LTB51

Fleet is up in terms of %. 29% YTD 2006 vs 25.1% YTD 2005. Most alarming is trucks, which are at 23.5% YTD 2006 vs 17.6% YTD 2005 (an increase of 33%). Fleet sales in Q2 were 28.1% 2006 vs 23.8% 2005 (an increase of 18%). As I originally suspected, and posted in another thread, GM is talking out the side of their mouth when they say fleet sales are down by talking about total units. http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php...0511&format=PDF Some other tidbits from the item linked above: YTD market share US is down from 26.7 YTD 2005 to 24% YTD 2006. 14.3% to 13.5% worldwide in the same period. So best case is that less than <15% (I am guessing) of GM's volume went up by up to 8K/vehicle. ~15% of GM's total volume would be cars that have a sale price of < 15K, so the most they could move on those might be ~3K. That means the remaining vehicles (70%) would have to be up ~12K/vehicle on average to make a 10K jump/vehicle overall. I don't believe it is possible. But I'm not sure if this is outright fraud or if there is some other way that they could make it happen using shady (but legal) accounting. I'm not sure why some people are crooing over these results. I'm no financial expert, but it would seem that Rick is still pulling the wool over our eyes.

It is a shell game. The 4.3 billion was a one-time expense. However, in the last 1 year period they underfunded their benefits by 11 Billion. If they had kept up they would have taken an extra 2.75 Billion in expenses each Q (and even then I imagine the benefits are vastly underfunded). That would again have left them with a huge loss again this Q. They purposely shifted money around to make it look like they made a profit. But they are "stealing" from the workers as it is the workers who will be out that money if GM doesn't pull through. In addition to this benefits shortfall, there are other "one time" expenses coming and GM is still losing huge amounts of money. Still the 30% increase in revenue per vehicle is impressive, I'm just not sure where that extra $10,000+ per vehicle is coming from. I haven't heard that prices/incentives have changed that much, and car sales are doing better than SUV/Truck sales so ASPs should tend to go down. Also, have you noticed how there is a "one-time expense" pretty much every Q? Leaky ship.

Some numbers, YTD. Revenue up 13% while units are down 12%. Expenses up 13% (9% minus the 4.4 Billion restructuring charges... at least I assume this is an expense and not a liability... I haven't found the details yet). Year/Vehicle Sales/Revenue/Revenue per Vehicle/Expense pre Vehicle 2006 2,066,957 88.3 42.7K 41.7K 2005 2,352,370 77.4 32.9K 32.2K Which works out to $251 more profit/vehicle, or ~300 Million more profit on automotive. What is interesting in the large upward shift of both revenues and expenses. Financing and Insurance (GMAC?) revenue down 33% Cash and marketable securitys down 32 Billion in one year (55 -> 23) Pension Liabilities up 6 Billion. Non-pension post-retirment benefits up 5 Billion. Liabilities up 16 Billion in total. What is this shift to "Assets Held for sale"? 0 -> 274 Billion? And "Finance Receviables -- net"? 178 -> 4 Billion? And the same thing on the Liabilities side with "Liabilities related to assets held for sale" and "Notes and loans payable". Not sure what that is about.

Hmmm.... so should we take it that GM's fleet sales are actually up so far this year? That's what Steinmetz seems to be hinting at (at least in Q1). And if you actually look at what GM says in the article, they never state that fleet is down, only that they hope it to be down by the end of the year. What makes it interesting is that GM's sales are off 12% YTD, so even if the retail/fleet mix stayed the same as in 2005, fleet should be down significantly already. If the 25.9% were applied to GM's 2005 and 2006 YTD, they should be down 74,000 fleet already. Instead they may be up, and, if so, they will have to make that up that difference in the remainder of the year to hit their target. I fear they are still adicted. More evidence that the brass isn't serious about doing what is needed to turn the company around?

Yes, this is definately indicative of the evil that Honda will be known for. Seriously, which of GM/Ford/Chrysler etc. 2002-era trucks have latch in the front seat? It sounds like Toyota should have just borrowed a page from their books (I assume) and not offered the switch in the first place. It seems like the regulations are messed up. I'd like the person who darfted them to explain what exactly they were trying to accomplish.

Yeah, why don't they know they should buy based on HP? That is one strange looking vehicle.

