CARBIZ

I don't know about Detroit, but the map you've included for Toronto includes all the way to Port Hope (in the east) and Hamilton/Cambridge in the south west. If you added up all the cities of Vaughan, Hamilton, Burlington, Oakville, Mississauga, Brampton (Mississauga and Brampton have a combined populaton of nearly one million!), Pickering....and so on, plus the smaller hamlets of Bolton, Clarington, etc. Well, you are looking at a population of probably 6 million or better. Two thirds of ONtario's populations sits in the "golden horseshoe."

Chevrolet needs a 7 passenger SUV if it is going to go head to head with Toyota and Honda. The Trailblazer EXT comes across as too "trucky" against the Highlander and we have lost sales because of it. I agree that the Tahoe probably fills the need for someone who "needs" a truck-based SUV that carries 7 people, but then give us a "car based" SUV that will handle nice, look good and carry 7 people.

Anybody out there that doesn't think there is some sort of master plan at work doesn't know a thing about the way Japan Inc. operates. I really have to hand it to the Japanese, though: they are beating AMericans at their own game and now they aren't even pretending any more. Cheap radios, good radios, high end radios. Cheap televisions, good televisions, high end televisions. Cheap cars, good cars, high end cars. The formula works, Americans buy it and judging by some of the silly crap on this board, some people even believe it. We are talking about loss of assembly line jobs and parts jobs. Fine. Nobody is denying that those jobs are important, and most are decently paying, too. But it is the loss of the ancillary jobs and the technical jobs that are most crucial and nobody seems to be tracking it. Is Washington really that stupid? Boeing is under assault from Airbus. Airbus is propped up by various European governments, not unlike MITI in Japan props up Japanese companies. Japan now has its own space industry. Boeing is not #1 any more. What will be left of America once GM is gone (or at least subordinate to Toyota) and Boeing is a shell of itself? Do you not see that the loss of the technical jobs will relegate America to a backwater status? Won't it be hilarious during the next Big War (Korea, Iran, you name it) when the U.S. military has to go to Japan and commandeer the plants there to build armaments.

For new car buys, the survey is very important. Dealerships that have a low response rate (customers who bother to reply at all) or crappy CSI get their knuckles wrapped, for sure. Allocation of hard to get vehicles (Z06, Equinox last year, for example) can be tied to performance. Many dealerships now tie bonuses and other things to the CSI. HOwever, in my opinion, the process is tainted and unreliable. The way many dealers stack their survey results, a "completely satisfied" is a pass and a "very satisfied" is a fail. What this then boils down to, is not kind of a job did the salesperson do during the sales process or what kind of a job they did during the delivery, but rathe what kind of coaxing/badgering and cajoling they managed AFTER the delivery. I know of dealers that send gift baskets to the customer's workplace. Others that offer free oil changes for a perfect score. All of this is officially pooh-poohed, of course, but it goes on. It would be natural for the salesperson or manager to mention the importance of the survey, but in many cases pressure is brougt to bare. Companies place too high an importance on these things. Recently, I stayed at the Sheraton in New York. When I got a survey from them a few weeks later, their score was out of 10. When I scored them mostly 8s and a couple 9s, I was shocked to see that the last question asked for an explanation if I was unable to rank them 9 or higher! In an nutshell, if your salesperson has done his/her job. If they have been polite and nice to you, if everything was as promised, rate them "completely." Odds are they will make more on the bonus at the end of the month than they did on your deal!

Leasing is the better way to go when the lease rate is 1.0% and the finance rate is 3.9%. There is no cash rebate so there is no advantage for the parents to get involved, plus to get the student bonus you have to have a GMAC contract - cash won't do. Ontario is the most outrageous jurisdiction in North America. We pay the most, are covered the worst and they are just cruising for reasons to cut you off. I have a client who is an insurance broker for one of the major companies and I asked him if I could throw him new business. He said no. They aren't taking any new clients! How ridiculous is that? Although establishing your own credit is important, most clients I deal with are forced into a used vehicle to start with because the insurance requirements are too difficult on new. I would say hold off on the G-6 for now or go used. Your friend's credit will be tied up for 4 years and it is unlikely GMAC would let him/her off the hook until the end of the contract. I had a friend total my '82 Rampage ( a very long time ago!) and my insurance doubled for 4 years!

