ellives

You said: I said: You said: I said: You said: I'm talking about the hoses since you complained about having to change the hoses on a 7 year old car. No where did you explain WHY the hoses had to be changed nor have you stated what "massive" coolant leaks are. You never said whether you changed the coolant even at the 5 year recommended interval. I'm commenting about the hoses because I honestly have no idea what the expectation of hose life is but 7 years seems like a reasonable duration.

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.

Somebody topped it off with the green stuff.

OK. How much longer? Pick a number.

Gas mileage? You're kidding. Compared to what?

Read my post: http://www.cheersandgears.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=144757 The 5/150 number is just an estimate. Your mileage may vary. What numbers would YOU use?

A thousand bucks to replace hoses? Get another mechanic. You're whining about changing hoses on a 7 year old vehicle? How long do you think they SHOULD last?

The quality equation is tough because as we see above it means slightly different things to different people and as GM has found out, it's tough to fight a poor quality perception. This is beyond the JD Power numbers which are obviously more empirical. When I see execution like GM's in my own work environment I immediately suspect lack of a visionary who has the roadmap in place. "Roadmap" is an interesting word because at one time *I* didn't understand what it meant but to me it really means laying out in a clear and concise way the key milestones in chronological order that gets you to the desired goal. I'm not sure GM has one and if they do, who knows what it is.

It *should* be a natural step to go from the CTS to the STS. It is unfortunate the cars are so similar visually. I'm an enthusiast and I really have to look carefully to detect the difference. There should be a more obvious distinction visually. Cadillac needs one simple thing and I don't know how to accomplish it. They need to get rid of the reputation of being an "old man's" car. They just can't seem to shake it. Any ideas?

If anybody thought the Malibu was going to be a homerun they should be fired. It's just not visually appealing. This visual deficiency has been a problem with the GM cars and particularly Chevy (not referring to trucks) since the "new style" Impala was first released in the 98-'00 time frame IMHO.

Easier said than done. They're already at 85% so they know they need to shutter plants. I'm not trying to justify the car in its present form. I'm just telling you WHY it exists. We're agreeing the car needs to transform itself or become extinct at some point. Personally I'd like to see the car made into something competitive with the S/A8/7 series. No one was steering the ship? If I knew the answer, I'd be in Rick W.'s job. I'm not convinced people actually "step-up" in the way so many people try to illustrate. In some ways this was the way of the "old" GM where people started with Chevy, moved to Buick then Cadillac. Maybe I'm wrong about this but as I get older I have no intention of moving to a DTS, an S/A8/ or 7 series. It's just not me. I saw a thread a while back that mention the general population not even being conscious of specific models within a brand. If this is true, the model itself becomes specifically about the size of the car essentially. For instance people know BMW as a "driver's car" so if they put themselves into the category of being a car enthusiast and need a big car, presumably they'd buy a 7 series. A similar story can be said about virtually every brand. I think one of the tricks in today's market is to be recognized for something. The problem for GM's brands is they aren't, and they need to be somehow.

Hilarious You're confused and simple minded. Resale value is a complex issue and today probably has more to do with perception and risk avoidance than anything else. At one time Toyota had a marked lead in quality. This is not the case any longer. Unfortunately however for GM, the cat is out of the bag and Toyota will need to drop the ball somehow to provide a reason for the "safe" buyers to switch from Toyota to GM. Not likely. This means GM has to build products that are standouts that will motivate buyers to take some risk by buying GM. This is not something GM has done well. To make a general statement that GM is not competitive on quality is either ignorant or dishonest and the later comments about Buick and quality bear this out. This statement supports my earlier contention. Chrysler built a product that was a standout and people were motivated to take a risk. It may turn out as you suggest with the electrical problems, that customers are not happy and will switch to something more reliable. Nevertheless this example demonstrates what GM must do to win customers back. I really don't understand what you mean when you say "deliver... resale value." How does one do this? Buick and Cadillac are both quality products yet their resale value is terrible. Interestingly I take advantage of this phenomena by buying late model used Cadillacs at a fraction of their original sticker. Of course this is not a way for GM to survive so it must be solved... somehow. With the quality of the product as a given (it HAS to be in today's market) the equation then becomes all about product and exciting product such as the 300. I expect GM has this part of the equation in the pipeline.

