"GM takes flack..."

[wildcat]

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is criticizing GM for offering to "cap" gas prices at $1.99 for certain GM vehicles sold in Florida and California. "Is there a company more dangerous to America's future than General Motors? Surely, the sooner this company gets taken over by Toyota, the better this country will be," Friedman wrote, comparing GM to "a crack dealer looking to keep his addicts on a tight leash" by making the offer. Bob Lutz has shot back that Friedman "is so 'over the top' that it borders on psychosis." ( Go get 'em, Bob!) To view the article, which appeared in the 6/1 Detroit News, click here. Edited June 1, 2006 by wildcat

[CARBIZ]

Go get 'em, Bob!

Although I do agree to a point that America has to ween itself off this addiction to pointless, excessive SUVs, as usual Toyota is getting a free ride when they, just like GM, are doing everything they can to sell more and more big, gas swilling trucks.

No mention of GM's efforts with hybrid buses, which is saving Americans more fuel than all of Toyota's Priuses combined!

[Cadillacfan]

Wow. Now it's getting bad. Some people in the media will do anything to see GM fail just because they don't agree with what they sell. In doing so, they believe that the people who read their crap articles are dumb enough to actually believe what they are reading. Hey, some are but others see that Hybrid cars are a gimmick and not SUVs. People know that when they buy a Tahoe or an Expedition that the fuel mileage will be poor. Yet, with cars like the Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid, they believe that they will be getting well over 60 mpg and save the environment. WRONG! If they want to save the environment, they'd buy an E85 vehicle, drive an electric car, or wait for Hydrogen fuel cells.

Speaking of which, has anyone noticed that ever since GM started promoting E85 and its investment in Hydrogen fuel cells, journalists in the media are now "questioning" whether or not they are practical options? I have in recent months.

Also, has anyone else seen the trailers for the new movie "who killed the electric car?" It's mostly about GM's EV1 project that was ended due to lack of popularity.

From the trailer, it appears that GM ended it because they wanted to build gas guzzling SUVs and that they were in cahoots with big oil. It also completely ignores the fact that GM was one of the first companies that even attempted a mass-market electric vehicle.

Interesting.

Edited June 1, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[sciguy_0504]

Three words: New York Times. It is all you need to know.

CARBIZ, as it has been pointed out many a time, please count how many SUVs and trucks GM has versus Toyota or any other car manufacturer. You have to admit, GM sucked that cow dry during the 1990's.

[Shantanu]

You know I hate to say it but Thomas Friedman is Jewish, and like many Jewish Americans he sees foreign relations (including trade) through the prism of Israel.

Money going to Middle Eastern oil producers creates tax revenues in those countries, which can be used to improve their armies. And the Arab armies have threatened Israel with annihilation before.

But we need to seperate that with the notion that this money necessarily goes to terrorists, which I don't think is the case. You think the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is being fueled by oil money? The oil industry in Iraq is run by Americans now and Afghanistan has no oil.

Thomas Friedman probably cares more about Israel than he does about America. He just doesn't want any money going to Arabs, and he's willing to sacrifice GM - in the misguided belief that they are driving the demand for "gas guzzlers".

[Guest YellowJacket894]

That article is disgusting. I haven't read anything that horrible in months.

One environmentalist says GM's latest marketing effort shows it made too large a bet on SUVs, rather than hybrids or more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I smell bull$h!. How does "Live Green, Go Yellow" back up this statement? How does the fact GM just intro'd a V-6 with DOD back this up? It doesn't. It shows that GM is trying to be just as fuel efficient as the other guys out there.

David Cole, head of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said GM has to offer incentives to be competitive.

I don't think GM is discounting the GMT-900s, are they...?

"The liberal philosophy is we ought to not be buying GM SUVs and instead buying Toyota Priuses. That's their perfect world but it's not the world in which we live."

And a fantasy it shall remain. Some Americans aren't blind and stupid enough as to follow that dumbass smoke and mirror act.

(And can I say that this is proof this article is poorly written? Who in the hell said this? I found no name credited with the quote.)

