GM Versus the Media

[The O.C.]

There is a differance between that and simply dismissing ANYTHING wiht a Chevy or Pontiac Badge altogeather.

You can't honestly tell me that you've never witnised a case of disgustingly blatant favoritism in a Car Rag. C'mon we've all seen them and 99% of the time the bias is AGAINST an american manufacturer.

And I think you're wrong, when a car comes out from Honda or Toyota and it's immediately regarded by them as the greatests damn thing since sliced bread it sends a clear message to the brainless masses of the world.

Ask the typical idiot on the street about his oppinion about cars and he'll tell you how Japanese cars are well built but American cars suck. Nevermind this same moron is barelly capable of cheking his oil in his Corolla.

Do you think he forlumated his oppinion based on a fair and even keeled evaluation of a bunch of American and Japanese vehicles or did he just formulate and reinforce his oppinion by thumbing through a car magazinbe here and there at Barnes & Noble?

[post="58614"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lord....the posts on this thread from the "Anti-Media" crowd are simply amazing.....

My simple opinion? There is no formalized media "bias" against GM or ANY domestic car. "Media-bias" is simply EASY justification by GM fans as to why GMs cars don't appeal to more people, don't sell better, or win buff mag comparos.

Sure people have opinions. We all have opinions. However, I think that GM deserves 95% of the negative comments they receive in any buff magazine or newspaper review. (They also deserve 95% of the positive press they receive.)

As has been argued many times over in C&G, GM produces only a few vehicles that are class-competitive.....not to mention class-leading.......and media reports bear this out.

Remember......GM also deserved it when they've rec'd praise.....(Corvette, STS-v, etc.)

Do you think Toyota and Camry fans cried "MEDIA BIAS" when the Camry recently came in 4th place in the C&D midsize sedan comparison test? Nah...they probably acknowledged that car as being a bit tired, dated, unexciting to drive, and due for a remake.

[The O.C.]

  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current Malibu as a car.  Even the 4 cylinder rides, handles and drives perfectly fine.  It is decent on gas.  It has done well in quality surveys.  It is very well priced.  Yet, the media assails it for "cheap" interiors, "light" steering and nitpicks on everything else.  It is the same price as a Corolla, for Gawd's sake, but OMIGOD! - doesn't come in a 5 spd manual or have a 5 spd. automtic, so let's nitpick it to death so everyone buys the Camry because OF COURSE IT IS BETTER.

[post="58641"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Your statement just proves Hudson's point.

I had two Malibus (V6 even) as recent rental cars.....a sedan and a Maxx....even drove one of them over 300 miles, and found them to be quite low-rent to drive and clearly not very competitive in ride-and-handling, engine smoothness and refinement, interior trim quality, interior seat comfort (awful after an hour in the seat), or subjectively, styling.

Compare that to the Camry LE 4cyl I had also recently......and the Toyota felt light-years ahead and like a car that belongs in a higher market segment than Malibu.

I'm sure the Toyota-haters will disagree with me.....but it's an absolute truth.

[The O.C.]

I'm concerned that this site encourages another American pastime of blaming someone else for our troubles.

[post="58667"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The sad part is (and one MAJOR reason GM continues to struggle today) that attitude is standard-operating-procedure at GM.

(at least it was when I worked there for 11 years.)

[turbo200]

The sad part is (and one MAJOR reason GM continues to struggle today) that attitude is standard-operating-procedure at GM.

(at least it was when I worked there for 11 years.)

[post="82350"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today. Many people here can't face it because of blinding loyalty, but GM's mainstream cars are far outclassed.

[The O.C.]

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today. Many people here can't face it because of blinding loyalty, but GM's mainstream cars are far outclassed.

[post="82352"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Amen.....brutha' (unfortunately)

[turbo200]

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.

[post="82210"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The FWD cars GM builds are all outclassed [except for maybe the Lucerne, which is comparable to the rest in its class, minus a few shortcomings] by competitors in its class. GM has relied on outdated technology for its FWD cars, or they just can't figure out how to build FWD platforms correctly [as evidenced by reviews of the Epsilon cars, 9-3, G6, Malibu all have been criticized for handling]. That's how FWD figures into the argument.

I've said it once and I'll keep saying it. Until you go out and drive the competition you have no bearing to say some of the things you are saying. Go out and drive a Cobalt and then a Mazda3 and then a Honda Civic and then a 5 year old Corolla. Then come back and give us an objective report on interior quality and design. The Cobalt will be the one that feels like you can tear it apart with your own hands.

Transmissions and engine configurations matter when there are better designs out there, and when the rest of the competition has left you behind. Both cases are true for GM. Next.

