the scope of this forum. The same points are now being made over and over. It's time to move on.