"Let's be honest, a $1,000 gas card is not going to convince someone who was going to buy a $15,000 small car to buy a $35,000 Chevy Tahoe," Akre said.

Exactly. But the media chooses to ignore this. A person who wants a Cobalt will not go for a Tahoe, assuming that the customer is not fickle and cannot be easily pursuaded to buy something else on the lot.

The program, which runs through July 5, includes gas-thirsty SUVs such as the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, Hummer H2 and H3, and Cadillac SRX.

Yes, but it also includes vehicles like the Chevy Malibu/Maxx, which is by no means a gas guzzler. This is more proof that the media chooses to cut away a part of what makes the truth the truth.

Edited June 1, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[sciguy_0504]

You know I hate to say it but Thomas Friedman is Jewish, and like many Jewish Americans he sees foreign relations (including trade) through the prism of Israel.

Money going to Middle Eastern oil producers creates tax revenues in those countries, which can be used to improve their armies.  And the Arab armies have threatened Israel with annihilation before.

But we need to seperate that with the notion that this money necessarily goes to terrorists, which I don't think is the case.  You think the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is being fueled by oil money?  The oil industry in Iraq is run by Americans now and Afghanistan has no oil.

Thomas Friedman probably cares more about Israel than he does about America.  He just doesn't want any money going to Arabs, and he's willing to sacrifice GM - in the misguided belief that they are driving the demand for "gas guzzlers".

I know exactly what you're getting at.

[haypops]

Thomas Friedman probably cares more about Israel than he does about America.  He just doesn't want any money going to Arabs, and he's willing to sacrifice GM - in the misguided belief that they are driving the demand for "gas guzzlers".

Melvin Udall:" Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here" from "as good as it gets"

[ellives]

The whole premise of the article is pure garbage. GM is simply doing what they think they have to in order to sell their vehicles. Period. If Mr. "dumbass" Friedman wants the US to cut down on their consumption of foreign oil, let him pay his lobbyists like every one else. Have them convince congress to increase the gas tax so the price per gallon is 5 or 10 dollars a gallon. Then people will cut back on the gas guzzlers.

Until then he should stop whining. Nobody cares about his opinion.

[Shantanu]

The basic fact is that at $3 a gallon, gasoline is not a high enough cost to deter that many Americans from buying the SUVs that they want. This has been a huge dissapointment for many in the media who have been enthusiastically predicting the death of the SUV when the next gasoline shock comes. So these frustrated journalists are ripping on GM instead for making these vehicles. And every villain story needs a hero, so they prop up Toyota whose Prius counts for an almost insignificant share of the company's overall sales.

[CaddyXLR-V]

The whole premise of the article is pure garbage. GM is simply doing what they think they have to in order to sell their vehicles. Period. If Mr. "dumbass" Friedman wants the US to cut down on their consumption of foreign oil, let him pay his lobbyists like every one else. Have them convince congress to increase the gas tax so the price per gallon is 5 or 10 dollars a gallon. Then people will cut back on the gas guzzlers.

Until then he should stop whining. Nobody cares about his opinion.

Exactly, change demand, and the manufacturers will change supply. It doesn't work the other way around.

[pow]

The basic fact is that at $3 a gallon, gasoline is not a high enough cost to deter that many Americans from buying the SUVs that they want.  This has been a huge dissapointment for many in the media who have been enthusiastically predicting the death of the SUV when the next gasoline shock comes.  So these frustrated journalists are ripping on GM instead for making these vehicles.  And every villain story needs a hero, so they prop up Toyota whose Prius counts for an almost insignificant share of the company's overall sales.

GM should be the hero, then, and offer compelling reasons (products) for buyers to switch out of Tahoes and into small cars.

[pow]

Exactly, change demand, and the manufacturers will change supply. It doesn't work the other way around.

Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo?

[Shantanu]

Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo?

If the demand was as huge as the media makes it out to be, Toyota would be shipping millions of Prius cars.

