gmcbob

I hope you're right dude- for a multitude of reasons.

Based on the replies from the readers on these types of articles, I see a lot of disgust for the old General out there - and a lot of "yeah, they build junk, I wouldn't buy a GM car for love or money, etc, etc,..." Or "stock is junk like the cars", blah blah blah- and that's the huge 300 lbs. gorilla in GM's future plans. They have to figure out a way to get people to realize that they're building good cars. I realize there's a lot d-bags out there just posting something negative for the sake of posting something negative, but still, I think we all know their reputation is pretty bad generally speaking. Which makes me wonder...could the Volt really be GM's "iPod"?? If done correctly and launched with no hiccups, I think the answer to that is yes. Maybe a really good small car (like the NG Cobalt) could be their slow ands steady way of getting back to having some solid credibility? But that's going to be slow and tedious, much like how it's been since 2005. I wonder - who supports GM products beyond the enthusiasts?

Holy sh*t!, that's the best thing I've read from you ever!

It is kind of funny that PCS, who works for GM, actually writes the way he does on this board. It's a little weird honestly. Hopefully GMNA can pull out of this funk and right the ship. It would be really disappointing from an enthusiast's standpoint to see this company go down in flames, taking the new Camaro and some of the cool new products (like the CTS Coupe) along with it. I'd be pretty jaded about following the car industry after that I think.

So what exactly is your idea for a more streamlined, profitable GM that still has all it's brands (more or less) intact in NA? Would you suggest just pulling out of NA altogether (which would be really devastating, and insanely stupid IMO), or just have GM essentially be a European company that sells European Opels and Vauxhalls through the already existing GM network here in NA (like Saturn)? BTW, I actually think GM, the entire global company, is on the right track by having Europe and Daewoo develop the small stuff and mid size sedans, NA do the trucks and Caddy, etc, etc... It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few years. I want to be psyched about GM cars, but all this Tomfoolery that is GM's management makes me want to defect over to a Ford as my replacement for the aging Jimmy that I'm driving. Sometimes I feel like I'm rooting for Jo Jo the Idiot Circus Boy. All because my crazy Dad worked for Buick in the 60s/70s and early 80s - go figure. Oh, and I don't want to see 100000 people lose their jobs in America. That too.

I re-read your post - and I see what you mean - sort of a "just in case" things get worse GMNA doesn't drag down the whole deck of cards all over the world. Probably not a bad strategy. I think GM can pull it off here in NA though - keep the product coming, and start marketing better.

Are you suggesting having GM Europe sell European versions of GM cars here in the US as Chevrolet and Cadillac or having GM pulling completely out of the American market altogether (as in no GM at all in NA?)? GM, whether it's run by the Europeans or still headquartered in the US, still has quite a bit of brand recognition. If the product is there, I say people won't care if the car was developed in Europe or not. Incidentally, isn't GM basically going to have cars being developed in Europe and trucks and Caddy developed in NA anyway?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...ws+%2B+analysis

