FloydHendershot

Unfortunately with all things considered there is not much of a difference. Unfortunately.

Great, that's what we need more hhr drivers speeding around even faster like crack addled whores fiending for another score. Ok looking cars but haven't come across one yet that wasn't being driven like a complete moron was behind the wheel. Throw in the added torque steer and it's probably like watching Bambi on ice. Aside from the host vehicle it is nice to see that kind of modification and its performance. Just wish it was on something meaningful. It'd be nice to see these on the track just to see how it holds up for longer than 5 or 6 seconds.

That's a good line.

Can you honestly blame these people for voicing their concerns? The lost generation of customers as you put it implies years in the making and reasonably years for the fixing. Are these two companies worth saving? Is it possible to overcome the stench of lingering bankruptcy masked by obnoxious questions to models wearing the same clothes as last years ball innocently winding up in mainstream newspapers and magazines for people of all ages, races and income brackets to read and grin perhaps with a glimmer of knowing honesty? Should I take great comfort in knowing cars being built by workers with little to be hopeful for are putting their best damned efforts behind their elbow when many may feel they weren't in the first place when they had no such worries? The economic meltdown nullifies the hydrogen test fleets and programs like the Volt because with no legs the feats are useless. It's too bad when a company like GM 40 years ago can help US get to the moon couldn't remain in a position other than what have you done for me lately. I feel partially let down and disgusted but also regretful if their collapse no matter what precipitated it was a result of bad banking and miserable economics. Chrysler I actually feel less pity.

Yup. 2 years in a row operating at a loss. And not a little loss. Taking about as much as 5 billion dollars this year. Of course that is just an estimate for right now. It could be more. Maybe less. I hope you aren't suggesting GM is where they are today because Lexus outsells Cadillac or even GM's shuffling dead brands. You seem too intelligent for post hoc ergo proctor hoc. :AH-HA_wink: Perhaps you've also read about the Toyota family intentionally losing 429 million dollars and what's happening in Japan in places like Toyoda city. of course you do, I know you do! My point is and has been clear and simple. They may have started in a better position but they have made many errors unquestionably not the least of which increasing their presence in a nonexistent truck market. This recession or depression or whatever you wish to call it has hit just about everyone and hardly anyone is left unscathed and thin king about what they could have done differently. Toyota is not an exception just like GM didn't wake up one day with the weight of the world on their shoulders.

Toyota model? Scion? Opening a boondoggle of plant in SA? Toyota does not have the answers my friend and would certainly not follow their model in any way shape or form.

Some lights blink yellow after hours. Anything else is asking too much, aside from patience of course. It is a virtue don't you know. :AH-HA_wink:

You are absolutely correct. Mexico?

China?

Planes don't fly at max speed either. Ever been in one when the pilot says "we'll make up some time in the air"? :AH-HA_wink: I think that guy in Binghampton last week said he bought a gun and some bullets and he would determine how to use them. I think your argument would set a lot of innocents free. If you have video no reasonable judge wouldn't throw the ticket away citing faulty equipment. Yellow lights in NJ are longer than the green lights.

If there was a camera there it wouldn't have been an issue at all, would it. Speed limits also have to do with gas consumption. There has been and is talk about lowering the unregulated stretches of the autobahn, for instance, because the amount of burned petrol increases dramatically with higher speeds. I can drive 50 down a straight strip of residential real estate because I can but some kid goes out to grab his skateboard that rolled away and it's my fault. I could be going 22 albeit and it would still be my fault but he might have had a chance. The example I would argue con red light would be people getting rear ended for slamming on their brakes to avoid a ticket. But how I've smiled when someone driving showing off driving like he's the $h! zips through and I see that flash. Yea-I didn't do it on purpose, I swear.

Oldsmobile (buick to a slightly lesser extent) was brilliant at that. Some might blame the 'rags'. I don't blame anyone but unquestionably agree. I think some equate performance/sportiness with safety.

It is about revenue but it is it only wrong when you get caught? Don't go through a red light you won't get a ticket. I've been busted by a camera, did I go through a red light? Yes. Could I have stopped? Yes. You bet your ass I fought it but at the end of the day I had to pay. How many times have you had to slam on brakes because someone felt they didn't have to wait at a light and think to yourself--gee where's a cop when you need one? I'm a believer in the golden rule, especially on the road.

90% of drivers self categorize them as being in the 15th percentile. O, and there are limits on the autobahn. It is actually well regulated.

The roads are full of hazards like that, as I call them moving chicanes, but it is HOW you handle the imbeciles around you and carry yourself in those situations that make the difference. Basic lane rules. Right is slow, middle is for people going nowhere and don't care how long it takes, and left is fast. Yeah. It may sound like a little road rage there. May even be the textbook definition.

