CARBIZ

A variation of beginning a statement with, "Honestly, now..." Which implies you were totally lying beforehand.

Overall, a good article. There is an infinite number of options that could be/should be added. So they missed a couple.

Where is this all going to end? Will the next Silverado be a Grehound bus? The new Ford "boasts" more interior space than the Silverado; the mega cab, or whatever the hell it is called, is bigger than the Ford - sooner or later the cab will needs its own zip code. Ford and Dodge are pursuing big for the sake of being big. Now Nissan has caught the same bug. This is just stupid. I am 6'2" and I can't even touch the floor of a F-150 without wearing heels (that is another story). What about the average guy? Yet, the F-150 has the same ground clearance as the CURRENT Silverado. GM needs to upgrade the interiors of its trucks, but not much else has fallen behind. I think the new Dodge's just look ridiculous. Ten years ago they were aggressive, good looking trucks. Now, they just look like a bulldozer from the front.

Yeah, I have to say they've done a nice job on the interior - lots more chrome, raised bezels and the black interior helps. GM lately has too many light interiors that don't age well (dirt). The black interior, like the graphite interior in the Cobalt coupes, is a welcome addition.

I don't know, could it be a conflict of interest to own different makes of dealerships? Think about the conflict that creates in the dealer principle himself/herself. We face that situation. Our company owns a Toyota store and a GM store, although at different locations. Wouldn't it create a headache for GM to include dealer principles in special previews, etc., knowing that info can be spread directly back to the competition? Perhaps all of this is perfectly legal, but I don't know how smart it is to set up conflicting brands. If I was GM, I would want my sales staff loyal; not eager to skip over to the next building and sell them a Kia if the Cobalt spiel doesn't work!

My partner and I are looking to buy a condo over the next several months. There is a new tower being proposed in downtown Toronto, and they are offering a fleet of Priuses, available exclusively for rental to the new residents of the tower. I flatly told the sales staff that we would not be buying in this building because I don't want to be seen supporting Toyota. The entire building looks like one giant advertisement for Toyota. There were posters of the Prius and the big ugly T everywhere. All I can say, is that for right or for wrong, GM has dropped the ball on this one. Toyota is getting such a free ride on this little electric shopping cart. Sure, GM takes the high roads with its hybrid buses, but Toyota is winning the PR war, for sure!

I think the biggest problem GM has always had is that most of its owners are unemotional about what they drive. Ask a happy Impala or Buick owner what they think of their vehicle and they are most likely to shrug. If CR can only muster a 16% response rate, we have to ask ourselves - what 16% would bother to respond? Clearly, it would be the people who are either very happy or very unhappy. If the majority of GM people are somewhere in the middle, I would venture to say they just don't bother to respond to the survey in the first place. I have seen many an import buyer justify hundreds and hundreds of dollars of service as mere "maintenance." I believe there is a certain reluctance on the part of consumers, who have been led to believe Toyota has been handed down from God, to admit their vehicle may not be as perfect as they were led to believe. This would translate into consistent high ratings numbers by CR and others because only certain types of people bother to respond. To be truly accurate, the surveys should be random and compulsory, to ensure a more accurate cross section of buyers out there.

It would be depressing to see Bond turn into one giant Lexus commercial like I, Robot did. Look at the freeway scene in Matrix 2 - one long, commerical for GM. Depending on how much exposure is offered, it would be worth it for GM to snatch this out of Toyota's hands. Bond flicks are not only watched once at the cinema, but they are among the most collected film series out there. We are talking decades of advertising.

Must've been some test drive, sliding the back end of a FWD vehicle! Has more to do with the tires/road conditions, I'd say. We get a lot of snow around here and the Equinox is fine for our roads. The Trailblazer is so not competition for the Equinox. Let's see: unibody FWD/AWD, body on frame RWD/4WD - yep, same vehicle. What GM has been late to the party on is that MOST people do not use their vehicles for offroading, towing or going to the beach. MOST SUVs are nothing more than bloated station wagons. Now, for those who ACTUALLY need to off-road or tow, clearly the Trailblazer is the better choice. But for the other 80% of the people (especially the urban warriors), the superior gas mileage and ride of the Equinox is the better choice. This is why all the car-based SUVs sell like crazy: CR-V, Rav4, etc. As the debate rages about how ugly/impractical the Ridgeline is (on another current thread here on C&G), it will be interesting to see how Honda starts to encroach on this market. The days of the gas guzzling SUV are over. If GM is having problems with the Equinox, they had better fix them quick. We need a successful, reliable vehicle in this market segment. We also need another Tracker-sized, car based SUV for those who want even better gas mileage.