I suspect that more than a few media companies would lament GM's demise, considering Toyota doesn't even rank in the top ten. Of course, with CR and others doing its advertising for it, why would Toyota bother. But it does make me wonder why the media, whose paycheques are being paid for by GM, are in such a rush to see it fail.

Why are we still beating this subject to death? It is over. Many people feel that Saturn should have gone and not Oldsmobile, but the chances of Olds ever being an import fighter were gone with the fit and finish on the Alero. Olds is dead and buried. GM is in trouble. Let's focus our energies on saving Pontiac and Buick or in a couple years C&G will be running polls about whether Pontiac should have gone AFTER PONTIAC HAS BEEN KILLED.

Yesterday, we were told at a sales meeting to expect the Tahoe in May and the Suburban in August. That could be just in Canada, though.

1969, like 1959 was a pivotal year for automotive design. Chrysler had led the way in 1957 and was leading the way again in 1969 with their "fuselage" styling. Chevrolet's more rounded, curvy style in '69 was the direction styling was taking at the time, away from the more carved, squared off look of the mid-'60s. I wouldn't say the '69 full sized Chevs were ground breaking, but they were clean and uncluttered.

A couple years ago, I bought a '87 Reliant from a customer for $300. The a/c worked great, no rust. The guy was 80 years old and the car was immaculate. It cost me $600 to safety and I drove it for 3 months until I was rear ended by a big Audi. The Audi had to be towed. I drove the K-car for another week before the adjustor wrote it off. They gave me $2,000 for it. Y'know, it was surprisingly roomy inside and decent on gas. They were dirty cheap to fix and alhtough a current Elantra could drive circles around a K-car, I won't take anything away from Chrysler for making the K-car. In the 80's, most cars were POS - that is why I get so upset about Toyota apologists who love to bring this dirt up about crappy Citations or Skylarks - everybody built crap in the '80s. It was an embarassing decade.

....no DVD navigation, though. Too bad, otherwise a good car.

O.C, good for you, but how can you base buying a car on a book that is obsolete the moment it is printed? The market moves way too fast. What happens at the auction this week (and what programs GM is currently running) are far more important. If you wait for a monthly or quarterly book...well, how can you stay current?

Speed laws and speed enforcement has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation. For this reason alone, speed governors on vehicles won't be allowed: the government won't collect enough revenue, the police won't be needed to hand out tickets, the Courts will be freed up, there will be layoffs and so on. None of that will be allowed. Proof? Why are police always located on straight, lonely stretches of road where it is guaranteed people will speed, yet school zones and crosswalks are free of any such nuisances? Maximum revneue; minimum time and effort. The fact that the government allows photo radar alone is proof that it has nothing to do with safety: how can you be deterred when a ticket arrives in the mail a few weeks after an event? And if the warning signs are faked, everybody will just ignore them. Put realistic speed limits on our roads and highways then allow people to use common sense. If anything, stiffen driver testing. It seems anybody can get a license these days.

...that was my point earlier. Because the event is tied to a particular VIN #, the dealer has to reverse the VIN when the customer walks out and then the vehicle can't be played for 48 hours. This is an unnecessary paperwork hassle. The business office will bounce it back to the sales manager and he/she will bounce it back to the sales person, who won't bother to reverse it at all. Great when a real customer comes along and the car they choose can't be played at all. So prospects are divided into three categories: 1) real customers who are in the market om which case the unknown amount to be won is merely a bonus; 2) total flakes who have no intention of buying a car but will string the sales staff along (even to the point of test drives and fake negotiating) to see IF they can win the vehicle. 3) honest coupon clippers who only want to run the lottery but at least have the decency not to totally waste the sales staff's time and go directly to the ring in to win. I don't know why GM insists on pitting sales staff against the customer. Due to the nature of the "no purchase necessary" provisions, we are obliged to go through the motions if someone insists, but most sales people can detect BS a mile away and will run if given a chance. Customers think we are a**holes, but any dealer that runs on an "up" system (or even those that don't) creates an environment where the time waster may very well have cost the salesperson money. I am all for nurturing customer relations and I know only too well that a brochure given out to a 15 year old today may result in a car sold 3 years from now, but when flocks of these people come in with the only intent to find out what they can "win" then leave - well, it is the kind of thing that creates resentment and customers being "catapulted" off the lot.

