CARBIZ

When sifting through the hyperbole and that sells newspapers, there are really only two points that count: 1) we are about to slip into a depression of which the world has never seen or 2) the American economy will come roaring back in 4-6 months (the average length of a recession that already started 12 months ago by some accounts.) In scenario 1: GM's future won't matter much. With 2 or 3 generations of lazy, fat people who have never gone without or done without suddenly faced with joblessness, homelessness and hopelessness, there will be a revolution that will make the the upheavals of the '60s look like a Church picnic. In scenario 2: GM needs cash to weather the next 6 months to enjoy the upswing of the economy and the pent-up demand of consumers who have been delaying vehicle purchases due to uncertainty in the economy. Any loan 'guarantees' handed over by Congress in the next 2 months could easily be paid back within 2 or 3 years as the economy corrects itself. It's a pendulum, really, and for the past 12 months in the U.S. (in Canada just starting now), the pendulum has swung into the negative, it has probably stopped and will start swinging into the positive within a few months. From what I can see, there are literally thousands of companies and millions of people in the same boat, so to speak, as GM. Our entire economy is constipated like we haven't seen in a few generations. Older people are haunted by what their parents lived through and younger people are bewildered by the extent of the damage. Nobody is spending anything unless they have to. Regardless, it's not like people will stop buying cars over the long term. With the US population over 300 million, a 20 million car market is only a short time away. Detroit only has to promise whatever it takes to get from here to there. The short term pain of their demise would be great, to be sure, but I am far more concerned of the long term damage to North American prestige and future technical abilities if Detroit is gone. This could be a great opportunity for Detroit to clear out its arteries to be ready to hit the ground running in 6 months.

... ah, to save your job? 'ugly' is a subjective term. Frankly, the '09 LT2 Cobalt is quite handsome, with the chrome door handles, spoiler, 16" wheels, etc. Perhaps you prefer a $800 brake job over a $600 one. You do live in Canada, don't you? Salt spray on the rear discs is soooo much fun - forget about longevity. Rear discs are a marketer's dream, my friend. Necessary on a Viper, not so much of a compact car. It's what GM versus Mazda have chosen to spend their money on. Every time I seen a clown with a Mazda 3 driving in my underground garage with no lights on (and nearly getting hit as he goes around the corner), I just laugh. Drive the GX Mazda 3 - it's no picnic either. And the Mazda 3 is NOT the same price. Not in Ontario, at least.

Good thing she isn't standing there today, you'd be lucky to see ANY of the grille for her, ah, rather wide beam.

1. Malibu has turn-by-turn, free for the first year. Better than DVD-NAV. Can take mid-trip course changes without having to pull over and place vehicle in park. Eyes on road, talk to a human. In a $22k vehicle, people don't want or care about Nav screens anyway. 2. iPods are the norm these days, so who cares about a built-in hard drive? XM is free-flowing. 3. Softer materials? Let's not go there. A big WHO CARES? Apparently you haven't sat in the sea-of-grey-Accord these days. 4. For less than a couple grand, the hybrid's fuel bump is cost effective, plus it adds nearly a second to the 4 cylinder's speed trials - 2.5 seconds 0-60 faster than a Prius. A good compromise for those who want economy without spending $30k 5. Longer warranty? Are you kidding me? 5/100 on the powertrain with Roadside. 8 years on the hybrid. None of the other middle priced brands offer more. 6. Not sure how much more the SIDI engine costs to build, but every one of your 'wish list' items would add a lot of $$$ to the price of the car. Glad you're not in charge. We'd all be forced to buy $60,000 cars.