The simple answer-6 or one half dozen of the other. If these reports or history reveals any insight they are currently taking steps to do this. After Olds failed to stay relevant even with a fairly decent lineup (including the Bravada) that was whittling down it wasn't really much of a decision. You can take it on the chin initially and deal with lost capacity, jobs, R/D money, etc and dealer buyouts then ride that out until the money and resource are more effectively redistributed. GM remained number one in sales with the loss of Olds. Not all Olds customers remained consumers of GM but it's difficult if at all able to be proven the cost did not outweigh the benefit. Fast forward 2009 and we see Pontiac in a similar situation. If there ever was a case to keep a brand it would be Pontiac and Buick. There is less redundancy with those two brands when executed properly. Merely keeping them and feeding them Chevy's leftovers does not strengthen a case for viability per the brand alone. It would have been nice to see a new start with the Solstice and more brand appropriate CARS but considering other factors when it pays to keep things like capacity running etc there are no easy ways out. In the end the losses associated with extinguishing a brand would not be readily absorbed by a company on the ropes as it were in 2007 or 2009 without some monumental outside force working against them so why not keep things running? Ride it out then get the white paper out. This is just the way I imagine it happening based on the situations past and present. Six or one half dozen of the other.

Certainly is a diverse group with various affiliations, directorships, and affiliations. Also particularly interesting the length of times each member has sat on the board.

You might be more right than you know. Have a look. Bored of directors

Almost two years ago to the day I wrote the following and if this is true am saddened to learn they would agree to keep Pontiac but dangling by the proverbial string. At that time I thought an intervention had support and would be an honest attempt to revive the brand. I agree that it was necessary to keep a timetable, which was clearly truncated after the economic floor dropped. The string that dangled could not hold them up and is perhaps irreparably frayed at this point with the ground fast approaching. At this time I can only wonder if they had not just 'yessed' whomever and provided a lineup worthy of the Pontiac nameplate what would have happened. I can only presume there was a "Clash of the Titans" up top and in the end little was accomplished. What upsets me the most is half heartedly deciding to keep them around, if of course this story holds water. The Holdens could have just as easily been folded into a Buick lineup and saved everyone a lot of time, anger, and grief. After Olds-- Pontiac and Buick to me are neck and neck. A new generation of GSX' or GN's in the stable would suit me just fine. Maybe there is too much brand confusion because there was too much board confusion. If even a glimmer of truth to this they should have their resignations signed and TBD.

Not too covertly, I guess. Just like those silly politicians who keep using the term New World Order. Didn't they get the memo? What could it mean. It's supposed to be a secret!

If we broaden the definition of journalist to include those who can spell then I would be inclined to agree with the title of this thread. The above is just wrong and goes to show you can write even if you don't know about what you are writing. This is the "journalistic" equivalent of "Look everyone, I made a doody. Come look."

Well see now, those cherry picked facts were picked by you as the foundation for your argument. I would call it a debate but the best response is that is your interpretation [and it is wrong, i.e. I, (meaning you) am still right)] or followed by with questions that are not rhetorical because you do NOT have the answers. You miss the bigger picture of how this company is organized and the inherent limitations sans magic wand would be able to fix. Any furtherance of a debate with someone with this particular intellect is a head-banging exercise in futility. Some people are just think-headed. :AH-HA_wink:

There certainly wasn't a plethora of stellar products for GM in the 90's that aided their cause but when you look at what Jack Smith started especially considering what he walked into I think he is somewhat misunderstood. In many ways he was the first to try and break the archaic structure with decent results. Wagoner continued to build on much of what he started and would be as bold to say had Wagoner stepped down 1 year ago his restructuring efforts would be viewed much more positively. Or if he had made it to 2010 or 2011 he would begin to see that windfall. In all I will say Henderson is primed to be in a good spot. Here is a quote from a 1998 article The UAW staged a 54-day strike that closed down the automaker, cost $2.5 billion and caused market share to plummet to 21%. A $9 billion stock buyback didn't boost margins nearly enough. Reports showed that GM lost $104 pre-tax per vehicle in North America in 1997 while Ford made $1,520 and Chrysler, $1,366. And, worst of all, GM's vehicles still don't seem to stir passion in many buyers. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m301...ag=content;col1

I appreciate what you are trying to do, and is commendable. There is a page select to anyone who cares to wade through the muck and see how Enzl is misinformed. The response I received was nothing short of babble indicating I was wrong and he knows better by making himself sound accomplisged and in a position of authority which I seriously question him getting there on his own merits if this thread alone speaks of his self proclaimed ability. Something else comes to mind. This was front page stuff and inevitably they will come out the cracks. Frankly am bored with it and come Monday I will be back on the road and this will be a distant memory.