That's not really what my point was although i rambled on about the corrosion inhibitor. My point WTR to the 5/150 was that these figures are under ideal conditions. Your mileage may vary. Consider it like the extended engine oil periods we see now. 6000 to 9000 miles without an oil change. While I understand GM has oil life monitors and the quality of oil continues to improve, I still change my oil every 3k or so miles. Why take a change in ruining an engine for the cost of a few oil changes? Particularly with Northstar engines, you're talking about some big bucks. Back to the coolant, I personally change mine every year, maybe two but no longer. Again, why take the chance? Again with the Northstar, bad coolant means bad headgasket which is a one maybe two time event on one of the engines before the block is useless. Seems like cheap insurance to change the coolant frequently, particularly as many miles as I put on a car.

Experience is worth something.

Are you kidding? I'm sure you're eager to run out a buy things just because they've been advertised in a particular way. I *guarantee* there are exceptions and qualifications to the 5/150k advertisement. The problem with the coolant issue isn't so much the 5/150k statement. There have been statements of coolant longetivity long before Dexcool came around. The problem is the ramifications of having failed coolant. In the old iron block days the worst that would happen if you let the coolant fail is a rusted out radiator or heater core. With today's aluminum block "next technology" engines, when you let the coolant fail, you'll lose a head gasket and every other nasty thing that can happen to an engine. People are complaining because they can't neglect things the way they used to and have arguably minor things happen. If you don't maintain, you're gonna have big problems. This goes back to a point I've made before, the main reason for changing coolant on a frequest schedule ISN'T to maintain a low freeze temperature (remember the old anti-freeze testers with the little balls that told you how cold you could go without freezing?) No, the main reason to swap coolant regularly is to maintain the anti-corrosive properties. Without it you're dead. I have talked to seasoned mechanics that don't understand this point.

The "fleet sales are bogus" mantra is getting old. We all recognize they don't make much money on these sales but the point there isn't to make money. It's to fill up the factories with something that generates revenue. Keep in mind this business is all about overhead. If you're factory isn't running at full tilt, you're losing money. Simple. Did you notice in the recent thread that compared all the major brands and it showed Toyota at 107% capacity and GM at 85%? Any wonder why they sell to fleets? They HAVE to so the overhead costs don't eat them alive along with the union and retirement and healthcare costs.

Of course. Makes sense right?

I can't speak to the intake gasket issue but I can't see how GM is responsible for the spun bearing. The dealer should have been aware of the potential for coolant to be in the oil and changed it. Sue them.

.... which is what brought you Toyota Motor Company.

Merrill Lynch is not a "bean counter" although they have plenty of them there. Your whole first paragraph how little you understand the world of finance. In fact it is NOT their job to "count beans." It is their job to essentially provide consulting services to their clients in the area of finance. To this point, it is NOT their job to react to markets. They employ analysts to study investments and make recommendations on the many aspects of these investments. Stocks just happen to be one of them. Any layperson can watch the market and react to it by buying and selling. If Merrill Lynch was doing their job, they would be issuing "buy" recommendations BEFORE the market changed since, in theory, the market has the same information Merrill Lynch has. Some would argue they should be driving the market and not simply reacting to it.

This is why it's tough to prove these kinds of things thankfully.

Unfortunately this is not a "car" thing. It's found in many businesses and most of them experience the same thing GM is going through. When companies lose money the first thing people thing is the problem is a finance problem. Shows you how simple-minded people are for the most part.

The DTS should evolve to match and surpass the 7 and S. It has significant hurdles to overcome in achieving this goal. Specifically it needs to move to RWD which will not likely happen in the very near future but it must at some stage to compete. The other major area is what I call "depth." It needs to evolve to a place where every detail of the operation of the car has been considered and been addressed. People who buy the "standard of the world," whatever that happens to be, expect everything to work intuitively and at the top of the game. The DTS is not this of course at the current time.

Here's a quote that makes the point I've made several times recently: It tells me Lutz gets it.

Very often IT people "cut their teeth" with one company and then bounce around to other companies thereafter. This happens for a number of reasons. It takes a great deal of time to learn the initial business while honing your IT skills at the same time. Once you've made the decision to jump ship, it takes less time to acclimate to a new environment. This said, no one at the CIO level can have any strategic impact on a company in less than five years.