Although it's true that the Intrigue and the Alero had no Buick counterparts, it was too little, too late. The Alero came out in '99 and the all new Aurora a couple years later. The writing must have been on the wall already. In it's 4 year existence the Alero never received any significant revisions. Besides, the Alero was identical to the Grand Am. It could be argued that GM started pushing Olds in the right direction by the late '90s, but they should have been doing that in the late '80s to battle Acura/Lexus. Again, let's lay the blame on Smith and his cronies for entirely missing that boat. Tell me, who here can tell the difference between a 2000 LeSabre versus a 2000 88? As to the GMC/Chev debate: it is not a matter of whether GMC buyers will go to Chevrolet or not, it's a matter of ECONOMICS. There has to be a cost/benefit analisys for how many GMC buyers they will lose, versus the cost of keeping those buyers. None of this is going to be easy, boys and girls. If GM had money and could be guaranteed 20% market share, then a business model could justify 8 divisions and money to go around, but we all know that they do not. Sacrifices are going to have to be made. GM has to 'right-size' the company and they have very little time to do it.

Desrosier Canadian sales And yet Canada still defies gravity with total vehicle sales ONLY down 10.3% for the month! GM is down 23.4% for the month Ford is up 1.3% (still have leaes around here!) Chrysler is down 16% for November. Honda is down 27.5% for the month! Toyota UP 0.5% for the month.

...... like mother, like son! :AH-HA_wink:

Don't grace his posts with a reply. It's one thing to criticize; quite another to harp. Some people only have a single original thought in their life and need to get mileage out of it.

Quite likely. They were married in October 1960 and I came along in March '61. :AH-HA_wink: When I joked to my mother about the first hot summer night in June, back seat at the drive-in, etc. she just laughed - nervously.

My dad used to love Pontiacs, before he defected to Chrysler in the '60s. In fact, he probably loved his Pontiac more than my mother.

I read somewhere that Americans possess the lowest per capita number of passports in the OECD. I understand why. To be fair, America is huge and you could spend a life time travelling your country and still not see all there is to see; however, the downside is that Americans travel outside their country on a much lower percentage than many other 'rich' citizens of the world. Hell, the average Canadian probably knows more about American geography than the average American. My point is that when a German travels to Egypt or Brazil, he will see the Corolla in both places. He may or may not know that his Opel is a GM. He may or may not know that Vauxhall is essentially the same as the Opel he drives at home. He certainly would not recognize the Malibu's roots as coming from the Astra. GM has had the bragging rights to the #1 selling vehicle in both our countries for decades, but because the Sierra and Silverado are different nameplates, Ford gets that right. Hell, even now the G5/Cobalt are #2 in this country, but separately the Cobalt falls to 4th. You do not want to know how many people don't know/don't care that a Soltice is sold only at a Pontiac store, or that the Malibu can't be had at a Buick store. The world is changing. America has not. I find that ironic, because it was American corporations that first led the global assault. McDonalds and Coca Cola are global brands. But maintstream America has not changed much since the '50s. If Detroit is going to survive, they must stop treating North Americans as somehow different than their European or Asian cousins. It goes beyond the 'dumbing down' of cars destined for the American market. It is the entire way the auto market is perceived in North America. The 'enthusiasts' may cry and scream about their favorite brand, but I wonder how many enthusiasts (especially here on C&G) even BUY new cars? GM has to make global decisions going forward and if that means making global names and killing brands, then so be it.

I'll throw this one out, then hide: why did America 'lose' the Vietnam War? Answer: it was the first war fought in the living rooms of America and the military did a bad job of marketing the war. Detroit is in our back yard. Each and every one of its fumbles and mistakes are plastered across the front pages of every newspaper and blogger site in the nation(s). Japan, by contrast, is a much more closed market and culture. Frankly, they are a complete mystery to most of us. Are there millions of Americans living in Japan, influencing and trying to understand the Japanese culture? No. Are there millions of Japanese living in America, influencing and trying to understand American culture? Yes, indeed. The fact that Vietnam was a noble concept that failed is beside the point. The fact that GM and Ford build quality vehicles for Americans is beside the point. Detroit lost the war because they lost the confidence of the media. That is something that the Japanese have simply done better in the past couple decades. We can go all the way back to the Vega and 8-6-4, but nobody wants to go back to Toyopet and Datsun.