The competition has figured out how to make sloping roofs and good looking automobiles and still make back seats infinitely more comfortable than most of GM's offerings. Once again, go sit in an Accord, Camry, and Altima back seat and then compare to G6, Grand Prix, Impala, Malibu, Lacrosse. As OC has documented here, GM places the seatback angle so as to artifically create more rear dimmensions, but not comfort. Listen to the argument, comprehend it, and then respond.

[turbo200]

Lord....the posts on this thread from the "Anti-Media" crowd are simply amazing.....

My simple opinion?  There is no formalized media "bias" against GM or ANY domestic car.  "Media-bias" is simply EASY justification by GM fans as to why GMs cars don't appeal to more people, don't sell better, or win buff mag comparos.

Sure people have opinions.  We all have opinions.  However, I think that GM deserves 95% of the negative comments they receive in any buff magazine or newspaper review.  (They also deserve 95% of the positive press they receive.)

As has been argued many times over in C&G, GM produces only a few vehicles that are class-competitive.....not to mention class-leading.......and media reports bear this out.

Remember......GM also deserved it when they've rec'd praise.....(Corvette, STS-v, etc.)

Do you think Toyota and Camry fans cried "MEDIA BIAS" when the Camry recently came in 4th place in the C&D midsize sedan comparison test?  Nah...they probably acknowledged that car as being a bit tired, dated, unexciting to drive, and due for a remake.

[post="82339"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Completely agreed.

The reason multiple media outlets exist, not twelve, not twenty, not fifty, but a gazillion press sources exist is so that they can balance each other out and we the public can pick and choose which we most closely agree with. There can sometimes be variations in the reviews, but a wide consensus has to appear, otherwise we the people would stop buying from that magazine that seems to disagree with everyone else.

This media bias crap is crap. It's a weak argument too. It shows cowardice, childishness, and ignorance. Oh, they hurt my feelings, so they must be wrong. Yadda yadda yadda.

I take what they give. Sometimes I don't agree with what they say. Most of the times their reviews are fair and balanced. Notice how MOST of EDUCATED America seems to agree with them, since thier sales have been sustained, and Import sales, the cars they most often praise, have gone up. A good review will get someone to consider an automobile. Ultimately it will take a good test drive and a good deal for the customer to make that decision to buy that car. The review will not automatically warrant a purchase.

[Robert Hall]

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today. Many people here can't face it because of blinding loyalty, but GM's mainstream cars are far outclassed.

[post="82352"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

To use another analogy, GM is kind of like the underachieving student content to limp along with Bs and Cs---being average when they are capable of better, and complaining about the other kids who are consistently getting As.

GM has built waaaay too many C (and even D) grade cars..they are certainly capable of building A grade cars, but seem not to want to go the extra mile often enough to build them... Edited January 30, 2006 by moltar

[Flybrian]

As my sig says,

[razoredge]

The FWD cars GM builds are all outclassed - according to you -[except for maybe the Lucerne, which is comparable to the rest in its class, - better in its class according to me - minus a few shortcomings] by competitors in its class. GM has relied on outdated technology for its FWD cars - and you know this because you read it somewhere ? -, or they just can't figure out how to build FWD platforms correctly [as evidenced by reviews of the Epsilon cars, 9-3, G6, Malibu all have been criticized for handling]. - here we are at the bottom of the GM stable again, GM has never made a good small car, never, get used to it and stop using it to steriotype the rest of the stable........then isnt there something about "electric steering" something maybe you would jump up and down about "technology" yet real drivers would shrug their shoulders at.

That's how FWD figures into the argument. - sterio type -

I've said it once and I'll keep saying it. Until you go out and drive the competition you have no bearing to say some of the things you are saying. Go out and drive a Cobalt and then a Mazda3 and then a Honda Civic and then a 5 year old Corolla. Then come back and give us an objective report on interior quality and design. The Cobalt will be the one that feels like you can tear it apart with your own hands. - I could tear anything apart with my hands, yet I never thought of it that way  :unsure:  I dont have this interior fetish you have, I would never purchase a car based on the "feel" of its interior, sorry - not !

Transmissions and engine configurations matter when there are better designs out there, and when the rest of the competition has left you behind. Both cases are true for GM. Next.

The Buick's automatic transmission is a four-speed instead of the Toyota's modern five-speed, but Lucerne's gearbox is smoother-shifting than Avalon's.

NEXT !