In Canada, Chrysler is actually outselling Ford - by almost 6,000 units YTD. They seem to be on a bit of a role. It probably doesn't hurt that the 300 is built here. Chrysler made the same mistake with the PT that GM has with most of its car line - too many model years have passed and it is the same vehicle! They started coming out in the summer of 2000 and they still look the same! However, the Charger should be hot. The 300 still is. Kudos for them. At least one of the Big Three is doing well.

Someone's maths stinks: March to September sales = 7 months = 25,787, for an annualized rate of 44,206 - nowhere near 60,000. What's worse: that is for a model launch! If you dare to compare the Avalanche (and I don't believe for one second that the guys I see in here would be caught dead in a Ridgeline!), the Avalanche is already a few years old, and probably has saturated its "niche." The HHR is another niche vehicle that GM aimed high, adjusted downward and then had to ramp up production again. It doesn't matter to me whether the Ridgeline sells or not. I saw one downtown in the gay ghetto yesterday and it convinced me that they could put an H on a turd and sell it.

The Equinox has been a great seller. Of the dozen or so I saw out the door, only one customer complained about a dead battery. As discussed, the electric steering is different, but I like it. It all depends on whether you enjoy fighting the wheel or steering with one hand (even a palm!). In fact, once used to the electric steering, other conventional steering vehicles feel very heavy. There are a lot of safety advantages to electric steering (no loss of power steering in the event of engine stall, for example) and (in theory) long term maintence on the system will be less. Jensen, I am sorry to hear about your issues, but perhaps you should try another dealer. Maybe they just aren't treating your concerns seriously, or their team is less experienced. It is bizarre how one vehicle can have so many problems. I have seen it before and it is almost like the vehicle is possessed.

Shantanu, I don't know where you get off calling GM's full sized trucks "rolling turds." The Silverado/Sierra were completely new in 1999 (8 model years) and refreshed in 2003. Most of what the new F-150 was bragging about last year, GM already did years ago (bussed electrical systems/hydroformed steel frame, etc.) The styling may be a little tired, but mechanically they are stilll the best of the pack. The Tahoe/Suburban are even newer, having been revamped in 2001. They still own the market, despite Toyota and Nissan's best attempts. And we know they are being completely redone in a couple months. Part of the reason Ford and GM still own the full sized truck market is that they don't necessarily jump on the styling/fashion band wagon every year. Have you seen the way some 10 year old vehicles age? There are a lot of 10 year old pick up trucks around and fancy gadgets/buttons just break. The Trailblazer is not selling north of the border, but I understand it is being revamped next calender year as well. Despite current money woes, I think GM has seen the light and is accelerating its model turn over. And, yes, I agree that GM needs to capitalize more on what it sells overseas. I saw vehicles in Brazil this year with the Chevrolet name that I know would sell well in this market - the Montana, for one which is a cute little sport pick up down there. I, for one, don't believe the bullshit reported by the media. One of GM's Achilles heals right now is its sales force. Too many salespeople will catapult the customer out the door, rather than use various tools (JD Powers, etc.) to prove to the customer our vehicle are as good, or in many case, better than the Asian competition. I have had a lot of success proving to customers (even taking them over to our sister store, a Toyota dealer and driving the said revered product!) that GM builds good products for a great price. My sales are up almost 40% this year. Give me products to sell and I will.