Forget it, AAS: he totally misses the point. In his efforts to trash everything about the Volt (fear, perhaps?) he misses the point entirely. The 2-mode systems and the 'Synergy Drive' are overly complex. Why would you want 2 sets of drive systems? Why would you want a transmission (even a CVT) that continuously makes compromises between putting torque to the wheels and optimal fuel efficiency? Perhaps the day will come when the Volt can run 300 miles on a single charge, but until that day arrives a small, efficient gas engine that operates only at one particular RPM as necessary is a beautiful compromise, to give those 30% of the driving public the ability to go beyond the 40 mile range that has been set as a target for the electric only mode. Those with axes to grind are always shown naked in the face of facts.

How BIG are you???? I am 6'2" and have no troubles driving an Aveo, nor sitting in the back seat. Although the Smart is roomy, it is only a 2 seater - and not cheap, either. If your dead set on sending your money overseas, get a Mini or a Miata, er, M5.

First of all, the media hacks are a capricious lot. Secondly, they are jaded. I lump them in the same category as movie critics: after you've been forced to watch 10,000 movies, it takes the Second Coming of Jesus to grab their attention. The media types are human and already have their built in prejudices, reinforced by the liberal pablum shovelled out in most college classes for the past 30 some odd years. A lot of those chickens are coming home to roost because of the lax liberal thinking that has been allowed to permeate society. Back to autos, I would cite the outrageous horsepower wars of the past 15 years, sparked by BMW and others, which have culminated in minivans with nearly 300 hp. Silly and outrageous. This frivilous pursuit only managed to draw the ire of the non-automotive media, which naturally attack GM because they are (were?) the biggest. And OC, read my post again: I am talking about where auto companies spend their development dollars. There is a world of difference between a door handle that 'feels' solid and one that is actually solid. VW has proven that time and time again: suckers line up to buy their German engineering but the cars fall apart. The Cavalier may have not been the most solid looking car (panel gaps, ugly seats, etc) but the damn things are virtually bulletproof. Chrysler under Lutz spent a ton of money making the Intrepids, etc. LOOK and FEEL great, but they turned out to be pieces of crap on the road. I've used the point of the last generation J-car against the then current Corolla time and time again. After the '03 refresh, the Cavalier was a much better car than the Corolla, and I often proved that by the back to back comparisons I would do between the two with customers, but the mags (especially CR, who clearly never even bothered to drive the '03 when they trashed it) had such a hate-on about the Cavalier because of its (previous) lack of DOHC engine, semi-independent rear suspension, etc. that they couldn't look beyond that. Appearance over substance. GM spends the money on things that count, like automatic headlights, clutch lockout on their standard trannies (I got run over by a '01 Corolla when a customer 'jackrabbit started' it) and a host of other features that people appreciate after living with the car. DOHC engines, 15 spd transmissions, etc. only matter to self-appointed car experts and their added costs don't always reap the expected benefits. Many of us on C&G need to step back and look at an automobile the way a layperson does: 4 black tires, a body and an engine. All the rest is Madison Avenue BS. You don't wanna know how many oldsters drive the Malibu and don't like it. They are being brainwashed that this is the way automotive design is going (no bench seats, no column shift, no soft, smooth ride) and many don't like it. Their 30-something old spawn pull up in their Audi and convince gramps that the Accord or Malibu are better than the Impala. Better exactly how? And for whom?

That is going to change very rapidly. November's numbers will be ugly in Canada. Don't forget, our economy usually follows at least one quarter behind the States. Our recession is just starting. Manufacturing companies are closing up shop left and right, here in Ontario. Real estate prices are sure to follow. Our banking system is only safe for investments made in Canada, but CIBC and others have made poor investments south of the border, which they are only now starting to pay for. Commodity prices are going to slam BC and Alberta before long. A whole heaping pile of Not Good. We need look no further than the stalled leveraged buyout of BCE by the Teacher's unions and various banks. They were talking about a $52b leveraged buyout. That means they were borrowing much of the money. That is the disease that has paralyzed the financial markets in the past few months. All the major banks are finally having to admit that many of their loans were totally BS and most of the collateral is gone - if there ever was any collateral. Also, without GM and Chrysler to kick around in the leasing department, leases have skyrocketed up here. Hell, I can sell someone a loaded Cobalt for the same payment as a 48 month lease on a crappy Versa. And a lot of leasing companies are still smarting from the dollar being at par for a year. The falling buybacks on BMWs, Lexus, etc. is very ugly. This is all shaping up to be a perfect storm that will hit the high end marques in the beginning of '09.

