enzl

If you actually read my postings carefully, and didn't run off half cocked in another direction entirely, you will see a reasonable opinion based on facts and, as I have said, verified thru GM's own OFFICIAL PR and ad campaign.... Anecdotes, in case a definition is needed, are individual instances, stories that are, by definition, ONE person's experience. Surveys, information gathering co.'s etc... amass the result of MANY people's anecdotes.... I NEVER said all GM products are crap, nor does GM's PR stuff limit itself to Citations or Chevettes. I'm not attacking anyone, so why not back off, a little, huh? Like I said, I'm a resource and I offer an oportunity. You haven't travelled a mile (or many miles) in my driving shoes.... I never degraded anyone for being a GM fan. The response is inappropriate.

>>"Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors."<< Analyzing the reasons for competitors' success is related, but still a whole 'nuther thread. Let's keep this focused and it may stay under 100 posts. >>"So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?"<< You assume that this statement is indicative of complete 100% factual truth, rather than considering that it is, at least in part, addressing the 'media truth' and popular opinion of some groups. [post="59792"][/post] 1. As usual, the point has been missed: GM itself has APOLOGIZED for its inferior product. PERIOD. There's no way around that. 2. Bias does not equal WRONG. Bias may slant or present a poor image to the reader, but it doesn't change the facts....see point 1 for GM's take on my POV. 3. Market research and independent findings conclude exactly as I have, which is that GM's stuff has not been as good as its competitors. See point 1 where GM basically has said the same thing. 4. I realize I'll never get anyone to agree, since the positions are too entrenched. That's OK, but when the company you're defending so vehemently is issuing Press Releases that support my assertions, its hard to take the rest of your argument seriously. While I'm willing to play nice about it, its kind of sad when the voices of dissent aren't given their full hearing. Since I guess this bears repeating: I'm on your side! I would love to wholeheartedly endorse good product from ANY manufacturer (and I would prefer that it also employ good old 'merican workers too, BTW.) MY living is very dependent on it. I drive between 50-100 different cars each year, some for a few miles, others for weeks at a time. I've seen it all. I'm fairly confident that none of those who are so agro about this have had the opportunity to see ALL that's out there like I have. I could give anecdote after anecdote of great, high mileage GM'ers and poor, unreliable Nissans...but over the course of years and experiences, I can tell you that there's a difference when comparing the average GM'er and the average Toyota or Honda 3-5 years and 35-75k miles down the road... I'd just like someone to have the balls to admit that GM has stated what I am stating...you could even call both of us wrong, but it's there, its in black and white and, if you want to shoot the messanger, make sure to reserve a few bullets for GM's almighty PR machine that was responsible for the message itself! It's exhausting to have this argument over and over, but I just can't believe how hardheaded people can be. It's staring you in the face. It's GM's own words! Now, if you'd like to use what I know to help GM, I'm all over it. Otherwise, consider this my final plea to just acknowlege that, even if you feel I'm not right, at least that I got my information from a reliable (in your mind's eye) source! I do want to help. But just like in therapy, you have to want to be helped first.