There's no doubt there's been a slight shift in consumer preferences. Some of the really huge SUVs aren't selling that well. But the switch hasn't been to sub-compact cars, not by any means. Some of the more moderate sized and cross over SUVs are selling better now. That's all.

Basically these jackasses like Tom Friedman are frustrated that the average American is not buying little sub-compact cars. But they can't rip the consumer for his preferences because that will piss off readers. So they attack GM for "forcing huge SUVs on the consumer", as if all GM makes is the Hummer H2 and there are no other automakers out there.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Shantanu

[wildcat]

GM has now posted a response to Mr. Friedman on its Fastlane Blog. To view it, click here.

[Cadillacfan]

Melvin Udall:" Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here" from "as good as it gets"

I see someone else was watching "As Good as It Gets" this weekend.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo?

Sell SUVs with an average price over $40,000, or a subcompact for $15,000? If it were your business, what would you rather sell? Nobody can seem to get past the fact that buyers out there with money are still spending $40,000+ on huge Suvs. As long as those buyers are there, GM will keep building vehicles to their tastes.

[ellives]

Ridiculous comment. You move a notch down on the credibility scale. Aveo's actually get quite a bit better than 26 mpg and if people ONLY wanted econoboxes, Toyota would have been the only car company left long ago.

Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo?

[ellives]

The only way companies become heroes is by making profits. A hero in your mind by what definition? They should build what people want to buy. Otherwise, they're out of business.

GM should be the hero, then, and offer compelling reasons (products) for buyers to switch out of Tahoes and into small cars.

[toyoguy]

The basic fact is that at $3 a gallon, gasoline is not a high enough cost to deter that many Americans from buying the SUVs that they want.  This has been a huge dissapointment for many in the media who have been enthusiastically predicting the death of the SUV when the next gasoline shock comes.  So these frustrated journalists are ripping on GM instead for making these vehicles.  And every villain story needs a hero, so they prop up Toyota whose Prius counts for an almost insignificant share of the company's overall sales.

sure it is, hence the 1.99 gas cap. Really outside of the GMT-900's all other full-size trucks and SUV's are seeing a sales decline.

[sciguy_0504]

Ridiculous comment. You move a notch down on the credibility scale. Aveo's actually get quite a bit better than 26 mpg and if people ONLY wanted econoboxes, Toyota would have been the only car company left long ago.

How is that a rediculous comment? The number of people who want a fuel efficient car has gone up tenfold since the 1990's, that's common sense. People purchased SUVs just to say they had one...the biggest one, the one with the most horsepower, most cupholders, etc. They did not have a real reason (boat, trailer, moving company, etc.) to buy it. With gas prices at $3.00 a gallon and rising and falling by the week, most see how stupid they were and realize they are fine buying a midsize I4 and using the rental Home Depot trucks once a year.

Toyota only has, what, 5 econoboxes? Out of how many cars? Talk about a rediculous comment.

[PontiacTechNJ]

banging out 07 denalis at a record pace

probably because they have NO COMPETITION , over 400 ft lbs and some halfway decent mpg

all my customers with 5+kids love em

[CARBIZ]

Here we go with this tired old thread: big, bad GM for building huge trucks. Well, the fact is that GM and Ford made a lot of money off those big, bad trucks while Japan Inc. totally missed the boat. Now that Nissan and Toyota are ramping up production on new, bigger than the Titanic trucks they are the ones who may have egg on their faces when gasoline hits $5 a gallon.

GM has a new Aveo coming, the Cobalt is a great car for touring around the city and its gas mileage is quite good. The 4 cylinder Malibu is absolutely stellar on gas efficiency - I've driven many of them. Canada is big on minivans and the Venture was the best fuel mileage winner for years.

GM has had no choice but to re-do the Tahoes, etc. in record time - they have a lot better competition than the past. Japan INc. has finally waken up and actually has a couple trucks that are worth looking at for the first time. But the press seems totally oblivious to the new Toyota Texas plant coming online just as gas prices hit the roof. Or that they have been floundering in the truck market for 11 years.

No, let's just bitch about GM's lack of hybrids.

