2QuickZ's

TACOMA Throttle Applied Controls Offering Maniacal Acceleration :lol:

Remember when sudden acceleration issues were really common on Audi's? It got so bad people jokingly said Audi stood for Accelerates Under Demonic Influence. If I remember correctly, the "defect" turned out to be that their pedal setup was shifted outboard which put the gas pedal in close proximity to where the brake pedal would be on most cars. I, too, am skeptical of sudden acceleration issues which is why I said I'll reserve judgement until the investigation is complete. I'm just amazed with the statements of the Toyota PR machine blaming the media for the problem.

Link to original article HERE Looks like the Toyota spin doctors are at it again! I'll refrain from making any judgements as to whether or not there is an actual problem until the investigation is complete but I like how they are blaming everything on the media. I also like how the media is firing back by showing most of the complaints were made BEFORE the media reported on the issue.

What is with the "memo" just below the division totals that appears to total certain models by the domestic market? Is that retail sales or just seperating U.S. sales from rest of world? It actually shows a 1.3% drop in Crapolla sales an "all-new, best-evar!" model recently introduced and despite $4/gallon gas.

Link to article is Here So two things in this article suprise me a little. One is that GM is finally admitting to themselves and the world that the shift to smaller vehicles is likely permanent. The second is that they are considering selling the Hummer brand. I think that would be great if they could dump it.

I think they look even more bizarre in person than they do in pictures. Personally, I think it is ugly. It could be the best performance value in the world and I really don't think I could get past its looks. It's just.......

They were smart enough to build their plants in right-to-work states? Actually, with Honda being in Ohio and Toyota being in Indiana, both pretty pro union states, I am kind of surprised they never managed to organize either of those.

You've made some very valid points. Ones that I won't argue. My post was merely intending to point out what I feel is wrong with the UAW and how they are helping hurt the Big 3. I certainly didn't mean to absolve management from their role in the decline of the Big 3. They have made many, many mistakes. IMO Roger Smith almost single handedly set GM back by 30 years. His decisions and the resulting poor perceptions of GM products they caused that still linger today are a big reason why Toyota is where they are. The pure, unadulterated arrogance of Big 3 management throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's are a huge part of the problem. It didn't help that the blinders stayed on until only recently. I don't believe the push to globalization was so much caused by the cost of labor but more so by a populous that is greedy and can never have too much, regardless of the outcome. The simple fact is, we don't care where our gadget comes from as long as we have it. It doesn't matter if a 9 year old girl in Bangladesh or China is making 50 cents a day to product it. We have a Wal Mart mentality now. We have to have everything, regardless of whether we can afford it or not. I believe this mentality will ultimately be the downfall of our economy. I believe unless things shift considerably in the next few years, we are marching toward another great depression as the credit market, and ultimately the banking system, collapses. I am not an economist. I'm an engineer. I base those beliefs on nothing more than my gut feeling and therefore would never argue them to be fact. I also agree with you that not everybody is college material. I have the unpopular opinion that in many majors, college does nothing to prepare you for the real, working world and it does nothing more than prove to a prospective employer you have the capacity to learn. The fact that not everybody is cut out for college is one of the big reasons why I am so troubled with the hugely anti-union sentiment in this country. Even here in Michigan, the people commenting to an article about the Big 3 in the Detroit News or Detroit Free Press spew a lot of venom toward the UAW and the Big 3. It is quite eye opening to read. Especially when a lot of the opinions being thrown out are from folks that haven't owned or driven a Big 3 product in 20 years. Don't get me started on our corrupt, non-functional government. That would take me on a rant that nobody would want to read. Let's just say I think we should vote them ALL out of office and start over again. Lets get some decision makers back in office, instead of all the pussies that are in office today that are afraid to make a decision because it my be unpopular with some small percentage of their constituency. I would love to see a straight shooter run for office. Someone that doesn't have to apologize because he referred to a female reporter as "sweetie". Those in the metro Detroit area should know what I am referring to. Actually, your health benefits your employers as well by way of fewer sick days. In theory anyway. And there is nothing wrong with asking for heath insurance as a benefit. It is when you expect it that it becomes a problem. In a competitive job market, employers often use their benefits package, including health care, to persuade prospective new employees to accept an offer. If a given company wants to use that particular benefit as a way of attracting prospective employees, more power to them. If they don't want to, then they don't have to. I think what you really take issue with is the UAW membership expecting this benefit since most are not in a position to leave the company for something better if the company refused to offer it.

