marc-o

"If China is so bad why aren't you there protesting"? Who's twisting who's words? What does that have to do with anything? I need to go somewhere to have an opinion on it? I'm not an environmentalist but I do advocate being careful with the natural ressources we have. The environment is cleaner now? It is different yes, there's less bacterial pollution and more chemical pollution. I'm not advocating destroying the economy (of course environmentally friendly technologies don't destroy economies, they merely provide incentive for updating equipement, which stimulates growth, investment and efficiency). No one knows for sure if there is global warming or not, scientists are divided - so isn't it better to take the prudent route and try to limit these things?

That's a pretty narrow-minded comment. Catalytic converters weren't brought out to prevent another ice age caused by smog, they were brought out because smog causes or worsens many respiratory diseases that could make living in a city poisonous to your health. Yes cars are cleaner running now, but there is also a lot more of them on the road, and people drive a lot more, offsetting a lot of reductions in pollution. If you have no appreciation for catalytic converters or environmental activism you've obviously got no appreciation for air cleaner than that of places like China where policies are much more lax (or non-existent), no appreciation for water free of mercury, benzene or red tide, cancer-causing pesticides on vegetables and anything else that might lead to relatively healthy life beyond age 60. Aside from ice age claims, there's lots of other tangible reasons not to pollute.

That's the big deal here... they're taking numbers from 2000, and 99-00 saw the highest sales ford ever had. If you start considering GM's stock slide from its all-time high it's down something like 80%. How bad is that? Gas was also dirt cheap in 99-00, because oil was under 10 bucks a barrel - so it's up 600% now, what does that proove? Well obviously when you're comparing a current low (or a current high) to a past low (or past high) you can make any change seem more dramatic than it really is. The big assumption in the argument is that sales in '00 were at a sustainable level, which they weren't, like the stockmarket and rock-bottom oil prices that year. Comparing any numbers to fluke/freak numbers doesn't have the same effect if you ask me.

The main products GM seems to be counting on this year are its new SUVs, which by definition (SUVs!) simply won't set the market on fire. Pretty much all of its new vehicles over the last two years have fizzled out, yet these were the ones supposed to turn the company around. I don't care how much of a success the Solstice is (it's by no means a home run though), one low volume roadster isn't going to save a ship the size of GM. Like cheri said, cylinder deactivation isn't going to overcome 60$/barrel oil, hybrids certainly haven't. At least Ford is in a better position, even though it might not appear so to a casual observer... the thing with GM is they are running out of outs: if they sell GMAC they generate cash but lose the only consistently profitable part of the company; if they cut their deficit they will still be losing money but their stock will simply tank; if they do nothing they'll keep bleeding billions a year (a quarter?), if they make executive changes they'll further destabilize the company and still have to deal with the problems; if they do what Kerkorian wants he'll likely dismantle the company anyways. So where are the positives? A new Tahoe that can do 21mpg? GM is in so much trouble it's not even funny anymore.

This is one more piece of bad news like we've been seeing for months about GM. The thing is, those heading the company don't really have much to say to counter what is being told in the media, which leads me to believe they really dont have any serious plan (I don't believe GM has an ace up its sleeve, they cant keep a secret...no news that comes out of the company is ever a surprise annoucement).

I tend to agree with that... it's a generalization but mostly true IMO.

So i guess you have to thank the unions and lobbyists of domestic steel producers for that or what?

meh, we've heard about the 2005 camaro, the 2007 camaro, and now the 2009 camaro. instead of wasting so much time on concepts that are going to look old by the time they're released (if you first see a concept 3 years before it comes out, honestly, how much of a lasting impact does it make?), gm should fix the cars they are actually releasing.

That's very true... 4 doors or 2 doors or hatchbacks doesn't mean that much nowadays; it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the actual performance of the car. If anything, there are more "performance sedans" now than ever, because people are demanding practicality, functionality. Of course, technology has reduced the gap significantly.