The competition has figured out how to make sloping roofs and good looking automobiles - Avalon not good looking, Camry acceptable but lacking, yet from the rear is butt ugly, Fords interesting but not for me, Dodge not for me, Accord I like the G6 far better - and still make back seats infinitely more comfortable than most of GM's offerings. -according to you - Once again, go sit in an Accord, Camry, and Altima back seat and then compare to G6, Grand Prix, Impala, Malibu, Lacrosse. As OC has documented here, GM places the seatback angle so as to artifically create more rear dimmensions, - as I recall what OC spoke about was the location of the seat bottom in the floor pan creating an awkward entry exit issue, I have owned W body, have you ? had no effect on my life whatsoever, my then 15 year old daughter said it was alrigh but nothing like the luxury roomyness of our H & C bodies, do you know about them ? didnt think so ! I really always loved to see 3 teenagers sardined into the back of an Accord or Prelude, I prayed their parents never lost them before thier time. - but not comfort. Listen to the argument, comprehend it, and then respond. - you have no arguement, nothing to comprehend, just the same old thing over and over and over, its called a fetish, maybe kinda like that guy Monk ? -

[post="82355"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[The O.C.]

[quote name='razoredge' date='Jan 30 2006, 05:28 PM']
NEXT !

The competition has figured out how to make sloping roofs and good looking automobiles - Avalon not good looking, Camry acceptable but lacking, yet from the rear is butt ugly, Fords interesting but not for me, Dodge not for me, Accord I like the G6 far better - and still make back seats infinitely more comfortable than most of GM's offerings. -according to you - Once again, go sit in an Accord, Camry, and Altima back seat and then compare to G6, Grand Prix, Impala, Malibu, Lacrosse. As OC has documented here, GM places the seatback angle so as to artifically create more rear dimmensions, - as I recall what OC spoke about was the location of the seat bottom in the floor pan creating an awkward entry exit issue, I have owned W body, have you ? had no effect on my life whatsoever, my then 15 year old daughter said it was alrigh but nothing like the luxury roomyness of our H & C bodies, do you know about them ? didnt think so ! I really always loved to see 3 teenagers sardined into the back of an Accord or Prelude, I prayed their parents never lost them before thier time. - but not comfort. Listen to the argument, comprehend it, and then respond. - you have no arguement, nothing to comprehend, just the same old thing over and over and over, its called a fetish, maybe kinda like that guy Monk ? -

[post="82355"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]

[post="82500"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]

Thank GOD you are not in a position of importance at GM.......

<aaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh>

[Hudson]

GM has built waaaay too many C (and even D) grade cars..they are certainly capable of building A grade cars, but seem not to want to go the extra mile often enough to build them...

I think you may have stumbled onto something. I don't believe that there are any "D-grade" cars in the US market...and if there are, GM's not building them. GM's building very few "A-grade" products, but even the worst product on the market would have to stretch to reach down into the "D-grade."

You have to nit-pick to find differences between the best and worst in a segment. A 4-speed automatic usually doesn't get the same kind of highway (or sometimes even city) fuel economy as a 6-speed automatic...so if a 1 mpg real world difference in a GM 4-speed car vs a competitive 5- or 6-speed is the differentiator between two products, that gap becomes huge...1st place vs 2nd place.

For me, the interiors of GM products are good in places and bad in others. As a package, they're (on the whole) not class leading. Like I said, let's get together and I'll show you, but it takes being nit-picky to see the gap between best and worst. This isn't 1980....or 1970....or 1930!

[regfootball]

The sad part is (and one MAJOR reason GM continues to struggle today) that attitude is standard-operating-procedure at GM.

(at least it was when I worked there for 11 years.)

[post="82350"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

maybe all they need to do is fire 50% of their staff, and replace most of the factory workers or shut the factories down. bring in some new energetic blood interested in competing.

[balthazar]

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today.

Is this theory anything like blaming GM for saab's long-running woes? Or the arrogance of blaming GM with commentary such as 'Car X doesn't have a glove box lamp, no wonder GM has lost half of it's (historic high) market share!!!!!' This degree of broadbrush whitewashing is never deserved and never objective. Constructive criticism is fine as long as the treatment of the industry remains balanced.

Oops.

Arrogance Boulevard is a 2-way street. Edited January 31, 2006 by balthazar

[turbo200]

This kind of arrogance--blaming the media and believing they are whackos--is what got GM into the problem they are in today.

Is this theory anything like blaming GM for saab's long-running woes? Or the arrogance of blaming GM with commentary such as 'Car X doesn't have a glove box lamp, no wonder GM has lost half of it's (historic high) market share!!!!!' This degree of broadbrush whitewashing is never deserved and never objective. Constructive criticism is fine as long as the treatment of the industry remains balanced.

Oops.

Arrogance Boulevard is a 2-way street.

[post="82700"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's a lot like blaming GM for Saab's woes. It's consistent and objective analysis taken from a point of view of knowing some of the inner-workings of the corporation and seeing the results.