And Toyoguy, of course GM's pick ups are going to level off - people know there is a new one coming out soon, so they are holding off buying one.

Geesh, the body isn't even cold yet and the vultures are picking over the corpse!

[Cadillacfan]

I think some people are forgetting that when you raise the gas tax and charge people $5 or more, it's going to hurt a lot of small businesses that rely on large trucks/SUVs. Thus, the economy will take a nosedive while small businesses scramble to find alternatives for transportation. The reason why small businesses in Europe haven't suffered with higher fuel costs is because gasolene and other fuels have been taxed for decades and busses, light/industrial rail are the dominant sources of transport.

The U.S. and Canada built up public roads and highways and focused less on city and national railroads. It will take years for the governments to build up the public transportation system to meet the needs of their citizens and environmentalist groups & congress should allow them enough time before demanding higher fuel prices to keep the economy from tanking.

What do you want? The air to be cleaner or a recession?

Edited June 2, 2006 by Cadillacfan

[ellives]

How is that a rediculous comment?  The number of people who want a fuel efficient car has gone up tenfold since the 1990's, that's common sense.  People purchased SUVs just to say they had one...the biggest one, the one with the most horsepower, most cupholders, etc.  They did not have a real reason (boat, trailer, moving company, etc.) to buy it.  With gas prices at $3.00 a gallon and rising and falling by the week, most see how stupid they were and realize they are fine buying a midsize I4 and using the rental Home Depot trucks once a year.

Toyota only has, what, 5 econoboxes?  Out of how many cars?  Talk about a rediculous comment.

The original comment was "Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo? "

This is typical media BS. It slants facts on the side convenient to the argument. The published MPG of the Aveo is higher. There *is* demand for efficient cars now but it's not the ONLY demand. There is ALSO significant demand for large vehicles and GM has chosen to pursue that market... at their own peril. It's a recipe that has worked in the past so why not? Like I said, when customers stop buying large SUV's, GM will build something else. Why blame them for building what people want? Sheesh.

Edited June 3, 2006 by ellives

[ellives]

You're right. You can't have it both ways. It's always a trade off between business (jobs) and taking care of the economy. Keep in mind the main difference between the price of gas in the US and Europe is the additional taxes on European gas.

It's doubtful the US will ever have the public transportation Europe has because our population is less dense. Maybe in a hundred years. Who knows. But it won't happen overnight, which I know is your point. I was just trying to focus on the fact we have a way to throttle consumption. We just choose not to use it.

I think some people are forgetting that when you raise the gas tax and charge people $5 or more, it's going to hurt a lot of small businesses that rely on large trucks/SUVs.  Thus, the economy will take a nosedive while small businesses scramble to find alternatives for transportation.  The reason why small businesses in Europe haven't suffered with higher fuel costs is because gasolene and other fuels have been taxed for decades and busses, light/industrial rail are the dominant sources of transport.

The U.S. and Canada built up public roads and highways and focused less on city and national railroads.  It will take years for the governments to build up the public transportation system to meet the needs of their citizens and environmentalist groups & congress should allow them enough time before demanding higher fuel prices to keep the economy from tanking.

What do you want?  The air to be cleaner or a recession?

[sciguy_0504]

Learn to spell will ya? I actually spelled the word "ridiculous" correctly initially and  you chose to misspell it multiple times in the same post with my correct spelling directly above.

The original comment was "Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo? "

This is typical media BS. It slants facts on the side convenient to the argument. The published MPG of the Aveo is higher. There *is* demand for efficient cars now but it's not the ONLY demand. There is ALSO significant demand for large vehicles and GM has chosen to pursue that market... at their own peril. It's a recipe that has worked in the past so why not? Like I said, when customers stop buying large SUV's, GM will build something else. Why blame them for building what people want? Sheesh.

Learn to stop being an asshole, will you?

