GM Versus the Media

[turbo200]

You people make way too big a deal over if a product being class leading or not. A car/truck/SUV does not need to be class leading in order to sell in significant numbers. Take the Grand Am, Sunfire, Impala, S10, Blazer, etc for instance. How many hundreds of thousands of those sold all while the media types were whining and moaning over stupid stuff like panel gaps and and misplaced switches. In the end, it all comes down to whether the person likes the car after test driving it. Everyone take a few dozen of these and get back to posting when they kick in.

[post="59343"][/post]

this kind of complacent attitude is what got GM to the place we are today,. the media kept telling them their products were not fitting the bill, but years of profit, arrogance, and sales dominance suggested otherwise. Now look where we are, a sales freefall that seemingly can't be stopped, and the worse perception problem GM has ever been faced with. They are so far away from being leaders, they don't even matter to most people anymore. We are not arguing that all of thier products need to be class-leading [though] this would be ideal. But why is it Honda can produce cars that always have critical acclaim, always meet thier sales targets without rebates, and always get released with great buzz and long waiting lists? Why is that? Why can't GM do that, except with the Z06 and Solstice, Simple, cause they make great cars.

[razoredge]

this kind of complacent attitude is what got GM to the place we are today,. the media kept telling them their products were not fitting the bill, but years of profit, arrogance, and sales dominance suggested otherwise. Now look where we are, a sales freefall that seemingly can't be stopped, and the worse perception problem GM has ever been faced with. They are so far away from being leaders, they don't even matter to most people anymore. We are not arguing that all of thier products need to be class-leading [though] this would be ideal. But why is it Honda can produce cars that always have critical acclaim, always meet thier sales targets without rebates, and always get released with great buzz and long waiting lists? Why is that? Why can't GM do that, except with the Z06 and Solstice, Simple, cause they make great cars.

[post="59357"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Now you wanna say stuff about people that keep repeating the sa mo bull. We've heard this before. I think your actually quoting OC on that.

Im not sure if it was "complacent attititude" or greats amount of money spent out of shop that is the largest contributor to being somewhat behind in the develpoement area.

[razoredge]

"But that's just you."

Funny you should say that. Seems your implying something about opinion or taste.

"I'm sure there are plenty of people who can list off a plethora of 70's or 80's imports that they love, but will scratch their head when they're asked for good 80's domestics."

Yes indeed, thing is they have been long since sent to the junk yard while many BOP cars just kept a goin.

I did ask for some one to name some, maybe you have a few class leaders you know of during these times ? Enough has been said about GM not having any, seems someone that knows GM did not have any would know who did.

[post="59348"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Edited December 16, 2005 by razoredge

[razoredge]

but you made me laugh :lol:  :lol:  so I retract everything I said.....
okay maybe not

[post="59335"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually there is nothing funny at all about that kind of behavior, and it happens all the time. So whatever your problem is with finding this funny..........

[balthazar]

BTW-I object to the term 'fictionalizing' since that implies there's no basis in fact for these biased-journalist's findings - which means you're defending your point of view using the same 'faulty' logic you're accusing me of!

Not at all. "Fictionalizing" referred specifically to your words "you can't"... "A fact"... "everyone"... " the obvious". I could (and did), it wasn't, not everyone and it's not obvious. Once the claims start piling up, I am forced to counter. You are overstating to the point of absolutes, and that is fictionalizing. Call it semantics if you wish, but you know I'm accurate.
And if you really believe that the points made in sub-par reviews all exist without prejudice, embelishment or undue focus, then I can't help you. But I have a lovely wheezing, vibrating, rattling, foil-thin, sagging-plastic death-trap --otherwise known as a mid-'90s sentra-- as a consolation prize for you.

if there is a number of models, then list them.

this is not list our favorite cars day.

Like razor, I'm not about to go off on an hours-long research project... for what; you know you're right. Safe & sound behind a wall of absolutes. Entire Corporation produced nothing but the absolute worst crap imaginable while every single other manufacturer was all tied with each other in every segment with nothing but "class-leading" product.

You've convinced me; make room- I'm changing sides.

[enzl]

Like razor, I'm not about to go off on an hours-long research project... for what; you know you're right. Safe & sound behind a wall of absolutes. Entire Corporation produced nothing but the absolute worst crap imaginable while every single other manufacturer was all tied with each other in every segment with nothing but "class-leading" product.

You've convinced me; make room- I'm changing sides.

[post="59430"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Its not about sides, my friend. I think we're all on the same side. If we're not dealing in absolutes, then relatively speaking, GM's products, as compared to its most pressing competition, has been worse than theirs.

Whether you believe in sales figures, consumer groups, industry research firms, critical acclaim or just plain 'merican horse sense, the 'bad' guys are winning, if you're a moral relativist as well.


I support better products. I don't care who makes 'em.

[razoredge]

"razor, this is not list our favorite cars day."

What the hell is this ? "name your favorite car day"  :unsure: I named some cars that I feel were excellent. It had nothing to do with my favorites, however it seems your opinions are based on your favorites. But you made a cute little comment anyhow didnt you ?

"In the last 15 years, list more than 5 cars [out of the 90 and more models per year they built] from GM that were class-leading."

I just did, I dont know if they were class leading according to MT and you but there they are, whats your problem ?

"Thsi time back your arguments with factual support, instead of non-sensical babbling."

What is this ? I dont agree with you therefore it becomes non-sensical babbling ? I ask you to name your 80's and 90's class leaders and you dont but rather come back with this ? Like your giving me some knid of school assignment ?

"Cite a reference, quote an article, give me weight to your argument."

I have stated many many times that I do not read auto mags, or any let any other source influence my likes and dislikes. It has been obvious you are highly influenced by what you read........I believe that has something to do with the title of this topic.....no ?

"You yourself have stated many times that you would never drive or try an imported car. Why should I care to respond to such a close-minded, forgive me, fool."

Well theres all kinds of ways to be a fool, to me a fool is one that supports economies outside his own, maybe import buyers are fools ? tomato/tomato, long term, short term, you choose, I'll choose.

Call me closed minded while looking in the mirror please, that could go both ways.

Talking from my used car shopping periods - I dont try imported cars because
1. I dont like the way they look, theres a few...but
2. Most of them had interiors that I thought were gross.
3. I get twice the car for the money with the many GM's or the one Chrysler I bought 
4. I know my cars inside out, every little detail, I have found a drivetrain and construction that I drive with confidence and enjoyment. 

"You are becoming too much of a "wall" to me to even bother responding to, back your argument with fact, and then I will listen."

Your calling me a wall ? You ? Ive absorbed and implemented each and every line and statement I have read on this site. They are all filed accordingly. Once again, Im not looking for a homework assignment. I simply asked you to list your 80's and 90's "class leaders". Im not asking for you to do some project. You and others have stated that GM had terrible cars in the 80's & 90's so I have asked you repeatedly what was the competition ? I would think with all the time I have spent reading your posts you could at least give me a list of these 80's and 90's class leading cars that made GM's so horrible.

or is the new trend going to be to demand that people who oppose others views do a research paper to present. I just had that crap pulled on me in a perfectly innocent topic in which I was trying to give my views and ideas, suddenly I was supposed to do some research paper ?  :unsure: WTF ?  :unsure: That is a "wall".

So please name off these class leaders that my "favorite" GM's are falling worlds short of ?

[post="59333"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[turbo200]

Do you think trying to get under my skin is going to work? Keep making this more personal, I will continue to treat you as fairly as I have. You started earlier by listing "In the '80's, I loved...." Hence my favorite cars of the day comment. for what it's worth I have never bought a brand new imported car. I have however encouraged my sister to consider and later purchase an Envoy, my brother to consider a Trailblazer, my dad to consider and purchase a Silverado, my sister to consider a Grand Am, my friend to purchase a used Riviera. I am a diehard, but I know right from wrong, quite clearly. I'm asking you to be open minded and actually test what you refuse to objectively critique. Instead you are stubborn, close-minded, and ill-informed. I merely ask you to provide support for your opinion. See an opinion is a funny issue, everyone has one, and you know what they say about that. But if you provide support and evidence for your opinion, your opinion tends to gather more weight. All you are giving me is your opinion of how you think the world works. Anybody can do a list like you just did, but there's no reasons why any of those cars even were class-leading in your own opinion. You just drew up a list. Big whoop Once again, journalists are expected to be as objective as possible. That means show as little bias as possible. If they are found to be showing a strong bias, you can bet they will be fired and never work again. Journalism is one of my majors, and this is the first rule of journalists. Go out and drive these cars. Get educated. Stop the car ignorance. Then come back here with real weight to your opinions instead of just more babbling to make me cringe, and try to think of another polite way to explain this to you. All right I will accept what you asked of me. Here are some cars with technology not just ahead of thier time, but ahead of what GM had for at least a decade: late '80's to '94 Maxima---more structural rigidity than GM had in 2000 in any cars. A better tech engine than GM has in the Malibu today, smoother power delivery, power across the entire the rev range, up to 7000 rpms, as fuel efficient as today's 3900 engine, quality interior that sounded and looked nice, incredible space efficiency thanks to the "boring, square" Japanese lines, STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY that GM dreamed of having with the 1996 "world-class" Aurora for 30k, ten years before it!!!! early '90's Civic--as space efficient as today's Cobalt, powerful, reliable, fuel efficient, structural rigidity that made Cavalier feel like an ice machine, quality interior that showed Cavalier for the car it was: stuck in the '70's WTH was GM thinking? early '90's Corolla--bulletproof, accurate steering, dead reliable, incredibly rigidity and engine flexibility, small engine but very sprightly, incredible comfortable seats that are STILL NOT replicated in Cobalt of today, damn flat seats of the Cobalt mid '90's Camry---space efficiency Lumina dreamt of, structural rigidity it took GM 20 years to engineer out of the W-body, solidly built and enduring interior late '80's early '90's Nissan 240sx, Honda Prelude, Mazda Rx-7 GM has still to match these cars' flexibile engines, incredibly tight handling, steering and overall driver's environment [go out and test one of these and try telling me they weren't built perfectly for drop-shifting and heal-and-toe shifting], and great quality interiors.

[turbo200]

Now you wanna say stuff about people that keep repeating the sa mo bull. We've heard this before. I think your actually quoting OC on that.

Im not sure if it was "complacent attititude" or greats amount of money spent out of shop that is the largest contributor to being somewhat behind in the develpoement area.

[post="59418"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

And, No, that post came straight from my mind. Complacency will kill you.

[Flybrian]

STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY that GM dreamed of having with the 1996 "world-class" Aurora for 30k, ten years before it!!!!