FYI: GM ads take high road while admitting bumps May 29, 2003 BY JEFFREY MCCRACKEN FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER General Motors Corp. will launch a nationwide ad campaign next week to admit something many consumers already knew: GM made some poor vehicles in the 1980s and 1990s. Admitting its past blunders in a newspaper and magazine campaign is an unorthodox attempt by GM to attract the roughly 40 percent of auto buyers it says won't even consider GM products. Ads will begin running next week in USA Today, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other national and regional publications. TV ads may follow. In part, GM is trying to polish an image tarnished by low-quality cars such as the Chevrolet Chevette and Citation. Many GM cars of the 1980s and 1990s were notorious for oil leaks and premature paint flaking -- the kind of defects that can aggravate consumers. GM has received a boost in recent years due to gains in vehicle-quality studies. The campaign, which GM calls "The Road to Redemption," will be about "5 percent mea culpa and 95 percent what's good about GM," said John Middlebrook, GM vice president of brand marketing, in a news conference Wednesday. "We were looking for something jarring, and the most jarring thing was the hard truth," said Dave Moore, chief creative officer at McCann-Erickson Detroit, the local ad firm that created the campaign. "Saying that '20 years ago we had some really bad products, but we've learned our lesson' is a pretty unconventional thing to admit in an ad." GM has narrowed the gap between it and Toyota Motor Corp. -- the company recognized as best in initial vehicle quality by J.D. Power and Associates -- by 58 percent in the past four years. The study measures quality problems in the first three months a vehicle is owned. In J.D. Power's 2003 study, released this month, GM again topped its domestic rivals, recording an average of 134 problems per 100 vehicles -- one more than the industry average. Toyota repeated as the automaker with the highest overall initial quality, with an average of 115 problems per 100 vehicles. GM has, however, continued to lag further behind the industry in J.D. Power's long-term vehicle durability studies. "That's a real advantage for Toyota and Honda, and you could argue is the most important thing when a person is deciding what to buy next," said Joe Ivers, partner at J.D. Power. "How the product does in year three, four or five is a big deal to the car buyer, and GM has had a harder time there." A J.D. Power study showed in 2002 about 200,000 vehicle buyers left GM for Japanese-made vehicles, while only 75,000 switched to GM from its foreign counterparts. Nonetheless, the GM ad campaign will try to attract buyers of rivals' cars and trucks by highlighting GM gains in initial quality studies, said Gary Cowger, GM president of North America. "We may not have done everything right in the past, but we've learned from it," Cowger said. "It's a corporate-wide communication effort to close the gap between perception and reality." He said two factors -- GM's past reputation for poor quality and family traditions of driving only an Asian or European vehicle -- keep four out of 10 new-vehicle buyers from even considering GM. The text-heavy, two-page ad states: "Thirty years ago, GM quality was the best in the world. Twenty years ago it wasn't." Another part of the ad talks about "learning some humbling lessons from our competitors." The ad campaign builds on recent GM efforts to attract consumers by allowing them to take GM vehicles home for an overnight test drive and by inviting owners of competing vehicles to events where they can test drive new cars and trucks. "The road to redemption has no finish line," the ad says. "But it does have a corner. And it's fair to say we've turned it." Companies don't typically admit their mistakes in their ads, a local marketing expert says. "If you think back to Tylenol, they admitted problems with tampered bottles, but most are like Exxon, which never did an ad to admit mistakes so openly. This is unique by GM," said Aradhna Krishna, University of Michigan business marketing professor. "They are kind of acting like a company in a crisis situation, and maybe their crisis is all the market share they and other U.S. automakers are losing to foreign automakers." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, if GM can admit it, why can't you?

I still haven't seen a compelling counterargument. If the concern is US jobs and being patriotic, I understand that point of view (and I respect it.) Everyone has the right to choose on the basis of their own priorities. I'll take that point one step further...I believe many people feel that way, yet they still go out and buy a foriegn nameplate. They OVERCOME their bias against these vehicles and, because of what they've heard, read, seen, go against their initial instinct to support US produced products. That, to me, is why the media bias charge is bogus. Its an excuse, and not a good one, given that demonstrably better products are designed and/or manufactured elsewhere, and they have been, for the most part, for the last 25 years...GM even admitted as much in an ad campaign run last year! So, even the General admits to what people on this board can't!

Not that turbo needs defending, but....that's an anecdote, one story in a sea of them! If the topic is media bias and the negative effect on GM it has, what does one guy buying an Aurora or his problems with a BMW have to do with it??? Again, the General is in a soup of its own making...bad luck too, yes, but if Luck is defined as preparation meeting opportunity (as an old football coach once said to me), what does this 'unlucky' stretch say about GM's preparation?