There is nothing in my writings that takes away from Salespeople; in fact, I have often relayed the stresses and aggravations that we go through. In this thread which you seem to be so distressed about, I am merely pointing out that advertising is mostly smoke and mirrors. Every year GM, or Ford and Chrysler for that matter, have clearance sales. They can dress it up any way they want, but they are clearance sales nonetheless. Aurum correctly points out that sometimes customers feel like suckers when they buy something and then find it cheaper a week later. The auto business is no different. I am not singling out GM for misleading advertising, but all manufacturers do it. The public hates it, consumer groups hate it and salespeople hate it. When Mr. and Mrs. Smith sit around the breakfast table on a Sunday morning with all the car ads spread out on the table and they see a Cobalt advertised at $179, even if they notice that GM wants $1,700 down and that it is plus freight, how do you break it to them gently that they must come up with $3,500? Of course Kia and Hyundai are worse with their $179 lease payments that are supposedly zero down, but the customer has to give over $2,000. Chrysler does it with their $199 Caravan lease that requires $8,200 up front. They all do it and it sucks. It doesn't make it right to say, "oh, everybody does it." GM needs to aspire to be better than the rest. As to the Ring and Win, if it is so great, why aren't they doing it in the U.S.? Just because dealer principles and managers tell GM to their face that it is a great idea, does that mean that is how they really feel? In GM's struggle to regain consumer confidence and respect, I don't think giving aways and random lotteries are the answer. Toyota does not do it and they are increasing share.

and this proves what we all know: PRODUCT SELLS. Chrysler has long been leading the way with interior design (a 2002 Sebring convertible still looks better inside than a Malibu or Equinox!) and has had some drop dead gorgeous designs. Look at a Pacifica, then at a Maxx. I know they aren't in the same price bracket, but the Maxx could have been so much more. I like the looks of the new Grand Cherokee over the Trailblazer or Explorer any day.

Goblu, you raise two interesting points. 1) GM didn't have any foreign competition in the '60s and '70s, but then Toyota doesn't have any foreign competition on its home turf now. 2) the market is fragmenting for most consumer products, making marketing a nightmare. Just look at how CBS, NBC and ABC enjoyed a virtual stranglehold on television for over 30 years until cable came along. Now look at that market. I think most of us agree that 20% market share is where GM is headed and it needs to get used to the new reality and prepare for it. How it can get there without killing itself in the process will be the challenge.

I don't mind the guages as much as I hate the cheap looking cloth seats. GM has to get off these pale, washed out looking fabrics.

As for not seeing any Solstics or Cobalt commercials, the problem is simply that GM is spread too thin. When Toyota launches a new Corolla that is the only vehicle they are launching and they hammer the hell out of it. In this market, I see Pursuit and Torrent commericals on TV all the time, but the only Chevy they are pushing is the Impala. It is like the Cobalt and Equinox are forgotten. The Impala ads are pretty cool, but GM just can't push 80 some odd models, especially when (in this market) they are only selling the same number of vehicles as Toyota is with 22 models (including Lexus). GM cannot support this many brands with 16% market share. It is ludicrous. Gone are the days when a confused customer will wander from GM dealer to GM dealer, trying to figure out who sells the Vibe. They will just go and buy a Matrix because ALL Toyota stores sell that one. Pitting Pontiac dealers against Chevrolet dealers may have worked when GM had 40% market share, but at 16% it is tantamount to suicide.