[post="59474"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I would honestly like to see that proven with figures.

And 1995 was the debut year for the Aurora.

[balthazar]

journalists are expected to be as objective as possible. That means show as little bias as possible. If they are found to be showing a strong bias, you can bet they will be fired and never work again. Journalism is one of my majors, and this is the first rule of journalists.

School is to the real world as a petting zoo is to the jungle. Go read clarkson (when he's being 'serious') for a clearcut example of how a openly biased & gleefully stereotypical 'journalist' is not only NOT fired but can increase his exposure (Top Gear on TV). Magazines do not care about objectivity, only sales. Want proof?

Let’s look at the frequency of -say- BMW and mercedes road tests and objectivity.
Would you agree that regular repeated exposure to the same makes/models would breed familiarity and therefore favoritism (not to mention the influence of free press junkets to bavaria and editorial pressure to sell more magazines)? After all, that is human nature... but just because it's natural doesn't make it objective. And when your job requires objectivity and your experience is lopsided, you cannot be objective. That is also human nature… and precisely the definition of a bias (”An inclination of temperament or outlook, esp prejudice. See predilection: a prepossession in favor of something, preference.”).

Cadillac, bmw & mercedes sell in comparative numbers in the same segment of the U.S. market (I tried but could not locate same-year annual sales numbers for all 3). Let’s see if frequency of magazine coverage has any relation to the frequency of consumer purchase, shall we?

2002 Car & Driver ~ BMW & Mercedes coverage:

01/02 : MB C32 test, BMW 745 preview, MB SL500 preview, BMW M3 short take.
02/02 : BMW 330i test, MB ML500 short take.
03/02 : MB SL55 preview.
04/02 : MB SL500 test, MB CLK430 test, BMW X5 4.4 long term
05/02 : MB E-class preview, BMW X5 4.6 short take.
06/02 : BMW 745 test.
07/02 : BMW 330 test, MB CLK preview, BMW M3 short take
10/02 : MB C320 test, BMW 330 test, MB CLK500 test.
11/02 : MB SL55 test, BMW M5test, MB E500 test
12/02 : MB V-12 turbo preview, MB E55 preview

What possible earthly purpose is there to test the bmw 330 3 times within 1 year? How much different is a BMW X5 4.4 and an X5 4.6 that back-to-back features are necessary, or even remotely interesting? Some may tell us that this is in the name of entertainment. Frankly, I’m bored out of my gourd and so are an increasing number of other readers- hence the increasing level of journalistic criticism.

2002 Car & Driver ~ Cadillac coverage:

02/02 : CTS test, Cien concept
07/02 : XLR preview

Total Features:
BMW : 10
MB : 14
Cadillac : 2 (plus 1 concept car)

I need to know- how is this not favoritism?

[balthazar]

STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY that GM dreamed of having with the 1996 "world-class" Aurora for 30k, ten years before it!!!!]

I would honestly like to see that proven with figures.

Me too. After all, if you don't

defend with facts, then you are simply stating a ludicrous argument.

[razoredge]

Im not trying to get under your skin, the problem is all this business has gotten under mine, kinda obvious, right ? I would say though, that if some would deal with our opposed views to yours better it might help. Just a thought.

random items:

I dont know why but upon approach to any of those cars you have mentioned ? they just dont grab ahold of me.

I have a thought about GM seats myself. I believe their best seats have been the big puffy Buick and Oldsmobiel seats, beter than the normally loose fitting "buckets". I remember the old Camaro "buckets" all to well. Now my 64' Sunbeam had buckets that fit my then scrawny butt as good as my jeans. And with elbow on console, the shifter was a click click of the wrist to next gear, maybe a 4" throw, straight into the tranny.....t i g h t ! It was also a true old school heal/toe pedal layout. So I's knows a bit me self. Heal/toe is the only way I drove it....non syncro first. It also had excellent dual large piston large front disc's. Sunbeams also had telescoping wheel (as a point of interest, not bad for 64) There was a lever on the bottom of the seat that gave two lower level postions, the backs were fully folding. Three steel doors that closed into the body work to cover the top......that you did need to get out of the car to put away. Pretty cool car for 64. Enough of that.

The cars you think of and mention when refering to GM's are rarely cars Ive been interested in as well. Not GM finest.

Now my 91 W- Regal Limited was really quite a car, it had a gentle 223,000 miles when I bought it. My trip to work was a sweet back road drive of 32 miles. The Regal was one of the favorite cars Ive owned, probably 2nd to the Alpine. The 38 was strong in that car and I never did find out what final drive ratio was but it never labored. I believe that was a 3100 lb car, we dont see that today.

The Japanese have always had excellent OHC engines (mostly), Ive wore out my share. 3 litre Mitsu V6, 2.6 Mitsu hemi I4, Datsun L20B 2 litre 110 hp, Toyota 22R then a couple VW I4's that were superior to the Toy/sun/chi

My transformation into my Chryslers, Buicks and Oldsmobiles was almost a relieve, comfort and ease. Even better reliability, I put alot more parts into those import vehicals above. They were great but I worked on them. I still have not done any engine or tranny work to a 38 or the 60,65E trannys.

Yep so this is all I know, but whos complaining ? :)

Now take the STS-V, wasnt it just prefered over a Mercedes ? Yet everyone is picking it apart. It producing over 100hp per litre, 440 twin turbo GM DOHC, best technology they have, yet "its not enough". The fact that the Caddy still retains some Caddy put it up for target practice.

Guess what ? I love that car. That is one car I know I will never own but man if I was in that tax bracket Id be right on that baby. Sure it could be "better" if I built it but I cant build cars. I have seen STS on road and I prefer it over the CTS and would give it better sex appeal than an Audi, from the outside. Sure they knotched off the interior, I wouldnt have, but they did. It cant look like another car

[turbo200]

I would honestly like to see that proven with figures.

And 1995 was the debut year for the Aurora.

[post="59480"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

it's proven with a drive

go out and find low mileage [around 100k], clean examples of both.

I've driven my sister's Aurora, beautiful car, with 30k miles on it. Car was great to look at, but it had horrible proportions that robbed all of the space. My brother's Passat is over a foot shorter and has better, and more comfortable interior dimmensions. The Aurora impressed people when the rode in it. But the driver felt a different story. Disconnected steering, loose and vague throttle pedal, some of the worst most dramatic brakes I've ever sampled, and a soggy but competent suspension. Perhaps soggy isn't the right word, so don't get your panties tangled up. It was solid, but absorbed bumps, no it didn't absorb, more like lightly reminded you they were there. No absorbing, try a new Passat or that Nissan to know what absorbing is. That's what structural rigidity will give you, a solid, planted feel, where you tend to hear the bumps but independently sway over them. Sample a CTS or STS to know how it's done in a dramatically good way. That Aurora just did not compare---not in overall dynamics, not in steering feel, and not in structural rigidity that caused that planted, solid feel but thunked away each bump. I hope you can understand what I mean. It didn't compare to that Nissan I drove. Go out and drive them, and then you'll see the difference.

[turbo200]

journalists are expected to be as objective as possible. That means show as little bias as possible. If they are found to be showing a strong bias, you can bet they will be fired and never work again. Journalism is one of my majors, and this is the first rule of journalists.

School is to the real world as a petting zoo is to the jungle. Go read clarkson (when he's being 'serious') for a clearcut example of how a openly biased & gleefully stereotypical 'journalist' is not only NOT fired but can increase his exposure (Top Gear on TV). Magazines do not care about objectivity, only sales. Want proof?

Let’s look at the frequency of -say- BMW and mercedes road tests and objectivity.
Would you agree that regular repeated exposure to the same makes/models would breed familiarity and therefore favoritism (not to mention the influence of free press junkets to bavaria and editorial pressure to sell more magazines)? After all, that is human nature... but just because it's natural doesn't make it objective. And when your job requires objectivity and your experience is lopsided, you cannot be objective. That is also human nature… and precisely the definition of a bias (”An inclination of temperament or outlook, esp prejudice. See predilection: a prepossession in favor of something, preference.”).

Cadillac, bmw & mercedes sell in comparative numbers in the same segment of the U.S. market (I tried but could not locate same-year annual sales numbers for all 3). Let’s see if frequency of magazine coverage has any relation to the frequency of consumer purchase, shall we?

2002 Car & Driver ~ BMW & Mercedes coverage:

01/02 : MB C32 test, BMW 745 preview, MB SL500 preview, BMW M3 short take.
02/02 : BMW 330i test, MB ML500 short take.
03/02 : MB SL55 preview.
04/02 : MB SL500 test, MB CLK430 test, BMW X5 4.4 long term
05/02 : MB E-class preview, BMW X5 4.6 short take.
06/02 : BMW 745 test.
07/02 : BMW 330 test, MB CLK preview, BMW M3 short take
10/02 : MB C320 test, BMW 330 test, MB CLK500 test.
11/02 : MB SL55 test, BMW M5test, MB E500 test
12/02 : MB V-12 turbo preview, MB E55 preview

What possible earthly purpose is there to test the bmw 330 3 times within 1 year? How much different is a BMW X5 4.4 and an X5 4.6 that back-to-back features are necessary, or even remotely interesting? Some may tell us that this is in the name of entertainment. Frankly, I’m bored out of my gourd and so are an increasing number of other readers- hence the increasing level of journalistic criticism.

2002 Car & Driver ~ Cadillac coverage:

02/02 : CTS test, Cien concept
07/02 : XLR preview

Total Features:
BMW : 10
MB : 14
Cadillac : 2 (plus 1 concept car)

I need to know- how is this not favoritism?

[post="59503"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Do you beleive magazines won't cater to what the broad spectrum of thier readers want to read about? Do you beleive magazine editors and writers don't have a right to be disgusted by being treated to years, decades of inferior products? Ask someone on this board who samples every car from every manufacturer for a LIVING. They are here and they are reading, simply ask for thier unbiased opinion. Remember they live and breath in every single car this world has to offer. They have tested more cars than you or I have, that's for sure. Edited December 16, 2005 by turbo200

[turbo200]

Im not trying to get under your skin, the problem is all this business has gotten under mine, kinda obvious, right ? I would say though, that if some would deal with our opposed views to yours better it might help. Just a thought.

random items:

I dont know why but upon approach to any of those cars you have mentioned ? they just dont grab ahold of me.

