CARBIZ

Blu, you may not be far off the mark. This nylon-type cloth that GM is using in the Cobalt, Colorado, Equinox and others just looks crappy. I prefer the cloth in the Optra, for Gawd's sake! Hell, the fabric in my '91 Caprice looked better! I'm no expert, but I gotta think someone in Detroit (or wherever the decision to use this fabric was made) must know something I don't, like maybe it will last a thousand years. I'm back in a Malibu again and I really don't like the fabric. And, yeah, Dodge's fabrics/interior materials seem to be sliding backward, too.

Sigh. You'll get a mixed bag of talent when you walk into any company, whether it is Sears or a TV repair shop. Keep in mind that the dealers aren't paying these guys anything so a lot of times the dealers take the attitude that they will throw 3 or 4 guys on the floor and see how they sink or swim. Dealer principals like to pay lip service to the concept that they understand everyone who walks through the door is a potential customer and should be treated like gold, but at the end of the day will the dealer put their money where their mouth is and train their guys/gals to be the best or pay them to be their best? Look, at at Chevy store we have 12 cars and 7 trucks to sell - that isn't even splitting them into their subcategories. Then there are the rates and programs for every single one of them, which change weekly. Then there is keeping track of the main competition and what they are up to, also with their models and rates/programs. You could spend all day at your computer, just trying to keep up, but then you'd miss the next customer walking through the door. Then there is the pressure of getting to whatever goal has been set for you that month, and that can drive salespeople to saying or doing whacky things if they are one deal short. I am not trying to defend these lugs - some of them would be funny if they weren't so earnest in their ignorance; however, with GM's market share sinking and dealers being pitted against each other AND with platform sharing getting silly again (Colorado/Canyon comes to mind), things are only going to get WORSE. Remember: most of these guys don't even LIKE cars and could as easily be selling appliances.

Interesting. I had a '91 Caprice wagon (factory ordered new) that I wrote off in 1997 with 240k (144k miles) on it. Best car I ever had, BUT it also had a weird electrical problem, including the wipers that would very rarely not shut off and do a wierd little dance for a couple minutes. The power antenna went nuts on a cross-continent trip to Vancouver and had to be disconnected in South Dakota. I suspect that problem had more to do with the accumulated salt and crap on the antenna from extended exposure to Ontario. All of those problems were on a relatively new vehicle, though. Fifteen years old, wow.

GM has reported an operating earnings of $1.2 billion for the second quarter of 2006. Then the accountants get involved and that number becomes a negative as several "one time charges" are factored in, bringing the total to a LOSS of $3.4 billion. So, GM is making money off of what it actually sells: ie., brings in more than it costs to keep the factories open, keep the suppliers paid, etc., BUT when all the legacy costs and other intangibles, such as depreciation, are factored in GM is LOSING money. If GM is going to wrestle the UAW into the ground next year, then having a bad year on paper this year is a good thing. There - is that a little more plain for ya?

Unless you are a Chartered Accountant, then you, Sir, are not qualified to analyse the FACTS either. I ran my own company for 11 years, so I know a thing or two about financial statments, cash flows, etc., but I would be the first to admit that I am not an accountant either. I do, however, have eyes and ears and world experience. If you would rather just shoot someone down because they don't think your word is directly from God, then that is valid, too. What I am saying is that I have seen how numbers can reflect whatever the author of those numbers wants to show. We all KNOW GM is losing money, but depreciation and write downs are a bunch of hocus pocus that only make tax accountants happy.

Does double posting make you feel important?

You guys have all the answers. I will be the first to admit that the current Uplander is not competitive, except on price where it is $10,000 less than either the Odyssey or Sienna - powerful incentives for many "moms" that you look down on so much. HOWEVER, the Venture circa 2000 was, in fact, a damned good minivan when compared to the Sienna (sludge problems) of the '98 body style, or the Caravan in its then current manifestation. Back then, with the flip and fold seats that were available, the available 8 passenger seating, the standard height adjustable driver's seat, the best in class gas mileage, the standard ABS and side air bags and all the available options, the Venture was, in fact, quite competitve - even best in class at the time. Yes, GM let it slide. Yes, the Uplander is clearly a stop gap measure. But to say that GM has NEVER marketed a competitive minivan is not only wrong, it is clearly uninformed and biased.

