gmcbob

Another Doom and Gloom Doron Levin Editorial

19 posts in this topic

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=amu7IIYCoDYQ

Okay, I've been a little skeptical at how car companies interpret and report their own costs for a long time, so it's natural for me to really wonder how in the hell a company the size of GM, which still sells quite a few cars btw, can go from making profits pretty consistently to almost sudden death in 1 year (think 2004 to 2005)?

I have to agree with the commentary for the most part - but haven't we been hearing this doom and gloom story about GM losing market share and going bankrupt , not being competitive, etc, etc, for a very long time? Here it is, 2008, and GM is still here.

Something else I think when I read about how much money GM is losing, I have to wonder - how in the world is Rick Wagoner still around? I'm not knocking his ability as a leader (I frankly don't care), but doesn't it seem very weird that he's still around after 3 straight years of no profit? Either the board at GM has true vision - and thinks that GM has just hit a bump in the road - or they know something that we out here as spectators don't know. Like maybe GM really isn't in that much trouble?

I know the economy blows, but I don't think it's going to blow to the point where GM would go absolutely bankrupt.

I don't know. Thoughts on the article?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another "scare article" telling GM downsize and sell out to foreign ownership...

The street wants to off load our automakers so bad that they can taste it... Why? Because of profit and pride. They'll profit big time from something like that, not to mention, GM is the last american automaker. (Lets face facts: Chrysler will be sold to China or India faster than you can say Mopar and Ford mortgaged it's soul for a few more years of media/Wall Street abuse before the company is liquidated or put down. If GM merges, the pride of the middle class will be broken, something yuppies like this salivate over every day. It's not a matter of well being or livelihood with them. It's a matter of pride and 'choice'

The industry has been cutting and merging for 10 years now... If anyone on 'the street' or in Detroit still thinks that is the way to prosperity, then they're f*cking idiots. GM needs to continue to weather the storm and produce outstanding product. they didn't get into this mess in 2 quarters and they certainly won't get out of it in that time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GM is in better shape than 2005. The accounting hiccup of last quarter was expected; it was hoped that it could be avoided, but with the imploding U.S. economy, the Board knew they couldn't keep rolling forward losses in the hopes that upcoming profits would absorb said losses.

This is why I am deeply skeptical about lawyers and accountants: they live in world where the rest of us are 'too stupid' to understand what they are really up to. What about that punk in France that burned up a few billion euros - where were his 'accountants?' Enron and others are perfect examples of CFOs and others pulling the wool over investors eyes. I cannot for the life of me understand why contracts and spreadsheets must be so damned complicated.

Who knows what the Board and Rick have talked about behind closed doors. The GMAC deal looks like an incredibly smart move on his part, so that may buy him some time. 2008 is going to be a write off, to be sure. Even the mighty Toyota's sales are slowing. It is because of what Lutz, Wagoner and others started doing 6 years ago that GM is in as 'good' as shape as it is now.

I guess it was a slow news day for Bloomberg. Maybe the writer's check from Toyota was late this month, so he thought he'd lay in an extra article in case. To refer to the CTS, Malibu and others so dismissively is really insulting. If it wasn't for those (and other vehicles) GM would be in a lot worse shape.

I like how he skirts the issue of how the imports completely missed the truck market in the mid-90s. What shape would GM be in today if it didn't 'own' the big SUV market and have the biggest chunk of the pickup market with all those profits from the past decade to fall back on?

It also boggles my mind how these news outlets continue to downplay the importance of GM's legacy costs and its burden. Honda and Toyota, being new to our shores, do not have those obligations. WallStreet doesn't give a $h!, but they should. I can't wait to hear them moan and piss in 15 years and Toyota and Honda start whining about all their retirees and health care costs.

Oh, that's right: Toyota and Honda don't answer to Wallstreet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind 4N investers have a lot at stake if our auto industry regains it's strenght. Much of our economy is based on the auto indusry.

If you invested in overseas investments it is best if Detroit does not return for some people.

Investment people can be skeewed to what benifits them the most. Just like Doctors, Police and Preachers there are good and bad investment people. The only constant are Lawyers and they are all bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=amu7IIYCoDYQ

Okay, I've been a little skeptical at how car companies interpret and report their own costs for a long time, so it's natural for me to really wonder how in the hell a company the size of GM, which still sells quite a few cars btw, can go from making profits pretty consistently to almost sudden death in 1 year (think 2004 to 2005)?