Saab is a great example of piss-poor management. Zarella and all Brand imaging whizes decided to pour money into trucks and ignore cars because trucks were where all the profits were. What they neglected to see was the explosion of luxury makes right around that time. BMW and MB were both having successes with each new redesign and model introduction. What a different story we'd be looking at if Sigma had spawned just two additional cars for Saab. Saab's cars would probably be much better executed than Caddy's have been.

GM was arrogant enough to look at its sales channel and look at its still gigantic share of the market and ignore all the signs that there product wasn't ENOUGH! Their product was shoddy! And little by little people were waking up to the fact. Today we have reached a point now where many Americans hate GM. They have sampled the product, either from today, or from the last decade, and have seen no justifiable reason to go back. They hate GM, because of all the crap GM has put out there. Go out and drive a Lumina and try telling me it compares to Accord's and Camry's of the time. Go out and drive a Buick from the time and try telling me it doesn't shake and rattle and look like it's designed straight out of the 70's. There was just so much wrong with the company, I can't believe college educated people were in charge of the company.

[enzl]

Where are you guys in some of the other posts? They're killing me. Bathazar- You seem like a bright guy...why is it that GM's shortcomings being pointed out scream bias to you? I Don't think there should be 4 sp. autos in $40k or higher cars or trucks. Corvette's should have world class interiors (cost:$750.00) to match their performance. Saab-should never have been starved for product when the whole world is going to economy/premium brands, with little room in between. Fiat- 'nuff said. I could go on, but I've gotta work. It's just sad to me.

[turbo200]

Where are you guys in some of the other posts?

They're killing me. Just catching up with you. I think you do a terrific job of it already.

I Don't think there should be 4 sp. autos in $40k or higher cars or trucks.

Corvette's should have world class interiors (cost:$750.00) to match their performance.

Saab-should never have been starved for product when the whole world is going to economy/premium brands, with little room in between.

Fiat- 'nuff said.

[post="83123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Is this too much to ask for? In your most reasonable of mindsets, balthazar, razoredge, et al, are we asking for too much by asking for GM to simply live up to the competition's standard?

GM simply has failed in too many regards, and I will point it out and keep them on thier toes and question leadership to make sure they are doing thier best as long as I am alive.

[Flybrian]

Saab-should never have been starved for product when the whole world is going to economy/premium brands, with little room in between.

[post="83123"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

SAAB starved themselves of product for decades, that precedent was set long before GM took over. What people don't see when comparing the Sweedes is that Volvo has always been more mainstream while SAAB was definitely boutique - two models, a few variations, years and years between significant changes - with a limited market willing to pay a large premium for a largely-unsupported car with quirky aspects. The 9-5 is a vestige of that pre-GM thinking.

Now, I agree GM should've exploited SAABs limited appeal to these lower-end models becoming so popular now (TSX, S40), but they have tried. I don't see how you can blame SAABs langusihing as a brand on GM because it seems extrodinarily difficult to bring a niche product into the mainstream while not alienating the core buyers. The 9-3 is a great product no doubt and that was partly (if not more)-GM.

I'm not even going to get much into the SAAB/Subaru debacle. That became a clusterfuck when it could've panned out perfectly, giving SAAB Subaru's AWD knowledge and performance while giving Subaru some quality and more safety.

[turbo200]

SAAB starved themselves of product for decades, that precedent was set long before GM took over. What people don't see when comparing the Sweedes is that Volvo has always been more mainstream while SAAB was definitely boutique - two models, a few variations, years and years between significant changes - with a limited market willing to pay a large premium for a largely-unsupported car with quirky aspects. The 9-5 is a vestige of that pre-GM thinking.

Now, I agree GM should've exploited SAABs limited appeal to these lower-end models becoming so popular now (TSX, S40), but they have tried. I don't see how you can blame SAABs langusihing as a brand on GM because it seems extrodinarily difficult to bring a niche product into the mainstream while not alienating the core buyers. The 9-3 is a great product no doubt and that was partly (if not more)-GM.

I'm not even going to get much into the SAAB/Subaru debacle. That became a clusterfuck when it could've panned out perfectly, giving SAAB Subaru's AWD knowledge and performance while giving Subaru some quality and more safety.

[post="83157"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The kind of thinking that Saab, as a premium Euro brand, has limited appeal and is "niche" only is what has kept GM from exploting its potential. BMW, MB, Subaru, Volvo, Acura, basically every luxury brand out there----a decade ago one could make the same argument that they were niche. Now look where they've gone. Not seeing the explosion in 1999 that was happenning in the luxury segment is one of the bigger doses of shortsightedness at the tubes.