GM is in a pickle, that's for sure. Dealers are dying. Expect to see them close in the hundreds this year. Many of you guys have to realize that the average customer does not see Pontiac as being any different than Chevrolet. Despite the billions spent over the decades in marketing, most people don't care. If a few brand zealots feel that GM should die just because one or more divisions are going to close down - well, that is just sad. Believe me when I say this: GM loses sales every day due to brand confusion. I must deal with at least 2 or 3 people a week (and that is out of very sparse traffic as it is) who walk in to our store and ask for the Acadia, G6 - and that's assuming if they can even remember the model they are looking for. Hell, I've had people confuse Chrysler with Chevrolet. If one or more divisions goes away it will be ugly - and painful. No doubt. But there are far too many dealers and there simply is not the development money to go around. Why, for example, should the Aura have even been broached? Couldn't more money have been spent on the Malibu and then release it 6 months sooner? The Traverse is rotting on our lot, but 2 years ago I could have sold a stink load of them. I doubt GM would be foolish enough to kill models as well as brands. Of course, the G5, G3 could die (who would care?), but the G6 could be folded into the Chevrolet line, as could the Solstice. I think a case could be made for saving Buick, due to its popularity in Asia and because a mid-priced brand could flourish if GM's market share stays in the high teens. A little birdie told me 2 years ago that Pontiac and GMC's days were numbered. Maybe if GM had more time to complete the P-B-GMC amalgamation south of the border and 'right size' the models things would work out okay. However, I suspect GM is going to have to prove to Washington that they have a workable long term plan and I just don't see how 8 brands can be justified.

So you are basically confirming my point: build cars that the media like and all the rest will follow suit? That's the same mentality that has led to the political mess we are in: the politicos only govern by poll; if something doesn't 'poll right,' they won't go ahead with it. That is not called leadership. That is no way to run a government, and no way to run a car company. Other than the strides that GM has made in the 'appearance' of their interiors, I don't see the CTS as inherently superior to, say, the Impala SS. Ah, but it is RWD and available with a stick shift, thus proving my point. I don't disagree that GM has failed in the PR department, but I guess in the modern world appearances are everything. Appear to be superior and it doesn't matter whether that's true or not. A solid feeling door handle trumps standard ABS. Simple, proven pushrods that get 30 mpg are 'inferior' to complex, more fragile DOHC engines. 3mm gap tolerances are more important than galvanized steel bodies. I see. So it is important for GM to build vehicles that look good on paper (Honda), win the approval of the car critics (VW) and appear to be quality made (Toyota.) I understand now.

