Maybe GM would be better off if it used the metal in its sub-par cars to make two-inch die cast models of quality cars.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
GM now worth less than toy car maker Mattel
- Thread starter joeshell383
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't worry IJ, I laughed.
A colleague of mine who also owns a Forester has been in a running debate (half jokingly) with me about whether the Forester is a wagon (as I contend) or an SUV (his choice).
Don't worry IJ, I laughed.
Yeah, but you're easy.
This "crossover" concept has me a bit wary. The car makers seem to want to leave the customer with the idea that they're actually buying a trendy SUV -- without all the heft, and the guilt, I suppose. Hence the joke about it being a truck. It would be if it could be, and probably is in the minds of a lot of owners.
I know, and I hate the thought of the Forester being an SUV...it's a wagon! It gets better fuel economy and has better handling than an SUV, and while it is useless off road (Forester fanatics will argue that) it won't get stuck in a fairground parking lot or most muddy dirt roads.
The crossover concept is lame, and the more I drive this car the less I like crossover-ness. I want something that is clearly a truck or a car, not the bad halves of both.
Ok so GM is worth less than Mattel. Big deal. Yes, GM has put out some crappy products, but the new models are steadily improving in quality and reliability. The new CTS comes to mind, along with the new Malibu, and even they're trucks are good. So GM's problem is their bread and butter are trucks/SUV's, while Toyota's is the Camry. Since gas is expensive, this is the reason for the failing sales and low net worth. Not because they can't make a good product. Oh and the comment about GM's powertrains being unreliable is new to me. The only problem child I can recall in the past 10 years has been Cadillac's Northstar, but it has been revised so new issues are few and far between.
Let's look at Toyota though: the new Camry has had more issues than any generation before it, and the Tundra isn't exactly a winner either. So while most people think Toyota is a "perfect" auto maker, they aren't. They've had many, many issues with their line-up for the past couple of years due to careless mistakes that should've never made it out of the factory. I just got out of my 2000 Camry and while it was a great car, it did have some issues. So even Toyota screws up sometimes.
Let's look at Toyota though: the new Camry has had more issues than any generation before it, and the Tundra isn't exactly a winner either. So while most people think Toyota is a "perfect" auto maker, they aren't. They've had many, many issues with their line-up for the past couple of years due to careless mistakes that should've never made it out of the factory. I just got out of my 2000 Camry and while it was a great car, it did have some issues. So even Toyota screws up sometimes.
It's 100% marketing-speak. Nobody wants to drive a "station wagon" anymore.
This discussion reminded me of a photo I took several years ago.
Attachments
There was also the whole 3.1 V6 engine family fiasco with the intake manifold blowing.
At least the Germans and Swedes have stuck to wagons...I'd take a 5-Series wagon over a SUV any day...
And the 2.2L Cavalier head gasket woes.
My grandfather had a '98 Monte Carlo w/ the 3.1L and never had a bit of trouble. It's funny though, I have never seen a 3.1 or 3.4 in my dealers garage with problems; Mostly Northstars, but besides the headgaskets and rear main oil leaks they're great engines.
I have personally seen several 3.1L engines with the intake manifold issue. I don't think the 3.4 was involved with that problem.
I have to admit the silliest GM car out there at the moment has to be the cars that use the LS4 engine. 5.3L pushrod V8...and front wheel drive. What on EARTH were they thinking?
I agree, GM needs to get rid of them. My grandfather has a '06 Impala SS and while it's a nice car, it certainly isn't sporty. Fast? Yes. Interesting to drive? No. Torque steer is a bitch too. For some reason, my Seville STS doesn't have the same problem with that.
I'll admit Chevy/GM/Cadillac has finally made a decent SUV. The Tahoe/Suburban/Yukon Escalade's are ugly, but they finally have a decent interior (maybe now they are worth closer to the $40,000+ that they cost). That is great... now that no one wants to buy an SUV because gas is $4.50/gal. They still have the truck market but I think the C/K 1500 has the tundra and even the titan as a pretty strong competitors.
The biggest problem I think with GM other than the quality in some of their cars and their excessive rebranding is Name.
- A Buick is thought of an old person car, I think most people would rather have a honda or toyota.
- Cadillacs are making a come back, but I think 9/10 people would tell you they'd rather have a Lexus, Acura, BMW, or Mercedes. They're kind of a niche car.
- Chevy cars- eh, its just an american car, I think Japanese cars seem "cooler"
- Pontiac- In my mind a dying brand, not very popular, just a step up from a chevy
- Saturn- The aura is nice, but I think the name/history just turns people
away
- Hummer- A symbol of war and gas guzzling in a country that has high gas prices, is in an eco/green fad, and that is currently at war... great
The brand name of things really has a lot to do with what people buy. Why do people buy $50 shirts when they can buy the same thing without the label for $10? I think many of the American brands are associated with either being really cheap or popular among elder folk and thats partially why sales have dropped.