You need to read deeper; if you already agree with the bulk of what you read, you're 3/4ths the way to total acceptance of everything. [post="59573"][/post] [/quote] This, while true about all mainstream media outlets in general, does not make even those with bias wrong, per se. Noone here has brought forth a compelling reason that proves that these auto-writers are incorrect in their judgements...and I noticed noone has answered how non-media types like the mass of people who buy from the 'bad guys', research firms and consumer groups also concur with assertions that many of the products brought forth are inferior! Even if the volume of cars tested by C/D or J. Clarkson's editorializing is the proof of bias, you're still not addressing all of the other opinions and forces that feed the success of GM competitors

Its not about sides, my friend. I think we're all on the same side. If we're not dealing in absolutes, then relatively speaking, GM's products, as compared to its most pressing competition, has been worse than theirs. Whether you believe in sales figures, consumer groups, industry research firms, critical acclaim or just plain 'merican horse sense, the 'bad' guys are winning, if you're a moral relativist as well. I support better products. I don't care who makes 'em.

Thank you for your support t200... I'm not a hater, just a realist. I have a real passion for the subject and I'm concerned about the future for all US car fans.

[I] You're talking about the entire Corporation's product line unilaterally; what other single company has all class-leading products? Oh, that's right; NONE. Let's see you defend 20 years of any singular auto manufacturer as unilaterally class leading...you see, you can't. And you know even as you gloss over every single model, there are a number that are at the top of their segment during this period. '92 STS is one great example. "you can't"... "A fact"... "everyone"... " the obvious"... It's exactly this type of generalization and fictionalizing that gives modern 'journalists' a bad name and garners them so much scorn. This is exactly how charges of 'biased' are earned & justified. [post="59107"][/post] [/quote] You've made my point for me: I'll give you one model year of the STS and the GMT-800's....possible a 'vette or two as well in the 90's. But, that's it! As a proportion of their total product, that has to be one of the lowest percentages of any co., perhaps barring Yugos and Fiats of the time period in question. I haven't glossed over anything, only pointed out what apparently is obvious to 'most' people. (Do the quotes around 'most' make it a more valid argument?) Semantics aside, you know I'm accurate. As I must repeat, I derive no joy from these observations (I know that you don't like me to term them 'facts'). This is a storm years in the making, not some cockaroach Wagoner found in his cereal this morning. BTW-I object to the term 'fictionalizing' since that implies there's no basis in fact for these biased-journalist's findings - which means you're defending your point of view using the same 'faulty' logic you're accusing me of! If you really believe that the points made in sub-par reviews don't exist or have no real basis, then I can't help you...although I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell ya real cheap!

Perhaps this is where we just have to agree to disagree. I will agree that the media can be hard on GM, but the bias charge is a cop-out. I reiterate my call for anyone to defend the product GM was putting out for 20 years ('80-'00) as 'class leading'...you see, you can't. That's not bashing, its a fact. GM earned its position in the auto universe today, thru years of neglect of their core customers and product. They let everyone down. I sincerely hope that GM's new stuff is great. It has to be. I get no joy from being skeptical about them and I would be the first person on this board to compliment them when and if they get it right. That being said, I think scapegoating the media for stating the obvious is not where the energy should be directed.

If that's the worst they said, we wouldn't be having this thread.

I agree. It's not fair to paint every diehard member of this site as an ostrich, but I believe that a more interesting and compelling board would be creative if this community of enthusiasts were more about constructive criticism and less about cheerleading. I'm a car nut, period. I look at all cars like they're my kids...there's something to love, something of merit in even the least of them. That being said, I find it dissapointing that the press, the unions, the Japanese, healthcare, etc...seem to get more ire directed at them than the management of GM. It takes the same amount of money to design a good looking vehicle as it does a boring one. It costs less than 20% of the average rebate on a GM vehicle to equip it with quality interior pieces. I can't understand how these obvious points escape otherwise capable, intelligent people. My current ride is a 2000 Audi A6 (I get an inventoried used vehicle every two weeks or so). The care, cost and time spent on the interior of these cars is incredible. I can't see how reverse engineering this stuff is hard. A current $60k Caddy should have an interior comprable to a 200 Audi, IMO. I'm certain that the consumers trading in my A6 expect that when they finally drag themselves back into a Caddy dealer after seeing the surface appeal of some exciting looking product!