I have to agree with the commentary for the most part - but haven't we been hearing this doom and gloom story about GM losing market share and going bankrupt , not being competitive, etc, etc, for a very long time? Here it is, 2008, and GM is still here.

Something else I think when I read about how much money GM is losing, I have to wonder - how in the world is Rick Wagoner still around? I'm not knocking his ability as a leader (I frankly don't care), but doesn't it seem very weird that he's still around after 3 straight years of no profit? Either the board at GM has true vision - and thinks that GM has just hit a bump in the road - or they know something that we out here as spectators don't know. Like maybe GM really isn't in that much trouble?

I know the economy blows, but I don't think it's going to blow to the point where GM would go absolutely bankrupt.

I don't know. Thoughts on the article?

many people think that what happened in 2005 was a bad thing, I really dont think it was. If nothing else, GM learned consumers still wanted GM products. Also another thing they learned is, cars still cost money

but people look at profit, and loss too much. GM didnt have to lose any money in 2005 if it wanted to... but what it did was intentional, it was intentional because it was a company that needed a change... if GM didnt build concept models every year, if it didnt research new models, design ideas, new engine technologies, they would most certainly be making a lot more money in the united states. but what most investors are complaining about (loss whether it be 12 billion as 2005, 23 billion in 1992?, and 38 billion in 2007 does this mean GM is in trouble? do things that give you a competative edge come free? does streamlining an ageless process cost money? Doesnt it cost more, to spend the correct amount of time on research and development, or even better, spend extra time on it? what of unnecessary employees, if they have been working for your company doing nothing wrong, they arent going to go away unannounced, perhaps a golden handshake will free up some employement possitions.

if you dont understand that to do good to a company that has let itself run aground it takes action, money, time but beyond just good business sense, tender love and care. and lutz, wagoner could just let the company go, not research, no development and it would be massively profitable, if it didnt advertize, people would still buy their cars, maybe a few less and it would save gm several billion... but things like this are necessary, sometimes costly... think about starting your own company, most of the time you will take on some losses(think of a seed for a plant) originally, but those losses will soon be repaid as the company blooms and beings to bear fruits

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
many people think that what happened in 2005 was a bad thing, I really dont think it was. If nothing else, GM learned consumers still wanted GM products. Also another thing they learned is, cars still cost money

but people look at profit, and loss too much. GM didnt have to lose any money in 2005 if it wanted to... but what it did was intentional, it was intentional because it was a company that needed a change... if GM didnt build concept models every year, if it didnt research new models, design ideas, new engine technologies, they would most certainly be making a lot more money in the united states. but what most investors are complaining about (loss whether it be 12 billion as 2005, 23 billion in 1992?, and 38 billion in 2007 does this mean GM is in trouble? do things that give you a competative edge come free? does streamlining an ageless process cost money? Doesnt it cost more, to spend the correct amount of time on research and development, or even better, spend extra time on it? what of unnecessary employees, if they have been working for your company doing nothing wrong, they arent going to go away unannounced, perhaps a golden handshake will free up some employement possitions.

if you dont understand that to do good to a company that has let itself run aground it takes action, money, time but beyond just good business sense, tender love and care. and lutz, wagoner could just let the company go, not research, no development and it would be massively profitable, if it didnt advertize, people would still buy their cars, maybe a few less and it would save gm several billion... but things like this are necessary, sometimes costly... think about starting your own company, most of the time you will take on some losses(think of a seed for a plant) originally, but those losses will soon be repaid as the company blooms and beings to bear fruits

I don,t even have to read the articles these posts are based on to know what the stock comments will be.

The truth is that people who know this industry (rather than the fanboys on either side) have seen this day coming.

Make no mistake, GM and the 1.8 are in a fight for their lives...RW's survival mystifies me, but that type of decision-making by the board has led to these desperate times. This team couldn't make real money while times were good. I can't understand how they'll suddenly be brilliant and make correct decisions when times are bad.

Of course, you'll have people scream that such talk is 'anti-american', but its my love of the D3 that keeps me yelling for real change.

Any other job, these guys would be out on their asses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure, GM's end has come for years, but that doesnt mean its going to...

in GM's hayday it was a compilation of assorted companies. Current day (through the last 3 CEO's) have tied everything together.