I should also mention, it scares me how anti-union this country is becoming.

The first thing out of a UAW persons mouth when you say something remotely negative about the UAW is "You're just jealous!" It gets old and lame. Yes, I realize you said you aren't UAW and I don't mean to be targeting you. Its just that you also made the comment. For the record, I'm not jealous. I have no reason to be. I'm doing just fine financially speaking and my work ethic and knowledge are my job security. I don't need a union to protect me. If I get laid off, I'll go out and find another job making comparable money. Unlike the average UAW worker, I have options. That being said, I've been in many auto plants, both UAW and non-UAW. Most people do not understand that the average assembly line worker does work hard and does care. I do support unions. Many people don't seem to recognize that unions have helped pull up everybody's wages and standard of living, not to mention workplace safety. My father is a skilled trades, UAW retiree. My college education was largely paid for by his wages, though my Mom made good money too. I recognize that and I admire the UAW for many of the standards they have brought to the workplace through the years. My issues with the UAW and some of its members is as follows: 1) Some have a "they owe me" attitude. Since this group tends to be the most vocal, they make the whole membership look bad. Why do they owe you? What have you done for the company that is so special and that someone else could not have done? This attitude seems to get worse with each successive generation of UAW worker within a given family. It makes me sad because this group doesn't seem to realize what a sweatheart of a deal they are getting. It looks like by the time they figure it out, they will be working for $12 per hour somewhere. That's not what I want. This nation needs a healthy middle class. 2) The UAW still protects those that don't deserve to be protected. They will use any means necessary to keep one of their members employed. I've seen it with my own eyes. If I were in the UAW, I guess that would make me both happy and sad. Happy because I would know they would be there for me if I needed them. Sad because I would know much of their resources were going into protecting the ~5% of membership that doesn't deserve to be protected. Why would I want grievances traded away during local negotiations to ensure some sack of $h! gets to keep his job? 3) The UAW still has the mentality that so and so company (read American Axle at the moment) is still making a profit so we aren't going to give anything back. Or at the very least we aren't going to give them the same agreement we gave their competitors. This says two things to me. One is that the UAW still doesn't have good comprehension of what a global economy means to them. The second is that it shows they still have no foresight. They can't see the forest through the trees. Helping out now means a more successful company which should equal more U.S. and UAW jobs. It reminds me of a demotivational poster I once saw. It said something to the effect of "A company willing to go to the ends of the earth for its employees will find it can hire them for about 10% of the cost of Americans." 4) It still "us against them." Union against management and everything, and I mean everything is managements fault. I occasionally catch my Dad falling back into this argument. Since the future of the companies are in both parties hands, it sure would be nice to see some cooperation. It seems to have gotten better under Gettlefinger. He seems to have seen the writing on the wall. Still, it is upsetting to see these local strikes at the two GM plants where their hottest selling vehicles are being made. I hope this can be overcome. I hope the Big 3 and the UAW can succeed together. I fear that they are in a death spiral together, though. :( The best thing the UAW could have done was to organize the Asian transplants and level the playing field. Since that hasn't worked out for them, unfortunately there is only one other way for them to level the playing field and that is concessions. It would be nice to see some type of concessionary agreement from the UAW with a commitment from management that once the fortunes of the companies turns around, they will get some of it back. I don't think either is going to happen, though. JMHO

My guess would be fleet gets 4 speeds only.