As a young person, I would much rather drive a Honda than a Buick or Pontiac or Chevy. To me a buick is an old person's car, my grandpa used to own one and thats what old people drive. Pontiac are cheap cars that try to look cool but aren't and are just chevy's underneath. And a Chevy is just a run of the mill basic car built to be produced as cheaply as possible, and the lack of quality will show. A Honda at least has a little sportiness to it and is known for its quality. Obviously what I have just said are generalizations and may not be true anymore, but I think thats how the everyday consumer thinks.
The biggest problem I think with GM other than the quality in some of their cars and their excessive rebranding is Name.
- A Buick is thought of an old person car, I think most people would rather have a honda or toyota.
- Cadillacs are making a come back, but I think 9/10 people would tell you they'd rather have a Lexus, Acura, BMW, or Mercedes. They're kind of a niche car.
- Chevy cars- eh, its just an american car, I think Japanese cars seem "cooler"
- Pontiac- In my mind a dying brand, not very popular, just a step up from a chevy
- Saturn- The aura is nice, but I think the name/history just turns people
away
- Hummer- A symbol of war and gas guzzling in a country that has high gas prices, is in an eco/green fad, and that is currently at war... great
The brand name of things really has a lot to do with what people buy. Why do people buy $50 shirts when they can buy the same thing without the label for $10? I think many of the American brands are associated with either being really cheap or popular among elder folk and thats partially why sales have dropped.
As a young person, I would much rather drive a Honda than a Buick or Pontiac or Chevy. To me a buick is an old person's car, my grandpa used to own one and thats what old people drive. Pontiac are cheap cars that try to look cool but aren't and are just chevy's underneath. And a Chevy is just a run of the mill basic car built to be produced as cheaply as possible, and the lack of quality will show. A Honda at least has a little sportiness to it and is known for its quality. Obviously what I have just said are generalizations and may not be true anymore, but I think thats how the everyday consumer thinks.
USA automaker dug the hole for 15 years and now they will have to pay the price for greed and a VERY LARGE CONSUMER BASE who was brainwashed into the SUV craze and having old engines with 8 cilinders and a 2 ton vehicle.
Ford lineup is a Joke they have more SUV than pass cars, their arketing was so good that John Doe bought Suv even if they did not need it or used them offroad.
Take for example the new engines by european manefacturers, Ill give you some examples of engines years ahead from US junk.
Peugeot-BMW, 1.6 liter turbo engine (used in the Mini, the 207,308 etc) super powerful 240lbs torque and a very low consumption.
VW-AUDI group 2.0 liter turbo and 1.4 supercharged engines porwerful yet economic to operate.
The 1.4 turbo diesel by Renault and the 1.6 liter diesel used in Fords. Heck even th e Honda V6 diesel has INCREDIBLE torque and low noise...
And th einteriors...OUCH what a difference, just check the european Mondeo... GM Ford and DC are in really deeep .....
Ford lineup is a Joke they have more SUV than pass cars, their arketing was so good that John Doe bought Suv even if they did not need it or used them offroad.
Take for example the new engines by european manefacturers, Ill give you some examples of engines years ahead from US junk.
Peugeot-BMW, 1.6 liter turbo engine (used in the Mini, the 207,308 etc) super powerful 240lbs torque and a very low consumption.
VW-AUDI group 2.0 liter turbo and 1.4 supercharged engines porwerful yet economic to operate.
The 1.4 turbo diesel by Renault and the 1.6 liter diesel used in Fords. Heck even th e Honda V6 diesel has INCREDIBLE torque and low noise...
And th einteriors...OUCH what a difference, just check the european Mondeo... GM Ford and DC are in really deeep .....
I would consider GM, but...
Since the late 80's, I've always had fuel economy as my top priority. My first car was (and still is) a '91 Geo Metro....last fill up gave me 51 mpg (some hypermiling involved). My second (family) car is a '99 Saturn SL (40 mpg)---also before GM snapped them up and messed up the works. My next car WILL get better than either of those, but no one American company has made anything better than what I'm currently getting. I would have liked to have seen some progressive thinking from an American company. They could have made the Chevy Aveo an econobox, but somehow botched the whole deal on fuel economy....though it is a inexpensive car....hell, even the Yaris only tops around 40-43 mpg highway.
I'm envious of those of you who want a big car: you have lots of options. I want a fuel efficient car (in my mind, one that gets better than 60 mpg)...nothing fancy, just a commuter car that will get me from A to B safely and cheaply. Given the pace of change in America, it will be late 2014 before I can get something like that, and we'll probably be in a deep depression because people will be spending the majority of their money on fuel/power and from the residual effect of gas prices on everything else bought and sold.