Judging by the fact GM now needs to offer $1.99 gas for the GMT900s after they have been on sale for, what, 2 months, it seems to me GM understands demand for those vehicles is not as high as they were in the 1990's. That is partially how GM ended up in its current position, putting all of its eggs in one basket. Sure it worked in the past but look at the present. Times have changed and until people either a) get totally used to and accept having to pay more for gas, b) gas prices go down, or c) people rekindle their love for big trucks in the years ahead after they have moved back to cars, GM will have an even worse time clawing back out of its hole.

People will always want or need a big truck/SUV. Sometimes many people will want them and sometimes only a handful of people need them. That's the difference. GM should manage how it does business better and balance out the car and truck equation to 50/50 (or damn close to it) and build the cars just as well as the trucks. That way GM is in a much better position to react to the market due to circumstances largely out of its control.

[76ChevyTrucker]

Actually, if I remember right, the reason that GM put out the gas cap in Florida and California is because those are the two primary states where GM truck sales are slower than any other state. By the way, here in Alabama, I see at least, 10 new Tahoes, Escalades, Yukons, and Suburbans running around each day.

[pow]

The original comment was "Isn't there a demand for fuel-efficient cars now? What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo? "

This is typical media BS. It slants facts on the side convenient to the argument. The published MPG of the Aveo is higher. There *is* demand for efficient cars now but it's not the ONLY demand. There is ALSO significant demand for large vehicles and GM has chosen to pursue that market... at their own peril. It's a recipe that has worked in the past so why not? Like I said, when customers stop buying large SUV's, GM will build something else. Why blame them for building what people want? Sheesh.

Everyone uses facts convenient to his or her argument, including you.

And what do you mean by the "published MPG" of the Aveo being higher? I get the 26 MPG city figure from the EPA and Chevy's own website; the automatic Aveo, by the way, gets 24 MPG. A browse of a few forums and road-tests reveals similar real-world figures.

There is a demand for cool, well-made, fuel-efficient small cars, but to eyes of the public, GM has been ignoring it. Sure, GM should *not* be reprimanded for selling big SUVs, but they should be for not offering compelling small cars. Imagine an Aveo that gets the GMT900 treatment.

[pow]

Sell SUVs with an average price over $40,000, or a subcompact for $15,000? If it were your business, what would you rather sell? Nobody can seem to get past the fact that buyers out there with money are still spending $40,000+ on huge Suvs. As long as those buyers are there, GM will keep building vehicles to their tastes.

Offering better small cars won't kill GMT900 sales. A consumer conscious about climate change will simply go elsewhere.

Edited June 3, 2006 by empowah

[ellives]

Everyone uses facts convenient to his or her argument, including you. 

And what do you mean by the "published MPG" of the Aveo being higher? I get the 26 MPG city figure from the EPA and Chevy's own website; the automatic Aveo, by the way, gets 24 MPG. A browse of a few forums and road-tests reveals similar real-world figures.

Using facts are one thing. Picking them and conveniently leaving out details (for instance) is another. I try to avoid being deceitful about actual facts I use. When you say 26 mpg, you're referring to the city number. A fact which you conveniently left out. *I* was referring to the highway number of 35 mpg, which I did not state was a highway number but I also didn't state any number at all. I don't see the point in quoting city numbers when vehicle advertising never quotes them.

There is a demand for cool, well-made, fuel-efficient small cars, but to eyes of the public, GM has been ignoring it. Sure, GM should *not* be reprimanded for selling big SUVs, but they should be for not offering compelling small cars. Imagine an Aveo that gets the GMT900 treatment.

On this point you and I agree. If GM hadn't ignored this segment back in the late 70's and early 80's there would be no such thing as "Toyota."

[pow]

Using facts are one thing. Picking them and conveniently leaving out details (for instance) is another. I try to avoid being deceitful about actual facts I use. When you say 26 mpg, you're referring to the city number. A fact which you conveniently left out. *I* was referring to the highway number of 35 mpg, which I did not state was a highway number but I also didn't state any number at all. I don't see the point in quoting city numbers when vehicle advertising never quotes them.

Well, then, you're conveniently ignoring how much more efficient the Aveo's competitors are.