Damn. I am a year or two younger then you but otherwise our upbringings sound largely the same. The only differences: - I grew up in Michigan - I was never slapped on the face that I can recall, though my mom had a hand cut out of plywood called "Mom's helping hand" that was used more than once. It sounds worse than it was because it wasn't sturdy enough to do any real damage. It mostly just hurt feelings. - My first car was ..... are you ready for this? A 1983 Renault Alliance. My parents made me buy it but they did give me $1500 of the $2000 purchase price. My first real financial lesson in how the world worked was based on this car. When it was purchased, my Dad told me if I drove it a while and didn't like it, he would buy it from me. After about a year of ownership and $1000 of my money in repairs, I told him I wanted to sell it to him. He offered me $1000 for it. After that fiasco I went out and bought my first real car with my own money. It was a 1966 Chevelle with 58k original miles on it and it was all original except the 15" x 8" Corvette rally wheels and the under dash mounted stereo. My second real car was an all original 1972 Buick Skylark with 33k original, documented miles on it. My love affair with cars grew from those two cars.

I disagree with a couple of your points. First of all, I don't think the creation of the Saturn brand is the big blunder. It was that fact that they spent all that money to launch it with one product and then let that product rot on the vine for 10+ years with nothing new added to the fold. Then, when they did finally add other vehicles (see Vue, L series), they made only a half-assed attempt at adding something decent. It should have launched with a compact and a mid-size and both should have had an MCE within 3 years and a full redo within 6 to keep them relevant. Secondly, I agree Saab doesn't currently have much value in the U.S. but I think it could. One of two things would need to happen. One would be to lower the price of the product to match the quality of the materials. A fully loaded 9-3 is not worth $38k based on the sum of the parts. The same is true of the ridiculously over priced 9-3 convertible. And a 9-5 for $40k? Both are good cars that get very good real world fuel economy but will never sell in any volume at those price points unless they are significantly upgraded. The price range for a 9-3 should start at $25k and end at $32k on the current model. A 9-5 should probably start at $30k and run it to $36k or so loaded. If that plus some increased marketing doesn't help, shut it down in the U.S. and leave it to the Euros. JMHO

I love Saturn and all but if it is really considered one of GM's strongest brands, then GM is in a lot of trouble. Saturn just doesn't have the name recognition to be considered a "strong' brand.

Then they should have voted against the national contract if they feel they were sold out on it. This is only my opinion but I would guess they decided that working certain items into the national contract would not fly with the UAW membership and could therefore result in a potentially long national strike. They know certain locals are more amenable to change than others and that they would rather deal with having a few of the more radical plants go on strike here and there rather than risk shutting down all of their U.S. production. Just a guess, though. It's just too bad Fairfax is one of the plants that chose to strike. It's like they want to cut off their nose to spite their face.

"Oooh! GM is finally making something people want to buy again. Now is the time for us to strike so we can ruin it for them and blame the failure on management!" says the ignorant UAW worker. "But at least our seniority rights will be protected until we force them to file bankruptcy!" shouts another. Am I the only one that thinks its quite possible their turnaround would be further along had they filed for bankruptcy? I'm not anti-union at all. The unions have improved safety for all as well as pulled up wages for everybody. I am becoming more and more anti-UAW, though. The sense of entitlement is disgusting. The more generations you get into it, the worse it gets, too. You'll get third generation workers that have been on the job for less than 5 years that already feel GM/Ford/Chrysler owes them. Owes them for what? Doing a half assed, careless job on the days they actually manage to show up?

I think one of the big problems with Detroit is simple and that the same issue affects most publicly owned companies in this country: Decisions seem to be made on the basis of making the shareholders happy, not necessarily the customer. Even though making the shareholders and customers happy shouldn’t be mutually exclusive, they seem to be treated that way in Detroit. I think that is caused by two things: - Americans are impatient investors. Much like everything else in American life, we want instant gratification and need results immediately. The Euro’s and Japanese have traditionally been much more patient and been willing to see short term losses provided there was a clear plan to get to long term gains. - American companies have been a bit arrogant and blind to the impact globalization would have. This has obviously caused some hits to the bottom line and led to very shortsighted thinking to boost shareholder value without addressing long standing issues and long term profitability. They’ve been basically fighting a bunch of little fires all around them instead of putting out the big fire right in front of them. It should be interesting to see how Chrysler does now that they are “privately” owned. The customer should come first! You can't add shareholder value without customers. It seems simple. I guess the key is how do you make the customers happy and remain profitible? It shouldn't be too hard. Other companies seem to do it.