Anecdotal information is not very helpful, true. But I am in the "biz" and see customers all the time with ancient vehicles. How about an idiot who drove 42,000 km with no oil change at all on a 1998 Z24? He had no oil in the engine. The water pump cracked, but after replacing the pump, changing the filter, etc. He drove the car (hard) for another 40,000 km before his lease was up. And everyone said the old 2.4 twin cam was a bad engine! On the weekend, the National Post did a Halloween "scare" article in their automotive section. The idiot writer mentioned that nothing is scarier than all those rusty Pontiac 6000s and Buicks Centuries out there. As soon as I read the article I was seething. Why are they rusting and why are they so noticeable? Because THEY ARE STILL ON THE ROAD, idiot. With the salt that Ontario throws on the roads it is amazing that ANY car is on the road after 10 years! We still see many, many Buick Century and Olds Calais, etc. on the road here; certainly a testimony to the cars themselves. Nobody is saying that the Japanese don't build good cars. I believe the biggest area of contention is the COST OF OWNERSHIP. Japanese cars cost more to drive. Dealer maintenance, of which the manufacturer insists during warranty period, is more expensive. INsurance is generally more. And in most cases, a Toyota or Honda costs more to buy.

Unless the Board is comprised of total idiots (and I take the stand that they are not), they have already forseen most of this. Chapter 11 may not be necessary, but the threat of Chapter 11 can be very useful, like in negotiating with the UAW, for example. Low inventories are not automatically a bad thing. And am I the only person who gets pissed every time GM gets accused of "missing the boat" on the hybrid issue? First of all, Toyota and HOnda have totally missed the boat on the near-50% market share that the sale of trucks has enjoyed for the past several years. Only now are they starting to come out with truly competitive trucks - and the market for those same trucks is about to crash. Won't they look silly with their new $800 million truck facility as sales of trucks crash! Secondly, Hybrids were a total economic waste of time at $1.30 a gallon. Even at $3 a gallon, it can be argued they are expensive, unproven and a future mindfield for landfill site. GM may be slow coming to this party, but I think the jury is still out whether current hybrid technology is viable or not. In this case, Toyota is just damned lucky that oil prices have spiralled out of control in the past year.

It would have been nice if he was able to come out 30 years ago when I was struggling with my identity. The kids today are much more fortunate. They have role models and resources to turn to. Look at all the closet cases - Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift, Tab Hunter and many others who came out much later, or posthumously. Although it is a shame that it is newsworthy at all, there were those of us 30 years ago who hungered for this type of information - just for proof that there were others out there like us. Beam me up, Scotty.

Didn't Bush's new energy bill give a $3,000 tax credit to the owners of hybrid vehicles? Right now, it is more about looking like you are doing something, rather than actually doing something. Good post. I could use this info, too.

And why don't they do some real investigative journlism about the COST OF OWNERSHIP difference between domestics and imports. I have seen the owners of "import" brands justify any level of "maintenance." Such as, a $500 timing belt change. I have made this point before: if a person consciously spends $3-5,000 more for the same car, then they are more apt to maintain and care for it better because it is an "investment." Which would you treat better, a Cartier watch or a Timex?

Ladies! Back to your corners! This is a contentious issue, to be sure. But we are talking about more than just some guy standing on a factory floor, making $32 an hour screwing on parts. The real problem will be the long term loss of R&D, plus the technical jobs. Other than perhaps building a rocket, is there anything out there that requires more different levels of skills and convergence of technologies than building a car? I am talking from pen to paper to rubber to road. If America loses this, to become just a parts distributor for Japan INc. then she is finished. Yes, re-education and retraining is important. Yes, robots will take more industrial jobs, but the American auto industry, as run and controlled by Americans must survive. It is amazing that to me that at this time in America's life, where you have troops in several countries around the globe, some actively getting killed, so many of you on this board are willing to cheer while your industrial backbone is being broken. At the risk of getting a little off topic, what will happen in 10 years, if Ford and GM are gone, if most of the plants are closed, if Japan closes up many of its branch factories because it decides it can build them cheaper in Mexico or China - what will happen if the U.S. gets bogged down in North Korea or Iran? Do you think Madam President could just pick up the phone and ORDER Toyota to convert their Osaka plant to building tanks? Or guns? Anyone who has studied WWII will realize that the war was won because America could outbuild, outproduce and outpace anything the Germans or Japanese could throw at them. Sheer weight of numbers. If Tokyo has most of the auto R&D development, if most of the machinists, metallurgists, etc. live in Asia - what then? Yes, the world is different than 50 years ago. However, those of you who think it won't effect America, should GM and/or Ford go down in the next few years, are sadly mistaken.