What do you mean, how dare I say it? I've experienced it from your very first post in this thread. You claimed that the cobalt was better than the civic, and then you proceeded to lie and and mislead to make your point. It didn't work because I knew better and called you on it. But I have no doubt that you do the same or worse to your customers (as you have written in this thread). Hopefully your customers will realize the deception. They might get a flier in the mail with a civic DX-G for $258/month w 2157 down, and of course they might realize that they could have got $857 off (because they could, and to make the math easy to compare to your numbers), and then they might realize that including taxes they are paying $297/month with $1,300 down. At that point they might realize that in your pitch the DX-G was $60 more per month than your choice of Cobalt, when in reality it is $30 less, a swing of $90 per month or some 30% less that what you "informed" them of (and to think, there was probably some salesman at another dealership that would have said "I don't know" and not taken the opportunity to lie to the customer!). As they are sitting in your service bay (again), they might read a magazine on the benefits of a 5SPD, or realize that your recall claims were bogus, or realize that your torque/MPG claims were meaningless. I am sorry that you feel that GM's product line is so poor that you have to lie and mislead to sell it. Do what you gotta do. But don't try doing it to C&G, don't try doing it to me, don't mock the customers who see through it, and don't mock the other salesman for not stooping to your level. And if you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie. Saying "I don't know" is a better response. The last GM salesperson I dealt with couldn't sell my GF a Cobalt or a Malibu, but he was a class act and he never lied to us. As a matter of interest, is your objection because I called you a liar and you don't think that you are? Or that you are aware that you are misleading your customers but that I don't seem to recognize that you have to do that to sell a car?

I suspect that if they had been lowered then GM would have been shouting the numbers from the roof tops. Instead they are giving no guidance (at least none that I have seen). Therefore I suspect that fleet sales went up in June. I believe it was about a week ago that I was on the GM fleet site and they were offering up to 5,500 (IIRC) off 2006 models. That is now up to 6,500. I believe the 2007 model incentives have gone from $500 to $1,000 in the same time. http://www.gmfleet.com/gmfleetjsp/sitemap/.../incentives.jsp I have no idea how these numbers fair when compared to historic rates. If they really are trying to lower fleet sales, they have a strange way of doing it.

I agree. I don't know if I am the average customer, but I usually know what I need to know before I get to the dealership. In most cases the salesman just wastes my time. I just want him/her to pull the cars around, hand me the keys, and the point me to the finance people when I have decided what I want to buy. The pitch, the games, the misinformation, the confusion, etc. is hopefully going the way of the dodo.

And the ones that went back from you to Mazda, Hyundai, etc. are calling you a liar. Perhaps those salespeople just didn't have your impressive skills to mislead the customer? Instead of them saying "I don't know" in response to a question about a competitor, perhaps they should have you used one of your tricks (as you have so aptly demonstrated in this thread) and answered in a negative manner regardless of reality or whether they knew the right answer? Heh. Hyundai and arrogant.... can't say I've ever heard those two words together.

Prius already gets better fuel economy than the 4cyl MT Jetta TDI. This is the best test I have seen so far: http://www.drivingtelevision.com/segmentvi...call=&segtitle= Jetta: 6.8L/100KM (34 MPG) Prius: 5.2L/100KM (45 MPG) I'm not sure if it is worth the extra cost, but hybrids will almost certainly improve at a rate greater than diesels. And while diesels have improved, they are still relatively dirty. Air Polution Scores: Prius 9.5 out of 10 in Cali, 8 out of 10 elsewhere: http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-TOYOTA-Prius-06.htm Jetta 1 out of 10: http://www.epa.gov/emissweb/E-VOLKSWAGEN-Jetta-06.htm

From some other docs on http://www.calcars.org, it is more like 30 miles per charge on electricity. Still very good though. And of course that will change as technology changes.