Perhaps the bias has to do with the years of crap that have been generated by GM. As in life, just because someone has 'found religion', that doesn't undo past sins. I'd love for each and every 'biased-press' whiner to select vehicles that were produced by the General between 1980 and 2000 and put together a cogent argument as to how that vehicle was truly 'World Class'. Can we name more than a handfull? NO. Yes, there's bias in the media, but what you choose to ignore is that it's been earned over time, it isn't some plot or plan to destroy American manufacturers. It isn't, get over it and get on with it. My livelihood is largely dependant upon the quality, skill and product of GM, Ford and DCX. I'm concerned that this site encourages another American pastime of blaming someone else for our troubles.

Flint is generally an idiot, but he may not be far off. Interesting that Toyota has gotten a free pass when a significant portion of their new plants will be building SUVs and big Pickups...what happens if those products are not received well by the marketplace? (see Canton's Nissan line-up: Quest, Titan, Armada & QX56) I think we may see a 400k increase, but I see the Hybrids, Avalon, the Scion trio, RAV4 & the Lexus IS taking much bigger parts than the new truck lines.

While I would agree that GM gets a raw deal from the press, much of the 'perception' problem is partly of GM's own making. Their mediocre PR staff (see P. DeLorenzo and his excellent autoextremist.com site for some examples) and their historic treatment of people like Ralph Nader during the Corvair fiasco have made them a target, in a certain sense. My point is that, while I recognize this is a GM site, many posters do not seem to realize that GM has burned bridges in the press, has treated its loyal customers with disdain by producing some substandard product and, generally, has reacted to severe market forces with a lack of creativity and enthusiasm. I hope for the best (as my living is partially supported by a GM franchise) but I fear that there are many people on this board who suffer from the same myopia that affects their favorite car company.

With all due respect, its the overall product these innovations were attached to that were/are the problem, not the innovations themselves.... Imagine if GM had stuck to their guns and properly developed these ideas instead of retreating back to committee-think. BTW-The ABS point is not historically accurate. GM took the ABS out of certain products in a cost-cutting move, not because people perceived that they were paying too much for a product with the feature.

Unfortunately, the TT has only sold about 2-4k units this year, IIRC. I think the 1.8T is the issue. The gentleman above who referenced the 7.5k mi. exemption is 100% correct for NYS. If you register it below that figure, it automatically generates a DEC violation for the owner and the biz that sold it (I'm not sure about individuals.) I'm not into them, anyway. Gussied up last gen Golfs don't do it for me.

Yes, you're wasting your breath....but, I've heard the good times are about to stop at Nissan. Lack of new product (notice how the well has dried up?) and payback for foisting a ton of iffy product on dealers to meet 'numbers'... There's a link somewhere.... http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarti...9&imageid=&cap=

Not True. They're building luxury condos on the waterfront in Tarrytown NY at the site of the old X-car plant. But that's not a solution, regardless... ...GM has needed to act decisively for years. Many people saw the writing on the wall with regards to the 'perfect storm' of market conditions that could kill GM. I think the first order of business is to get the workers on board with whatever plan of action is decided. Great cars can only be built by a satisfied workforce and Delphi parts-guys getting a 60% pay cut isn't going to create that atmosphere. A delphi strike will bury GM and destroy its cash horde in a matter of months! So, what do you do? You repay workers shortfalls with a new class of stock or company treasury stock...give people that work for you a better stake in your survival and reward them for a job well done (&, obviously, the stock is worthless if they don't do their part.) Next...well, I like some of the ideas above, but also I think Wagoner has to go.