The big question is how do the Big 3 get people back in their showrooms? The product is there for the most part, it's just getting people to realize it. I've worked with a few people over the last couple of years (2 men in their 50s stick out the most) that swear they will never buy another domestic automobile ever again - and their kids (a little younger than me) drive foreign too. It's tough to shake that bad reputation - and it's not like these 2 guys I'm thinking of are idiots either - they're educated dudes that keep up with current events and for the most part are pretty well read. But when it comes to cars (and they aren't "enthusiasts" like us), it doesn't matter what evidence you show them or tell them about (recent quality surveys, telling them to just look at the cars themselves), they'll hear nothing of it. We on this board are emotional about cars, for a variety of different reasons we've all found ourselves attached to boards like this because there's something running through our veins that makes us sensitive to anything and everything that has to do with the automotive world. We're brand loyal (for the most part) and we're hyper-aware of this to the point that it drives us mad. But guys like my co-worker, he couldn't give a frog's fat rear end whether or not an icon like Buick goes away (he drove tons of Buicks apparently back in the day) - even if they're much improved. In his eyes, he associates the last few Buicks he had like that crappy lawnmower you had once that happened to snap belts on you all the time- so you swore that you'd never go back to it -or if you had a GE dishwasher and it flooded your kitchen, maybe you'd avoid GE dishwashers - same with him, his 2000 Regal apparently broke down a lot - so, as he puts it "I'm through with GM". And I believe him, he's definitely through with GM. He now drives a Mazda. But, if GM were smart, and I have no doubt they have at least a couple of smart people floating around somewhere within the cubicles of their corporate headquarters - they'd get the word out, in an intelligent way that doesn't necessarily insult people, that lets them know that any thoughts they had of GM being junk needs to be thrown out the window. Clearly they aren't doing an effective job of getting this message across at all. I hardly see any of their newer cars on the road at all around here. It's amazing to me how that even with a car like the Malibu, which is a far nicer looking car than the new Camry and even the new Accord (which I like), still doesn't really sell that well in the big scheme of things.

I dunno, perhaps. Maybe I'm trying to be more optimistic.

I wanted to post this article too and see what everybody's take was on it. Actually, I think old Jerry was having a bad day. I think he's dead on for the most part, but I don't think we're going to see the complete and utter death of the domestic auto manufacturers in three years. Well, Chrysler might be owned by a foreign company, but not Ford or GM. It seems to me that GM and Ford are at least really trying to do what they need to do - and we all know that both of them are going to be coming out with a lot of new, fuel efficient cars that should at the very least help them have some cash flow for the next few years. One of the things that really doesn't get pointed out in a positive light from a lot of the mainstream analysts is how much GM and Ford have started or will start utilizing their European operations more and more over here in NA. That's going to help out a lot, because they're actually doing pretty well in Europe (and methinks it has something to do with the fact that their cars are good over there). One thing that will indeed happen is the continued loss of market share - that's something that will probably be very sobering to a lot of GM and Ford fans. But, I think the cars will be good, and they'll sell enough to stay alive - but I think their presence will be a lot smaller. I dunno, my guess is as good as any one else on this board, but I think Jerry is doing a little bit of exaggeration on this one.

Well this is a disappointing prospect PCS. I think with the correct drive trains and already existing technology, the Camaro could be fun and fuel efficient, especially if it's put on a smaller rear drive platform (Alpha?). One thing I think GM should consider though is that there definitely is a market for rear drive coupes and there's tons of GM fans that would line up for them, and I think they don't have to be V8s either (like the 350Z, the G37, 2009 Mustang, other rear drive coupes from the imports). GM has such a cool rear drive coupe history to draw from, it would be insane not to play on it. (Chevelle, Nova, Chevy II, Camaro, the list goes one into insanity) I think we could have a modern, rear drive coupe that's small and relatively fuel efficient in the same vein as the upcoming Hyundai coupe and the 350Z at an affordable price, perhaps utilizing a stretched version of the Kappa platform. You know, I love reflecting on my 1998 Camaro whenever I can. That 98 Z28 got better highway mileage than my wife's new G35 - keep in mind that was a 98, with a 4 spd. auto and an LS1 V8. I recorded 30.8 avg. mpg going 65-70 mph on I-45 between Houston and Dallas on a road trip to Colorado about 6 months after I bought the car. I averaged in the high 20s that whole trip. GM can put powerful rear drive coupes on the market, and not have it effect their fleet average that much - I know it can be done - and if this fact were pointed out with clever marketing, I think that would be awesome.

Yeah, the more I think about it, I see a lot of late model 4Runners for some reason. I do see a lot of late model Jeep Cherokees being driven by 30 somethings too. Incidentally, my wife recently traded in her 2002 IS 300 Sportcross for a new G35 (no worries, I still have the Jimmy and my old 68 Impala). I sort of tried talking her into the CTS, but she still associated Cadillacs with her Dad (he had a new one every year). Oh, and the similarly equipped CTS was like $6k more. We're a weird 30 something couple car wise - my wife, the very smart and attractive attorney with the new G35 - me, the goofy GM fan with an aging 98 Jimmy and a very leaky 68 Impala Convertible. hahahahahahaha.