I have been involved with the purchase of 2 acuras, 1 honda, and 1 Dodge over the past 4 years. All were from the same dealer network. All wanted 350 for doc.... it was 150 for the car I bought from the dealer network before they raised it to 350, and they claimed the extra cost was for some window etching scam. Let's say that the only car on which it was paid was the Dodge (and that was because my parents don't like to argue!). On the other cars it was only $150. (I wanted to tell the dealership that I would pay their $350, but only if they paid my doc fee, which, incidentally, is $500. But I figured that was too saucy.) I can't speak to the other fees, except to say that besides AC and tire and the doc fees mentioned, there were no fees. Delivery + PDI is a bit of a scam, but it is as posted on the Honda/Acura/Dodge site. GM charges roughly the same amount, and it was included in all the prices we were discussing. The Accord that my gf leased required no damage deposit and only the first month's payment (which I don't consider a fee.... it is the first month's payment). I'm not sure why you get to make up random fees to suit your purposes. I can only assume that it wouldn't be needed if the Cobalt had a legitimate advantage. I've had to put up with all your misinformation, and then you crticize my reading skills? Let me help YOU out, because I see that you are only reading what suits you. In the civic I put together on the website there is 749 due at signing. Monthly payment is 325. Click on the "Amount Due at Signing" link and you get: "Most lease agreements require a first monthly payment on delivery of the vehicle. A refundable security deposit and other miscellaneous fees. " So the 749 includes 325 for the first payment and likely the same amount for a security deposit (at least that is what I did for the last GM I leased!). They don't state that "certain fees may not be included", in fact, they have over-stated the fees. I blame Honda for putting so much information on their website. They should include virtually no information like the GM website. If you still don't believe the website, then believe me when I say that my GF didn't have to pay those fees either (though I was expecting something). I NEVER CLAIMED IT HAD A FOLDING REAR SEAT. I SAID THAT THAT WAS A NICE FEATURE. I HAD IT ON MY PREVIOUS CAR AND NOT MY CURRENT, AND I MISS IT. IT DOES HAVE "Retractable Door Mirrors". Are they not what you are discussing? http://www.honda.ca/HondaCA2006/Models/Civ.../2006/Specs?L=E As I have shown your numbers are not accurate. The LT you quoted would be roughly the same price as the LX. I used the real-world numbers I quoted from the web site in my original post. Again, torque will not affect fuel economy the way you claim. I will remind you once again that, unlike your customers, I know what a 5SPD is, and I know what peak torque is, and I know what a self-serving theory is VS real numbers. And in spite of all that, even I don't know why you still bother repeating that lie. That shorter warranty is over 2.5 times the cost as for a civic for a 7yr 160K warranty ($25 deductable mind you) with road side assistance. Heck, a 6yr/130K on an TL is only 1,388. And that is a $45,000 car. If you want to chalk that up to dealer greed, be my guest. Of course Honda and Toyota must not suffer from greed (yeah right!). My gf was looking at the Malibu until we found out it only had a 3 yr powertrain. What a joke. It it just another indicator in a long line (CR, JD, recalls, warranty costs, etc.). You can disregard it along with the others. You can pretend that GM is as reliable as Honda. But even GM isn't willing to back it up. You were the one making claims, and now we see that all you have is misinformation and contrived situations to back it up. Let me give you my real world example.... my GF is leasing an Accord LX-G 4cyl, 5MT with a 4yr comprehensive warranty (with option to go to 7yr 160K for $700 at the end of the lease), 0 down for $335+ taxes (that includes all real fees, so no need to bother making any up). Strange that she manages to get it for less money than your relatively base civic example, isn't it? Over 7,302 KM she has averaged 8.58L/100KM (~70% city) (must be the extra torque ). More HP, more torque, better fuel economy, better acceleration, better warranty, more airbags, better interior, more space, more refined, safer, better resale, center console (the wizards at Honda figured how to do this with an MT, GM's designers should take note), rear vents, telescopic steering, overhead console, etc. (and yes it has a folding rear seat and mirrors). And you are trying to pretend that the Cobalt you quoted for $304 is such an amazing deal? GM isn't being realstic with their situation, and it appears that neither are you. At least I understand that you are sincere in your beliefs. But again, don't think you are doing the consumer any favours when you misrepresent reality this way.