That is a nice spin, but there is no denying that as Woodstock/Cambridge/Alliston rise, Oakville/Oshawa are sinking - fast. We seem to be stuck on the assembly line jobs and the immediate parts spin off jobs. That is all that Japan Inc. will provide in Canada, let alone North America. It is all the higly technical jobs, such as metallurgists, engineers, etc. that are in Japan. If we lose those jobs (don't forget that GM recently opened a design/technical center in Oshawa), Canada and the U.S. will become nothing more than service providers to Japan Inc. It is these highly skilled/higher paying jobs that we can't see disappearing. Do you think Sony, Toshiba, etc. were first? No. They beat us at our own game by first dumping cheap electronics on the North American market in the 1960s, buying our or forcing out of business all the North American manufacturers, and only then did Japan's electronics become known as industry leaders- when they have no competition it is easy to be industry leaders. Zenith in the 1970s produced a far superior televison than anything Japan could build, but not at the dumping prices Now Zenith is virtually gone. We are seeing a repeat of history here and nobody seems to see the iceberg coming. And the IMpala is doing very well, actually. It is hard to keep the LS model or te SS model in stock. Great car. Customer feedback is very positive.

I doubt it, the Japanese have been dosing our water....

Isn't it funny that when the Cobalt is ranked higher than its competitors in a well known consumer rag, but then we are told that due to spotty reliability, they can't recommend the Cobalt - that is okay. But the Titan, which is also a new vehicle, Import apologists will defend it, saying it hasn't been out long enough to be proven to be unreliable. Double standards! Nissan is to Japan what Chrysler is to America: marketing and glamorous products, but no substance. They build crap, but at least they build good looking crap.

Even though I am loathe to advertise for the Toronto Star, anyone who can should grab today's issue. In today's Wheels section, Jim Kenzie talks about GM's layoffs and cutbacks. He raises the issue of why would GM be closing down its most productive and quality driven plant when it needs all the quality and productivity it can. He also nails the nail on the head when he points out that while the legacy costs (health and pensions) are $1,500 a vehicle for U.S. made cars, Canadian made vehicles it is only $84, due to our "free" healthcare. He makes a few remarks about universal healthcare that some Americans won't like, but that is neither here nor there. He also raises the same issue about Japanese built vehicles, because Japan also has national healthcare. It is an interesting read. He half jokingly proposes that GM close all its American plants and move production to Canada or Japan because of the cheaper costs. Very interesting read. Certain to spark debate and controversy.

Sadly, I think this type of thing never works. Many (if not most) people would sell their grandmother if it meant saving a few bucks. Look at Wal-Mart. Many towns have launched anti-Wal-Mart campaigns, preaching that buying from your local downtown merchants means more jobs and more money kept in the local community, yet when all is said and done, Wal-Mart opens and the place is packed. The savings - or at least the ILLUSION of savings, is enough to drive people into those stores. Autos are no different. As long as the public is convinced that buying a Toyota is a good thing because it is a BETTER car and is built in America anyway - well, what could the harm be in that?

I am a car buff who grew up in the 1960s, yet I am unsure what the difference between Buick and Oldsmobile was at the time. And things got worse. I think what Eugene is gettng at is that Oldsmobile began to outsell Buick. Remember, that by the mid-80s, Oldsmobile even outsold Ford and was second only to Chevrolet. Regardless of the author's facts, the point is well taken that GM has way too many brands and models for a mid-20s market share. Something has to give. We can argue about whether it should be Buick or Pontiac or Saturn, but something has to go. Case in point, our market is being flooded with Torrent commercials. The Equinox was selling well, so GM has moved on. Other than pitting Pontiac dealers against Chevy dealers, I see no point to this. It is the same f**kng vehicle! It would make a helluva lot more sense to invest all those development dollars (to fix the deficiencies of the Equinox) and advertising dollars on one vehicle - to do it right. Stop spreading everything so thin!