I'm part of a demographic that probably buys more import than domestic. I have a college education and I'm in my early 30s - I work in the oil industry in Houston and my wife's a lawyer. I hang out in venues that are chock filled with similar types of people - here's what I notice at the parking lots of the bars and restaurants I go to where a lot of 30 somethings and late 20 somethings hang out; If it's a mid size car - more than likely it's Japanese. If it's an SUV, I'd say 75%-80% of the time it's domestic. If it's a luxury car - it's import typically, although I do see a lot of people my age rolling around in last generation CTS's (and I've seen a couple of new ones lately too). Over the last few years, I've actually seen a lot of men my age around here driving Chrysler 300s (hey, I seriously wanted one too for a while). But honestly, it's mostly imports except for the large SUV's. I've actually noticed a lot of new Tundras out and about too around here. So, I can understand a lot of the sentiment on some of these posts. GM has just been high on crack with this SUV sh*t for the last few years, and they need to desperately figure out how to get people that make six figure incomes who were buying Tahoes and Yukons to start looking at Malibus and Buicks. They can do it I think, it's just going to take clever marketing. I think the argument that GM buyers aren't as well educated may be true - but what I think has been happening is that most of the high income, better educated, typically urban customers that do buy GM have unfortunately been buying the large SUV's that are becoming not very economical or practical to have. I don't know, sometimes I think we're all just over analyzing this to death. I think just having some really good cars and good advertising will turn the tide. I mean, if Chrysler can do it with the 300C, I know GM can do it.

In the presses defense, I have seen more and more interjection lately that GM's new products are good - I have noticed that the Malibu, CTS and Enclave are talked up a lot in stories on MSNBC and the WSJ specifically - no kidding. It may seem like they get a pretty bad rap, which they generally do, but I think there has been a little more positive interjection here and there lately. I'm starting to see more Malibus around Houston, which is kind of nice - because this is straight up Camry Land here - I can hold my breath easily between Camry sightings - it's almost tiring actually. Amazing how Toyota has so many people bamboozled. An example of a positive GM article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1212876660...hs&ru=yahoo

Perhaps then the new B segment car that they're planning on should be super cheap. At the very least it should undercut the Yaris and Fit in price.

In theory I think you're right. It seems like in Europe GM resonates well with buyers because small cars like the Astra are actually competitive, which is why you're making money over there. The problem over here in the US (you clearly know this I'm sure) is that nobody associates small or even medium sized cars with GM that much any more. It became brutally clear last month that $4/gal. is pretty much the tipping point that gives Joe Blow the idea that maybe a Yukon isn't really that practical. Unfortunately, instead of saying "I'll buy a Malibu or an Impala instead", he or she says "I"ll buy an Accord or Camry instead". That's a gi-huge-ant problem for GM. They must figure out a way to get it in people's heads that the same company that builds these really durable SUV's also builds some pretty compelling gas misers too. It can be done, but it has to be swift and clever with ads saturating every possible place on TV, print and internet the likes in which God himself couldn't replicate. I think GM should actually do something completely insane like make the base price of a Cobalt $6999 or something, and sell so many of them that they basically own half the market on small cars. You'd have the imports steaming mad over it, and I think it would be hilarious.