GM is completely to blame for not understanding where they wanted to take Saab and how far they could have gone. For the price, the 9-3 is one of the least competitive cars in its class, and yet it sold really well and continues to do decently. Saab should have continued that momentum with a bigger more premium 9-5 befitting of the 45-60k price realm. Further down the line a big Saab would have made sense. In the new millenium branding is one of the most important issues. The next generation of Saab products are a very important line, and GM should see to it they are as distinctive and as premium as possible. Saab could very well become a big profit central in the future if they do. Edited February 1, 2006 by turbo200

[Flybrian]

The kind of thinking that Saab, as a premium Euro brand, has limited appeal and is "niche" only is what has kept GM from exploting its potential. BMW, MB, Subaru, Volvo, Acura, basically every luxury brand out there----a decade ago one could make the same argument that they were niche. Now look where they've gone. Not seeing the explosion in 1999 that was happenning in the luxury segment is one of the bigger doses of shortsightedness at the tubes.

[post="83162"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

No, not in the same way SAAB is/was. BMW and Mercedes were large in their home market, Subaru a player in theirs, Volvo much more dominant in Sweeden, and Acuras are Hondas. All that means they had the financial support to fall back on as 'niche' brands stateside and major brands elsewhere. GM has had less than a decade of full SAAB ownership during which time its experienced its own ups and downs.

[turbo200]

GM had a lot of money in 1999 to help Saab and chose not to. Saab is in the dumpers because GM didn't have the foresight to do anything about it ten years ago. Ten years ago, we were witnessing the beginnings of a luxury explosion, with cars like the A4, 3-series, and Passat all seeing sales increases on the back of better product. GM could have produced something along with the 9-3 to better equip Saab to steal some market from those guys. That's my beef.

[Flybrian]

GM had a lot of money in 1999 to help Saab and chose not to. Saab is in the dumpers because GM didn't have the foresight to do anything about it ten years ago. Ten years ago, we were witnessing the beginnings of a luxury explosion, with cars like the A4, 3-series, and Passat all seeing sales increases on the back of better product. GM could have produced something along with the 9-3 to better equip Saab to steal some market from those guys. That's my beef.

[post="83192"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Agreed, but ask yourself - what irons did SAAB have in the fire before the GM takeover? My guess is 'none,' so is GM at fault for SAAB's mediocrity? Not really. They didn't 'starve' them of money or 'rob' them of anything; they just bought SAAB and let it largely fend for itself.

GM may have not called 911, but they didn't start the fire nor did they throw gasoline on it.

[turbo200]

okay agree to disagree.......certainly Saab had not much going on for it, except a cool premium, hip Euro image........GM has wasted a lot of time and a lot of potential and have let them languish......sound like something else? ya, GM's entire car lineup

[balthazar]

saab voted to allow their company to be sold to GM; you get that?? Whatever beef you have with GM over saab since... make sure you give due credit to those who made it all possible in the first place- those who ran down saab to the point of 'hooking' on the open market streetcorner.

Saab was never 'cool' or 'hip' or 'premium' or 'upscale' or any of that before The Sale- not in this country. And "euro" had little credibility beyond a few german brands. They were 2 things and 2 things only as of the '80s: wierdly ugly, and they had turbos.
Beyond money, saab likely wanted to get in the GM nest because of GM's extensive forced induction experience. They sure weren't bringing anything to the table themselves except open hands. Fly is nailing the situation down tight; the rest is spin. Edited February 1, 2006 by balthazar

[turbo200]

Saab was never 'cool' or 'hip' or 'premium' or 'upscale' or any of that before The Sale- not in this country. And "euro" had little credibility beyond a few german brands. They were 2 things and 2 things only as of the '80s: wierdly ugly, and they had turbos.
Beyond money, saab likely wanted to get in the GM nest because of GM's extensive forced induction experience. They sure weren't bringing anything to the table themselves except open hands. Fly is nailing the situation down tight; the rest is spin.

[post="83420"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

In my neck of the woods, Chicago, they were. Saab was quirky and rare----elusive.....a good thing for cars.

I think you're taking this a bit too far. It's not the reason for my rantings on GM--I do it because I'm passionate and see an opportunity for something great to arise from what they are----and because there are people that agree with me, and vindicate what I'm saying.

"Extensive forced induction experience"? I'm sure it had more to do with bleeding money and no direction than anything else.

and then of course the good guys at GM came in and came up with no plan either. You think Carlos Ghosn would make this kind of meaningless purchase? or would he turn his investment into profit?

[razoredge]

Is this too much to ask for? In your most reasonable of mindsets, balthazar, razoredge, et al, are we asking for too much by asking for GM to simply live up to the competition's standard?

GM simply has failed in too many regards, and I will point it out and keep them on thier toes and question leadership to make sure they are doing thier best as long as I am alive.