Toyota Yaris: 34/40

Honda Fit: 33/38

Scion xA: 32/37

Hyundai Accent: 32/35

Chevy Aveo: 26/35

Edit: BTW, I *did* mention that the 26 MPG was "city"...

"I get the 26 MPG city figure from the EPA and Chevy's own website..."

"What does GM have for the concerned motorist... a 26 MPG city Aveo?"

Edited June 4, 2006 by empowah

[LTB51]

sure it is, hence the 1.99 gas cap.  Really outside of the GMT-900's all other full-size trucks and SUV's are seeing a sales decline.

Good point. But a slight correction. I believe all the GMT-900s saw sales declines. At least the Avalanche, Yukon, Tahoe and Suburban all declined.

[LTB51]

There is ALSO significant demand for large vehicles and GM has chosen to pursue that market... at their own peril. It's a recipe that has worked in the past so why not? Like I said, when customers stop buying large SUV's, GM will build something else. Why blame them for building what people want? Sheesh.

Big time demand from child sex offenders for yound boys and girls. Lots of money to be made. Perhaps GM could get into that game as well? When sex offenders stopped asking for 5 year old boys, GM could stop offering them. Why blame GM for offering what people want?

Ok, so that was a bit extreme but you get the point. Sometimes there is a higher cause than making money. Perhaps terrorism funded by oil or diamonds isn't it.

GM's small car/hybrid offerings are very poor. Many of them are made by other companies. GM put their resources into getting SUVs to market instead of hybrids or a good small car. Now they are "capping" gas prices. You may not like the message, but it certainly seems to Fit (pun intended!).

Edited June 4, 2006 by LTB51

[pow]

Good point.  But a slight correction.  I believe all the GMT-900s saw sales declines. At least the Avalanche, Yukon, Tahoe and Suburban all declined.

No, both monthly (May '06 v. April '06) and YTD (May '06 v. May '05) sales of GM full-size SUVs are up.

[ehaase]

GM badly needs a handful of small cars, besides the Vibe, that get over 30 mpg in the city and over 40 on the highway.

[Bandit 1]

Go Bob!!

I can tell just by a few scentences of what Tom Friedman said that I don't like him.

[FAPTurbo]

Personally, gas prices will have no effect on me at all.

However, I do agree with the people who say that GM put all it's eggs in one basket. Because of this, GM builds excellent SUV's that excel in almost (if not every) category....

That being said, GM builds small cars that DON'T excel in many categories... The Cobalt is not bad, but not good either when compared to the Mazda3, Honda Civic and even the Korean cars.

GM should have seen the writing on the wall... an emerging China and India that would require plenty of energy, study after study that increasingly confirms that we are at least partly to blame for Global Warming, an increasingly fractured Middle East (even before Sept 11th) and the fact that small cars began to think big in terms of luxury and appointments.

Had GM done some brainstorming, they could have debuted a few small cars that would be class meeting or even class leading. Either taking a gamble or out of ignorance, GM chose to stick with big SUV's and Trucks. No problem with Trucks, I drive one myself, but lets face it, you gotta have diversity if you are to succeed in the corporate world.

Is GM the scourge of the America's? No way. And this author will have some explaining to do to his readership, I know it. But even if they put more money into small diesels or more efficient engines, they'd be miles ahead of where they are now.

But that's the past. All GM can do now is play catch up, and hopefully beat out the rivals.

[Imaj]

Friedman.. I hate him with all my guts!

[regfootball]

GM builds excellent and popular large SUV's that SUCK FUEL.

And the public has been buying all the new 07's up like fire. I saw assloads of them on the interstate this weekend.

WHAT IS THE GODDAMN TROUBLE IN GIVING THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT AND MARKETING THEM AND SELLING THEM?

Sure, GM lacks some more smaller cars, but they do sell some. The Ion, G5, Cobalt, 4 cyl. Malibu, Vibe, all get great mpg!

Don't want one? TFB! Go buy your Xa and hope you survive the side impact!

Doesn't the Sequouia get horrific mileage, especially for its miniscule size? Are they still selling fuel sucking GX Lexus and Landcruisers?