I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said it doesn't affect fuel economy the way you implied. Just like a 5SPD has an effect even if your customers don't know what it is. But I'm glad to hear that you have never mislead your customers the way you attempted to mislead us at C&G. Well first off, yes you can get discounts. Of course as a brand new car that is selling well they won't be as good as what one could get on a cobalt. But if you aren't getting $1000 off you aren't trying. The 784 is an estimate which includes the first month's payment as well as a security deposit + misc fees. You can buy with 0 down and it has no affect on the posted prices. Plus the doc fees at my local honda are $150, not the $3-400 you mention. So shave about 1,150 off your estimate. I like the way you listed 4SPD like it was better than honda's 5SPD. Or how you listed the 4 air bags in the Cobalt like it was better than the standard 6 on the civic. Or how you choose the DX-G instead of the LX for $14 more per month as it would negate most of your remaining Cobalt "pluses". As mentioned above, the 1,328 due at signing is inaccurate so you can add it back in to the payments (remove the amount due at delivery, take off $1,000 for negotiating and the Civic LX is pretty much the same per month as your Cobalt). And while you are at it, please provide the actual cost of the vehicle being financed, the interest rate, the monthly payments, and the actual residual. Perhaps list them one line after another so that they are easy to see. Again, I am glad you don't do this to your customers. Well I'm having to wade through a bit of misinformation, but I'm doing my best Cobalt acceleration is ~10% better than the civic at the cost of ~30% fuel economy. Civic has fold away mirrors. Civic has ABS (standard, all models). As I mentioned, cobalt has fewer air bags (civic has 6, standard on all models). Even the Civic DX-G has all the power features of the Cobalt (I believe). And yes, I have managed to get in and out of a Honda. Again, I am glad that you only mislead C&G this way, not your customers. Heh. You quote a Cobalt "worth" $24,470 to a Civic worth $21,505 and the civic has a resid of 9,500 to the Cobalt's 8,900 and you mock Honda's resale? So what is the price that is actually being financed anyways? Hard to tell as I can't look up the price of a four year old Cobalt. But a quick review of autotrader shows that a 2002 Cavalier goes for 6-7K compared to a 2002 Civic LX's 11-12K. But I don't think the Cobalt or the 16" tires and sunroof will make any large difference compared to the other features which the civic has over the covalt. Based on that, I imagine the Civic would still sell for more. I'm game. Give me the details. Amount to finance, rate, monthly payment, residual. Yes, a young person might go for the lower payment. They don't take into account residual value, the cost of gas, reliability, safety, etc. which more than make up for the $30 per month. I stopped reading after you said they were similar to JD Powers I asked a simple question: How much for a 7yr 130,00 - 160,00ish comprehensive warranty on the Cobalt? What is the deductable (if any)? I am assuming that roadside assitance would be included. If you are going to respond to anything in this post, please provide that information.

Civic got a gold rating from the IIHS (only 2 other cars in the class have done that). Cobalt did well, getting good on front and rear while getting an acceptable on the side (with optional airbags). It is misleading to compare base to base. It is not always easy, but to be fair you have to look at features as well. Up until recently, the base G6 had a V6 to the base camry and accord's 4 cyls. It wouldn't have been fair to compare base to base in that case either. Carbiz and I are in Canada, and here (as far as I know) the base civic has MP3/CD/etc. While that does have some effect, as you mention the ALG does rate the civic higher than the Cobalt. To be clear, I'm not saying that the cobalt is bad. It is a major step up from the cavalier. But it isn't as good a car as the civic.

Most analysts just pick the mid-point of a companies guidance (+/- a couple %) and then change after the fact to reflect any other guidance the company provides. It is not too common to see an analyst go off on their own, and when they do they have some reason for it (intuition, bias, bought off, whatever). But I'd say this guy is pretty accurate. I still think GM needs to figure out how to be profitable at ~12% market share, and until they trim away all brands until they only have Chevy and Cadillac, they are only fooling themselves. A few quality cars is better than a lot of average cars.