I have a MPio player that is smaller than the Nano but it only has 256 mb internal memory. I added a 512 card. The number of songs they brag about depends on the compression chosen. I can only get about 50 songs on the internal memory and another 100 or so on the card - which is the equivalent of 10 Cds or so. Still, the size is important when jogging or at the beach. I am looking at the Nano, though so I don't have to keep moving the songs around or deleting them. I could never go back to a Cd Walkman.

All I am saying it that, overall, it is bad for them. They are barely keeping ahead of Toyota or Honda in overall sales. In car sales, Toyota and HOnda sell the same or more than they do. At one time, Plymouth and Dodge each had 4 or 5 models, as well as Chrysler's. It has been a long, downhill slide for a once proud company. They have too few models spread too thin. I am not saying they have a choice, but each time a college student defects to the Yaris or Focus or whatever, it is another nail in the coffin of Chrysler's market share. No doubt Chrysler has financial/engineering constraints that we can only imagine, but leaving a hole in your segment only invites defection of customers. For example, how many potential customers did Oldsmobile lose because they had no mid-sized car in 1997? GM is paying the price now because it ignored the small car segment for the past several years; only getting religion in the past two years.

prinzSD, you are right on the money, but that is also America's greatest strength - the integration and absorption of ideas and energy of cultures and nationalities from around the world. Asia will never have this advantage because their society is too homogenous, too xenophobic. As long as America continues to encourage and promote outside ideas, she will always be #1. Canada has much to learn about this. Although we encourage many different cultures and nationalities to live here, our route has been to encourage them to be separate but equal. This method, called "multiculturalism" is leading to the fractious, adversarial relationships we are starting to see in Toronto and Vancouver. America's "culture" is far stronger in encouraging these new people to become "American" while taking advantage of what these new people have to offer.

I nearly cried recently when I saw a 1973 Datsun 210 in the Canadian Old Car Auto Trader. Since when is that a true Classic? With few exceptions (notably, the 240Z), Japanese cars were crap and ugly until the last 15 years or so when they finally got religion and started hiring American designers.

That is a pile of bullcrap. Toyota dealers are directly responsible for keeping the myth of higher resale value going. They gouge like crazy on used cars. $5,000 profit in some cases. In this market, it is supply and demand, plain and simple. 150,000 "new Canadians" move into the Greater Toronto Area every year. They don't buy American cars, plain and simple. They have no credit/poor credit so they buy used Asian cars because it is all they can afford, thus propping of the "value" of Toyotas and Hondas. When GM's market share (not IF) is tied with Toyota (which it already is in the GTA) the market will stabilize, and with the newer (better?) products GM has out now it will level things out. Besides, as I've said before, nobody -not Blue Book, nobody - has access to the true selling price of vehicles. They can only compare MSRP to what used vehicles sell for. On that basis, a Cavalier or Impala would look pretty bad. Compare actual selling prices of new to actual selling prices to used and the Japanese Myth falls apart.

The media carps about GM being caught with its pants down in this new market, but Chrysler really seems to be swimming upstream. Their entire marketing campaign is swaddled in HEMI. At $3 a gallon, I am not sure HEMI is the way to go. Their trucks keep getting bigger and bigger on the outside with bigger and bigger engines, but they are doing big just for the sake of being big - they don't bring anything new to the market. And car sales? Other than the 300, what do they have that is selling well? Dodge will get their asses kicked in Canada where sales of the Aveo, Echo/Yaris and other vehicles are on the rise. Eight years ago, the Neon was a strong contender in the small car department. Lately, nobody mentions Chrysler when it comes to small cars. This will pretty much leave the Cobalt/Pursuit twins to battle the Civic alone. Chrysler is really missing the boat on this one. I am sure the Caliber will do well, but they are going to miss out on the crucial student/young adult market who are very price sensitive.