This is so true - during the 70s oil crisis, unless you were scrutinizing the newspapers from all over the country or really going out of your way to do some time consuming research at a library (using information that was already old and outdated by today's standards, even it was a month old), you really had no idea what GM's financial situation was, and what most "analysts" opinions of it were. And then it was probably wrong anyway. I remember back in 2005 when it was all over the internet that GM could possibly go bankrupt, my Dad (who used to work for GM) was laughing his butt off. "Bob, this is what they were saying in the 70s, and look what happened". Only then, you maybe heard about it once and didn't have the ability to Google it and find a ton of blogs (written by people who with absolutely no background) on it. I've thought about how the internet has a strange effect in that it allows so many people more or less anonymously to come out of the woodwork and act like experts. (I'm obviously guilty with my rants on how GM should advertise). We see things in writing, and instantly start believing it as truth or fact. It's a great medium for reporting the news, no doubt, but it really gives too many people with absolutely no honest background in a given subject an easy way (if you have an internet connection) to wholeheartedly immerse yourself into that subject and frankly get too carried away. Read a lot of the posts and web only blogs and articles out there, not only on car websites, but business websites too, of people ranting about how the Big 3 aren't technological leaders. That totally chaps my hide to no end - these people are utterly clueless - yet, it's almost as if because it's flowing from their fingers onto their screen, and they have the ability to post it, and that that theme seems to resonate as truth with a lot of people that know nothing about cars, that it can somehow be considered as absolute.

So what's going to happen here in the next couple of years? I'm noting quite a bit of speculation in the tone of these articles about GM's cash position. I think in the case of this article, and another recent WSJ article I saw recently on the speculation of a GM bankruptcy sometime before 2010, the media is giving us a worst case scenario situation that hinges on a market that is much worse than it probably really is. A couple of things I find odd about all of this over the last few years is how Wagoner has maintained his position as CEO. I think in many other industries he would have been fired. I'm not saying he's doing a bad job, or a good job, but Wall St. and investors in large companies like this want to see fast change. And let's face it, watching GM start to bring competitive product to market has been like watching an entire NFL football game in super slow motion - and lets just say that GM is keeping it close, but there's been a lot of bad injuries and some pretty lousy 3rd downs where they are forced to punt (like keeping the 4 speeds out too long and not having the Cobalt up to snuff - I think not having a 6 spds in the trucks is a mute point now, but that was more like going for 2 after a TD and not making it). Anywho...it's fishy that the board still thinks that current management has their sh*t together, when I'm really beginning to wonder what they're thinking. There's still this skeptic in me that GM is making their costs look high on paper (leading to losses) to continue to have an excuse to shed labor they don't need. Don't flame me for that - just a strange speculation I have. Also, they're still spending money on purchases like their own headquarters and now Cobasys, which seems odd for a company that's being scrutinized by Wall St as being nearly broke. Although these 2 moves could prove to be strategically pretty good for many different reasons.

Putting out the 900s was the only choice they had. That was their last bastion of hope as far as volume goes. I've said this before, and I'll say it again - they need to get the message out about their small cars and gas mileage like right this second. Those dumb fuc*s advertise their trucks and SUVs to death and never talk about their cars. They need to be on mainstream TV with real honest to God commercials about their cars. They should have had intelligent commercials about their cars on every mainstream TV program known to us for the last 5 years - even while they were churning out Tahoes and Yukons, at least the public would realize they had cars too. Moreover, GM needs to come up with some advertisments that reflect on all of the safety and technology innovations they've developed over the years. In fact, I can't believe they haven't done that! I'd be willing to bet that 97% of people between the ages of 30 and 40 don't know that a 71 Riviera had electronic traction control. Imagine a smart, Lexus like commercial that showed how traction control was developed by GM, featured on Buicks then and is featured on Buicks now - and of course, in our C&G nerd wet dream, a 2009 Buick Park Avenue (er, Holden Park Avenue) comes racing around an oval track to Chemical Brothers. Of course, if gmcbob were CEO, you'd have witnessed this commercial and subsequent product this year - on TV now - and of course the Astra would be advertised on every major science network, as well as on Comedy Central and in Rolling Stone magazine -complete with the $1000 Guitar Center gift certificate - which would the attention of every 25 year old in America. But no, you get nothing. You get silly ads with cars with giant green arrows over them. WTF??? :angry2:

I agree - step up the ads - and specifically step them up on the Astra (I liked that car) - I'll tell you, if it had an armrest, iPod and XM as std. equipment, I think I would have traded in the tired old Jimmy for it right there on the spot. Seriously But you're right, despite Cobalt and Aveo sales that are up, they still need to focus their ads on those cars more than the trucks. Who cares if they aren't 100% competitive with the Civic, they're still fuel efficient, and that's what's selling right now.