I wish it were that simple, gmcbob, but I'm afraid it goes a little deeper than that. We are seeing the results of 30+ years of liberal arts graduates - these are now the guys/gals in charge of the media. I warrant you that NONE of them drive domestics. At best, they'd drive VWs or BMWs today. Most of them probably cut their teeth on their parents' early '80s Fairmont, Chevette, K-car, etc. and that is how they formed their opinions of Detroit. We are brainwashed as children and young adults, quite literally. My dad always had Mopars when I was a kid, so my affinity was toward Mopars. He hated Ford, so I hated Ford. Similarly, if your mother/father had a Pontiac 6000 and constantly cursed its problems, while you sat in the back seat with your booster seat and pacifier, odds are you'll come out with a negative impression of GM. Cars are like sports teams. People's emotional investment tends to be high, often unreasonable. Not everyone can easily transcend their experiences as youth to become 'thinking adults.' In some cases it may be nothing more complex than rebelling against one's parents: 'my parents always drove American cars, therefore American cars are bad.' Our likes/dislikes are often colored in subtle ways. For example, if an otherwise nice American car has hard plastic on the dash, then that will become the focus of the biased critic. In some respects I think it is nothing more complicated than the fact that most Ford and GM products don't offer a manual shift. This is often a source of frustration for the 30-something car mag writer because he/she considers themself 'professional' drivers and they demand to be able to shift. There are a myriad of reasons that Detroit has gotten to this point. It is so easy to blame them. Even purists are mad at them because they 'lost' so much market share. I prefer to congratulate them for the 40 year reign that they had. No other business in history has held onto the vice grip that GM and Ford had from '55 to '95. There is no shame in 20% market share; however, blaming Detroit for not downsizing fast enough, smart enough, fair enough or whatever is pointless. But what sells papers today and can make a politican his/her name is BLAME.

In Ontario, if the vehicle was not equipped with seatbelts, then the driver doesn't have to wear them, which would exempt most cars up to the early '70s, since even in most late '60s cars, seatbelts were optional.

Well, this is what 25 years of successful lobbying and strategic plant opening by Japan Inc has brought up to: the sheer obfuscation and confusion of the 'average' American/Canadian consumer. If all of this is too much for the poor journalists to understand, then perhaps we should use a different measure: if you want to sell ONE car in this country, then you must build ONE car in this country. Pure, simple. That is why the Auto Pact came into being and perhaps we should return to that. If this poor (and I suspect), blond woman cannot handle the fact that her Ford was 'assembled' in Mexico, then perhaps she should ask the question, 'how many Fords are sold in Mexico?' If Ford is successful in Mexico (and it is), then it is only reasonable that the Mexican people should get some of the spin off jobs, no? If you buy a Toyota or Honda, you are buying a Japanese car. It doesn't f'ing matter if the windshields and tires come from North America and that the vehicle is slapped together in Allliston: IT IS JAPANESE. The profits go to Japan. The majority of the value-added jobs are in Japan. The rest is all smoke and mirrors. And for those who do buy Japanese, IMO, they might as well just throw their money into that big money hole, because that is about how much good it does for our North American economy.

"I don't take money from lobby groups and if I did I would throw it right in The Hole because I am a Patriot."

Thanks for posting this. It truly made my day. I sent it to my Manager with the suggestion we play it at our Monday morning meeting.

The Toronto Star would definitely be under the category of social liberals. They hate cars in general, but hate GM the most because GM is the biggest and, of course, only builds SUVs. Toyota, on the other hand, builds only small, environmentally friendly vehicles ( I mean, Japanese people are so small and cute, aren't they?), so what harm can there be in supporting Toyota. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, perhaps?) I honestly have no clue what the editors of the Star think they are doing. Oshawa is on one side of Toronto and Oakville on the other, plus Brampton to the north-west. Magna's HQ is directly north of the city. Probably 2/3 of Canada's auto industry is within 20 minutes of Toronto's borders and 90% of those jobs are Big Three related. They are literally spitting in the face of a goodly chunk of their readership. But then this is a newspaper that is rabidly pro-immigrant, and since 80% of Canada's immigration is from non-English speaking countries, this paper is signing its own suicide pact there, too. For many Canadians, (and I don't think they are the majority yet), bashing America is a historical sport. Perhaps this goes back to the 1780s and the flight of the Empire Loyalists that populated Ontario after the American Revolution. Although the Star is not overtly anti-American, the Liberal party is closetly anti-American and the Star gives the Liberal party carte blanche on nearly all their political platforms.

These same people believe that if they reduce the number of lanes on city streets and dedicate them to bicycles, that more people will abandon their vehicles and take bicycles to work. There is no end to the lunacy in political circles. I shudder at the thought of Washington getting an 'ownership' position in GM or Ford.