[post="83154"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

GM has held the standards.....over the decades.....you let your young view of the world tell you that you hate Caddys & Buicks and Pontiacs and Olds built in the 90's, because they are from the decade of cars you were naturally born to hate. When you need to pull proof of validation of this hatred you dig out the old Lumina or Cavalier, or you jump on the "technology" train derailment and away you go.

The last paragraph reeks of way to much self gratifacation..........look out everyone turbo's in charge of GM now....if anything changes to his acceptability he is ready and waiting to take credit........I dont know how he will get the media to accept and give credit..before they first open the artical with something like "remember the car company we all told you not to buy cars from, well this car is from them......now having said all that, its a really nice car but........look at this here hun duh

[Flybrian]

The last paragraph reeks of way to much self gratifacation..........look out everyone turbo's in charge of GM now....if anything changes to his acceptability he is ready and waiting to take credit........I dont know how he will get the media to accept and give credit..before they first open the artical with something like "remember the car company we all told you not to buy cars from, well this car is from them......now having said all that, its a really nice car but........look at this here hun duh

[post="83489"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Um, there have been members here that are no longer here that spouted their mindless anti-GM crap with no resolve. They were true embodiments of self gratification. They probably drove LaCrosses with trunks filled with tissues and hand moisturizer they were into self gratification so much.

Turbo is not one of them.

How about we focus more on the discussions than each other? From all sides.

[evok]

GM had a lot of money in 1999 to help Saab and chose not to. Saab is in the dumpers because GM didn't have the foresight to do anything about it ten years ago. Ten years ago, we were witnessing the beginnings of a luxury explosion, with cars like the A4, 3-series, and Passat all seeing sales increases on the back of better product. GM could have produced something along with the 9-3 to better equip Saab to steal some market from those guys. That's my beef.

[post="83192"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Some of you need to do some better research on the SAAB story. GM was only a 50% partner in SAAB and Investor was the other 50% owner during the 90s. Any investment into SAAB during that period were matching investment by both partners. If one partner does not want to invest neither will the other.

[Hudson]

The problem with Saab is that it's not BMW or Audi or Mercedes-Benz or even Volvo. Saab has always been a niche player with a model or two. When they doubled their lineup to include the 9000, they filled out their range...a junior and senior model. Whereas BMW and Mercedes-Benz have had small, medium, and large models for quite some time and Audi moved into the "full-range" lineup with the V8, Saab was just a niche player with the 900 and 9000. Being "starved" for products is only in the eyes of people who want to compare Saab to other premium brands. Was Porsche starved for products when it only had the 911 and Boxster? Is Bentley starved with only the Continental GT/Flying Spur and Arnage/Azure? Was Land Rover starved when it only had the Range Rover and the Land Rover (before it was called the Defender)? It's all in the point of view. GM is trying to make Saab into its international premium brand. So NOW Saab needs (according to GM) everything from a 9-1 to a 9-7x? Why can't some brands remain niche players? Why does Lincoln need to sell 200,000 units a year? Why does Bentley or Maserati have to sell 10,000 annually? Why can't Saab sell 100,000 units a year and be happy?

[balthazar]

In my neck of the woods, Chicago, they were. Saab was quirky and rare----elusive.....a good thing for cars.

I said "before The Sale", meaning 1989. Dude- you were 4 years old. Me, a was already heavily into cars and I can assure you, automotive publications, popular references, 'street buzz' all ignored saab. They got a tiny bit of notice via print ad carpet bombing in the mid-late '80s, but they were never first string considerations OR aspirations for more than a handful of consumers. It may sound harsh, but it's true, I'm afraid.

hudson- I agree; saab does not have the appeal nor the ability to sustain a full lineup.

[turbo200]

In my neck of the woods, Chicago, they were. Saab was quirky and rare----elusive.....a good thing for cars.

I said "before The Sale", meaning 1989. Dude- you were 4 years old. Me, a was already heavily into cars and I can assure you, automotive publications, popular references, 'street buzz' all ignored saab. They got a tiny bit of notice via print ad carpet bombing in the mid-late '80s, but they were never first string considerations OR aspirations for more than a handful of consumers. It may sound harsh, but it's true, I'm afraid.

hudson- I agree; saab does not have the appeal nor the ability to sustain a full lineup.

[post="83628"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

:) props

Before the sale means pre-1999 when Saab became fully owned by GM. At that time, at least from my perspective and what the general public thought of Saab-is that they were fun, quirky, premium, and cool in an elusive way. The convertible helped the perception in young people's eyes.