I was commenting to my dad about the lack of appreciation that goes on in the army, we trash our equipment and everyone feels we have unlimited money... it really is scary...

his statement to that, the larger the orginization the less appreciation there is for things... I cant imagine GM being any better, but in the early days there was competition between the brands, there was style there was muscle there was a difference between a oldsmobile and a chevy, there was a status to cruising in a cadillac, there was a pounding heart pushing the pedal of a 67 firebird.

back before i was born, cars werent just cool, there was more to it then the wind in your hair, the tire screatching manual transmission. there was more to a car then the pure sex styling. but things have changed all of that... with emission rules, air bag standards, seat belt regulations, fuel concerns, and crash test ratings, the art of designing a car has been lost... through the years it has been remodedled to having a stylish appliance that leaks on your driveway.

but, what people have yearned is coming from a general near you... Ford and Chrysler will soon be following, or be parted out... Chrysler is already ready to be gutted, thats what aquiring companys do... a car company is difficult but its gonna happen

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's simply too much competition in the United States I think. I'm not saying it's a bad thing - look at how many crazy cars there are out there to choose from - but it really caught GM, Ford and Chrysler off guard. Ability to make profit aside, I still can't get over how during the late 90s and early 2000s, the Big 3 were cranking out trucks and truck based SUVs (good ones too, I owned 2 Sierras during this time) and simultaneously letting some of the most well known brands in history completely die. It's absolutely unbelievable. I think it's an incredibly good case study in how American industry can become extremely short sighted. Other than the complete turnaround of Cadillac, I can't really think of any real giant successes outside of their truck lines that GM had during the early 2000s (okay, the Z06 Vette).

But during that same time period, the competition just got that much better with their cars.

Rudy, my dad, the long time GM District Manager for Buick in the 70s / 80s (retired by early 2000s) totally could see it happening in the early 2000s. He'd say things like "what in the hell is GM thinking? Where is the Buick Regal Coupe? Toyota and Honda have mainstream coupes. What happened to the B-Bodies? - (I would always have to add the caveat "modern interpretation of"). He'd say "holy $h! Bob, how could they charge $34,000 for a Bonneville SSE? That car sucks". This is a guy that bled GM blue. I quote him now (from memory, not exact) "GM is going to be a shadow of themselves, you mark my word. The 'Japs' know what they're doing, thanks to old GM and Ford guys running their American operations, and GM doesn't know what the hell is going on nor do they know how to handle it". I'd laugh my ass off, because he sounded like a typical goofy old fart just complaining about anything that came to mind, but I think he was dead right when it came to GM.

GM became a truck company, and it totally bit them in the ass not because gas would eventually get real expensive, but because nobody outside of the Midwest thought that GM built anything but Tahoes , Yukons and pickups. My wife's family (all native Houstonians) periodically talk about various cars they grew up with. It's funny to see that as they talk about the various cars they remember owning (her family is huge btw), it goes from Regals, Cutlasses and Mustangs in the 80s and early 90s to Maximas, Accords and Solaras in the late 90s and 2000s. None of them were truck owners. They didn't need trucks. Okay, her one (goofy) sister has an Explorer.

But this is a perfect example of what happened. Typical middle class families that completely abandoned the Big 3 because I actually think they probably didn't even realize the Regal still existed in 2002 or whatever. Seriously. They may have heard about quality problems too, but I think mainstream consumers really thought that some of the brands simply didn't even exist anymore.

IMO, Getting rid of Olds was single handedly the dumbest thing the company ever did. Period. Why they did that is just beyond all reasoning. They instantly lost at least 350,000 sales per year. Those customers are now trading in their cars for Toyotas and Hondas, I guarantee it.

I think GM will be around, many analysts actually predict a 2010 turnaround in full effect. But my dad was right, they'll be a shadow of themselves. They became their own worst enemy unfortunately - it's real sad.

