evok

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=you're http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/your're http://www.thesimpsons.com/characters/home.htm and actually it is Mrs.

Actually Mrs. Krabappel it is you're.

Because Webster does not use that word (perfection) in its definition. I believe that is the purpose of a dictionary to define words . Correct me if I am wrong! shrug

Yup - GM should continue the course. They have everything under control with their current fleet of product. Mediocrity and excuses have gone a long way in turning the publics perception of GM around. Your right.

Every word of your is important to me! That does go along way in understanding your posts better. Really it does not take all that long. No one prior mentioned perfection and you needed to be corrected. Entire was re-examined. Well your insight into the business is evident by that statement.

Getting back to the point of this thread, the lip service from GM management is not new. In one form or another it has been going on for years. Hell I did quick seraches the other day and game aross numerous quotes from GM management stating, "We are turning the corner." over the past 20+ years. The real issue is, to the public, they have not. At times, they have almost turned the corner but there is never a consistent follow through in the US market. Even the Cadillac example used above is not truthful. There has been no successful follow up at Cadillac since the CTS was launched. The STS and SRX have been duds in the market. The DTS is still recycling the same buyers. Not a bad thing but it is not moving the brand forward. Lexus and BMW have done a lot more in the same time. The new Escalade is a great effort but in this climate we shall see what happens. But as you point out, GM is consistent in dropping the ball in the US with your Cavalier example. An article that I posted earlier from Roger Smith talked of brinking Opels to the US as Saturns. It will be almost 18 years before that comes to fruition. The original LS does not count for various reasons. The point of the Davis article with regard to this thread is that as far as the public is concerned, nothing really has changed at the general when it comes to the product. The public does not care about legacy cost, the UAW, VDP, NAO, etc, they only care about spending their good money on what they like or think they will like or need. GM has not delivered consistently, and it is just that simple. It is not what I know or see about GM and the industry that is important, it only matters what the public thinks. They are always turning the corner but never really do!

Because it is!

HUH - This make no sense in the context of this discussion. HUH - A portion dedicated to the middle market would be a start! Again I do not understand where you are going with this thought. That is not a bad word in summing up the publics attitute toward GM. But irrelevant better describes about 85% of GM's current fleet by volume. That is unless you have access to GMS, 0% or some other incentive. And btw - a large portion of GM's US sales are at GMS. So true - GM has not offered the public what they want in a long time. The articles point out the people might have changed but the excuses are are the same.

Well I am in the entire camp but I am realistic. When I read enzl's "some large portion", I read his words as being reasonable that GM might have to pick their battles, or certain models will be imported from DAT, dedicated TO FLEET or something for whatever reason does not equal entire. Toyota, Honda, VW, BMW, MB, Nissan are pretty good at getting some large portion correct, globally. And I might add that Hyundai and Kia seem to be getting it right also. Opel ain't that shabby either.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/entire Main Entry: 1en·tire Pronunciation: in-'tIr, 'en-" Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French entir, from Latin integer, literally, untouched, from in- + tangere to touch -- more at TANGENT 1 : having no element or part left out : WHOLE <was alone the entire day> 2 : complete in degree : TOTAL <their entire devotion to their family> 3 a : consisting of one piece b : HOMOGENEOUS, UNMIXED c : INTACT <strove to keep the collection entire> 4 : not castrated 5 : having the margin continuous or free from indentations <an entire leaf>