The Colorado is well priced in this market, but I gotta admit it hasn't grown on me. If based solely on looks, I'd lease (never buy it, that's for sure) a Dakota. One of our parts guys has a 2005 quad cab (or whatever they call it) and I liked it. I like the Dakota better than the Ram, which I do find too exaggerated in styling. Compared to the S-10, the Colorado rides and handles better, but I think GM could have gone a little farther on the interior. I do not like the cloth seats at all. I am sure they will age well, but they are cheap LOOKING. Emphasis on looking because, again, I suspect they will age well which means the materials aren't cheap, just LOOK cheap. Just my two cents.

Very good point about the newspaper thing. Newspaper readership is down everywhere, largely due to the likes of CNN and the internet. I am glad to see GM hitting back. Are there any links to the original article?

Yeah, Enzl, God forbid if the dealers actually make money on something. Our dealership does not sell over list, but then the couple of Z06's we actually sold last year won't make or break the dealership anyway. Not that I want to get into a huge debate about this, but remember that the MSRP is just that SUGGESTED. No customer ever complains when a dealer makes $300 on a Cobalt, so why would people compare if some rich idiot pays $5k too much for a Z06?

Evok would rather have personal attacks than actually try to analyse the numbers.

The interior looks nice except for that sombraro hat in the middle of the steering wheel......that would make me want to drive into a tree.

The real question is: does GM actually take in more money than it actually costs to build and market the vehicles it builds? The answer is yes. The rest is all accounting BS. 2005 was made worse by "write downs" that GM took. 2006 will be hampered by paying off a lot of employees to go away. Accountants are rapidly going onto my list along with lawyers and politicians for the biggest liars out there. Need a good year? Then slide this over to that side. Need a bad year, then slide it back.

First of all, if this was bad GM news, it would have been in the front section, not buried in Business. Secondly, in the second paragraph they make sure they point out that Toyota is poised to take over GM as the biggest car company. Then they go on to interview a few people who have NEVER had any problems with their Toyotas. Where is the balance there? If the article is about recalls and problems, why wouldn't they at least find someone who HAS had problems? Then they devote most of the article to letting Toyota apologise, infer that it is Delphi's (American parts, mind you!) fault, and itemize all the things Toyota has already done to stem the tide so Toyota's will be perfect in the future. Yeah, over all I'd say it was balanced. The recalls are in the news. The New York Times has to say something. After all, to ignore it completely would be too obvious, so they are forced to say something. They did a good job. I am sure they will still get their monthly check.

I've always thought that the Silverado is the cleanest looking of the Big 2.5 trucks. Dodge Ram has that ugly, cheap plastic grill the size of a piano (which is strange because the Dakota is SO much better looking, IMO) and Ford has a 6' deep box that looks stupid. (Ford is just trying to say they have more cargo carrying volume by making the box taller - stupid). The Silverado is just more balanced and not "in your face," for better or worse. It is on the interior of the new trucks that GM has made the biggest improvements. Carrying forward the theme from the Impala, the Tahoe, Avalanche and now the Silverado all now have similar features inside. I do think it is a mistake not allowing the fake woodgrain to be deleted on the Avalanche, as you can on the Impala. I hope GM reconsiders with the Silverado. IMO, the titanium looks much nicer.

Y'know, at first glance I would've agreed with you. I've seen my fair share of rental vehicles get used, but then has your personal vehicle never been parked by valet in a hotel or airport? Occasional abuse is not the same as constant abuse. But like I said: we and our Toyota stores sell more than 40+ daily rentals a month and I would say they are, overall, less problems than a 3 or 4 year old lease return. People I've talked to at other dealers agree. Having a couple years left on a factory warranty is good insurance, plus any reputable dealer is going to steer away from any vehicles that show sign of abuse at the auctions.

Obvious abuse aside, former daily rentals can be a good deal for someone who is looking to save a bit of money. Having 2-2 1/2 years left on the factory warranty is a definite benefit. Most dealers (including Toyota) rely on former daily rentals as the bulk of their monthly used car sales. Trust in the law of averages. If a dealer sells 40 daily rentals in a month and 2 of those actually turn out to be problems in the first couple months (and those problems are taken care of by the warranty anyway), then I would say that is a pretty safe bet. Although it is possible to get a car that was abused, it is more likely that you are getting a car that has been "broken in" and the initial factory mistakes (if any) have been attended to. A former daily rental is a safer bet than a 4 year old lease return with no warranty, IMO.