Another thing that mystifies me - slow to market with good product. There should have been a CTS Coupe simultaneously launched with the CTS. There should be a Malibu Coupe (I've seen a ton of 2008 Accords on the road here, and maybe 2 or 3 Malibus - absolutely awful IMO - and many of the 08 Accords I see are Coupes). There should have been a rear drive Buick and Caddy flagship here in 2001 quite frankly - not heeing and hawing back in forth about whether there should be one or not in 2008 - Buick hasn't had a rear drive sedan since the 96 Roadmaster - inexcusable. Stupid. I like Lutz' ideas - but did he bother to visit cities outside Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo? I see COUNTLESS Infiniti G and M models - they're like stink on $h! around here - half could have been rear drive Buicks and Pontiacs. And GM knew this 7 years ago and they're finally coming around to making a good car for Pontiac now? (G8). After years of lost market share and letting the Japanese have there run of the roost, it boggles my mind sometimes that GM management has lived in a complete market place vacuum. Absolutely inexcusable. And we don't even have to talk about how many Camaro sales went to Ford for the Mustang. Of course, Ford has made their own slue of stupid decisions in the past 10 years too.

Everyone on here knows all this though - but they have to come to market with these new products mit schnell. We need real Buicks here now - not a 1 trick pony Enclave - we need rear drive sedans and coupes - even if it's Alpha architecture V6 smaller cars - like yesterday Bob and Rick. We need a GOOD small Chevy (think Astra levels of quality) at a good price today. Chevy needs a GOOD B class car - sorry, the Aveo kind of sucks. Bring over the Opel Corsa and let people buy it with a diesel. Why are you sitting on your thumbs? Screw CAFE - bring us the rear drive Impala now - it will help bring the brand some customers they haven't seen in a long time. Where is that rear drive Caddy flagship that every car rag has begged for since 1998? I see a lot of LS460s in Houston - half could have been $70,000 Zeta based DTS's - not 20 year old front drive platforms that sell $8,000 below sticker. We need this change immediately - all hands on deck. What are you waiting for??

Screw the E-85 $h! - the media and many of left of center science minded people are having a field day seeing through this nonsense - bring over your European diesels like right this second. Offer a 40 mpg diesel Malibu - blow Toyota's mind with that move. C'mon Bob and Rick - start really making some out of the box decisions here. You have thousands of crazy car fans like us demanding these types of changes - and all we're getting now is speculation and doom - I don't want to be forced into getting a Lexus or Infiniti because they're the only companies that make what I want.

Put that new 4500 duramax in a rear drive Zeta Buick - holy $h!, what a game changer that would be. Figure out how to get your average 50 year old Avalon buyer to look at one - that will take a practical miracle - but you can do it. NOW DO IT. :excl:

okay, too much coffee. sorry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's simply too much competition in the United States I think. I'm not saying it's a bad thing - look at how many crazy cars there are out there to choose from - but it really caught GM, Ford and Chrysler off guard. Ability to make profit aside, I still can't get over how during the late 90s and early 2000s, the Big 3 were cranking out trucks and truck based SUVs (good ones too, I owned 2 Sierras during this time) and simultaneously letting some of the most well known brands in history completely die. It's absolutely unbelievable. I think it's an incredibly good case study in how American industry can become extremely short sighted. Other than the complete turnaround of Cadillac, I can't really think of any real giant successes outside of their truck lines that GM had during the early 2000s (okay, the Z06 Vette).

But during that same time period, the competition just got that much better with their cars.

Rudy, my dad, the long time GM District Manager for Buick in the 70s / 80s (retired by early 2000s) totally could see it happening in the early 2000s. He'd say things like "what in the hell is GM thinking? Where is the Buick Regal Coupe? Toyota and Honda have mainstream coupes. What happened to the B-Bodies? - (I would always have to add the caveat "modern interpretation of"). He'd say "holy $h! Bob, how could they charge $34,000 for a Bonneville SSE? That car sucks". This is a guy that bled GM blue. I quote him now (from memory, not exact) "GM is going to be a shadow of themselves, you mark my word. The 'Japs' know what they're doing, thanks to old GM and Ford guys running their American operations, and GM doesn't know what the hell is going on nor do they know how to handle it". I'd laugh my ass off, because he sounded like a typical goofy old fart just complaining about anything that came to mind, but I think he was dead right when it came to GM.

GM became a truck company, and it totally bit them in the ass not because gas would eventually get real expensive, but because nobody outside of the Midwest thought that GM built anything but Tahoes , Yukons and pickups. My wife's family (all native Houstonians) periodically talk about various cars they grew up with. It's funny to see that as they talk about the various cars they remember owning (her family is huge btw), it goes from Regals, Cutlasses and Mustangs in the 80s and early 90s to Maximas, Accords and Solaras in the late 90s and 2000s. None of them were truck owners. They didn't need trucks. Okay, her one (goofy) sister has an Explorer.

