Uncle_vito wrote:
> You have that right!
>
> I remember in the 60s-70s anything the big 3 (4) made automatically was
to
> be accepted by the public as the best styling and performance available.
If
> you didn't like it, tough.
>
> They seem to have that same attitude now.
>
> I believe a TRUE corporate shakeup is in order for them to be able to
get
> their act together. They are terrified to do it in that they could make
> matters worse instead of better. That would also disrupt their good ole
boy
> network where they all get rich together.
>
> One simple example if GM ineptitude. At televised sporting events.
What do
> the Chevy ads try to sell you. Pickup trucks and SUV's. They should be
> pushing cars not trucks and SUV's. They are basiclly selling crucifixes
to
> the pope. In reality, GM is basically fighting Ford and Chrysler for
truck
> sales. They are looking at the trees and ignoring the forest.
>
> Same with Cadillac. They keep pushing On Star with ads where Grandma
> crashes and can't get out or locks her keys in the car. Are these kinds
of
> ads going to get more folks (by default, younger folks) to buy Cads. I
do
> not think so.
>
> GM still has its head totally up its ass. Their plan for profitability
is
> to lower costs, period, not build a better product or get smart with
its
> marketing. They are going to lower costs by breaking the union, getting
> cheaper foreign labor, and cutting benefits.
>
> They should be focusing on making a better product, better marketing and
> giving folks more value for their dollar.
>
> Maybe they should continue to do to their entire product line what they
have
> done to the 2009 ZR1 Corvette. Add a $1000 supercharger to to their
base
> model, then double the price. They are doing similarly to their Cad
CTS-V.
> Call that value? Perhaps because the production volume for these cars
is so
> low, they figure there will be an equivalent number of suckers that will
> bite and buy .
>
> Their management is totally inept and GM pumpers and the GM board are
too
> blind to see it.
>
> Vito
>
>
>
> "Speaker of the Truth" <bconn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:fJOdnS6hlKxfzS7anZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Don't get me wrong I love my Corvettes but I don't have a lot of hope
for
>> GM. GM and Ford will reverse themselves when you see them gain back
market
>> share. Not just a = point gain for a few months but 5-10 % sustained
for 5
>> years.
>>
>> It all started back in the 70's with the shit management. When you put
>> staff people into line positions this type of thing will happen. You
won't
>> see a bean counter or lawyer making decisions at Toyota or Honda.
>>
>> My friend just retired from Ford after 30 years. One of the things he
told
>> me about and I think he has been right is that the Auto Industry in
>> Detroit
>> has a real bad problem. Their attitude is always "don't tell us how to
>> make
>> cars, we invented them".
>>
>> In Japan when you have a problem, you fix it. At GM when you have a
>> problem
>> you tell the customer to blow it out his ass, just like the 3800 engine
>> intake manifold problem. Or at Ford with the 4.6 liter intake problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Hey Vito,
Please jump into a Mercedes group and tell
Kompressor owners that it's a 'glue-on' to the
base engine. One neighbor with a Mercedes
thinks it's a good deal. So does another
neighbor with a Buick Ultra.
Both GM and Mercedes use comparable mods to the
base engine when they add supercharging.
I happened to own one of the 3800 (series II)
intake-issue engines. I think GM acted responsibly.
I received a personal recall letter. Got the
car into the dealer. Was given a loaner for
three days. They opened the engine and found
that it had a leak. They cleaned the engine,
resealed it, changed out all the fluids,
conducted two follow up checks. We put another
40K miles of heavy driving on that engine (wide
variety of climate and load conditions) over a
three year period with no issues. I wouldn't
call that, telling the owner to 'blow it out his
ass.'
I do feel that the engineering of that intake
was a bit ambitious when considered against the
materials available in production. A more
conservative approach would have been better and
would have allowed for the variances that happen
on the shop floor.
In a much earlier 3800 engine I was a victim of
the #1 bearing issue. Another instance of
ambitious design -- probably akin to the
'wishful enginering' in the Olds 350 diesels.
GM and the dealer worked that problem twice (a
repair, then a replacement) before I was happy
-- not ideal, but real world. The point was
that I was finally happy.
OTOH, I owned 10 cast-iron GM V-8s (both Olds
and Chevy derivatives) between the '49 and '01
model years. All represented excellent value
and steady improvement in design. Even the
earliest went beyond 100K miles before needing
serious attention. (I missed the '55 Chevy
small block OHV follies -- so can't speak for
that engine).
I've also ventured into GM's boutique of new
ventures with their small aluminum V-8 (coolant
issues), a Fiero (costly to produce-no fun
replacing plugs) and, a couple of Corvairs (oil
leaks). But, I realized that they weren't
"common sense" cars when I bought them.
I think criticism plays better when it's either
personal experience or is supported by cited
references -- otherwise it tend to come across
as 'blowing out ......
Regarding your earlier remarks on GM not using
direct injection. They are employing it in
China now...in a V-6.
--
pj
|