I don't see your point. Unless you are implying that the people who end up at your dealership are generally uninformed. Am I correct to assume that you don't tell them why the 5SPD is better and that most of the cars you are selling have 4SPDs? Classy.... You know as well as I do which is the better product. Sure, if you don't understand anything beyond a monthly payment or are lucky enough to have a salesperson convince you that more torque=better fuel economy, or that since you don't know what a 5SPD is it isn't better than a 4SPD.... then you might end up thinking the cobalt compares. I think a split folding seat is a nice feature.... but if that is all the cobalt has over the civic when the civic has so much over the cobalt then it is no wonder the civic sells so much better. (But if we want to talk about relatively trivial things... how does that compare to not having center storage with an MT?... Or to having a trunk which has such an akward opening?) I know a lot of people don't look past the monthly payment. They think that is the cost. I wish I could compare your figures, but for some reason I can't find any lease details on GM's Canadian website. But as the LT with air bags and MP3 is only $900 more than a civic LX, and with the disasterous residual on the cobalt (I am only guessing... GM doesn't seem to provide it), I can't imagine that the Cobalt wouldn't be more to lease. But assuming your $50 is correct, at 12,000 miles/year, $3.2/gallon, and at the fuel economy numbers mentioned below the civic will cost ~2,200 less in gas over 4 years. That pretty much makes up the $2,400 difference in lease payments (assuming that is accurate). And even with all that, how do you put a value on sleeping in on Saturdays because you don't have a cobalt that is about as reliable as a 5-7 year old Civic? To not having to worry about your car? (I know some people don't like CR, but they are the most accurate thing we have right now, and the Cobalt is not reliable by any measure I have seen.) Again, I imagine some people believe that. A full sized truck has more peak torque than the civic, so it must get better mileage as well, right? I guess not. There must be some other factors at play... I was on a road trip in a civic recently. 3 large adults, a full trunk, and thanks to the 5SP AT (I actually know what it does... but even if I didn't I don't suppose it would have affected whatever it does), and the engine was at 2200 RPM at ~110KM/h with the AC on. You can imagine what kind of fuel economy a 1.8L with a goofily aerodynamic body gets at 2200RPM. Even my TL 6MT is at 2400RPM at that speed (but of course it gets better fuel economy because it has higher peak torque). AutoSite got 33.2 real world with the Civic and 22.6 with the Cobalt. http://www.autosite.com/content/shared/art...cle_id_int/1084 http://www.autosite.com/content/shared/art...icle_id_int/516 I think styling is the only place where someone could pick the Cobalt over the Civic. The Civic's styling just isn't for everyone. 0-60 must be a little faster in the cobalt as well. I understand that you are protecting your job and your company when you sell a cobalt, but please don't pretend that you are doing the consumer any favors... or that someone who buys a civic over a cobalt was some sort of lost sheep. The opposite seems true to me. As a matter of interest, how much would I have to pay GM for a 7 year/100,000 mile comprehensive warranty on a Cobalt LT1? I really can't find GM's extended warranty costs on their web site.

No, it seems to me it is the usual salesman trick of making sure the customer doesn't see what is important so they end up with whatever product the salesman is selling, no matter how poor a choice it is for the consumer. The HP #s issue is a red herring. And perhaps I misunderstand you, but your way of selling the recall counts is little better. I don't think it is correct (for example, in 2003 GM had >74 recalls (I only have counts for GMC, Chevy, Pontiac, and Olds which totalled 74) on ~4.76 million vehicles sold as compared to Toyota with 6 recalls on ~1.86 million vehicles sold. 2002 was better for GM, 48 recalls to Toyota's 6, but they were no where close to beating Toyota by your metric.). I can only imagine that if the metric compared the totall number of vehicles recalled GM would fair even worse. Granted, I'm not sure how 2004/2005 would compare, and I imagine 2006 will mark a decline in GM's reliability for the first time in some while. But even if it were correct, it is misleading. If I have 5 recalls on my car, do I really care if they sold 100 or 1,000,000 of them? Do I really care if they sold 1,000,000 of another vehicle entirely? But more to the point, you seem to be implying that GM is on par with Toyota/Honda in terms of reliability. As we have seen from the Cobalt (you brought it up), it is nowhere near the reliability of the Civic. In fact, it appears that a 1 year old Cobalt has the reliability of a 5-7 year old Civic/Corolla. And the G6 appears no better. No, the cobalt is no civic. It is less safe, less fuel efficient, less reliable, less able to hold its value, less well designed, etc. Surely GM teaches you better arguments to sell to the customer for buying a Cobalt over a Civic than what you presented?

At the risk of being unpopular, he does have a bit of a point. Sure, other companies have offered limited free gas deals, that is nothing new. But isn't it the role of GM, an American company, to help lead America away from needless consumption of oil? If Japan were sending their troops to die in Iraq in an attempt to secure oil so that the Japanese could drive vehicles much larger than what they needed and buy (relatively) cheap fuel, then I would expect it to be the job of the Japanese media... and a vocal portion of their public... to point out that fact. And if the Japanese were not building hybrids while GM was, so much more deserving is the criticism. Personally, I think you are right. The consumer is rubbish for demanding such vehicles (and I am one of them!), but clearly GM fills the roll of the pusher (as do other manufacturers). But at least the Hondas and the Toyotas can make excellent small cars. GM cannot. And at least the Hondas and the Toyotas started making hybrids years ago while GM spurned them It would be nice for GM to be a leader in this area, but I don't know why we should expect then to be when the rest of their business is such a mess.