Those are catchwords of the investor; they don't interest me to a great degree. I am 'here' for product, not the annual report. 'Marketshare' is greatly overemphasized and almost without fail taken out of context. What do I mean? Only the investor would compare current marketshare to the modern historical peak instead of the historical average. Peak, by the way was 60.1%, tho no one bothers to find out when. I did; it was 1931, the first year GM was #1 in volume, not the late '60s as any 'journalist' will try and tell you. By '46 it was 37.5%- was there unending journalistic teeth-knashing & hair-pulling about the "death spiral" then like we're all enjoying now? Again since no one bothers to find out: no; there wasn't. Yes, marketshare has been declining for many years. Frankly I don't care up until the point it affects profits and curtails reinvestment/future planning. Yep, it's done that some years ago. But far too many believe the link is tangible and direct, ie: the worse marketshare is, the worse the vehicles must therefore be, yet the opposite is closer to the truth, yet many here prefer to ignore that. Which is where my objection comes in. No one who harps on marketshare and profit statements ever bothers to give credit to vastly improved quality & reliability, far outpacing the industry average there. Naysayers love to gloss over the turnaround of Cadillac, who has undoubtedly & soundly increased their marketshare of the luxury segment. 1996 entry-level Cadillac sales: 0. 2000 Catera sales: 17,290. Aren't recent CTS sales in the 50,000+ unit range? What has happened to the 3-series marketshare in the last 10 years- we never hear those numbers. Who would disagree that those figures would be MOST REFRESHING to learn? Cannot this possibly be considered one of many 'absolutely positives'? Or is it all just 'bla bla bla / wordsmithing'? Nevermind; already know the 'answer'; there is only The Big Picture That Is General Motors, Where Everything Is Absolutely f@#ked and Nothing Good Can Ever Shine Forth From The Blinding Darkness That Is Marketshare Now Shutup About The Individual Examples Of Progress And Goodness And Get Down With The Sickness. f@#kin' A, Manny. Ok, profit have been bad for years. Without profits, no products. Do I need to spell out the correlation any further than that? GM produces more models at less volume today in NA than 25 years ago. Does that help to explain things better without using that silly word market share? I do hate to use that silly investor catchword profits and dollars - It does detract from the product. In GMs case literally and it shows.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...247173#continue In keeping with the theme of The O.C.'s thread, I choose to place this thread here because it is not recent GM or industry news. This is another blast from the past interview with none other than one Roger (Roger and Me) B. Smith. This interview in many ways is very appropriate in its content to recent news. It is a long but good read. It just goes to show, "There is nothing new under the sun." Enjoy! General Motors Corp. chairman Roger B. Smith - State of the Industry 1988 - includes related article: Yen's Rise Boosts GM's Morale - interview Ward's Auto World, Dec, 1987 by David C. Smith GENERAL MOTORS CORP. CHAIRMAN ROGER B. SMITH Roger B. Smith, 62, joined General Motors Corp. in 1949 and has spent most of his career on the financial side. He has been chairman since 1981. Major points discussed with Editor-in-Chief David C. Smith: * He now looks for 14.5 million U.S. vehicle sales in 1988 -- 9.5 million cars, 5 million trucks. * No further major plant closings beyond those announced are contemplated. * GM's new United Auto Workers union contract won't penalize the company in a downturn. * 1988 capital spending will match 1987's $8.5 billion. * GM still targets a 40% share of the U.S. market. Q -- What's your current 1988 forecast? A -- The non-financial economy is very good, but the financial economy has suffered a severe setback. It was not indigestion on Black Monday. It was a heart attack. And if we don't do something along the lines of a more rigorous health campaign, this country is going to be terminally ill. Q -- You mean finding answers to the trade and budget deficits? A -- Those are two things that can really ruin our country, but the problem gets mixed up in politics. The Democrats are trying to get the White House back and the Republicans don't want to let go. And the American people are getting squeezed in the middle because they (politicians) are all looking for political rather than economic solutions. It can't be cosmetic. If there was real budget-cutting -- balancing -- that, No. 1, would help the trade deficit then No. 2, I think we could have a 15-million car and truck year in 1988. If they don't, you get scenarios way on the down side. The middle of the road is 14.5 million, which I don't think is bad for us. But if you look into '89, you see even less than that. Q -- Right now you see 14.5 million with 9.5-million cars? A -- I think the downside will come out of cars because we're seeing 500,000 to 600,000 people a year shift from cars to trucks. Q -- But if Washington really tightened down, wouldn't that have a negative effect on consumers and thus vehicle sales? A -- Not necessarily. The basic economy is strong. What we need are some reasonable things. Look at the tax bill passed by the House (206-205) after they went through a bunch of shenanigans. If you look inside, there are some really horrendous things. It's supposed to be a revenue-producing bill, but to get the votes or some reason they put a lot of spending in there. There are four domed stadiums in it. Can you imagine that? I guess people don't build dams in their backyards anymore; they build stadiums. Q -- Should there be a tax increase, and, if so, how much? A -- If there was an honest attempt at reducing spending I could see some revenue increases. It's difficult to say where it should come from. Business picked up $140 billion in additional taxes during the last go-' round. Q -- Is it time for individuals to pay? A -- No, I don't think you have to do it that way, Dave. You could have an extension of the telephone surtax and some things like that. You can raise real money without hurting people. I don't, for example, want to see a gasoline tax -- not necessarily because of automotive implications, but because it is a regressive tax. Gasoline is not a luxury like fur coats. Q -- GM has reduced production schedules, but your investories are still high. How do you view GM's production and market share (year-to-date 37@ vs. 41% a year earlier) for '87 and '88? A -- I think our market share will move up, simply with the new cars we have coming out (such as the GM10 midsize coupes). Those cars are going to help us, but it will take awhile to get back up where we should be, and it may be '89 or even '90 before we're really on full load. Q -- 40% by '89 or '90? A -- I don't know. Let me say this: It's a strange thing, but I believe if the market goes down, our share will go up. Q -- Why is that? A -- Because the basic elements of our strength are pretty widespread. Historically, we've done better when markets have gone down. Q -- Everyone seems to be going after GM. Do you feel a bit beleaguered? A -- We'll be starting our 80th year in January, and for 80 years we've had competition. What was it -- back in the '20s -- when we passed Ford? Ford didn't lay down and die. They kept fighting. Q -- Yes, and they have boasted that Ford beat Chevrolet in model-year 1987. CONTINUED AT LINK