Okay GM (or PCS) - because I'm a nice guy and I'm putting my ideas here in the internet for free - here's a marketing strategy that I just thought up for the Astra - do it and get it out on TV and print right now. Along with any bonus cash or loyalty or conquest money - give the consumer a $1,000 gift certificate for their choice of a handful of items from one of the following categories (things young people enjoy) 1) $1,000 from Guitar Center or any national musical instrument place 2) $1,000 from a camping supply store like REI 3) $1,000 mountain bike (PCS idea) 4) for those in the mountain West (whom I'm jealous of btw) - $1,000 towards the purchase of a kayak and roof mounting kit for your new Astra 5) $1,000 from your nearest area head shop. But seriously though - I think this would be perfect.

Yep, college kids too - you're right. The Astra brochure nails the marketing perfectly - but in order to get the brochure I had to show up at the dealer. GM *MUST* get the word out there more effectively that they indeed build small, fuel efficient cars that you'd actually want to be seen in. It's imperative. This car is (somewhat)* perfect for it. *I say somewhat because of the aforementioned shortcomings of the AUX connector and XM missing and no arm rest

XM radio and iPod adapter aside - I think the Astra, while not perfect, is exactly the type of car that GM needs in America to turn around it's image of making mediocre small cars - because this car is actually pretty cool and I think it should be selling a lot better. This is so typical of GM though to put something like this out there, and not tell a single soul about it. I could easily see the 25-35, a little left of center, artsy types that have decent jobs (read, VW drivers) totally loving this car - and with the no haggle different kind of company BS that Saturn built it's image on, I think it's a perfect fit (and I'm sure this is what GM was thinking). But you have to get the word out - put ads in Rolling Stone magazine - show commercials on TV - and not on the Golf Channel at 1 am or on HGTV - I mean, prime time network TV during The Office. Smart, hip commercials showing the Astra and how versatile it can be, the gas mileage, cool groovy looking retro people going crazy over it. But no, GM marketing is too stupid to know how to do that. Sometimes I just wonder if GM really has any managers that know what in the world they're doing?

Yeah, it definitely needs more power. I've never owned a car like that, but I have driven plenty of small cars and I was a little disappointed that I had to really push it to get it up onto the highway from the on ramp. I was pretty deep in the go pedal trying to keep up with other cars getting onto the highway. The last vehicle I had that accelerated like that was an older 91 Nissan truck with a 150000 miles on it. The lack of an armrest is just puzzling to me. I really didn't like that. Seems small, but I do enjoy and occasional weekend road trip to Austin and I drive to Colorado once a year - I think I'd really miss that armrest on those trips. At first I thought the controls for the cruise control on the turn signal stalk really sucked, but I got used to them and it didn't bug me too much. Lack of XM radio or an iPod input is a negative too. I know I can get those installed, but I'd feel better if they were just standard on the car. All of those gripes aside though, there is a market for this car - if people are willing to plop down $20k on a Rabbit, they'd certainly pony up the dough for this car - it's just that GM is so discombobulated these days, they don't know how in the world to reach out and grab those sales away. This car is definitely "cooler" than a Corolla or a Hyuandai or something, and I think if GM were smart, they could get those types of people who would only consider a Toyota or something to really give this car some serious consideration. Basically the new Cobalt/Volt can't get here fast enough. GM needs to rush that car to market with the same type of urgency they had 3 years ago when they rushed the 900s market. The Cobalt actually sells okay, but think how many more they'll sell when the new one comes out (assuming they market it right). It's a small car market now, and GM needs these cars to get on Toyota and Honda buyer's shopping lists - the Astra could win people over - they need to market it!