regfootball

suzuki's only true suzuki here is the SX4. even their new pickup is stolen. so yeah, they should go. at least mits makes the evo. subaru, toyota, half of honda, kia, hyundai, all can go. mazda and nissan can stay because there is a little product distintineness there. IMHO. because they all sell redundant stuff. blandmobiles. GM get's criticized for having so many brands but the proliferation of all the same bland type of crap cars from japan and korea is the same deal. With Nissan we get nice trucks like the Xterra. we get a GT-R. we get RWD infinitis and FWD altimas. BTW, Suzuki's motorcycles and ATV's suck too. Yamaha or Kawasaki anyday for this guy. Or BMW or KTM or Victory or some Harleys even.

I HOPE YOU CAN RECOGNIZE SATIRE WHEN YOU SEE IT

reading about how Kia's management treats their US employees and how they want to do business here makes me question why people are stupid enough to buy a vehicle made with their name on it at all. much less work there to help promote their mission. most folks do not care. they throw up their hands and give away the farm. because they would rather be negative and make people here in our country the scapegoat. and we have this obsession with welcoming the outsiders in on a white horse when really what they are riding in on is a vacuum cleaner, raking up our cash we leave littered by the driveway. griffon has it right. they are not going to increase r/d and advertising just because they cut brands. the net effect is not going to be that different. especially when you consider Gm would immediately go down in market share.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, DEALERS ARE A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM. THEY ARE OVERHEAD IN THE PROCESS, AND HONESTLY THE CUSTOMER WOULD RATHER SEE MANY OF YOU GO UNDER TO BE TRUTHFUL. the customer doesn't care if denny hecker or red mccombs needs to make the payment on one of the many commerical real estate buildings they own, or the huge excessive salaries and profits a dealer owner makes. or the sales manager etc. if a customer could, they most likely would prefer a factory direct experience to make the buying process easier and cut the profit, fat and overhead out of the price of THEIR car. I am for eliminating the dealer and their greedy mugs as much as possible in this equation to the point you still get sufficient vehicle service after the sale. we criticize the car companies to make them take out the fat in manufacturing and design and management, it's time the dealers pay in blood and get rid of the fat and gravy train. downsize your 275 man op. to stay in budget, like GM has to do. stay lean.

AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE....YOU CANNOT CUT YOUR DEALER NETWORK IN HALF OR MORE OVERNIGHT. IT WILL BE A CONTINUOUS PROCESS THAT OCCURS OVER YEARS. LIKEWISE THE SAME REASONS YOU CANNOT GO FROM 8 BRANDS TO 2 OVERNIGHT.

it's not head in the sand. i come at more from things GM has done right lately instead of constant focus on negative woe is me BS. as if to assume it's written in stone there is no way for GM to trend upward. which is the BS i am calling you and EVERYONE on.

oh no, with global warming melting all the fricking ice, we'll be up to our ass in water all over by 2009.

I would agree with OC on this one.

if toyota left, then that would solve this thread. everyone else could divvy up those sales. my vote is to send toyota away and send hyundai and kia with them.

professors and journalists are some of the most out of touch people out there. While they often try to pass themselves off as experts, they more often are out of touch, lack real world knowledge on the subjects they profess about, and worst, have no idea how the process actually works to provide solutions and solve problems. they get paid to spout off and write. which explains why they do it so much.

that's just revisionist thinking. there was no reason or indicator to suspect that coupes would wither. the beretta coupe actually took a buttload of sales from the larger coupes. cars like the Laser/Eclipse did also. it's not that the coupe market wasn't there. It got spread around some.

dear lord, your optimism makes Buickman appear to be Joel Osteen or Richard Simmons or Tony Robbins.

YOU HAVE NO PROOF THAT 'MOST OF US' AGREE TO THAT gm cannot fully support 8 brands ABOVE strike that BS from your statement

simply put, you cannot make chevy the catch all brand of GM. you cannot absorb pontiac and buick buyers in chevy. my dad and my father in law, simply will not buy chevy except for a pickup. if they buy a car, it has to be cadillac or buick or olds or what have you. toyota only attracts one type of customer. appliance buyers. they do not cover the market except with Lexus on the very high end. the consumer is led to believe that toyota is the only purveyor of good appliances, that is not true. Chevy can compete in some segments for the appliance buyer, but in the same vein, by doing so, cannot provide the embellishment that a pontiac or saturn or buick customer wants and cadillac is too expensive. You simply cannot make 75% of GM's sales Chevy. People that like the diversity of GM's brands will not accept the mindless blandness of a a neutered catch all chevy brand like the way toyota is a neutered nothingness. All you want to do is turn chevy into another mindless Asian brand offering. So to do that, let's get all the excess proliferating Asian brands out of our country first. We don't need them for sure.

and yet mcdonalds food is terrible and makes you sick nearly every time you eat it. priorities.

Yeah, I agree. looking back through automotive history, the need for trucks and the sales of them have always been strong. for decades. For someone to suggest that trucks are not a worthy market, or a solid one, now and forever in the future, well, that person is being a shortsighted, ignorant dillhole. GM has been strong in trucks forever and should always plan to remain that way.

from that era, the Tbird and Tbird turbo were awesome cars, but also the W body coupes were all eagerly anticipated products in a lucrative segment. For someone who questioned the, now, 20 years later, is not recognizing how strong big mid size coupes were in the market back then, not to mention that they were replacing fuel sucking RWD coupes with efficient front drivers.

they do actually. but people won't be satisfied unless its from japan or germany

nice sunset. looks like i need to boost the post count a bit.

if toyota and subaru left it would be a great start. downsize honda. mits and suzuki if they left wouldn't matter. we don't need mini either.

it's a great deterrent to wanting to buy their stuff. free cooperative equal business trade is justifiable. all these guys want to do is come on our soil, dictate the terms, steal out tax money, use our employees, throw them away, and leave with our money.

i have driven several minivans, and i have driven the lambdas. the honda van is a decent drive but seriously, it rides a bit to hard for most mom and pops and even a few sport sedan likers. you feel too much through the floor and steering wheel. i am not suggesting isolation. i am merely suggesting some minor softening of the suspension and tuning out harsh road impacts through the steering. the odyssey has a flimsy feel in the chassis that hey, it feels great when new, but I don't see it holding up under pothole season and such. I will give the ody kudos for feeling semi light for its size. it could stand to be less loud inside. parents and kids like quiet vans. the acadia (outlook) has more refined overall road manners, with the exception being you really feel some of the acadia's bulk. steering is weighted nicer and bump isolation and control is better and less harsh. It maybe has less roll stiffness, but i think considering the size, that's an ok tradeoff with the much better overall comfort. the lambdas are super quiet. the honda is the only van that feels slightly upscale. they should have waited on this comparo for the flex. i suppose now the media has killed off vans, its time to make them cool again? I am guessing the vw routan will be pretty decent. it doesn't have cryslers dumpy looks, or poor 2nd row seating. and it should have better handling. the ody lacks AWD.

it's like they think they are already as good as toyota. my my.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...75048450463.htm Well, I wouldn't want to give my all to pad the pockets of unappreciative management sucking the $$$$ out of our economy with no gratitude. why loathe our own, and try to make it work for the interest of other countries. not understanding this. especially if the boss was a byunghole. get it? LOL. right Ian BEAVIS? byungholio! i would totally say f-u to some of what i was reading in the article. a real eye opener, that kia doesn't get it. they compete based on low cost to produce. so they need to get that.

notice the location? Beaverton. LOL.