But this is a perfect example of what happened. Typical middle class families that completely abandoned the Big 3 because I actually think they probably didn't even realize the Regal still existed in 2002 or whatever. Seriously. They may have heard about quality problems too, but I think mainstream consumers really thought that some of the brands simply didn't even exist anymore.

IMO, Getting rid of Olds was single handedly the dumbest thing the company ever did. Period. Why they did that is just beyond all reasoning. They instantly lost at least 350,000 sales per year. Those customers are now trading in their cars for Toyotas and Hondas, I guarantee it.

I think GM will be around, many analysts actually predict a 2010 turnaround in full effect. But my dad was right, they'll be a shadow of themselves. They became their own worst enemy unfortunately - it's real sad.

Another thing that mystifies me - slow to market with good product. There should have been a CTS Coupe simultaneously launched with the CTS. There should be a Malibu Coupe (I've seen a ton of 2008 Accords on the road here, and maybe 2 or 3 Malibus - absolutely awful IMO - and many of the 08 Accords I see are Coupes). There should have been a rear drive Buick and Caddy flagship here in 2001 quite frankly - not heeing and hawing back in forth about whether there should be one or not in 2008 - Buick hasn't had a rear drive sedan since the 96 Roadmaster - inexcusable. Stupid. I like Lutz' ideas - but did he bother to visit cities outside Detroit, Cleveland and Buffalo? I see COUNTLESS Infiniti G and M models - they're like stink on $h! around here - half could have been rear drive Buicks and Pontiacs. And GM knew this 7 years ago and they're finally coming around to making a good car for Pontiac now? (G8). After years of lost market share and letting the Japanese have there run of the roost, it boggles my mind sometimes that GM management has lived in a complete market place vacuum. Absolutely inexcusable. And we don't even have to talk about how many Camaro sales went to Ford for the Mustang. Of course, Ford has made their own slue of stupid decisions in the past 10 years too.

Everyone on here knows all this though - but they have to come to market with these new products mit schnell. We need real Buicks here now - not a 1 trick pony Enclave - we need rear drive sedans and coupes - even if it's Alpha architecture V6 smaller cars - like yesterday Bob and Rick. We need a GOOD small Chevy (think Astra levels of quality) at a good price today. Chevy needs a GOOD B class car - sorry, the Aveo kind of sucks. Bring over the Opel Corsa and let people buy it with a diesel. Why are you sitting on your thumbs? Screw CAFE - bring us the rear drive Impala now - it will help bring the brand some customers they haven't seen in a long time. Where is that rear drive Caddy flagship that every car rag has begged for since 1998? I see a lot of LS460s in Houston - half could have been $70,000 Zeta based DTS's - not 20 year old front drive platforms that sell $8,000 below sticker. We need this change immediately - all hands on deck. What are you waiting for??

Screw the E-85 $h! - the media and many of left of center science minded people are having a field day seeing through this nonsense - bring over your European diesels like right this second. Offer a 40 mpg diesel Malibu - blow Toyota's mind with that move. C'mon Bob and Rick - start really making some out of the box decisions here. You have thousands of crazy car fans like us demanding these types of changes - and all we're getting now is speculation and doom - I don't want to be forced into getting a Lexus or Infiniti because they're the only companies that make what I want.

Put that new 4500 duramax in a rear drive Zeta Buick - holy $h!, what a game changer that would be. Figure out how to get your average 50 year old Avalon buyer to look at one - that will take a practical miracle - but you can do it. NOW DO IT. :excl:

okay, too much coffee. sorry.

It's funny....to us....it seems so simple. Makes you wonder where their heads are at?

(btw....I was a Buick District Manager from 1993 to 1999....and worked for Buick in Flint from '88 to '93.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like politics. It's not about the best policy for GM and shareholders, it's about who has what agenda, what deals they can make and who they're going to stab in the back to get their own way. If that means misleading the brass about how well a wagon would sell, or whether putting the V6 diesel in Commodore is feasible, then so be it. BTW, if GM doesn't screw things up royally with Pontiac (and perhaps even if they do), BPG will be outselling Ford division (retail) within 2-5 years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell us how you really feel gmcbob. :smilewide: Where do you reside by the way?