I have a thought about GM seats myself. I believe their best seats have been the big puffy Buick and Oldsmobiel seats, beter than the normally loose fitting "buckets". I remember the old Camaro "buckets" all to well. Now my 64' Sunbeam had buckets that fit my then scrawny butt as good as my jeans. And  with elbow on console, the shifter was a click click of the wrist to next gear, maybe a 4" throw, straight into the tranny.....t i g h t ! It was also a true old school heal/toe pedal layout. So I's knows a bit me self. Heal/toe is the only way I drove it....non syncro first. It also had excellent dual large piston large front disc's. Sunbeams also had telescoping wheel (as a point of interest, not bad for 64) There was a lever on the bottom of the seat that gave two lower level postions, the backs were fully folding. Three steel doors that closed into the body work to cover the top......that you did need to get out of the car to put away. Pretty cool car for 64. Enough of that.

The cars you think of and mention when refering to GM's are rarely cars Ive been interested in as well. Not GM finest.

Now my 91 W- Regal Limited was really quite a car, it had a gentle 223,000 miles when I bought it. My trip to work was a sweet back road drive of 32 miles. The Regal was one of the favorite cars Ive owned, probably 2nd to the Alpine. The 38 was strong in that car and I never did find out what final drive ratio was but it never labored. I believe that was a 3100 lb car, we dont see that today.

The Japanese have always had excellent OHC engines (mostly), Ive wore out my share. 3 litre Mitsu V6, 2.6 Mitsu hemi I4, Datsun L20B 2 litre 110 hp, Toyota 22R then a couple VW I4's that were superior to the Toy/sun/chi

My transformation into my Chryslers, Buicks and Oldsmobiles was almost a relieve, comfort and ease. Even better reliability, I put alot more parts into those import vehicals above. They were great but I worked on them. I still have not done any engine or tranny work to a 38 or the 60,65E trannys.

Yep so this is all I know, but whos complaining ?  :)

Now take the STS-V, wasnt it just prefered over a Mercedes ? Yet everyone is picking it apart. It producing over 100hp per litre, 440 twin turbo GM DOHC, best technology they have, yet "its not enough". The fact that the Caddy still retains some Caddy put it up for target practice.

Guess what ? I love that car. That is one car I know I will never own but man if I was in that tax bracket Id be right on that baby. Sure it could be "better" if I built it but I cant build cars. I have seen STS on road and I prefer it over the CTS and would give it better sex appeal than an Audi, from the outside. Sure they knotched off the interior, I wouldnt have, but they did. It cant look like another car

[post="59509"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Wow, this is your most reasonable post I have ever read. Though I don't fully understand your second line, and I think it's not what I am thinking. Can you rephrase it?

I am glad you mentioned the Buick. See, Chevy is the GM brand. They are the most obvious representation, the most prominent, and the most important. It all boils down to Chevy. Chevy and Toyota compete in a similar price range, and are both marketed as mass market brands for every person to enjoy. They should be able to offer Chevys that not only match Toyota's for thier overall goodness and experience, but exceed them, in desirability, in engineering, in quality, in design....

The Buick I'm sure was a very good car. And your fondness of it only strengthened as it produced many years of reliable service. It is true Buick's of that time were a cut above. There was still engineering and an overall sophistication that was lacking compared to Japanese rivals. The Avalon is a good example of this. For many years it has been called a "better Buick than Buick builds". It's not just a saying, but an honest opinion from people out there who most likely wouldn't like to see one of the greatest American companies out there keel over. There were many of us who saw where GM is now coming for a long time. Years and years of dwindling market share, the Japanese eating up sales, led to one conclusion, the public was gradually waking up to the reality that better cars were being built, and they were coming from overseas. As the trend progressed it was clear to anyone who did some serious analysis GM was not going to stop the bleeding any time soon. And not with cars that didn't appeal to those people that were switching over. Here's an interesting thing to ponder: how many people have you talked to in your life that have said they've sworn off Japanese cars? Now, how many people have you spoken to that have said it about American cars? Too many. That's the answer. Too many people have promised never to buy American again, for whatever reason. And to far too many other people, buying American is the farthest thing from what they could ever think of. That's scary until you realize, there REALLY is nothing American that appeals to them. So, all that American automakers have to do is crack the code and figure out how to build somehting that appeals on all fronts. Cars like the Fusion, CTS, STS, Lincoln LS have all come the closest to cracking that code. The Mustang is a recent car I can think of that completely cracked that code. F-150 did it too. These are quality pieces that feel every bit as quality as they should be. Sure there are improvements that can be made to both, particularly on the inside and in the engine compartment, but in the most important ways, they both shine quite fervently. The F-150 regularly increases its sales. And the Mustang is single-handedly reviving a dormant Ford. Fusion could prove to be thier next hit that cracks that code. See a car doesn't have to be perfect to crack that code, but it has to excel in enough ways to really shine through. And it's all relative and according to each cars' price level. The Corvette interior is utterly inexcusable for a car of such incredible pedigree and that reaches 70k in top loaded form. Charge an extra 1k for it, build it with some incredible style inside, instead of the current GMCSD syndrome it faces, and you will have a car that everyone, every single person crows about. that's my rant.....

[balthazar]

turbo200: >>"Do you beleive magazines won't cater to what the broad spectrum of thier readers want to read about?"<<
Good, you get my point. Keep Consumer Reports at the forefront of your thoughts here. Openly & vehemently catering to popular opinion creates a breeding ground for subjectivity & bias. If readers really do want constant coverage of MB & BMW, what are the writers going to do: bring up slacking reliability, substandard quality & self-parodying styling?? No- positive reviews are the 'other shoe' of constant coverage- they have to be inseparable or the subscriptions will decrease. 'Journalism' is steadily being reduced to 'sales'.
Is it possible that the writers really believe everything they write? I admit it's possible- but that still doesn't mean it's objective. Money will convince a lot of people of a lot of things. Their livelyhood is directly resultant of being popular. In other words, they have a vested interest.

>>"Do you beleive magazine editors and writers don't have a right to be disgusted by being treated to years, decades of inferior products?
I do not. They should never approach current & future products while referencing long-past, completely unrelated product. CR does this repeatedly. There's no validity in that and the practice (seemingly limited to derogitory editorialism on domestic models) undermines their credibility. Why did I read mention of the Cimarrron in a CTS test, yet no mention of chronic-bodyrot-in-6-months in reviews of the Murano? Again; how is that not favoritism?

>>"Ask someone on this board who samples every car from every manufacturer for a LIVING. They are here and they are reading, simply ask for thier unbiased opinion. Remember they live and breath in every single car this world has to offer. They have tested more cars than you or I have, that's for sure.
Ask the newspaper editor who approved the front page section I saw as a kid: 375K GM vehicles recalled for a minor matter on the top half of Page 1, 1 million plus VWs recalled for a more serious defect buried on a Page 8 sidebar. I wasn't into cars nearly as much as I was even a short time later, but I knew right then even at 14 years old that the media deck was stacked. The overwhelming body of evidence since then (over 20 years of study) has only supported that eye-opening experience. You need to read deeper; if you already agree with the bulk of what you read, you're 3/4ths the way to total acceptance of everything. Edited December 16, 2005 by balthazar

[enzl]

You need to read deeper; if you already agree with the bulk of what you read, you're 3/4ths the way to total acceptance of everything.

[post="59573"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]


This, while true about all mainstream media outlets in general, does not make even those with bias wrong, per se.

Noone here has brought forth a compelling reason that proves that these auto-writers are incorrect in their judgements...and I noticed noone has answered how non-media types like the mass of people who buy from the 'bad guys', research firms and consumer groups also concur with assertions that many of the products brought forth are inferior!

Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors

[CARBIZ]

Turbo, funny thing is customers can be pretty unbiased when they are informed and motivated. Four years ago, I had a customer who drove the V-8 and V-6 Aurora two or three times each. Why? He was back to back comparing it to BMW and the Lincoln LS. He was an informed consumer who was not swayed by the bias in the magazines. In the end, he decided on the Aurora because he liked the history of theV-8, On Star and the ride/handling of the vehicle. Over the 3 years he drove it, he had a few minor electrical problems and one piece of trim that became loose. He now has a BMW5, along with a Silhouette and a new Malibu. He has had more problems with the BMW than his Aurora, but he has gone over to the dark side of the snob appeal of the BMW. His wife just didn't want to drive any more domestic vehicles. He persuaded her to let their son drive a Malibu for the safety and the price.

[enzl]

Turbo, funny thing is customers can be pretty unbiased when they are informed and motivated. 
  Four years ago, I had a customer who drove the V-8 and V-6 Aurora two or three times each.  Why?  He was back to back comparing it to BMW and the Lincoln LS.  He was an informed consumer who was not swayed by the bias in the magazines.
  In the end, he decided on the Aurora because he liked the history of theV-8, On Star and the ride/handling of the vehicle.  Over the 3 years he drove it, he had a few minor electrical problems and one piece of trim that became loose.
  He now has a BMW5, along with a Silhouette and a new Malibu.  He has had more problems with the BMW than his Aurora, but he has gone over to the dark side of the snob appeal of the BMW.  His wife just didn't want to drive any more domestic vehicles.  He persuaded her to let their son drive a Malibu for the safety and the price.

[post="59609"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not that turbo needs defending, but....that's an anecdote, one story in a sea of them!

If the topic is media bias and the negative effect on GM it has, what does one guy buying an Aurora or his problems with a BMW have to do with it???

Again, the General is in a soup of its own making...bad luck too, yes, but if Luck is defined as preparation meeting opportunity (as an old football coach once said to me), what does this 'unlucky' stretch say about GM's preparation?

[CARBIZ]

Well, does Turbos' sister's Aurora have anything to do with this?????????????????????

[razoredge]

Now heres an example of the attitude the media pulls on GM product. Rather than saying good car they would say

"Wow, this is your most reasonable CAR (post) I have ever DROVE (read). Though I don't fully understand WHY YOU BUILT IT (your second line), and I think it's not what I WANT (am thinking). Can you REBUILT (rephrase) it?"... "Oh, did I forget to mention TOYOTA, HONDA, BMW, AUDI, VOLKSWAGON? "

Now word gets around that said magazine says this and presto, a few more sales for Toyota.

Ive made ample good posts on many subjects on this and other boards. Some may not agree with my ideals and my approach. Many obviously have problems with my dialect. Often it seems some cant comprehend my random quick points, that I feel, need no further explaination. Oh well, what are you going to do? I write as I talk and people always have problems following along. Get with it already, would ya? :)

I am a very resonable man, therefore there are things that I will not tolerate. Destroying American industry and its diverse work force is one of them. Your Japanese cars are not better to a large enough degree to get me to support the economy of these countries. As it is, in so many ways beyond our control, that is exactly what I/we do, is support other economies as we destroy the lives of millions of Americans. Those Americans are on their way out, what a way to go ey ? Preached and sold the "American dream" only to watch our leaders sell us out by the millions to appease a comparatively small handful of Wall Street money grubs. There is many new generations to come that need jobs and product to be proud of. The American built car is the last piece left of what was once great, do you really think Im going to sell out because of the misconception that a DOHC engine is more "sophisticated" and gets .05 more mpg ? Or because some palstic "center stack" is not the same as this here other plastic "center stack".

