GM a step too far ahead?

[cmattson]

Ok, hear me out, but..

Didn't GM have digital dashes back in the mid-to-late eighties? It was panned as being too gimmicky.

Didn't Chevrolet used to have ABS as standard equipment? It has knocked as an added option (and extra expense) that was forced upon consumers. Consumers should have the ability to choose. Today? You're criticized if you don't have ABS as std equipment.

Didn't GM get crucified for the heavy use of unpainted gray plastic molding/panels on their Aztec and Avalanche? Seems ok for use on the Element

Didn't the dustbuster vans get critized for their design-pushing tall tail-lamps (that extended along the rear glass up towards the roof)? The CR-V does just fine by this design

Didn't GM have an all electric-car? Where was Toyota? Honda? Ford? Anybody else? Either you have hybrid or you aren't green enough nowadays

Remember when Pontiac was bashed for their heavy use of plastic molding that gave their car curves and character? Pontiac, as well as Chevrolet are currently critized as having cars whose exterior designs are too bland & vanilla

Remember when the domestic were knocked for having cars that were 1-2 mpg behind the segment leaders? What happened when the Malibu 4cyl and 6cyl models were matching and beating the imports 4 cyl's? We started hearing about the number of gears in the transmission.

Hey, I'm not saying that GM's always been out front on things -- far cry from it. But they've been industry leading when the auto-press chose to use different benchmarks. How sad. Edited December 7, 2005 by cmattson

[Guest buickman]

It's the perception problem. GM has a negative image that must be changed in order to succeed in the marketplace.

[Newbiewar]

you know people like that stuff on the avalanch... i had a customer that was willing to pay an additional 1000$ to modify one that didnt have it...but we didnt have one with the molding... GM's been working with hybrids from the 70's GM had electric cars in the 20-30's... the oringal vehicles in the 1800's were electric... the electric dash is frowned upon because the speedometer you cant tell the speed you're traveling unless you look at it, unlike a gauge you can tell weather you've got a 90* angle or a 65* angle or if the bar is all the way over hitting the redline peg...

[torobud]

What about FWD in 1966? What about Airbags in 1974? (Sorry I have to chime in with some Olds love :) )

[Flybrian]

GM also had one of the first in-car navs driven by an inertial naviagtion system.

GM put out HUDs before anyone but General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas.

GM crucified everyone in the late 1990s V6 horsepower war with a myriad of cars powered by the s/c 3800 II V6, that put out 240hp/280lb-ft in 1997 at an entry cost of around $25-27k (GTP/Regal GS) at a time when the Passat and Maxima cost alot more with under 200hp.

GM wasn't the first with ABS, but they sure sold the shit out of it. And while some may immaturely mock the ABS badging scrawled on a myriad of lower-line Pontiacs and Chevrolets, at the end of the day, they had antilock brakes and the competition didn't.

GM was the first to build and sell an all-electric car on a production scale. It wasn't a pickup with batteries shoved in the back either, it was ground-up an electric car with a drag cofficient of ~.18 that set world-beating times for top speed (~180mph).

All for naught...the Camry has richly-textured sunvisors and that's what I'd rather have.

[enzl]

With all due respect, its the overall product these innovations were attached to that were/are the problem, not the innovations themselves.... Imagine if GM had stuck to their guns and properly developed these ideas instead of retreating back to committee-think. BTW-The ABS point is not historically accurate. GM took the ABS out of certain products in a cost-cutting move, not because people perceived that they were paying too much for a product with the feature.

[Flybrian]

BTW-The ABS point is not historically accurate. GM took the ABS out of certain products in a cost-cutting move, not because people perceived that they were paying too much for a product with the feature.

[post="54663"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I believe it was a little of both. Lutz believed people would buy certain cars not caring whether or not it has ABS and if it were a choice of that option or another $695 knocked off the sticker, they'd chose the lower price. This is needless to say a bad assumption.

[CARBIZ]

Frankly, I cringed when I heard they were dumping ABS on most cars (and the Venture) in 2003. It had been a major selling feature that we'd used, but I only ever encountered 2 customers who noticed. Once it was dropped as a significant "benefit," few people ask. Even today, ABS is an option on most entry level vehicles. A mistake, IMO, but that is the way the market is.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Yes... Part of this is innovation, part anti-GM sentiment. GM could save the world and i wouldn't be good enough; Toyota plants a tree and we read it on the front page. (You know, their current green house crap)

[cmattson]

My point of the post was to illustrate how GM can get crushed on certain issues while others get a pass. GM can lead with technology and safety items - and not receive the good press they deserve (ABS). GM is held to a different standard than just about any other manufacturer.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

They used to be many steps ahead-it seems now they're many steps behind-I mean the technology's there (i.e. Phatnoise, Bluetooth, OnStar, etc.), but the products are massively behind (i.e. the minivans, GMT900's, Malibu, Cobalt, most anything that's not Equinox, Aveo, Impala, and a select few here and there others).

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

They used to be many steps ahead-it seems now they're many steps behind-I mean the technology's there (i.e. Phatnoise, Bluetooth, OnStar, etc.), but the products are massively behind (i.e. the minivans, GMT900's, Malibu, Cobalt, most anything that's not Equinox, Aveo, Impala, and a select few here and there others).

[post="55129"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, after taking the PR beating for 20 years, I guess they decided to focus on the essentials (Which, IIRC is what one article ACTUALLY said about GM) But now, even after the press bitched about BMW i Drive forever, it seem that as the asian companies introduce the technology and gadgets and gizmos, then all of the sudden it's en vogue.

Another technolgoy GM was FAR ahead on (But it still had issues) was cylinder deactivation.

[enzl]

My point of the post was to illustrate how GM can get crushed on certain issues while others get a pass.  GM can lead with technology and safety items - and not receive the good press they deserve (ABS).  GM is held to a different standard than just about any other manufacturer.

[post="55122"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

While I would agree that GM gets a raw deal from the press, much of the 'perception' problem is partly of GM's own making. Their mediocre PR staff (see P. DeLorenzo and his excellent autoextremist.com site for some examples) and their historic treatment of people like Ralph Nader during the Corvair fiasco have made them a target, in a certain sense.

My point is that, while I recognize this is a GM site, many posters do not seem to realize that GM has burned bridges in the press, has treated its loyal customers with disdain by producing some substandard product and, generally, has reacted to severe market forces with a lack of creativity and enthusiasm.

I hope for the best (as my living is partially supported by a GM franchise) but I fear that there are many people on this board who suffer from the same myopia that affects their favorite car company.