Yeah that's true, however most rich kids in my area aren't driving Corvettes, they're driving Audi's, WRX's, and other cars generally seen as "cool" (which is a totally objective term) or "boy racer" as you say. Obviously the majority of younger people can't afford cars of that price, which is why we're arguing about perception, not who's buying them. For sure most people wouldn't turn down a Corvette if offered one, I'm just saying that what I get out of people my age (myself included) is that the Corvette isn't a top contender in the desirability factor. Sure it's in the top ten, but it's not #1 and it's not in the top 3. I wouldn't give any of my nuts for a car :P

LOL depends what you want out of a car... sure a vette isn't "cool", but if i was having a mid life crisis, i'd be trying to get women, not look cool to people my son's age :lol:

GM sells around 30k vettes a year... that's way less cars like the Murano or WRX (which are closely related to much higher selling models anyways) or the Mustang (which sells well over 100k units). As a car enthusiast in his mid 20's, i can say the corvette is definitely not cool. It's a great performance bargain, and it's a nice car... but it's not cool. It's something men in their 50's who know little about cars seem to buy during a mid-life crisis.

Cause you can't do that. You can't just close out Lincoln and Mercury and expect all the people running these dealerships to walk away without so much as a squeak. You can't sell just trucks and sports cars that get 20-25mpg at best to the public. I agree though, brands like "Ford" just don't sell anymore. But you can't just close down the factory and expect everyone to be happy, a lot of people work at plants making cars and a lot of people work at selling them, even if they're not selling as much as 'yotas.

yeah there's a lot of truth in that simple logic. but it's not all truth... not when you get into the nitty-gritty accounting, and start thinking about cash flow. in any case, in the end yes making money on what you sell is all you need to do.

Well, I think you'd see riots if GM went completely out of business, which wouldn't happen, realistically. I can see the company going into bankrupty, slashing jobs, but it wouldn't be wiped out of existence and it would still employ tens of thousands of people. Normally, i'd say you're right about the government not letting GM fail but given its just plain lousy fiscal position right now i'm not sure sure... I mean i have no doubt they'd put up some kind of bailout for GM, but they are not going to be able to turn it into a state-run automaker (essentially a welfare agency that gives people a check in exchange for building a vehicle). The government is already stretched thin and there isn't the same kind of unanimous support for GM (or Detroit) as there was 20 or more years ago. With interest rates creeping higher, the government isn't going to be in a huge rush to tack on more billions to the deficit. I'm not sure that Toyota is trying to destroy GM (right now i mean), they might just be trying to speed up the process to becoming #1 in the world. I think they are taking a big risk doing that because they got to #2 by taking the slow and steady approach, and this last push so to speak isn't a good way to go about it, but hey that's up to them. Either way i'm sure it's all for bragging rights and nothing more... they could wait for GM to keep going down (which in my opinion it will keep shrinking, according to Wagoner until at least 2008), but they've decided they're too impatient for that. That's fine, they just aren't going to get any pity from me if they screw up in the process, just as they aren't getting any sympathy from me now trying to push for #1. However, no guts no glory, no pain no gain, businesses succeed by being aggressive and bold (for the most part), and if they didn't take this risk a lot of people in their camp might think they're missing the opportunity of the century. If they lose the gamble, so be it, otherwise people might be taking shots at them in a few years for not slaying the general when they had the chance. From [their] standpoint, I think it makes sense. Obviously though, you perceive the risk very differently for them Rich

That's because they look at the success of toyota and say "oh, we don't need good looking cars apparently!", forgetting that toyota didn't get where it's at by designing nice cars, but by offering cars that were more reliable than the competition, which people bought for perceived reliability, not appearance.

yeah i know, that's why i reposted it I think they are extending themselves right now because they figure they can give it a big push to unseat GM... a couple of years ago a lot of people in business were wondering what yota would do with all its excess cash... it didnt seem to be doing anything yet there didn't seem to be any worthwhile investments. I'm assuming they decided to use some of it to go all-out. I think the real question is will they be able to unseat GM and how much will it cost them - that depends on how long it takes them, assuming GM's turnaround doesn't pull through. If it's harder than they anticipated, they might burn through more money and put themselves at risk (not to mention their reputation), which would really hurt them in the long run. But as it is now, I think it's just a conscious effort to overthrow GM. The thing is toyota is very far from a capital crunch, if they needed 10B$ right now they could get it no problem, at a much better rate than GM or Ford... sure it's possible the company goes nuts and does an exceptionally bad job financially, but i'm just saying it's way too soon to be making that call - and IMO that's not what is happening. If it is though, you'll get credit for being the first one to call it :D Yeah but is IRS Japan going to do something about it? I don't even know if it would be a problem in Japan... unless all that money is in the US (something I doubt), but even then, they might have paid attention to what happened to Microsoft and done it differently.

I still think you're trying to extrapolate too much from this Rich... I don't believe a company could do *so* well for so long only to suddenly do *so* bad so suddenly.

Japanese companies are usually heavily leveraged because for cultural reasons they tend to finance with debt, not equity. It's nothing unusual. Toyota isn't in any fiscal trouble... if they have any common sense they won't keep going down this track... you can't take 1 or 2 year trends and extend them 3, 4, 5 years into the future. If the company kept doing that, they'd be committing business hara-kiri. I really don't think they are that dumb. Fact is, Ford and GM are in incredibly much worse financial shape, and most importantly of all, you'll see the Japanese government saving Toyota 100 times quicker than the US government would save GM or Ford.

I agree with that article but at the same time i disagree... I agree that globalization is being as an excuse for shoddy management... and that obsession with dressing up the bottomline is what's really (REALLY) hurting American businesses in general. I disagree with the notion that we can expect growth forever though... at some point a market reaches a "mature" level where getting a significant amount of market share change (or significant advantages versus competitors or significant breakthroughs) is very, very difficult if not impossible. But overall he's absolutely right... obsessing about the bottomline is what got GM in this mess, and they're still doing the same thing that got them in this problem...which is why things won't get better soon.

The current (2006) civic was a rushed car to counter the new focus? did i hear that correctly? I'll assume i didn't (if i did, let me know, we can discuss the 5 year model cycle honda announced in 2000). Regarding the Mazda 3, the cars are in close competition but not direct. The mazda 3 has more power in base form, but the civic has much better fuel efficiency, because it's more of an economy car. that's why the 3 has a 2.3L whereas the civic has a 1.8L motor. The mazda 3 is more of an all-around car (with 2 engine choices) whereas the civic is positioned as either an economy car (with base engine) or sporty coupe (Si model with 2.0L motor). Here in Canada, the upscale model of the civic (CSX) has a 160hp engine that would compete directly with the mazda 3 if it weren't for the extra "luxury" features in the car that also bring up the price. It's also worth mentionning a base civic is still cheaper than a base mazda 3, with less power and more fuel efficiency. I can see how the civic and mazda 3 would be considered competitors in the American market, but here in Canada where there are many more small cars, they aren't direct competition. For people in that market, the mazda 3 offers a much better value in terms of sportiness, whereas the civic emphasizes economy features. If honda really wanted to do up the mazda in terms of engine power (which is the biggest difference between the two cars, the civic is definitely roomier and at least as reliable), they would have simply stuck the base 2L acura rsx engine (which is used in the canadian csx). it's a 5 year old design that is known to be reliable, fuel efficient, and makes 160hp. But that wasn't the goal, hence why the two cars aren't direct competition.

Both cars use hydroformed frames: MSN auto Solstice Review "The chassis utilizes hydroformed frame rails, which run the full length of the vehicle, combined with additional stampings to form a rigid structure on which body panels are attached. The hydroforming process, which uses water pressure to form the desired shape of the component being created, is typically used in light-duty truck frames for strength and rigidity. Solstice is the only GM car other than the Chevrolet Corvette to use an entirely hydroformed chassis."

A few weeks ago Road & Track had the same comparo that was close but the Miata won... it reads almost the same.

Those "bets" are at best long shots, and in my opinion, unrealistic dreams. GM has tried all of these things in the last few years (except replace "crossovers" with "midsize sedans") and the results were disapointing - more of the same.

Yeah but the Miata, S2000 and Z4 all have their own independently designed platform. Yeah in the context of GM bleeding red it's not surprising they used off the shelf parts... but they still ended up with a car that beats the old miata (but not the new one, which is what matters now). the civic platform is not a carry over, it's a further adaptation of a totally proven design. civics were excellent economy cars 15 years ago, and still are. the solstice has a gas tank for a trunk. the solstice is a good car, but i wouldnt' say it's a car of the year. the civic... well it has a much broader appeal and is a much more realistic alternative (not everyone can afford 2 cars, which if you get a solstice you have to do). the choice of the civic is justifiable among the competition, but the solstice isn't competition.