Hardly.

I know, let me guess - "He just dont get it" Problem is, I do get your "it" and I also get my "it". My "it" by far over rides your "it" in my eyes.

Now back to the product. GM has been making cars to fit the needs it provides for decades. I wish they would have changed sooner but I was around and remember the gotta have a V8 or nothing attitudes, we still see them. I remember and know there are still people that want to float down the road (Perhaps soggy isn't the right word, so don't get your panties tangled up. It was solid, but absorbed bumps, no it didn't absorb, more like lightly reminded you they were there. No absorbing)with effortless steering ( Disconnected steering) Highly exagerated but we have come to expect that. Almost as if extracted directly form the mouth of a automotive journalist.

Now with your panties in a bunch attitude we are supposed to not give any attitude back? As well as agree with your "junk" theories ?

Its funny that any Aurora owners I have heard from speak highly of the ride and handling balance. Some cars sacrifice interior space due to styling restraints. Now your Passat is a handsome car but it hardly made a styling statement. I believe the Aurora was just that, a styling statement that Oldsmobile built a car around and put to production. Once again, Oh well, you think we are going to sit here and try to accept a vision of the GM's from the 90's without the Aurora in it ? or the STS/SLS, Eldorado, Eighty Eight, Park Avenue, Reatta, Riviera, Regency, Aurora #2, Seville, Lesabre, Intrigue, Regal, Grand Prix ? Not likely !

Im glad you mention Chevy. Now see, I agree, Chevy needs to go so all GMs can be state of the art, qualityBuicks and Oldsmobiles.

:unsure:

Once again I will say that turbo and many many others who post here do the best advertising Toyota and Honda could ever hope for. Im just about ready to jump ship myself, I am nearly convinced my sub par tastes need to be tossed in the garbage and move to Asia, where I can get a job, free room and board and all a human could possibly hope for. It saddens to think that you are underpaid for your hard work.

Now how about that STS-V, it was the most currently compared General Motors car in the Rag rags. It makes an awsome styling statement, awsome performance numbers, retains some of what being a Cadillac is all about and yet, its sub standard ? I dont feel that way.

Lucerne - once again, everything we could hope for in a Buick but still no respect, I dont feel that way

Lacrosse - some feel is a great improvement, yet no respect. I dont feel that way

DTS - ? I dont know but Im sure it gets no respect

C5 - sorry its all Ive actually been around or drivin. I found no fault with the interior, other than its that typical black sports car fasion, myself Id prefer it all gawded up. I liked how it was laid out and styled. Yet you still find something to down about Corvette even though its competition cost $150,000 +

Incidently 84 C4 won the R&T sports car shootout and was also priced less.

Cobalt - I dont frequent Chevy area so I really know little. I drove one and liked it plenty but it was a huge step down from our cars so Im no judge of this size car anymore. It was a great drive and ride. Had that 4 banger sound and feel I had long since forgotton about. I really cant judge these size cars but the Cobalts somewhat unique styling does not fit me a much as I would like. Yet it performs well, just recieved a powertrain credit, had some race success it first year......I dont know is that class competitive ?

It is sad that GM never really did the small car well but I just dont feel that way about the midsize and larger cars from GM. They tried with that Brazilian OHC 2 litre in the 80's, various Japanese and Korean efforts. Perhaps they should have looked within, much earlier. Perhaps the global environment versus the American econonmy made this impossible. Damn us for having built that high standard of living, it just screwed everything up, but not for the Japanese, did it ? It played right into their hands.


Sorry for the long random bouncing post but believe it or not all this ties together and in the end we come back to the beginning.

history, perception and the media

[enzl]

Now heres an example of the attitude the media pulls on GM product. Rather than saying good car they would say

"Wow, this is your most reasonable CAR (post) I have ever DROVE (read). Though I don't fully understand WHY YOU BUILT IT (your second line), and I think it's not what I WANT (am thinking). Can you REBUILT (rephrase) it?"... "Oh, did I forget to mention TOYOTA, HONDA, BMW, AUDI, VOLKSWAGON? "

Now word gets around that said magazine says this and presto, a few more sales for Toyota.

Ive made ample good posts on many subjects on this and other boards. Some may not agree with my ideals and my approach. Many obviously have problems with my dialect. Often it seems some cant comprehend my random quick points, that I feel, need no further explaination. Oh well, what are you going to do? I write as I talk and people always have problems following along. Get with it already, would ya?  :)

I am a very resonable man, therefore there are things that I will not tolerate. Destroying American industry and its diverse work force is one of them. Your Japanese cars are not better to a large enough degree to get me to support the economy of these countries. As it is, in so many ways beyond our control, that is exactly what I/we do, is support other economies as we destroy the lives of millions of Americans. Those Americans are on their way out, what a way to go ey ? Preached and sold the "American dream" only to watch our leaders sell us out by the millions to appease a comparatively small handful of Wall Street money grubs. There is many new generations to come that need jobs and product to be proud of. The American built car is the last piece left of what was once great, do you really think Im going to sell out because of the misconception that a DOHC engine is more "sophisticated" and gets .05 more mpg ? Or because some palstic "center stack" is not the same as this here other plastic "center stack".

Hardly.

I know, let me guess - "He just dont get it" Problem is, I do get your "it" and I also get my "it". My "it" by far over rides your "it" in my eyes.

Now back to the product. GM has been making cars to fit the needs it provides for decades. I wish they would have changed sooner but I was around and remember the gotta have a V8 or nothing attitudes, we still see them. I remember and know there are still people that want to float down the road (Perhaps soggy isn't the right word, so don't get your panties tangled up. It was solid, but absorbed bumps, no it didn't absorb, more like lightly reminded you they were there. No absorbing)with effortless steering ( Disconnected steering) Highly exagerated but we have come to expect that. Almost as if extracted directly form the mouth of a automotive journalist.

Now with your panties in a bunch attitude we are supposed to not give any attitude back? As well as agree with your "junk" theories ?

Its funny that any Aurora owners I have heard from speak highly of the ride and handling balance. Some cars sacrifice interior space due to styling restraints. Now your Passat is a handsome car but it hardly made a styling statement. I believe the Aurora was just that, a styling statement that Oldsmobile built a car around and put to production. Once again, Oh well, you think we are going to sit here and try to accept a vision of the GM's from the 90's without the Aurora in it ? or the STS/SLS, Eldorado, Eighty Eight, Park Avenue, Reatta, Riviera, Regency, Aurora #2, Seville, Lesabre, Intrigue, Regal, Grand Prix ? Not likely !

Im glad you mention Chevy. Now see, I agree, Chevy needs to go so all GMs can be state of the art, qualityBuicks and Oldsmobiles.

:unsure:

Once again I will say that turbo and many many others who post here do the best advertising Toyota and Honda could ever hope for. Im just about ready to jump ship myself, I am nearly convinced my sub par tastes need to be tossed in the garbage and move to Asia, where I can get a job, free room and board and all a human could possibly hope for.  It saddens to think that you are underpaid for your hard work.

Now how about that STS-V, it was the most currently compared General Motors car in the Rag rags. It makes an awsome styling statement, awsome performance numbers, retains some of what being a Cadillac is all about and yet, its sub standard ? I dont feel that way.

Lucerne - once again, everything we could hope for in a Buick but still no respect, I dont feel that way

Lacrosse - some feel is a great improvement, yet no respect. I dont feel that way

DTS - ? I dont know but Im sure it gets no respect

C5 - sorry its all Ive actually been around or drivin. I found no fault with the interior, other than its that typical black sports car fasion, myself Id prefer it all gawded up. I liked how it was laid out and styled. Yet you still find something to down about Corvette even though its competition cost $150,000 +

Incidently 84 C4 won the R&T sports car shootout and was also priced less.

Cobalt - I dont frequent Chevy area so I really know little. I drove one and liked it plenty but it was a huge step down from our cars so Im no judge of this size car anymore. It was a great drive and ride. Had that 4 banger sound and feel I had long since forgotton about. I really cant judge these size cars but the Cobalts somewhat unique styling does not fit me a much as I would like. Yet it performs well, just recieved a powertrain credit, had some race success it first year......I dont know is that class competitive ?

It is sad that GM never really did the small car well but I just dont feel that way about the midsize and larger cars from GM. They tried with that Brazilian OHC 2 litre in the 80's, various Japanese and Korean efforts. Perhaps they should have looked within, much earlier. Perhaps the global environment versus the American econonmy made this impossible. Damn us for having built that high standard of living, it just screwed everything up, but not for the Japanese, did it ? It played right into their hands.
Sorry for the long random bouncing post but believe it or not all this ties together and in the end we come back to the beginning.

history, perception and the media

[post="59627"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I still haven't seen a compelling counterargument. If the concern is US jobs and being patriotic, I understand that point of view (and I respect it.) Everyone has the right to choose on the basis of their own priorities.

I'll take that point one step further...I believe many people feel that way, yet they still go out and buy a foriegn nameplate. They OVERCOME their bias against these vehicles and, because of what they've heard, read, seen, go against their initial instinct to support US produced products.

That, to me, is why the media bias charge is bogus. Its an excuse, and not a good one, given that demonstrably better products are designed and/or manufactured elsewhere, and they have been, for the most part, for the last 25 years...GM even admitted as much in an ad campaign run last year! So, even the General admits to what people on this board can't!

[enzl]

FYI: GM ads take high road while admitting bumps May 29, 2003 BY JEFFREY MCCRACKEN FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER General Motors Corp. will launch a nationwide ad campaign next week to admit something many consumers already knew: GM made some poor vehicles in the 1980s and 1990s. Admitting its past blunders in a newspaper and magazine campaign is an unorthodox attempt by GM to attract the roughly 40 percent of auto buyers it says won't even consider GM products. Ads will begin running next week in USA Today, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national and regional publications. TV ads may follow. In part, GM is trying to polish an image tarnished by low-quality cars such as the Chevrolet Chevette and Citation. Many GM cars of the 1980s and 1990s were notorious for oil leaks and premature paint flaking -- the kind of defects that can aggravate consumers. GM has received a boost in recent years due to gains in vehicle-quality studies. The campaign, which GM calls "The Road to Redemption," will be about "5 percent mea culpa and 95 percent what's good about GM," said John Middlebrook, GM vice president of brand marketing, in a news conference Wednesday. "We were looking for something jarring, and the most jarring thing was the hard truth," said Dave Moore, chief creative officer at McCann-Erickson Detroit, the local ad firm that created the campaign. "Saying that '20 years ago we had some really bad products, but we've learned our lesson' is a pretty unconventional thing to admit in an ad." GM has narrowed the gap between it and Toyota Motor Corp. -- the company recognized as best in initial vehicle quality by J.D. Power and Associates -- by 58 percent in the past four years. The study measures quality problems in the first three months a vehicle is owned. In J.D. Power's 2003 study, released this month, GM again topped its domestic rivals, recording an average of 134 problems per 100 vehicles -- one more than the industry average. Toyota repeated as the automaker with the highest overall initial quality, with an average of 115 problems per 100 vehicles. GM has, however, continued to lag further behind the industry in J.D. Power's long-term vehicle durability studies. "That's a real advantage for Toyota and Honda, and you could argue is the most important thing when a person is deciding what to buy next," said Joe Ivers, partner at J.D. Power. "How the product does in year three, four or five is a big deal to the car buyer, and GM has had a harder time there." A J.D. Power study showed in 2002 about 200,000 vehicle buyers left GM for Japanese-made vehicles, while only 75,000 switched to GM from its foreign counterparts. Nonetheless, the GM ad campaign will try to attract buyers of rivals' cars and trucks by highlighting GM gains in initial quality studies, said Gary Cowger, GM president of North America. "We may not have done everything right in the past, but we've learned from it," Cowger said. "It's a corporate-wide communication effort to close the gap between perception and reality." He said two factors -- GM's past reputation for poor quality and family traditions of driving only an Asian or European vehicle -- keep four out of 10 new-vehicle buyers from even considering GM. The text-heavy, two-page ad states: "Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world. Twenty years ago it wasn't." Another part of the ad talks about "learning some humbling lessons from our competitors." The ad campaign builds on recent GM efforts to attract consumers by allowing them to take GM vehicles home for an overnight test drive and by inviting owners of competing vehicles to events where they can test drive new cars and trucks. "The road to redemption has no finish line," the ad says. "But it does have a corner. And it's fair to say we've turned it." Companies don't typically admit their mistakes in their ads, a local marketing expert says. "If you think back to Tylenol, they admitted problems with tampered bottles, but most are like Exxon, which never did an ad to admit mistakes so openly. This is unique by GM," said Aradhna Krishna, University of Michigan business marketing professor. "They are kind of acting like a company in a crisis situation, and maybe their crisis is all the market share they and other U.S. automakers are losing to foreign automakers." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?

[Sixty8panther]

But that's just you. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can list off a plethora of 70's or 80's imports that they love, but will scratch their head when they're asked for good 80's domestics.

[post="59348"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

IMHO my Datsun Maxima was one of the coolest import cars from the 1980s. Other than BMW 3-series I believe it to the the only compact sedan with an inline-6, RWD, IRS, 5-speed manaul trans. and four doors.

This is the only Japanese car I've ever owned and I love it... but even this car was supper forgetable. I mean c'mon, how many of you knew that this car even existed before I bought mine and started defending it???

I think a 1980s Toyota, Honda or Subaru is the definition of forgetable.

All those Toyotas and Hondas from the 80s were forgetable. Percapita there's much less of them on the roads then there are Regals, Malibus, Firebirds & Cutlasses. Just like the Crowns, CVCCs, Coronas, Toyopets, B210s, Corollas & Honda 200s that came before 98% of them are crushed and forgoten about.

Junk, trash... throwaway cars. Edited December 16, 2005 by Sixty8panther

[balthazar]

>>"This, while true about all mainstream media outlets in general, does not make even those with bias wrong, per se."<<
It sure as hell doesn't support them being right!

>>"Noone here has brought forth a compelling reason that proves that these auto-writers are incorrect in their judgements"<<
Sure some one has- read the earlier posts. Bias exists and is widespread, caused by a handful of factors. Bias clouds judgement and alters opinions; human nature.

One of the most wildly illogical statements ever made in the automotive cosmos goes something like this: 'I had bad luck with Brand X I owned in the early '80s, and since then I've never bought another domestic car and never will.' How many times have you read/heard that statement? It's in this very thread in another post!!!! That's textbook 'bias' multiplied by textbook 'illogic'. How far behind do you think 'erroneous/innaccurate judgements' are?

Look, no one claims that all 'anti-domestic' opinions are not justified, just as no one truely believes all import-favoring opinions are (whoops- my bad; whole bunch of people believe that one!). I avoid absolutes like the plague because I've seen what they do and are not. What I and others here are saying is that a great & suprising percentage of 'anti-domestic' opinion is simply not supported by reality, and another great percentage is simply bias & stale hot air. Those blindly loyal to the 'superiority' of many imports are unable to see or admit that.

>>"...and I noticed noone has answered how non-media types like the mass of people who buy from the 'bad guys', research firms and consumer groups also concur with assertions that many of the products brought forth are inferior!"<<
You answer for this lies in the unknown motivations behind this couple's actions:

He has had more problems with the BMW than his Aurora, but he has gone over to the dark side of the snob appeal of the BMW. His wife just didn't want to drive any more domestic vehicles.

>>"Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors."<<
Analyzing the reasons for competitors' success is related, but still a whole 'nuther thread. Let's keep this focused and it may stay under 100 posts.

>>"So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?"<<
You assume that this statement is indicative of complete 100% factual truth, rather than considering that it is, at least in part, addressing the 'media truth' and popular opinion of some groups.

[razoredge]

enzl :

So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?

1986 LeSabre - 150,000 miles, still sweet and clean, yep the piant peeled
1990 Regency 328,000 miles, still sweet and clean, needed some new metal welded in but like its 15 NE years old w/320,000 miles
1990 Cierra Cruiser - 190,000 miles - its hard to defend this car outside its reliability and handy factor. It is not a good driving car, I have questioned if they ever tracked tested the suspension. Surely it should have come with heavier front bar and a rear sway bar but it did not. It has the Buick engine not the Chevy so the reliability factor is CLASS LEADING. Interior was probably quite nice at the time it came out, still looks good today when its cleaned up. It very comfortable but thats all I can say positive. The suspension or geometry is all F/UP.
1997 Oldsmobile LSS 110,000 miles, still darn near "new" condition, a much updated version of my other two cars and that technology shows. Suspension could be better but it was top of the line luxury car so its still kinda soft even with the LSS package.
1999 Eighty Eight 50th Anniversary, I had it for a year 70,000-80,000 miles. It was one sweet car. Smooth, comfortable, quite, powerful, fast, heaven in sheet metal and soft as silk. However that softness really went bad in spots on these tossy country roads, thats the only negitive I can say besides this following story - which was a problem related to the dealerships service department not the entire production of this model car. It went back to dealers under lemon law. It had an engine management problem (occasional intermitant hesitation) that the dealership refused to admit existed and failed to cure. Although they did everything from rebuilding the tranny (which was fine and I knew it was not the problem) to replaceing the problematic plastic lower intake & gasket (which also was not the problem) to a "fuel injector service" which again I knew was not the problem. Anyhow they couldnt get the job done and tried to get me to live with the car because it "did not on occasion fall on its face for 2-3-4-5 seconds". I was convinced it was the car from hell. A mind of its own. 90% of the time it responded to gas pedal as it should have, the other 10 % it acted like an old carburated car that needed the accelerater pump rebuilt. I wasnt goint to live with it so I took them to court and won - by myself. So apparently I do know how to build a case.

I believe my above post also proves I have an open mind and high awareness of what constitutes a fine automobile and some of the short fallings GM had, at least in the FWD A body department and this one glitch in that '99, which frankly myself and other intellegent, non mechanically challenged people, felt could be fixed with a PCM reboot, but alas the dealership wanted to play games.

Wasnt there a topic recently regarding items at the dealership level ? :P Naw, GMs dealers are not a part of the problem.........naw! :unsure:

134 problems per 100 compared to 115 per 100 ????? Wow, here Id been thinking all other manufactures cars were flawless class leaders :blink: We wont get into the fact that GMs largest clientel is older retired folks that take the car back to the dealer just for someting to do. I have been told by many waitstaff peoples that old folks are a real pain in the butt when it comes to serving dinners and not get complaints. I dont know if theres a tie in or not, but I feel its a relevent point.

  I still haven't seen a compelling counterargument.

Because you believe my cars are junk ? and I have mileage that says otherwise. You need to be compelled by words and I am compelled by the product that I drive.

You all want to pull the worst Chevys out of your hat and many of us would no sooner consider a Chevrolet car than a Toyota or Honda. Did I tell you I had a Honda back in 1980, it was a 1975/6 maybe, thats how forgettable and unreliable mechanical piece of junk it was, not that it rusted fast or anything :rolleyes: We did have a 75 Datsun 710 that was great, reliable, fun but my 86 Buick LeSabre was lightyears beyond that ol Datsun in every form of technology and build quality. It also blew the doors in these aspects compared to my 80 & 81 VW Rabbit variants, which were also excellent cars but Buicks they were not !

Ya know guys, GM just released quite a bit of new product in the past few years. There has been little but bitchin and whinin and cryin from half of you while the other half wonders whats the problem. Now its going to be two more years before much happens. So until then we gotta listen to all this bitchin and whinin and cryin, thats 2 years worth of bitchin, whinin and cryin. Then we know that at that time there will be brand new items that are already sitting ducks for more bitchin whinin and cryin.

So how about that STS, CTS, Lucerne, DTS, Solstice, G6, GP GXP, Lacrosse, Corvette, Monty Carlo and Impala ?

Frickin awsome dude ! :metal:

[enzl]

>>"This, while true about all mainstream media outlets in general, does not make even those with bias wrong, per se."<<
It sure as hell doesn't support them being right! 

>>"Noone here has brought forth a compelling reason that proves that these auto-writers are incorrect in their judgements"<<
Sure some one has- read the earlier posts. Bias exists and is widespread, caused by a handful of factors. Bias clouds judgement and alters opinions; human nature.

One of the most wildly illogical statements ever made in the automotive cosmos goes something like this: 'I had bad luck with Brand X I owned in the early '80s, and since then I've never bought another domestic car and never will.' How many times have you read/heard that statement? It's in this very thread in another post!!!! That's textbook 'bias' multiplied by textbook 'illogic'. How far behind do you think 'erroneous/innaccurate judgements' are?

Look, no one claims that all 'anti-domestic' opinions are not justified, just as no one truely believes all import-favoring opinions are (whoops- my bad; whole bunch of people believe that one!). I avoid absolutes like the plague because I've seen what they do and are not. What I and others here are saying is that a great & suprising percentage of 'anti-domestic' opinion is simply not supported by reality, and another great percentage is simply bias & stale hot air. Those blindly loyal to the 'superiority' of many imports are unable to see or admit that.

>>"...and I noticed noone has answered how non-media types like the mass of people who buy from the 'bad guys', research firms and consumer groups also concur with assertions that many of the products brought forth are inferior!"<<
You answer for this lies in the unknown motivations behind this couple's actions:

He has had more problems with the BMW than his Aurora, but he has gone over to the dark side of the snob appeal of the BMW. His wife just didn't want to drive any more domestic vehicles.

>>"Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors."<<
Analyzing the reasons for competitors' success is related, but still a whole 'nuther thread. Let's keep this focused and it may stay under 100 posts.

>>"So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?"<<
You assume that this statement is indicative of complete 100% factual truth, rather than considering that it is, at least in part, addressing the 'media truth' and popular opinion of some groups.

[post="59792"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

1. As usual, the point has been missed: GM itself has APOLOGIZED for its inferior product. PERIOD. There's no way around that.

2. Bias does not equal WRONG. Bias may slant or present a poor image to the reader, but it doesn't change the facts....see point 1 for GM's take on my POV.

3. Market research and independent findings conclude exactly as I have, which is that GM's stuff has not been as good as its competitors. See point 1 where GM basically has said the same thing.

4. I realize I'll never get anyone to agree, since the positions are too entrenched. That's OK, but when the company you're defending so vehemently is issuing Press Releases that support my assertions, its hard to take the rest of your argument seriously.

While I'm willing to play nice about it, its kind of sad when the voices of dissent aren't given their full hearing.

Since I guess this bears repeating: I'm on your side! I would love to wholeheartedly endorse good product from ANY manufacturer (and I would prefer that it also employ good old 'merican workers too, BTW.) MY living is very dependent on it. I drive between 50-100 different cars each year, some for a few miles, others for weeks at a time. I've seen it all. I'm fairly confident that none of those who are so agro about this have had the opportunity to see ALL that's out there like I have. I could give anecdote after anecdote of great, high mileage GM'ers and poor, unreliable Nissans...but over the course of years and experiences, I can tell you that there's a difference when comparing the average GM'er and the average Toyota or Honda 3-5 years and 35-75k miles down the road...

I'd just like someone to have the balls to admit that GM has stated what I am stating...you could even call both of us wrong, but it's there, its in black and white and, if you want to shoot the messanger, make sure to reserve a few bullets for GM's almighty PR machine that was responsible for the message itself!

It's exhausting to have this argument over and over, but I just can't believe how hardheaded people can be. It's staring you in the face. It's GM's own words!

Now, if you'd like to use what I know to help GM, I'm all over it. Otherwise, consider this my final plea to just acknowlege that, even if you feel I'm not right, at least that I got my information from a reliable (in your mind's eye) source!

I do want to help. But just like in therapy, you have to want to be helped first.

[razoredge]

So some campaign publicity idiot/crew decided to bow down to the abuse of magazine crews and make such a stupid statement. Therefore the cars Im driving are not good ? yarite ! What the heck you argueing with me for. I drive GM's, old GM's, high mileage GM's, its not true because Im driveing these cars that prove its not true. I beleive that statement mentioned something about Chevette and Citation. If those are the cars you think of when you think of GM you do not belong here (in this topic) because you are clueless as to the full spectrum of GM.

first that was a really stupid publicity stunt, even if it was 100% true is was dumb. Apparently so because GM's sales have died in the past 2 years in ways previously unimagineable, yet the "admittance" refers to early "compact" cars (most likely built in Brazil) from the late 70's early 80's. Regardless it was a really stupid stunt, because of the interpretation of it and potential aftermath.

Hello, Ive come to fill out a job application, I used to be a piece of crap, I only worked till I got paid then got drunk until the money ran out and then I showed up back to work. They got pissed off and fired me. Im all better now, will you please give me a job ?

yarite !

So who the hell thought up those marketing "steps" :lol:

Dont call us hard headed, what ? because we drive GMs and dont have the issues that you do ? Therefore we are the ones living in the twilight zone ? Fraid not !

Yes in deedy the Cavaliar is the only car that GM ever made, well, they made a few others but they were just like the Cavaliar.

then of course the competiton who ever they may be never made inferior product. All two models ?

We're not saying improvement is not currently needed. We are not saying that everything in the passed was all peachy either. We're simply saying GM had made some damn fine product, in all decades or generations. They have progessed steadily as could be expected with the changing times and regulations today compared to what "the people wanted" 30 years ago.

I dont see "us" painting GMs as more than they have been but I do see you guys painting them, as a whole, much worse that they have been. Your all just to fixated on that Chevette, Citation, Cavaliar thing a ma jigga.

Somebody admits to a few flops and you want to make it the golden rule across the board. I'd call that motivated interpretation. Are you a magazine person ?????

Crikies, you want us to say our cars are crap, until then you will not be happy. You call it "admitting" ? What do I have to admit to ? I put a alternator in my 328,000 mile Oldsmobile 2 months ago ? The window/seat switches that are located at the fingertip on the arm rest are made of chromed plastic ? The tilt wheel does not telescope ? The trunk pull down still works but I can hear the little electric motor running as I walk to my door ? The climate control works perfectly but the outside temp gauge rises from the heat of the motor or sun while it sits so I have to drive it for a few minutes before it gets back to air temp ? I have to occasionally change my oil ? The really cool door pull handle that is frenched into the door panel and hinges out when I pull it is hard like its made out of some sort of IRON product ? Sorry I just cant think of anything else. So maybe tomorrow sometime I will get my work done and we'll run to the city in our class leading 1990 Oldsmobile Regency........naw, thats kinda old so instead Ill take the opportunity to enjoy our special car, the updated version, a 1997 Oldsmobile LSS, if the NE weather is nice. Or maybe Ill need some stuff for the house so Ill take the old war wagon.

Decisions, decisions what inferior car shall I drive ? Which one say I ? Im so damn hardheaded I think Ill walk instead. Maybe I can find a cab company to come get me in a Civic so as I dont have to be seen driving around in those inferior products. They must be inferior because some idiots at GM made a statement about some inferior products they produced at Chevy 3 decades back.

[enzl]

So some campaign publicity idiot/crew decided to bow down to the abuse of magazine crews and make such a stupid statement. Therefore the cars Im driving are not good ? yarite ! What the heck you argueing with me for. I drive GM's, old GM's, high mileage GM's, its not true because Im driveing these cars that prove its not true. I beleive that statement mentioned something about Chevette and Citation. If those are the cars you think of when you think of GM you do not belong here (in this topic) because you are clueless as to the full spectrum of GM.

first that was a really stupid publicity stunt, even if it was 100% true is was dumb. Apparently so because GM's sales have died in the past 2 years in ways previously unimagineable, yet the "admittance" refers to early "compact" cars (most likely built in Brazil) from the late 70's early 80's. Regardless it was a really stupid stunt, because of the interpretation of it and potential aftermath.

Hello, Ive come to fill out a job application, I used to be a piece of crap, I only worked till I got paid then got drunk until the money ran out and then I showed up back to work. They got pissed off and fired me. Im all better now, will you please give me a job ?

yarite !

So who the hell thought up those marketing "steps"  :lol:

Dont call us hard headed, what ? because we drive GMs and dont have the issues that you do ? Therefore we are the ones living in the twilight zone ? Fraid not !

Yes in deedy the Cavaliar is the only car that GM ever made, well, they made a few others but they were just like the Cavaliar.

then of course the competiton who ever they may be never made inferior product. All two models ?

We're not saying improvement is not currently needed. We are not saying that everything in the passed was all peachy either. We're simply saying GM had made some damn fine product, in all decades or generations. They have progessed steadily as could be expected with the changing times and regulations today compared to what "the people wanted" 30 years ago.

I dont see "us" painting GMs as more than they have been but I do see you guys painting them, as a whole, much worse that they have been. Your all just to fixated on that Chevette, Citation, Cavaliar thing a ma jigga.

Somebody admits to a few flops and you want to make it the golden rule across the board. I'd call that motivated interpretation. Are you a magazine person ?????

Crikies, you want us to say our cars are crap, until then you will not be happy. You call it "admitting" ? What do I have to admit to ? I put a alternator in my 328,000 mile Oldsmobile 2 months ago ? The window/seat switches that are located at the fingertip on the arm rest are made of chromed plastic ? The tilt wheel does not telescope ? The trunk pull down still works but I can hear the little electric motor running as I walk to my door ? The climate control works perfectly but the outside temp gauge rises from the heat of the motor or sun while it sits so I have to drive it for a few minutes before it gets back to air temp ? I have to occasionally change my oil ? The really cool door pull handle that is frenched into the door panel and hinges out when I pull it is hard like its made out of some sort of IRON product ? Sorry I just cant think of anything else. So maybe tomorrow sometime I will get my work done and we'll run to the city in our class leading 1990 Oldsmobile Regency........naw, thats kinda old so instead Ill take the opportunity to enjoy our special car, the updated version, a 1997 Oldsmobile LSS, if the NE weather is nice. Or maybe Ill need some stuff for the house so Ill take the old war wagon.

Decisions, decisions what inferior car shall I drive ? Which one say I ? Im so damn hardheaded I think Ill walk instead. Maybe I can find a cab company to come get me in a Civic so as I dont have to be seen driving around in those inferior products. They must be inferior because some idiots at GM made a statement about some inferior products they produced at Chevy 3 decades back.

[post="59911"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If you actually read my postings carefully, and didn't run off half cocked in another direction entirely, you will see a reasonable opinion based on facts and, as I have said, verified thru GM's own OFFICIAL PR and ad campaign....

Anecdotes, in case a definition is needed, are individual instances, stories that are, by definition, ONE person's experience. Surveys, information gathering co.'s etc... amass the result of MANY people's anecdotes....

I NEVER said all GM products are crap, nor does GM's PR stuff limit itself to Citations or Chevettes.

I'm not attacking anyone, so why not back off, a little, huh?

Like I said, I'm a resource and I offer an oportunity. You haven't travelled a mile (or many miles) in my driving shoes....

I never degraded anyone for being a GM fan. The response is inappropriate.

[balthazar]

Wow, you sure are leaning heavily on those few PR paragraphs, aren't you, enzl? What I want to know is why it took you so long to trot that out, anyway? You could've destroyed all other possibilities & theories merely buy quoting it in your first post, adding 200 exclaimation points and walking away.

No; you never said all GM products are crap but you also never even implied that ONLY SOME were crap, you know; like GM's own OFFICIAL PR has verified.

Bias does not equal WRONG. Bias may slant or present a poor image to the reader, but it doesn't change the facts.

Fanciful theory. Sure; a strong personal bias is unlikely to change the rear seat hip room measurement, but it can and repeatedly has altered the perception of a vehicle unjustly, to the point of turning away consumers. The end result is the same; altered... use the term 'realities' instead of 'facts' if you prefer.

What is the perception when -say- the vehicle that placed 1st in a comparo is judged the 'winner' with 210 points (over half of which are totally subjective) and the vehicle that placed 3rd with 205 points (again: over half being completely subjective). The perception is that the 3rd place vehicle 'lost' and is a 'lesser' car than the 1st place car. We've read many comments in threads here that only serve to justify the rankings of 3 or 5 strangers who wrote about driving the cars; 3rd place means 'loser', 3rd place is ''uncompetitive, 3rd place 'isn't good enough', 3rd place 'won't turn around the company'... even tho the mostly subjective vote of 5 individuals (who no one here has even tried to show has any degree of objectivity) separated 1st and 3rd by less than 3%.

I dont see "us" painting GMs as more than they have been but I do see you guys painting them, as a whole, much worse that they have been.... Somebody admits to a few flops and you want to make it the golden rule across the board. I'd call that motivated interpretation.

And I call it being biased. The purest truth spoken in this thread. Edited December 18, 2005 by balthazar

[enzl]

Wow, you sure are leaning heavily on those few PR paragraphs, aren't you, enzl? What I want to know is why it took you so long to trot that out, anyway? You could've destroyed all other possibilities & theories merely buy quoting it in your first post, adding 200 exclaimation points and walking away.

No; you never said all GM products are crap but you also never even implied that ONLY SOME were crap, you know; like GM's own OFFICIAL PR has verified.
And I call it being biased. The purest truth spoken in this thread.

[post="60197"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It was in printed, commercial ads as well as PR- type releases, but that's neither here nor there....

It's been noted that the bias exists, but I still regard it as an excuse...I was challenged as to the strength or logic of my opinion and trotted out GM's own words as definitive proof that, perhaps, there may be some truth to my claims.

I honestly thought that would be enough. I mean, it really seems logically inconsistent to support a position that even the entity you're defending has refuted with its own words. When's the last time your favorite company felt the need to apologize for anything? It's weird and I;m sure it surprised a few of you. (& noone has answered how independent industry sponsored surveys, word of mouth and cold hard cash sales also tended to support the viewpoints of the 'biased'...isn't it just as likely a symptom as it is a result?)

It's either a grand conspiracy against GM or, its true. There's really no middle ground.

Again, if the proportion of GM's product reflecting true excellence was high, we wouldn't be having this argument.

[balthazar]

>>"...definate proof there may be..."<< OK; I can live with that. ;)

>>"When's the last time your favorite company felt the need to apologize for anything?"<<
Not nearly my favorite, but I recall mitsubishi apologizing for the lies & cover-ups over their defects. BMW effectively apologized by sending Bangle into the dunce corner... ;) VW has mumbled something in passing, too.

>>"...the entity you're defending ..."<<
I am not in here to defend GM, and I do not believe that's been my primary emphasis at all.

I am here to damn the media. And they've earned it in spades. There is a difference.

BTW- tho I see the logic in the PR, indeed I groaned aloud when I first saw it. I knew many who enjoy pointing their finger would hold it aloft like the Stanley Cup and jeer long & loudly. Whatever; I believe their minds were already made up anyway.

Thanks for the volley, enzl. Edited December 18, 2005 by balthazar

[razoredge]

FYI:

GM ads take high road while admitting bumps

May 29, 2003

BY JEFFREY MCCRACKEN
FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER

General Motors Corp. will launch a nationwide ad campaign next week to admit something many consumers already knew: GM made some poor vehicles in the 1980s and 1990s.

Admitting its past blunders in a newspaper and magazine campaign is an unorthodox attempt by GM to attract the roughly 40 percent of auto buyers it says won't even consider GM products.

Ads will begin running next week in USA Today, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national and regional publications. TV ads may follow.

In part, GM is trying to polish an image tarnished by low-quality cars such as the Chevrolet Chevette and Citation. Many GM cars of the 1980s and 1990s were notorious for oil leaks and premature paint flaking -- the kind of defects that can aggravate consumers. GM has received a boost in recent years due to gains in vehicle-quality studies.

The campaign, which GM calls "The Road to Redemption," will be about "5 percent mea culpa and 95 percent what's good about GM," said John Middlebrook, GM vice president of brand marketing, in a news conference Wednesday.

"We were looking for something jarring, and the most jarring thing was the hard truth," said Dave Moore, chief creative officer at McCann-Erickson Detroit, the local ad firm that created the campaign. "Saying that '20 years ago we had some really bad products, but we've learned our lesson' is a pretty unconventional thing to admit in an ad."

GM has narrowed the gap between it and Toyota Motor Corp. -- the company recognized as best in initial vehicle quality by J.D. Power and Associates -- by 58 percent in the past four years. The study measures quality problems in the first three months a vehicle is owned. In J.D. Power's 2003 study, released this month, GM again topped its domestic rivals, recording an average of 134 problems per 100 vehicles -- one more than the industry average. Toyota repeated as the automaker with the highest overall initial quality, with an average of 115 problems per 100 vehicles.

GM has, however, continued to lag further behind the industry in J.D. Power's long-term vehicle durability studies.

"That's a real advantage for Toyota and Honda, and you could argue is the most important thing when a person is deciding what to buy next," said Joe Ivers, partner at J.D. Power. "How the product does in year three, four or five is a big deal to the car buyer, and GM has had a harder time there."

A J.D. Power study showed in 2002 about 200,000 vehicle buyers left GM for Japanese-made vehicles, while only 75,000 switched to GM from its foreign counterparts.

Nonetheless, the GM ad campaign will try to attract buyers of rivals' cars and trucks by highlighting GM gains in initial quality studies, said Gary Cowger, GM president of North America.

"We may not have done everything right in the past, but we've learned from it," Cowger said. "It's a corporate-wide communication effort to close the gap between perception and reality."

He said two factors -- GM's past reputation for poor quality and family traditions of driving only an Asian or European vehicle -- keep four out of 10 new-vehicle buyers from even considering GM.

The text-heavy, two-page ad states: "Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world. Twenty years ago it wasn't." Another part of the ad talks about "learning some humbling lessons from our competitors."

The ad campaign builds on recent GM efforts to attract consumers by allowing them to take GM vehicles home for an overnight test drive and by inviting owners of competing vehicles to events where they can test drive new cars and trucks.

"The road to redemption has no finish line," the ad says. "But it does have a corner. And it's fair to say we've turned it."

Companies don't typically admit their mistakes in their ads, a local marketing expert says.

"If you think back to Tylenol, they admitted problems with tampered bottles, but most are like Exxon, which never did an ad to admit mistakes so openly. This is unique by GM," said Aradhna Krishna, University of Michigan business marketing professor.

"They are kind of acting like a company in a crisis situation, and maybe their crisis is all the market share they and other U.S. automakers are losing to foreign automakers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[post="59639"][/post]

I highlighted the only things I see that are relevent to what you are saying. I still feel it was a dump pub stunt. I dont see where it says anything to place the entire car line up inferior. Once again I still believe that when refering to the 80's & 90's all of GM is taking the rap for the little compact cars that everyone and anyone knows GM nor Ford nor Chrysler for that matter have ever done well. I'm not sure if you are aware of what was going on in mid-full size at BOP in 85/86 thru- today, it certainly was not flawless but it was not inferior or cheap or primitive.

the Japanese cars were also not flawless during these decades. Im not makeing excuses, that BS, I have no reason to make excuses. The H/C & W body cars that had the Buick V6 in them were excellent cars, mechanically, I myself liked the styling, great material plentiful interiors, not like todays cars but at that time they were the best ever in typical family cars, today all cars have the sports car interior. Oh well, back then they did not.

Im not trying to shoot any of you self proclaimed "messengers". Im saying your only reading one half of the message. The one that suits your arguement, much the same as the media does. It aint hard to talk people out of buying something and it aint hard to talk them into it to if you have that "final word" position.

So Im not going to jump on that GM's all inferior Train some of the others are riding on around here.

Sorry to let you down but it makes me feel....... oh so good to not be swayed by innaccurate bias !

[enzl]

So Im not going to jump on that GM's all inferior Train some of the others are riding on around here.

Sorry to let you down but it makes me feel....... oh so good to not be swayed by innaccurate bias !

[post="60278"][/post]

[/quote]


Many of their current new products are good, a couple are really excellent. Imagine where they'd be if they had led trends rather than follow 'em.

[razoredge]

They have led some "trends", some trends that were not worth leading. Digital dashes and dash screens Onstar ABS ? styling for the most part was always better until recently. Now the Japs have some striking cars, a higher percentage than 10 years ago. 20 years ago forget it, Japanese cars were freaks of nature.

[razoredge]

They also could not have led the small car trend, it was a lame market. Most of the US customers did not want little 4 cyl cars. It was a slow change in the market. Many were still fighting the downsizing of Domestic cars even recently. GM changed slowly and gradually as American taste or desires changed. Just now they are comming together with what the Japanese have. Japanese cars have gotten larger and Domestics smaller. It seems to me much of this bad press could have been avoided if the compact cars GM did build during the 70's,80's & 90's were of the quality that the large BOP cars were.

[Flybrian]

They also could not have led the small car trend, it was a lame market. Most of the US customers did not want little 4 cyl cars. It was a slow change in the market. Many were still fighting the downsizing of Domestic cars even recently. GM changed slowly and gradually as American taste or desires changed. Just now they are comming together with what the Japanese have. Japanese cars have gotten larger and Domestics smaller.

[post="60516"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They certainly could've. Look to the Corvair and Falcon for smaller domestic cars that - if followed up by excellent successors in the 1970s - could've easily relegated Japanese cars to the subcompact and compact market.

[The O.C.]

I read quite a few different magazines and to a GM I'm sure they seem that GM products are just dismissed, but that's just not the case. I know a number of automotive writers and they find Hondas and Toyota to be typically better than the competitive GM product...as do I.

Did you miss the recent four-way test where the Camry came is LAST (behind a Ford and a Hyundai)? That doesn't seem like there's an automatic love-fest with all things Toyota/Honda.