I like Saturn, as is evidenced by the vehicles in my driveway, but that being said, I am of the opinion that GM does have too many mouths to feed. I know it is a highly debated topic but I do believe GM needs to kill off a couple of brands. If one of them was Saturn, so be it. Personally, I think grouping Buick, Pontiac and GMC and Cadillac, Saab and Hummer into two sales channels is the first step toward killing a brand or two. With few stand alone dealerships, it should make it easier to kill one or more of them off. Hummer would be the first one I'd wack. I've also always though GMC was a bit redundant but I know GM won't kill it. At this point, I'd argue Pontiac is a more damaged brand than Buick but looking at it with no sentimentality at all, one or the other of those brands could probably be killed. As a GM fan, I'd hate to see either of these legacy brands go, though.

That is a nice little powertrain. My wife had leased a 2005 Saab 9-3 linear. We had that car for 2 years and over the life of the lease it averaged almost 27 mpg. With only 175 hp it was no burner but since we had that car I've wished GM would put that powertrain in other GM vehicles. It was a low pressure turbo so regular gas was recommended and in the two trips it made from Michigan to Florida and back, it had one tank that averaged 36 mpg (calculated, not DIC) and probably averaged 34 mpg on the trips overall. In fact, one time we even made the one way, 1000 mile trip only having to stop once to fill up!

That was the other one I was thinking of. I can't remember why, though. I knew the Vue was because the curtain airbag didn't fully deploy. I researched that before I bought one. I still wonder how this type of thing makes it into production. I would have thought that by now, all the OEM's would be testing not only to NHTSA standards but also to IIHS during the development process.

Make mine Pacific Slate! :hot:

My wife leased a 2005 Saab 9-3 linear with the low pressure (175 hp) 2.0L engine and an automatic. For the 2 years we had the car, it averaged over 26 mpg and that was with an over 60/40 mix of city/highway driving. On two trips from Michigan to Florida, every tank was above 33 mpg and one tank even got 36 mpg. Leaving with a full tank of gas, we only had to stop twice each way for the 1000 mile trip. All while burning regular gas. I loved that set up and wish GM offered it in the Cobalt or some of their other vehicles. It was no race car but it had more than enough acceleration for every day driving. I think it would be a fantastic base powertrain for the Malibu and Aura with the 6 speed auto (the Saab had a 5 speed auto). A little more hp than the current NA 2.4L with a longer, fatter torque curve (195 @ 2500 rpm vs. 160 @ 4500 rpm) and it got great real world fuel economy!

The biggest disappointment lately is that GM has had trouble getting things done correctly the first time. Based on the fact it stipulates the side crash test rating was for Malibu's built after Feb. 2008, I'm guessing it got tested twice. It probably tested a little lower the first time it was tested, GM made an engineering change and then had it retested. The same thing happened on 2008 Saturn Vue and I believe it may have happened on at least one other GM vehicle, though I can't recall which one. How are they not catching this during development?

I was going to wait for these to come out before I bought a new vehicle but I let my wife talk me into an SUV. Actually, I like the Saturn Vue we bought but obviously this thing is in a different world. The positive press the G8 is getting is making it all the tougher on me realizing I'm stuck in an SUV for a few more years. Fortunately, the wife volunteered to switch vehicles with me which will allow me to pick the next car, too! In all likelihood, in another 1.5 years I'll be replacing the Aura with either a CTS or a G8. Of course, that line of thinking could change if gas prices keep going up.