[turbo200]

The problem with Saab is that it's not BMW or Audi or Mercedes-Benz or even Volvo. Saab has always been a niche player with a model or two. When they doubled their lineup to include the 9000, they filled out their range...a junior and senior model.

Whereas BMW and Mercedes-Benz have had small, medium, and large models for quite some time and Audi moved into the "full-range" lineup with the V8, Saab was just a niche player with the 900 and 9000.

Being "starved" for products is only in the eyes of people who want to compare Saab to other premium brands. Was Porsche starved for products when it only had the 911 and Boxster? Is Bentley starved with only the Continental GT/Flying Spur and Arnage/Azure? Was Land Rover starved when it only had the Range Rover and the Land Rover (before it was called the Defender)? It's all in the point of view.

GM is trying to make Saab into its international premium brand. So NOW Saab needs (according to GM) everything from a 9-1 to a 9-7x? Why can't some brands remain niche players? Why does Lincoln need to sell 200,000 units a year? Why does Bentley or Maserati have to sell 10,000 annually? Why can't Saab sell 100,000 units a year and be happy?

[post="83605"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

BMW was a full range maker, but MB introduced thier smaller car line in the '90's. Audi was practically dead before the A4 of '98. Volvo has also expanded thier lineup with much success.

I agree with you that not every carmaker has to be full-line. So when GM updated the 9-3 in 2002, why didn't they go ahead and update the 6 year old 9-5 as well? Why have they let the 9-3 rot; uncompetitive engines, chassis not up to the benchmark, this car is now going on 5 years old, and GM still won't have an update for it until maybe 2010 on EPII. That's ludicrous. What a waste.

Saab had potential beyond the junior and senior sedan model. GM completely abandoned thier long history of hatchbacks in 2002. What about various sized hatchback models? What about a roadster? What happened to the Sigma utility for Saab? Saab didn't have to add that much, but something beyond an underpowered, overpriced entry level and an old, irrelevant sedan.

[turbo200]

Some of you need to do some better research on the SAAB story.  GM was only a 50% partner in SAAB and Investor was the other 50% owner during the 90s.  Any investment into SAAB during that period were matching investment by both partners.  If one partner does not want to invest neither will the other.

[post="83540"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I knew this already. I've really been concentrating on the years since Saab became fully owned by GM, which was 1999, if I'm correct. Since then, GM has had plenty of time to turn this great brand around but has done nothing about it. Saab has so much talent, that turn out so much with so little money, and yet GM has done nothing with them. Losing Mauer was also a serious blow to them. The concepts he was churning out were terrific.

[turbo200]

Um, there have been members here that are no longer here that spouted their mindless anti-GM crap with no resolve. They were true embodiments of self gratification. They probably drove LaCrosses with trunks filled with tissues and hand moisturizer they were into self gratification so much.

Turbo is not one of them.

How about we focus more on the discussions than each other? From all sides.

[post="83533"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

thanks fly :) that was really good to hear

[CaddyXLR-V]

[quote name='turbo200' date='Feb 1 2006, 03:08 PM']
I said "before The Sale", meaning 1989. Dude- you were 4 years old. Me, a was already heavily into cars and I can assure you, automotive publications, popular references, 'street buzz' all ignored saab. They got a tiny bit of notice via print ad carpet bombing in the mid-late '80s, but they were never first string considerations OR aspirations for more than a handful of consumers. It may sound harsh, but it's true, I'm afraid.

hudson- I agree; saab does not have the appeal nor the ability to sustain a full lineup.

[post="83628"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]
:) props

Before the sale means pre-1999 when Saab became fully owned by GM. At that time, at least from my perspective and what the general public thought of Saab-is that they were fun, quirky, premium, and cool in an elusive way. The convertible helped the perception in young people's eyes.

[post="83808"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]
From my perspective, Saab was pretty much non existant. The only reason I found out what Saabs look like, is because GM bought Saab. I think I heard of Saab once, and saw none,before 1999.

[turbo200]

Hey, nobody answered my Ghosn questions. Somebody give me thier opinion..... Would Ghosn have made the kind of meaningless, profitless purchase that Saab has turned out to be so far? Would he have let the brand go without an investment to turn it around, and instead let careless rebadges tarnish what little image the brand had?

[turbo200]

[quote name='CaddyXLR-V' date='Feb 1 2006, 03:19 PM']
:) props

Before the sale means pre-1999 when Saab became fully owned by GM. At that time, at least from my perspective and what the general public thought of Saab-is that they were fun, quirky, premium, and cool in an elusive way. The convertible helped the perception in young people's eyes.

[post="83808"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]
From my perspective, Saab was pretty much non existant. The only reason I found out what Saabs look like, is because GM bought Saab. I think I heard of Saab once, and saw none,before 1999.