I really wish I could take a few of you out in a new GM product and a new competitive product from another manufacturer so that I could show you the problems. I don't believe I would convince all of you (fanatics are fanatics, after all), but I'm sure a few of you would see what I'm talking about.

GM is not the enemy of car magazines. GM is its own worst enemy.

[post="58631"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree totally.

As much of a GM fan as I truly am, I feel that GM dug the grave.....and actually handed the shovel to the media.

95% of the time, when GM has been bashed in the car rags....they've totally deserved it. They are much better now even than they were 20 and 10 years ago....but they still lag the imports in way too many areas.

Plus, remember that GM vehicles HAVE gotten GREAT press.....when they deserved it. C&D ranked a new C6 first over a 911....and a C6 convertible came in second just behind a new Boxster.

R&T once ranked the CTS 6-speed 3.6L first in a comparo.....and the STS-V just beat out a CLS55 in C&D.

Of course the media is ALL over GM's current woes like white-on-rice. Their market share is dropping, costs are out of control, and they are still producing....for the most part....new cars and trucks that are simply not competitive with the imports in enough areas.

[razoredge]

Yes OC, and the GTO lost out to the Mustang due to the gotta have factor. So unless someone interpreted that as an insult to the GTO it was fairly compared, but then it was the best in many areas of the test, yet a looser. Problem is its just like any tale or folklore. As time goes by and word is passed around and people talk things get twisted. That seems like alot of what happens around here. The STS-V didnt beat the M5 so some immeadiatly said the twin turbo N* was not enough. Yet it was the smallest engine putting some awesome power per litre to the road. This same business could have a negitive effect on the Solstice. The new Mazda beat it to market and has a differnt kind of top, now to many this means Mazda rules and Solstice is just another GM that was not good enough. I think these people need to test a car and give its merits and keep the little opinions and cute comments to themselfs. One little word or phrase properly implanted could cost thousands of sales and most like has. Take this site for example.....if someone was looking for a new or used car, and came here to find out about GMs past and present they would leave, fully convinced that GM <Yugo. The very best Toyota and Honda publicity is right here on this forum. They should get their publicity and marketing people right on this _ _ _ _

[Hudson]

IMHO my Datsun Maxima was one of the coolest import cars from the 1980s. Other than BMW 3-series I believe it to the the only compact sedan with an inline-6, RWD, IRS, 5-speed manaul trans. and four doors.

Not that I entirely see the connection to the topic...but....Cressidas were offered with 5-speed manuals.

[Polish_Kris]

I read quite a few different magazines and to a GM I'm sure they seem that GM products are just dismissed, but that's just not the case. I know a number of automotive writers and they find Hondas and Toyota to be typically better than the competitive GM product...as do I.

Did you miss the recent four-way test where the Camry came is LAST (behind a Ford and a Hyundai)? That doesn't seem like there's an automatic love-fest with all things Toyota/Honda.

I really wish I could take a few of you out in a new GM product and a new competitive product from another manufacturer so that I could show you the problems. I don't believe I would convince all of you (fanatics are fanatics, after all), but I'm sure a few of you would see what I'm talking about.

GM is not the enemy of car magazines. GM is its own worst enemy.

[post="58631"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hey Hudson, I convinced Ted, the cost cutting, the cheap-feeling interiors, and poorly aligned panels, damn I could take the Solstice's interior apart with my bare hands. Like you said, if they keep this up, they're killing themselves in the process.

[CaddyXLR-V]

I agree totally.

As much of a GM fan as I truly am, I feel that GM dug the grave.....and actually handed the shovel to the media.

95% of the time, when GM has been bashed in the car rags....they've totally deserved it.  They are much better now even than they were 20 and 10 years ago....but they still lag the imports in way too many areas.

Plus, remember that GM vehicles HAVE gotten GREAT press.....when they deserved it.  C&D ranked a new C6 first over a 911....and a C6 convertible came in second just behind a new Boxster.

R&T once ranked the CTS 6-speed 3.6L first in a comparo.....and the STS-V just beat out a CLS55 in C&D.

Of course the media is ALL over GM's current woes like white-on-rice.  Their market share is dropping, costs are out of control, and they are still producing....for the most part....new cars and trucks that are simply not competitive with the imports in enough areas.

[post="60578"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not to start a RWD/FWD debate again, I'm just making an observation. I think its funny that GM gets good press on their new RWD cars, but are still behind on their FWD cars. Maybe GM should have stuck with what its good at? GM can do the Solstice, CTS, STS, GMT-900s, and Corvette right, but still cant get the rest of the lineup right. Why has GM been so hellbent on not building RWD cars, when its obviously what they know and are good at?

[razoredge]

That doesnt make alot of sense either Caddy becasue the CTS, STS, Solstice have all been put donw for one reason or the other as well. The Cobalt has recieved some praise. The full size FWD GMs have always been good cars. I wouldnt fall gullible to the "what is does best" nonsence, after all the 66/67 Toronado and Eldorado were something GM did best, and saying the old RWD cars were done best isnt exactly true, they were just RWD cars, nothing out of the ordinally, they used a four link coil spring rear, that was somewhat premium compared to leaf springs but guess what......leaf spring cars performed just as well and were easier to modify. GM's were not real good handling cars comparitively. GM powertrain has done a great job with there last few decades of FWD cars......excluding the little cars, that has always been a problem.....GM and the "little" cars. I guess the two words in the same sentence is not proper.

[CaddyXLR-V]

That doesnt make alot of sense either Caddy becasue the CTS, STS, Solstice have all been put donw for one reason or the other as well. The Cobalt has recieved some praise. The full size FWD GMs have always been good cars.
I wouldnt fall gullible to the "what is does best" nonsence, after all the 66/67 Toronado and Eldorado were something GM did best, and saying the old RWD cars were done best isnt exactly true, they were just RWD cars, nothing out of the ordinally, they used a four link coil spring rear, that was somewhat premium compared to leaf springs but guess what......leaf spring cars performed just as well and were easier to modify. GM's were not real good handling cars comparitively. GM powertrain has done a great job with there last few decades of FWD cars......excluding the little cars, that has always been a problem.....GM and the "little" cars. I guess the two words in the same sentence is not proper.

[post="81107"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well it makes sense to me. And its not just about what C&D or Motortrend write about them either. It's about what I hear people saying about them. I know a Ford family that wants to go out and buy either a GTO, or a Solstice. I hear people talking about the CTS, and obviously people are buying them because their sales have gone up since the first year, even with the mags complaining about them. The Solstice has been put down for trunk space mostly, but better than reviews of say.... a Lacrosse or the new Impala. I dont think I need to defend the GMT-900s, or the Corvette at all. They are just the best in their classes right now. The FWD midsizers are all propped up by fleets. I swear I think every Grand Prix I have seen in the past 2 weeks(no joke) have been rentals. However,that doesn't mean I think every RWD car GM made is great, and every FWD GM makes sucks.

[carlover23]

Well it makes sense to me. And its not just about what C&D or Motortrend write about them either. It's about what I hear people saying about them. I know a Ford family that wants to go out and buy either a GTO, or a Solstice. I hear people talking about the CTS, and obviously people are buying them because their sales have gone up since the first year, even with the mags complaining about them. The Solstice has been put down for trunk space mostly, but better than reviews of say.... a Lacrosse or the new Impala. I dont think I need to defend the GMT-900s, or the Corvette at all. They are just the best in their classes right now. The FWD midsizers are all propped up by fleets. I swear I think every Grand Prix I have seen in the past 2 weeks(no joke) have been rentals. However,that doesn't mean I think every RWD car GM made is great, and every FWD GM makes sucks.

[post="81189"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

And that is main source of the problem, most people cannot afford to buy the new cadillac or specialty Corvette, Solstice, GTO, etc. But the mainstay of GM the FWD cars get outclassed by the others or the perception is that they are. Look at the W-body, The new Lacrosse and Impala are nice, but have an atrociously small backseat and that really doesn't make since considering the size difference between the GM w's and Camries, Accords, Altimas. You have a vehicle about 198 inches long or even 202 inches long and has less backseat volume that a Camry or Altima that's only 191 or so inches long. This is were I see a principal problem with GM and needs to be corrected.

[Robert Hall]

And that is main source of the problem, most people cannot afford to buy the new cadillac or specialty Corvette, Solstice, GTO, etc. But the mainstay of GM the FWD cars get outclassed by the others or the perception is that they are. Look at the W-body, The new Lacrosse and Impala are nice, but have an atrociously small backseat and that really doesn't make since considering the size difference between the GM w's and Camries, Accords, Altimas. You have a vehicle about 198 inches long or even 202 inches long and has less backseat volume that a Camry or Altima that's only 191 or so inches long. This is were I see a principal problem with GM and needs to be corrected.

[post="82106"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, it's great that GM has world-class performance cars, luxury cars, and full-size SUVs, but where they come up short is the volume market...I'm afraid FWD sedans with average interiors, pushrod V6s and 4spd automatics just aren't competitive beyond the rental car lots... it's not 1996 anymore. Edited January 30, 2006 by moltar

[razoredge]

Yes, it's great that GM has world-class performance cars, luxury cars, and full-size SUVs, but where they come up short is the volume market...I'm afraid FWD sedans with average interiors, pushrod V6s and 4spd automatics just aren't competitive beyond the rental car lots...  it's not 1996 anymore.

[post="82141"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Our 4 sp automatics are the best trannys on the market, its only matters to those than think a higher number means you win :rolleyes:

Our interiors are not average, unless you mean average as in comparable to the rest.

Pushrod v6's only matter to those that think they have discovered new tecnology by learning a few "new" words. Kinda like a little kid when he learns his first curse words.

What does FWD have to do with "volumn market" problems ?

If GM's mid size cars have to look like the Altima to get the rear seat room.........

G6 has been bashed for rear seat room but yet dimensions have proven it to be comparable or better then others in it class. We had dimensions on the Lacrosse that showed it to be comparable or better than others in its class. Then overall dimensions only matter when a lower number means you win ?

I think to many people make too much of things they have "read" or had pounded in their brains here. When GM does get around to building their next mid size platform, Im sure there will be new items to pick the cars apart for and spread the rumors.

Within a decade all passenger cars are going to look like minivans in order to get the backseat whinners to stop whinning.

[drew770]

that's it in a nutshell right there for a lot of it.  i can't imagine stating this problem any better.

[post="58053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I 100% agree.
Everything foreign is better and anything domestic must be of shady quality.

We as a nation would rather see fellow Americans out of work instead of buying something made in the USA.

[The O.C.]

that's it in a nutshell right there for a lot of it.  i can't imagine stating this problem any better.

[post="58053"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Then why do we even have positive articles on Corvette, 300C, or Mustang?