I live in Houston.

Beautiful in the winter -

absolutely horrible in the summer.

I think I was a little hopped up on coffee this morning. Sorry about the rant.

Lots of good ideas on this website though, hopefully we'll see some real inspiring products (to add to some of the good products that finally hit the market this last year) coming out soon here in North America. I think we will.

Keep in mind too PCS, we can have really cool GME cars (read, small, diesel powered 40mpg fwd. cars) live in perfect harmony on the showroom with sportier rear drive models too. I see a Buick/Pontiac GMC showroom with a diverse collection of the best GM has to offer from every corner of the globe. It can be done intelligently I think with a little bit of out of the box thinking.

One thing GM has that the Japanese companies don't - I diverse range of minds with a similar ambition- from all over the globe. Utilize it here in North America -and GM will get it's MOJO back.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in Houston.

Beautiful in the winter -

absolutely horrible in the summer.

I think I was a little hopped up on coffee this morning. Sorry about the rant.

Lots of good ideas on this website though, hopefully we'll see some real inspiring products (to add to some of the good products that finally hit the market this last year) coming out soon here in North America. I think we will.

Keep in mind too PCS, we can have really cool GME cars (read, small, diesel powered 40mpg fwd. cars) live in perfect harmony on the showroom with sportier rear drive models too. I see a Buick/Pontiac GMC showroom with a diverse collection of the best GM has to offer from every corner of the globe. It can be done intelligently I think with a little bit of out of the box thinking.

One thing GM has that the Japanese companies don't - I diverse range of minds with a similar ambition- from all over the globe. Utilize it here in North America -and GM will get it's MOJO back.

I use to live in Houston when I 1st got married 20 years ago, Westheimer Drive & Dairy Ashford to be exact. 77077 :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use to live in Houston when I 1st got married 20 years ago, Westheimer Drive & Dairy Ashford to be exact. 77077 :smilewide:

Oh cool. We live over near The Heights in Timbergrove - (near 11th and TC Jester, inside the Loop).

You'd actually be pleasantly surprised at the transformation this city has gone through over the last 20 years - the neighborhoods closer to downtown and the Heights are a lot more appealing than they used to be. :thumbsup:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use to live in Houston when I 1st got married 20 years ago, Westheimer Drive & Dairy Ashford to be exact. 77077 :smilewide:

BTW - my wife grew up in a neighborhood between Dairy Ashford and Kirkwood off Memorial.

Small world. hahaha.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved living in Houston, really liked having palm tress all over the property. I haven't given up on Texas totally, my mother lives in Plano, and I own a home in Conroe, Texas up on Lake Conroe, that's where we go to escape when we really need to get away.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use to live in Houston when I 1st got married 20 years ago, Westheimer Drive & Dairy Ashford to be exact. 77077 :smilewide:

I spent a week outside of Houston (College Station) about that time period. Good people; Great food. That's what it's all about.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I loved living in Houston, really liked having palm tress all over the property. I haven't given up on Texas totally, my mother lives in Plano, and I own a home in Conroe, Texas up on Lake Conroe, that's where we go to escape when we really need to get away.

I haven't lived in Houston, but been there quite a few times for business, etc.....and it seems WAY more cultured than Dallas where I grew up.

I haven't lived in Dallas for 19 years, but I went back a couple of years ago and couldn't believe how boring it was. There was no nightlife downtown, Deep Ellum seemed deserted (used to be a great grunge-type area to go for somewhat seedy but definitely lively nightlife) and the whole rest of the city and suburbs were one big strip-mall after another......no pretense even at the culture you find on the coasts, etc.

I live in suburban O.C....and even here, withOUT going up to L.A., there's tons more to do and way more culture than from where I grew up in Dallas.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the car companies can't 'screw CAFE' and gas is pushing $4 a gallon, so no, large RWD 4- and 2 doors would not be selling now. Toyota is dropping the Solara, so that arguement went out the window.

The Accord and Altima coupes are really compacts, and GM has the Camaro to match. The days of huge sales of 'opera window coupes' are gone with Disco.

But I do agree, the big three 'thought' that trucks were the "never ending gravy train" 10 years ago, and look now. But at least the new Malibu is getting solid reviews and no recalls, so that is something!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor