GM is acting like scum

Southern Dad said:
Please reread my posts and actually try and comprehend them rather than just try and argue. What I have said is that I'm disappointed in it as GM's offering to compete in this market. I've had two GM EV's. The first was a GM EV-1 (2nd generation) two year lease. Excellent vehicle. It got just over a hundred miles per charge. Loved it. The second was an Chevrolet S-10 EV. Not a good experience.

Mathematically the Chevrolet Volt doesn't make sense for someone that drives 100 miles per day. Here's a simple and clear comparison:

Toyota Prius ($24,200 MSRP) will use 2 gallons of regular gasoline ($3.649 AAA Fuel Gauge average today) costing $7.298 per day multiplied by 5 days a week, times 48 weeks a year (I take 4 weeks vacation) will come to $1751 per year.

Chevrolet Volt ($34,185 MSRP minus $7,500 maximum tax credit for a $26,685 MSRP) will use 1.675 gallons per day of premium gasoline ($4.007 AAA Fueld Gauge average today) costing $6.7144 per day multiplied by 5 days a week times 48 weeks a year will come to $1611 per year and that is after getting the 38 miles on electric (which is maximum range under perfect conditions) per day. The estimated electric cost is about $2.28 per night to charge it. Let's just call that $500 per year.

The Prius will cost $1751 per year while the Volt will cost $2111. Not to mention an additional $10k at purchase (you may get $7500 back on your taxes). GM can do better. Of course, now we have to worry that if GM files another bankruptcy they won't want to honor the warranties of cars made prior to that bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Edit: Part of my post was deleted last edit. So for the 2% of the population that drives that far every day, the anemic Prius is better.

Some of the MPG calculations in this thread are pathetic. If you go over the electric range, you don't suddenly have lower economy than the Prius. You have to include the electric range in your MPG calculation. A Volt turns your 100 mile drive to a 60 mile drive. You use no gas in the electric range.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people.
 
Last edited:
AustinIllini said:
Edit: Part of my post was deleted last edit. So for the 2% of the population that drives that far every day, the anemic Prius is better.

Some of the MPG calculations in this thread are pathetic. If you go over the electric range, you don't suddenly have lower economy than the Prius. You have to include the electric range in your MPG calculation. A Volt turns your 100 mile drive to a 60 mile drive. You use no gas in the electric range.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people.
Click to expand...

Please look at my calculations again. I gave the Volt 38 miles on electric which is the maximum range of the battery in optimal condition. I only calculated the gasoline on 62 miles per day and I calculated the electric using a low end number.

Quaqmire is right, there are people the Volt will work well for, however those people don't drive enough to justify the purchase price of it. GM dropped the price of the Volt $5k this year but it still has not helped the lagging sales. The sad things is that GM isn't building vehicles to compete with the Toyota Prius. Ford has got the message and is making strides in this field.
 
Southern Dad said:
Quaqmire is right, there are people the Volt will work well for, however those people don't drive enough to justify the purchase price of it. GM dropped the price of the Volt $5k this year but it still has not helped the lagging sales. The sad things is that GM isn't building vehicles to compete with the Toyota Prius. Ford has got the message and is making strides in this field.
Click to expand...


Frankly and ironically, you're using the same argument people made about the Prius when it first came out and gas was incredibly cheap. There are different justifications for buying everything. People like the Volt simply because they don't use gas at all. Like how people before 2005 liked how the Prius saved gas even if it took 5-10 years to recoup the cost..... You should understand that considering you had a 2000 Insight and hybrids were not economically practical back in 2000 when gas was cheap.....

The second gen Volt is due for 2016 MY. Electric range is expected to go up and price to go down.
 
Last edited:
quagmire said:
Frankly and ironically, you're using the same argument people made about the Prius when it first came out and gas was incredibly cheap. There are different justifications for buying everything. People like the Volt simply because they don't use gas at all. Like how people before 2005 liked how the Prius saved gas even if it took 5-10 years to recoup the cost..... You should understand that considering you had a 2000 Insight and hybrids were not economically practical back in 2000 when gas was cheap.....

The second gen Volt is due for 2016 MY. Electric range is expected to go up and price to go down.
Click to expand...

I didn't buy my 2000 Honda Insight Hybrid new. I actually didn't get it until 2004. It was funny because my other cars at that time were all V-8 powered and domestic. Then there was this little 3-cylinder getting driven every day.
 

Attachments

  • 2000 Honda Insight.jpg
    2000 Honda Insight.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 110
snberk103 said:
Interestingly, a huge proportion of the taxi fleet in Vancouver, BC are Priuses (Priuii?).
Click to expand...

"Prius" is a noun (nominative case). Its ending "-us" places it in the second declension (or it could be fourth declension). So under second declension, the plural would be "Prii", pronounced with a glottal stop so it sounds like "pree ee" (two syllables). There is no "-uii" form under any declension.

So now we can bicker about Latin declensions on faux Latin words, too.



And I most emphatically decline to put a smiley or a sarc tag on that.
 
Last edited:
yg17 said:
3.16 million more cars recalled today due to ignition issues.

http://jalopnik.com/gm-just-recalled-3-16-million-more-cars-bringing-total-1591590781

I'm going to guess after this fiasco, push button start will be standard on all GM cars in the next couple years - although they'll probably find a way to **** that up too.
Click to expand...

I found this to be an interesting fact from the article you linked:

General Motors just announced that it's recalling another 3.16 million cars for "ignition" problems, which will raise their total number of vehicles recalled in the United States to above 20 million cars. They've basically recalled everything and it's cost them $2 billion.
Click to expand...
 
Something that is getting at me is if GM new about about this flaw but still used this defective ignition switch for a couple of more years. Then an insult is claiming they are a different GM and don't have to respond to suit threats from the deaths.
 
While I would never have bought a GM car, the Cruze fiasco yesterday was the straw that broke my step-father's back. Life long GM owner and now he's looking at Honda's.
 
Just came across my Twitter feed. Pathetic is the only adjective left to use.

BREAKING: $GM announces 4 more recalls covering 428,211 vehicles in the United States.
 
G51989 said:
Where else can I get a 500 horsepower Corvette for the same money?
Click to expand...

Why would you want one in the first place? For that kind of money there are far better made cars out there with plenty of horsepower, even ones that can be used in winter in a Northern climate.
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
Why would you want one in the first place? For that kind of money there are far better made cars out there with plenty of horsepower, even ones that can be used in winter in a Northern climate.
Click to expand...

Well during the winter I have a brand new F150 ecoboost that I bought, so that is good for the winter.

For the around 65,000 with options I paid for it, and another 5,000 in modifications to it, name one car thats more fun/faster on a track for that kind of money?

It handles great, rides great, I drive it every day during the summer and fall, gets decent MPG, comfy, and it has a wonderus engine.
 
G51989 said:
Where else can I get a 500 horsepower Corvette for the same money?

----------



How long before the Government bails out the banks again?

I really doubt this is going to kill GM, their sales don't seem to be hurting to badly.
Click to expand...

Their sales are doing ok, but the problem GM has is they never really reformed their business model and their current size does not justify their marketshare or revenue. In 2013 GM had 219,000 employees and had a revenue of $155.42 billion. In 2013 Ford had 181,000 employees and a revenue $146.9 billion. $8.5 billion in additional revenue for an extra 38,000 employees? That just doesn't add up. Because of this Ford recorded more operating income then GM and $7.15 billion in net income. GM recorded a loss of $5.3 billion in net income. Unless they take steps to make marketshare and revenue actually match their size they are just another economic downturn away from disaster once again.

The funny thing about the bail-out of GM is that most people who supported it would never be caught dead in a GM vehicle so I am not sure why they wanted the company saved in the first place. Hopefully next time around GM is sold off in pieces to other automakers who know how to efficiently build quality vehicles. It's a dinosaur of a corporation and still attempts to market too many brands with too much overlap against much stronger competitors. Quick case in point why spend money designing and marketing 2 separate pickup truck lines (Chevy and GMC) when Ford just sells one which easily out sells Chevy and GMC combined? Makes no sense and is just a drain on revenue with little to show for it. I could go on and on why GM won't survive long term unless they actually restructure, but I will leave it at that.
 
DakotaGuy said:
Their sales are doing ok, but the problem GM has is they never really reformed their business model and their current size does not justify their marketshare or revenue. In 2013 GM had 219,000 employees and had a revenue of $155.42 billion. In 2013 Ford had 181,000 employees and a revenue $146.9 billion. $8.5 billion in additional revenue for an extra 38,000 employees? That just doesn't add up. Because of this Ford recorded more operating income then GM and $7.15 billion in net income. GM recorded a loss of $5.3 billion in net income. Unless they take steps to make marketshare and revenue actually match their size they are just another economic downturn away from disaster once again.

The funny thing about the bail-out of GM is that most people who supported it would never be caught dead in a GM vehicle so I am not sure why they wanted the company saved in the first place. Hopefully next time around GM is sold off in pieces to other automakers who know how to efficiently build quality vehicles. It's a dinosaur of a corporation and still attempts to market too many brands with too much overlap against much stronger competitors. Quick case in point why spend money designing and marketing 2 separate pickup truck lines (Chevy and GMC) when Ford just sells one which easily out sells Chevy and GMC combined? Makes no sense and is just a drain on revenue with little to show for it. I could go on and on why GM won't survive long term unless they actually restructure, but I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with smost of that.

However consumers are seeing these recalls as good things, that GM is stepping up and admitting their mistakes.

I personalloy hope GM does not go under, becaues where else can I get Corvettes?

I don't want to have to go and buy a GT500 or a boring Ecobox instead.
 
DakotaGuy said:
Quick case in point why spend money designing and marketing 2 separate pickup truck lines (Chevy and GMC) when Ford just sells one which easily out sells Chevy and GMC combined? Makes no sense and is just a drain on revenue with little to show for it. I could go on and on why GM won't survive long term unless they actually restructure, but I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...

The government thought the same thing. GMC was to die back in 2009. But then GM showed them the books and they saw GMC prints money for them. GMC buyers wouldn't be caught dead in a Silverado, etc. The Denali line has been a hit and it's the only brand that GM can manage to market correctly. The brands that were killed should have been and the ones saved were. Though you could argue Buick could have been killed in the US and remained in China.

G51989 said:
I don't want to have to go and buy a GT500 or a boring Ecobox instead.
Click to expand...

And it would have to be a used one at that. GT500 is dead.
 
quagmire said:
And it would have to be a used one at that. GT500 is dead.
Click to expand...

Wait, when did this happen?

At the moment, reading about the next generation GT500 going into production in 2015, as well as the BOSS 390 GT name.

As much as I love Euro cars.

I will not trade my Corvette one for one, it just isn't happening.

Though I held off on the C7. My Grand Sport putting out about 510hp at the crank is plenty good enough for now.
 
quagmire said:
Speculation is the mules of another Mustang being a GT350.

Not sure if there will be a new GT500.
Click to expand...

I feel that there probably will be.

I think there will be another GT500.

The Ford Mustang has always been, and always will be the American Muscle car, and people want these cars. Its one of the most recognizable cars in the world

I love my Grand Sport, great car.

But every time I drive buy a Ford Dealership and see a Mustang in the lot, I m ight just snap and buy a 5.0 Convertible one of these days.


Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tempted.

I was in Paris a few years ago, and saw a 2008 GT500 parked on a big city street, it was COVERED in People taking pictures and making positive comments about it.

Not even a Lambo can do that in paris.
 
satcomer said:
After hearing/reading about the issue GM To Ask Bankruptcy Court For Lawsuit Protection in their implication in the Faulty Ignition Switch coverup. :mad:

I just know I will never own/buy another GM car!
Click to expand...

No, GM is acting like a US Corporation.

They are in the business of providing investor return. They are in business to provide a nice fat check to their investors and management. Anyway they can. Shifting jobs overseas? WIN for investors. Avoid recalling millions of cars to fix a flaw that had only killed a few people? WIN for investors. Act like they are 'ecologically sensitive' and yet sell more high polluting trucks than ever each year? WIN for investors.

If American Corporations were people, they would be committed to mental hospitals for life. They always say things couched in layers of language, and often do things that are far not in the interests of the people that are around them. Corporations, if they are people, murder, pillage, lie, cheat, trespass, harass, intimidate, assault, poison, All the characteristics that would get you or me arrested and locked up for a large number of years.

In these days of runaway capitalism, it's quaint to find people that still think corporations do good in this world. Usually they only do good after they have done great evil, and sometimes not even that.

Corporations are about MONEY. Money for investors, management teams, NOT about real people...

GM was acting to protect their investors, by acting like a psychopath.
 
quagmire said:
The government thought the same thing. GMC was to die back in 2009. But then GM showed them the books and they saw GMC prints money for them. GMC buyers wouldn't be caught dead in a Silverado, etc. The Denali line has been a hit and it's the only brand that GM can manage to market correctly. The brands that were killed should have been and the ones saved were. Though you could argue Buick could have been killed in the US and remained in China.



And it would have to be a used one at that. GT500 is dead.
Click to expand...

I have heard that argument before about GMC, but I still don't buy it. How in the world can Ford be more successful with one brand of pickup if some wouldn't be caught dead in a mainstream brand? What you do is make your one brand cover a wider swath like Ford does marketing their Platinum trim level at the top of the rest.

It costs a lot of money to maintain two dealer networks, two marketing budgets, and having to design two vehicles (I should say re-style because they are the same thing anyhow). Still it's not efficient. GM also really wanted Buick and you can argue it's needed in China and I'd agree, but it's not necessary in North America anymore. GM fans say these brands must remain for GM to be successful, but I don't buy it at all. GM could easily be Chevy and Cadillac. Move the Denali line over to Chevy and since you longer are forced to make the GMC "nicer" you are allowed to no longer hold your mainstream brand back. Anyhow I personally don't feel GM is ready to compete with the re-designed 2015 F-150 and their cash cow is in danger of continued market share erosion.

I understand you are a GM fan (maybe you sell them) and it's great to like a brand, but I don't see how anyone can look at the numbers from GM and Ford and say GM is a better run company. GM claimed they "had to" maintain the old way of doing business because radical re-structure would have made them unprofitable.i don't think it was about profitability, but more about nostalgia. If the Government would have let them keep Pontiac, Saturn or Hummer it wouldn't surprise me if some of those were still running down the assembly line today. I know for a fact they wanted to keep Pontiac and the Government say no way!

Anyhow GM is still not efficient and their size (employees, divisions, number of factories, etc.) just doesn't equal their marketshare. If you can argue their being more efficiently ran then other automakers (especially Ford) I'd love to hear the argument. Otherwise you change or die or in the case of GM wait for your next Government bail-out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top