Being a fan and accepting the corporate BS product are two different things. As for the rest of your comments well if GM doesn't stop the slide, and accepts your "class leading" logic, well . . . we may soon say we WERE GM fans.

Why, because they have not and for the most part continue to not build "class leading" cars and trucks.

"Q -- GM has reduced production schedules, but your investories are still high. How do you view GM's production and market share (year-to-date 37@ vs. 41% a year earlier) for '87 and '88? A -- I think our market share will move up, simply with the new cars we have coming out (such as the GM10 midsize coupes). Those cars are going to help us, but it will take awhile to get back up where we should be, and it may be '89 or even '90 before we're really on full load. Q -- 40% by '89 or '90? A -- I don't know. Let me say this: It's a strange thing, but I believe if the market goes down, our share will go up." http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...ai_6247173/pg_3 "A decade-long slide in market share is proof of that. Now, three years after Jack Smith's dark-days-of-1992 edict of "profits before market share," Mr. Wagoner declares the worst is over and share gains lie ahead. GM, he says, is sizing itself to claim 35% of the U.S. market, a share it last reached in 1991." " TCC: Can you meet the target you've set of achieving a 5 percent return on sales? SMITH: We have two goals: margins and return on net assets. We're much closer to our target on RONA. That is coming along nicely. (Margins) are more difficult for us (because of) the pressure on pricing in the market. But it continues to be our goal, and in 1998, even after the strike, we hit 3.5 percent." PS They never hit 5% “We’re pleased to see the significant progress in our first-quarter results and in the implementation of all four elements of our North American turnaround plan,” Wagoner continued. “And we remain focused on accelerating our return to profitability and cash generation.” http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...S193.A1276.html "Lutz Says GM Is Over the Worst,.."

Look at the continuing market share decline. Look at the continuing decline in share price, look at the continuing decline in profits. Even in the better recent years, the profit picture normalized for RONA is in the 1-3% range. Dismissing "wordsmithing", to the average vehicle buying public, GM has not consistently delivered world class product and buyers are migrating elsewhere. GM and world class are oxymorons. Positive means better than average, and GM at best in the US is average to the public at large. If that were not the case this thread would not exist, GM would be making money in their auto operations, and market share would be improving. And that, is not the case.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet...=74&docid=25617 The coast is not clear, just yet.

bla bla bla -

Another blast from the past: http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_first_dont_succeed/

evok's deep thoughts on Observations! When Lutz and Wagoner look out of their office window at the Ren Cen and see 9 out of 10 vehicles on Jefferson are GMs, they smile. Job well done.

And how is this different action from any other time a contract is up for negotiations? This standard MO.

LOL - GM was busy. The link is dead.

FOG: You sound ignorant, misguided and well frankly a fool. Nothing has changed in your childish posts in 6+ years. You are just an angry person that needs a lot of growing up. "P.S. Save the angry e-mails/PM's because you'll just get more angry and challenging responses back." Sorry but you could not even challenge a mule.

Your idea of "Gotta Have" is irrelevant to the larger market.

My point in continuing this is that I have not stated anything new to be wrong about! If I am wrong again (assuming I said what I did 18 years ago), GM is doomed.