Unfortunately, the most realistic scenario for GM will be a non-auto conglomerate that buys its assets after bankruptcy...the liabilities GM currently faces are too great for another auto co. to saddle itself with. Rumor has it that GMAC is worth about $15billion and they have $19billion in cash....at the current share price, a coprporate raider could, hypothetically, leave the car-making operations to rot, pocket the cash and sell GMAC, making a handsome sum of money and allowing the rest of the co. to drift into bankruptcy, thus enabling other auto makers to pick up the pieces at a bargain basement price... Not good. echoes of the British car industry....

As the proud owner of an 86 Saab 900....that's right, the base model in Swedish Monk Blue with crank-iy-yourself windows...I can't criticize GM for deSaabing Saab, but the vehicles that currently occupy the line-up are nice cars, but not really Saabs... I realize that finding 40,000 Professors/yr. to buy your cars is difficult, but I can't help but think about the relative success Ford has had with Volvo and think that maybe some better decisions could have been made... ...for instance... 1. Not giving the Premium FWD platform to Alfa alone. Why not replace the 9-5 with a 159 derivative? 2. Asking Subaru if the flat-tech engines were non-negotiable before paring Saabs fate with their input? 3. Building the new Saabs with the solidity of the old ones, regardless of the platform underneath. The plastics are still not close to world class & not acceptable in a $30-50k line-up of vehicles.

Also, isn't there a confirmed rumor that VW would be sharing the Polo platform with DCX? That would bring in a smaller auto, one that is almost exactly the same dimensions as the original Golf/Rabbit. That would cover the small car end of the market in the states.

Chrysler just posted a profit (unlike GM&Ford)...the Caliber will have 2 Jeep sister products and DCX has smart branded cars, small MB's (A/B class) and will sell Dodge, Chryslers and Jeeps in Europe....where small cars sell (& for a premium price). The new Caliber plant can produce 400k vehicles/yr. What are you talking about?

First, I stand corrected. You only blame the general media for a 'MAJORITY' of GM's problems....point taken. I'm not being critical of opinions, or points of view, nor was I attacking you personally. I just think a little healthy discussion regarding the reality facing this once great coprporation would bring our a little more critical analysis, rather than incessant opinion pieces from positively biased individuals. If you're one of 'em, than so be it. I can only comment on the post above, since that's what my reply responded to. Perhaps a more careful reading of my comments will reveal my genuine passion for good product, whereever its from, as well as criticism when deserved. I know that many pundits are using GM as a punching bag. Is that fair? No. But, you know what, its not just those people's words that are killing GM. It's bad business decisions & mediocre product in crucial areas & bad dealer relations &lots of other things that ALL conspire to place GM in the position that it's in. If I were a GM exec, I'd be trolling these pages, and others like it for new info, creative ideas and intelligent analysis....that stuff would help. Blaming others for your own situation is exactly what got them here in the first place. I'd like to see the slide stop for many reasons. I would think you'd want to as well. Being the best musician on board the Titanic might have seemed like a great position to be in at some point in time.

I think the media bias thing is just another excuse...and, you know what, if it isn't an excuse then it just sounds like one, which is almost as bad, IMO. There are many wonderful GM products and, by the same token, just as many that leave even the staunchest GM supporter scratching their heads. Ex. The GMT-800's were considered first class for many years...the Cavalier was a bottom feeder for the last 10 years of its existence. Ask yourself....do you want a young/poor/new buyer in your worst product as their first experience with the brand? Vette C6, best performance bargain in the world....Camaro, mmm, dead last time I checked (BTW, Ford's doing OK w/the Mustang???). Rejuvination of Cadillac- may not win comparos but it has become an arguable 'standard of the world'(who would have bet on that 5 yrs. ago?)....HHR--a PT response how many years late? (Oh, and its development budget probably pushed the Camaro off the table for a few more years.) So the press is harsh...boo-fricken-hoo...GM OWNED this market not long ago. They lost their way. It's not just auto media, its academics and other business leaders who share that opinion. So let's get on with helping GM with insight instead of cheerleading...