Since the late 80's, I've always had fuel economy as my top priority. My first car was (and still is) a '91 Geo Metro....last fill up gave me 51 mpg (some hypermiling involved). My second (family) car is a '99 Saturn SL (40 mpg)---also before GM snapped them up and messed up the works. My next car WILL get better than either of those, but no one American company has made anything better than what I'm currently getting. I would have liked to have seen some progressive thinking from an American company. They could have made the Chevy Aveo an econobox, but somehow botched the whole deal on fuel economy....though it is a inexpensive car....hell, even the Yaris only tops around 40-43 mpg highway.
I'm envious of those of you who want a big car: you have lots of options. I want a fuel efficient car (in my mind, one that gets better than 60 mpg)...nothing fancy, just a commuter car that will get me from A to B safely and cheaply. Given the pace of change in America, it will be late 2014 before I can get something like that, and we'll probably be in a deep depression because people will be spending the majority of their money on fuel/power and from the residual effect of gas prices on everything else bought and sold.
Saturn was always a part of GM. Geo was also GM though some( if not all) were rebadged Toyota's.
GM has shown they can build a good car. Now if they can keep up the momentum, it should help them out in the long run. What pisses me off is the media will spin this around, and while the CTS and Malibu are great now, about 4 years from now they'll be talking about how much they suck. They did the same thing with the Seville, the original CTS, and quite a few other GM vehicles.
It's all about singing praises to Toyota, but when the screw up people almost ignore it. In my opinion, Honda is doing a much better job with their line-up right now (and I'm not a fan of Honda). When the economy improves, hopefully GM will as well.
It's all about singing praises to Toyota, but when the screw up people almost ignore it. In my opinion, Honda is doing a much better job with their line-up right now (and I'm not a fan of Honda). When the economy improves, hopefully GM will as well.
Right you are, I thought Saturn was independent of GM... Saturn messed up by moving away from light weight materials, making their cars heavier, more powerful, hence, less efficient. I liked the way Saturn started, but I guess they got greedy.
But:
The Metro was based on the Suzuki Cultus...GM just 'used' the good idea.
Not really, it was just the usual short-sighted thinking from GM. Saturn was always a division of GM, but at the start they were treated like an independent company for purposes of research and development, design and marketing. It was exactly the sort of clean slate exercise that GM needed. Saturn was an almost immediate success, which apparently caused the big brains in GM's top management to reconsider the entire arrangement. Now Saturn shares platforms with the other GM nameplates, so the brand has completely lost its distinctiveness and edge. Now we know why GM is worth less than Mattel.
More like big bad brother Chevy got mad Saturn got R&D money that they thought they deserved due to being the bread and butter brand.
But yeah, Saturn was starved of product until the Vue came out and is now being transformed into Opel's US distribution arm. Though the Insignia based Aura was put on hold. To be fair, its distinctiveness lied in the buying experience and polymer panels. The buying public( probably with the help of the media) didn't take too well with their cars panels being made out of "plastic" due to the panel gaps, etc( the gaps were necessary for the expansion of the material in heat and cold). Though in my experience at least, the experience remains top notch. Buying my Aura was low pressure and the sales person we dealt with was a very nice guy. When ever we bring it in for an oil change they wash the car for free. Then when Saturn sent around replicas of the North American Award to owners( I got it), that impressed me even more. Let me say if Saturn survives in the future, they will be on the top of my list of cars when looking at new cars.
Again to be fair, the whole industry added weight to their cars. Any weight savings polymer gave Saturn vehicles was easily cancelled out by the beefing up of the cars structure so it could still withstand impact with another vehicle.
More like big bad brother Chevy got mad Saturn got R&D money that they thought they deserved due to being the bread and butter brand.
To be fair, its distinctiveness lied in the buying experience and polymer panels. The buying public( probably with the help of the media) didn't take too well with their cars panels being made out of "plastic" due to the panel gaps, etc( the gaps were necessary for the expansion of the material in heat and cold). Though in my experience at least, the experience remains top notch. Buying my Aura was low pressure and the sales person we dealt with was a very nice guy. When ever we bring it in for an oil change they wash the car for free. Then when Saturn sent around replicas of the North American Award to owners( I got it), that impressed me even more. Let me say if Saturn survives in the future, they will be on the top of my list of cars when looking at new cars.
It wasn't only the plastic panels, though, which GM used for some other cars. Saturn's platforms were developed for Saturn cars, unlike the rest of GM, where the brands were interchangeable. Internal corporate politics killed the promise which was Saturn. When that happened, I knew it was effectively all over for GM.
The only real Saturn was the S Series. Every other vehicle was based off a reworked platform from another brand( Ion was based off the Delta platform which underpins the Cobalt, L Series was a reworked old gen Opel Vectra, Vue was based off a short wheel base of the Theta platform which the longer wheel base underpins the Equinox). It wasn't a bad thing, but you're right the brand lost its distinctiveness.