Reasons? Or just more FUD? I find it funny that so many people blasted CR and backed JD. JD suffered from much of the criticism directed at CR, but for some reason that criticism wasn't directed at JD. And this, even though JD's methodology had many serious flaws that guaranteed it was not accurate (and none of which have yet been fixed). But who was pointing out that JD was worthless? The real reason for the animosity towards CR and support of JD seems pretty transparent.

It is my understanding that that is their methodology for new cars. If the a car is redesigned they predict the reliability from the old model. If it is a completely new model they say too early to tell. If they do it for all cars, that is consistent. But it is important that readers understand that. Otherwise they could get burned like if they bought a G6 or a Cobalt thinking that they would have anywhere near the reliability of the Grand Am or Cavalier. How much of what you just wrote affects anything? The CR bashing by people who over-emphasize the "sample size" problem is getting a bit old. You point out that the sample size for the Q45 might be low, but you don't know how big it was or whether or not it was statistically acceptable. Plus how does a potentially small sample size for the Q45 affect the sample size for the G6? Or the vast majority of all other models for that matter? Also, JD Powers suffers from pretty much all these complaints. Some of your complainst apply only to JD and not CR (i.e. "opinion of material texture"). But no one seems to complain about JD. Luckily now we know that JD Powers is so flawed that they really shouldn't have any remaining credibility.

The article isn't that bad. There is some truth to the fact that a recall can be a change for a dealership/company to show how well they will take care of you. If I had a lot of recalls on a vehicle I would be pissed, but one recall is no worse than (and likely much better than) one unplanned problem. I had a recall on an Eagle Talon timing belt just shy of when it was required to bre replaced.... greatest dealership experience of my life If it makes everyone feel better, GM still has the most recalls, so if recalls are good GM is best.

Here's proof that I have too much time on my hands Here is the 2005 ranking compared to the 2006 ranking, sorted in order of difference. A negative means the brand was ranked worse and positive means better. But good luck figuring out if it was due to quality, features, or dumb owners 2005 2006 Diff BMW 3 27 -24 Hummer 10 34 -24 Mercedes 6 25 -19 Buick 4 22 -18 Jeep 16 31 -15 Audi 8 18 -10 Mini 25 30 -5 Saab 27 32 -5 Jaguar 2 5 -3 Land Rover 34 37 -3 Cadillac 5 7 -2 VW 33 35 -2 Lexus 1 2 -1 Mitsu 22 23 -1 Scion 26 26 0 Infiniti 9 8 1 Mercury 17 16 1 Subaru 29 28 1 Lincoln 14 12 2 Pontiac 23 20 3 Suzuki 36 33 3 Toyota 7 4 3 GMC 13 9 4 Acura 15 10 5 Dodge 24 19 5 Nissan 18 13 5 Chevy 20 14 6 Ford 21 15 6 Honda 12 6 6 Kia 30 24 6 Mazda 35 29 6 Chrysler 19 11 8 Hyundai 11 3 8 Volvo 31 21 10 Saturn 28 17 11 Porsche 32 1 31 Isuzu N/A 36 N/A

It shows how inaccurate it was and hopefully reminds us that it still isn't accurate.

It is a horrible survey and it always has been. Now we know that the old survey was out by as much as 40% compared to this new one. They have added a lot of flowery speech to try to hide how inaccurate they were. And, the unsaid fact is that this current survey could be out from reality by even more than that. Plus they haven't yet addressed the real problems with the survey. As others have pointed out, what is being measure by this survey is quite literally "impressions" which of course are not reality. And finally, it gives equal weight to the impression that the suspension is a little stiff as it does to an engine blowing up. Plus now, in a slightly round-about way, they are rewarding companies who put less features on their cars (imagine an elderly buick driver complaining that the auto-up/down feature on the windows is confusing). It is stupid. Plain and simple. I think too many people were ignoring how bad it was because they liked how the results are decidedly pro-GM compared to CR. I heard some time ago that Hyundai dealers are coaching the buyers when they do their final car checklist. They go over the potential downfalls of the car so that the buyer does not view them as such. They paint them as inconsequentials or positives. When the buyer fills out the JD survery they no longer view them as a problem and therefore do not note them as such. I also remember reading an article on here some time back where Scion's poor showing was related to AC which did not seem to get cold fast enough and a suspension that buyers felt was too stiff. That JD powers states that "BMW vehicles have among the fewest defects and malfunctions" shows that they still aren't measuring reliability properly. Anyone who has a BMW or knows someone who has one will attest to how unreliable they are. The emperor has no clothes.