The new Tundra is coming out soon. It sucks fuel and guess what! ITS UGLY TOO! Hold all your comments until we see what kind of cash Toyota has to put on the hood of those! 1.99 gas alone won't make those any less ugly!

Edited June 4, 2006 by regfootball

[Flybrian]

The Armada/QX56 are not just grotesque but absolute pigs. I've heard of people averaging 9-11mpg with them.

[ellives]

Terrible analogy. I'm not sure what I dislike more, the imagery intended by the example or intent to evoke an emotional reaction like Bush's "16 words."

Corporations need to make money to survive. What part about this don't you understand? It's too bad you don't like how GM does it. Sell your stock. What they are doing is perfectly legal so give us all a break. Call and complain to your congressman if you want changes made but save us the splashy comparisons.

You must be a tree hugger.

You're right. GM's small car offerings aren't class-leading and those companies making the class leaders aren't making the margins on them that GM needs to cover it's overhead. Of course the mistake of letting Japan, Inc. get the small car market so many years ago was the real mistake and it will take many years to get the market back if they can ever do it. I for one will not be buying anything but GM or Ford until I have no other choice. Let's hope we never get to this point.

Big time demand from child sex offenders for yound boys and girls.  Lots of money to be made.  Perhaps GM could get into that game as well?  When sex offenders stopped asking for 5 year old boys, GM could stop offering them.  Why blame GM for offering what people want?

Ok, so that was a bit extreme but you get the point.  Sometimes there is a higher cause than making money.  Perhaps terrorism funded by oil or diamonds isn't it.

GM's small car/hybrid offerings are very poor.  Many of them are made by other companies.  GM put their resources into getting SUVs to market instead of hybrids or a good small car.  Now they are "capping" gas prices.  You may not like the message, but it certainly seems to Fit (pun intended!).

[CaddyRich]

Friedman was a guest on "Charlie Rose" a few weeks ago...said he owned a Lexus Hybrid and his wife drove a Prius...as is his right, of course, but I think you can see where the loyalties lie.

[eaton53]

With gas prices at $3.00 a gallon and rising and falling by the week, most see how stupid they were and realize they are fine buying a midsize I4 and using the rental Home Depot trucks once a year.

I love those people... Now's a great time to buy their full size SUV that they're dumping out of panic.

[Flybrian]

Friedman was a guest on "Charlie Rose" a few weeks ago...said he owned a Lexus Hybrid and his wife drove a Prius...as is his right, of course, but I think you can see where the loyalties lie.

If he's a person true to his beliefs, then they should drive a pair of Insights as the aforementioned are hardly the most efficient and green of the hybrids.

[regfootball]

hunch, the VUE hybrid will be the first hybrid to connect with the real middle class, because it carries no social pretense other than give good value and good mpg in a good real world solution way.

I am sure Toyota will attempt to totally belittle GM's effort here....i hope it backfires.

Edited June 5, 2006 by regfootball

[4gm]

Agreed. Plus, it's relatively inexpensive. Hopefully, the Malibu hyrbrid, whenever that comes around, will follow suit.

[TKR]

Big time demand from child sex offenders for yound boys and girls.  Lots of money to be made.  Perhaps GM could get into that game as well?  When sex offenders stopped asking for 5 year old boys, GM could stop offering them.  Why blame GM for offering what people want?

Ok, so that was a bit extreme but you get the point.  Sometimes there is a higher cause than making money.  Perhaps terrorism funded by oil or diamonds isn't it.

GM's small car/hybrid offerings are very poor.  Many of them are made by other companies.  GM put their resources into getting SUVs to market instead of hybrids or a good small car.  Now they are "capping" gas prices.  You may not like the message, but it certainly seems to Fit (pun intended!).

Dick head! So GM stops building trucks. What then? Oh yeah Toyota gets huge market share and makes bigger profits because you can guarantee they wil stay in the truck market. Result: GM goes under....exactly the ending you were looking for.

[MyerShift]

American media sucks.

[TKR]

.........and I would love to see a Prius towing a 6,000 lb trailer.