[post="83814"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[/quote]
they were pretty rare, but that's part of my argument for them. The Euro, eccentric look that nobody else shared, the beloved convertible that was a "special" car since nobody else had one.....all of these things worked in thier favor.

I remember my sister asking me about Saab. Some guy in one, who she apparently found attractive, smiled at her. She was a young professional at the time, making a decent salary. I said Saab's were pretty pricey, and she thought they were nice. This is the kind of image and allure a rare car that is somewhat expensive has to the general public. Following that line of thinking, GM needed to produce different cars for Saab that followed thier historical product line, and updated them with great engines, great handling, and Saab's great styling.

[Hudson]

BMW was a full range maker, but MB introduced thier smaller car line in the '90's. Audi was practically dead before the A4 of '98. Volvo has also expanded thier lineup with much success.

What about the Mercedes-Benz 190-class that was introduced back in the 1980s (replacing the 240D)? And Audi was on life-support...in the US (thanks to "60 Minutes"). But Audi was successful before the "pedal misapplication" problem, back when Audi had the 4000 and the 5000 models. By the way, the A4 in 1994 was the start of their turnaround.

[razoredge]

Yes, we never thought much about Audi way back. Audi Fox, then came the quattro and they recieved some attention but still VW was the car of abundance. Now Audis are common on the highway and in racing dominates LeMans prototypes, I mean dominates, it always used to be Porsche.

[enzl]

SAAB starved themselves of product for decades, that precedent was set long before GM took over. What people don't see when comparing the Sweedes is that Volvo has always been more mainstream while SAAB was definitely boutique - two models, a few variations, years and years between significant changes - with a limited market willing to pay a large premium for a largely-unsupported car with quirky aspects. The 9-5 is a vestige of that pre-GM thinking.

Now, I agree GM should've exploited SAABs limited appeal to these lower-end models becoming so popular now (TSX, S40), but they have tried. I don't see how you can blame SAABs langusihing as a brand on GM because it seems extrodinarily difficult to bring a niche product into the mainstream while not alienating the core buyers. The 9-3 is a great product no doubt and that was partly (if not more)-GM.

I'm not even going to get much into the SAAB/Subaru debacle. That became a clusterfuck when it could've panned out perfectly, giving SAAB Subaru's AWD knowledge and performance while giving Subaru some quality and more safety.

[post="83157"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'll assume you agree with the rest of my quick list then?

Saab is 'upscale'. Euro fashion has run this direction for years...the death of the mid-market brand has had a head start in Europe....GM never read those tea leaves right...nor the Euro switch to diesel....nor Fiat's disasterous financial condition...nor Subaru's unwillingness to abandon the pancake engines for GM or Rudolf Diesel?....

Saab could have been sharing components with Opel for years...noone would have complained....Saab should have had an SUV or outback type vehicle years ago (and what would that have cost???)....Saab went away from 5 doors when all the growth was in 'em (SUV's are a hatchback on steroids)!!!

Nah. GM maximized that investment. rolleyes.

[razoredge]

GM didnt have the money to invest actually. They bought Saab, canned Oldsmobile...which was in the middle of some kind of transformation and investment ??? Olds sold aprox 220,000, Saab was selling how many ? Now they were out of money for anything but Cadillac, Corvette, Kappa and we all know the rest - re gineered. So knowing this how can we sit and say GM should have gone full tilt with Saab ? They have developed three platforms......one is for Cadillac only and the other is two small roadsters and the G6/Malibu. They have a few new motors and some reengineered or modified projects. They adapted the V8 for a few FWD, and adapted the Northstar for RWD. Doesnt seem like much does it ? We all know how that goes, if you think about it however its is alot of tooling. Im just not to sure about the platform choices or distribution.

[turbo200]

Hey, nobody answered my Ghosn questions.

Somebody give me thier opinion.....

Would Ghosn have made the kind of meaningless, profitless purchase that Saab has turned out to be so far? Would he have let the brand go without an investment to turn it around, and instead let careless rebadges tarnish what little image the brand had?

[post="83816"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm assuming the collective silence means Ghosn would have chosen a better route than GM did.

[balthazar]

I'm assuming the collective silence means Ghosn would have chosen a better route than GM did.

That would not be a reasonable assumption.

The question is really quite immaterial. I have not examined his career and results, still; any opinion is really a wild guess: different brands in different states of health & image in different markets & segments.

BTW- a lot of the investment saab has gotten has been squandered with needless twiddledicking on their part: re-engineering fasteners & attempting to minorly re-engineer transmissions (thankfully disallowed by GM). Saab didn't know how to properly allocate funds after the '80s and they haven't learned anything since. Edited February 3, 2006 by balthazar