I've never seen the point of the Durango, other than to keep the Dodge dealers happy. The Jeep Gr. Cherokee is a much better, more refined SUV. The Durango's real world fuel numbers are outrageously bad. The Liberty suffers the same fate, too. I think that entire "mid-size" truck-based SUV category (Trailblazer, Explorer, Durango, Pathfinder, etc) is going to get killed in the upcoming months. People with money and who actually need a truck will go upmarket to the Tahoe, etc. and the rest of the people will get an Equinox, Freestyle, etc. to satisfy their truck needs.

City politics are the same everywhere: the Lib-left loonies control everything. They'd rather get into a froth about banning a piece of military history, rather than actually doing anything real about crime, the homeless, etc.

I have heard of deals unravelling BEFORE delivery, but I've never heard of it being repossessed because a salesman and a manager screwed up. Then again, most States allow spot deliveries and in many cases the car is in the driveway the same day. Not so up here: it is usually 2-3 business days before the customer takes delivery. Plenty of time to realize mistakes on both sides.

Global warming? What global warming?

How do you answer the problem that Toyota is going to be selling the same number of vehicles with 3 brands (2 in Canada, BTW) that GM needs to sell with 8!!!! We may not like it, but it is getting just silly that an entire brand can sell a quarter million units; whereas, one car line used to sell that many. I WISH GM could go back to the glory days, but wishing isn't the same as happening. The Torrent, Pursuit, Wave and others are prime examples of a company that is stretched too thin. At this juncture, kick ass products will only slow down the inevitable. There are over 350 models to choose from in North America. That is crazy. We are seeing more market splintering than in the early 1950s when the Big Three had to deal with the likes of Kaiser, Studebaker, Nash and others. Unless (and this is a BIG unless) GM can effectively capitalize on its world experience and stop treating North America differently, then GM can spread the product development money amongst 9 million production, instead of 4 million and shrinking. But I just don't see how GM can continue to support 8+ product lines in North America. I don't like it either. Being all romantic isn't helping.

Trina, because tourists can't vote! Vancouver does the same thing, slapping on silly taxes at the airport. Cowardly city government can hit the tourists because they are hostage.

Look, like it or not, the reality is that GM is the ONLY car company where the dealers have to compete with each other. That makes no sense as sales numbers drop below 4 million. (Take out the Fleet sales and where is GM now) When a customer walks into a Toyota dealer, of course the dealer has to worry about losing a sale to Nissan or Honda, but when a customer walks into a Chevy store they risk losing the deal to a Pontiac store. That is just madness. In 1965, it worked because GM owned the market and because a Pontiac Bonneville looked NOTHING like an Impala. Most people wouldn't have even known they were the same car. GM does not have the development money to maintain that level of differentiation, thanks to legacy costs and other realities of the 21st century. Customers of today are often confused. They look at a Torrent and then at an Equinox. The Pontiac guys says the Torrent is better; the Chevy guy says the Equinox is better. The customer gets fed up and buys an Exterra. LIke it or not, GM is heading for 20% market share. A year ago that was unthinkable. GM has been fixing a lot of things and doing many of them right, but there are absolutely too many leaks in the dike. If GM is going to sell 3-4 million units a year, it is crazy to maintain 4,000+ dealers and 8 product lines. The money is simply spread too thin. Emotions about heritages and history have to be let go. It is up to the lawyers and the planners to decide how best to offload the damaged brands and dealers to get the company profitable and the product lines more competitive. [NOW I WILL DUCK AND RUN FROM THE USUAL FIRESTORM!]

Rates coming down? They're sitting at 2.9% for 36 mo. or 1.9% for 30 months. How much lower should they go? The new Tahoe is sitting at 5.4% You don't see the '07 Avalanche as a bargain already? A loaded LTZ is under a $1,000 taxes in with nothing down. The only reason the '06s are lower is because GM is trying to clear them out.