-
-
I went a little harsh there. GM doesn't need to die, it needs to be split into smaller competitive companies that will stop making ugly, shit cars. I don't want millions of people to lose their job, i want them to be split up from the conglomerate so that the competitiveness means better cars,better prices, better pay.
The problem with GM is when you have multiple companies within a main company, a few hardworking good companies keep the brand afloat, while companies that are poor quality sell less. So no profit is made.
Overproduction is another issue they have. I honestly don't understand why car sales pack yards full of cars. I myself would much rather see a basic model of that car on the lot, then order one to my specifications. The chances that one of the 300 malibus lot are all going to sell is stupid. The cheap ones are going to go, and the nice ones are going to go...
Split it up. It will make everything better..
Big companies like GM almost never work well the way they set it up.
1989 BMW 325is | 2019 Ford Ranger FX4
willschnitzComment
-
Yeah... you don't really know much about the auto industry... but leveraging research, technology, design, testing, and manufacturing across brands saves them a lot of money. Dividing the companies apart would be the OPPOSITE of what the automakers are doing. They do need to optimize their efforts, which has been a slow process, but looking like they are getting real about it finally: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...fiefdoms-.html
GM is a far bit away from having only 14 global platforms, which is its goal... but when that happens it'll be spending less time and money per vehicle to design it. And it's very good that they've (Bob Lutz) learned that they can share platforms while having different sheet metal.Comment
-
Maybe you should check out the new GM interiors, they are night and day from what they were a decade ago. And American cars are in line with the competition mpg's these days, much because with the rising fuel costs, Americans have started looking at A and B-segment cars we never would have considered beforehand. The market drove what the automakers created - and Americans loved big huge SUVs to drive kids to soccer practice and that's what they made when gas was $1/gal. The Japanese and European brands had much more costly gasoline at home so they already had vehicles that were designed with that in mind. A Fiesta-sized subcompact would have been laughed at here a while ago, but now that people remember $4/gal gas and think it'll return, they have renewed interest. Even just 5 years ago, the European car market and American car market were vastly different, with many smaller and more economical vehicles across the pond while we sought more power and space.
Heck, Ford didn't really design the Fiesta at all, it's a badge-engineered Mazda Demio.
I think more scary is that the country considers an opinion piece which focuses on a single car review pitted against the car of the year in one segment and comparing market share between now and 1960 as "news", or telling of a company's future.
Hate GM or not, I would expect people who want to be informed to at least read analysis of their financials, or a more researched piece. I used to read Forbes, but too many "articles" were just blog entries from biased people with very little actual content.
Find people that base their financial read of a company based on this:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing...income/quarter
or
this:
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/mark...turers_-_Major
Even though I taking anything from Seeking Alpha with a big grain of salt, this blogger did a much better job of actually looking at numbers to base his opinion of GM's future, instead of mostly bias in the Forbe's piece: http://seekingalpha.com/article/7972...ay-undervalued
Last edited by rwh11385; 08-19-2012, 01:53 PM.Comment
-
GM's cars just plain aren't competitive for the price. And it's not just an 'american cars suck' mentality. I love what Ford's been up to lately. And the GM cars would be acceptable if they cost 1/3 less.
Simply put I think all auto industries need a kick in the ass. With as many cars that are already on the road, you better make something that is either badass or gets better than 35mpg to catch my attention. Or at the very least something that can go 10 years in OH without corroding. Seriously. Until then I'm perfectly content with the used cars, there's more than 1 for every single citizen in the states to go around.sigpic
Originally posted by u3b3rg33kComment
-
Maybe they should stop making lame ass pushrods.sigpicComment
-
sigpicComment
-
I'm serial. LSx is a good thing. And even BMW cant hang with them in WTCC.
E; or are you trolling? Cant figure interwebs stuff.sigpicComment
-
Ford did a great job of updating their image and they now manufacture some quality cars with nice interiors. And they did it all without help from the government. I plan on buying an F-150 within the next couple of years. Ford cars really impress me these days.
Failure is an incentive for a business to change it's money losing ways and to start innovating and manufacturing quality products. Since GM never had to deal with failure like they should have, there was no incentive to change and they are now in the same spot they were 4 years ago. They do this because they know the government will just hand them another check when they are on the verge of bankruptcy. It's just the way that government operates; remove incentives and skate by with the absolute minimum required to maintain the edifice of mediocrity.Comment
-
lol a bit of both. Yeh the cruze is good and all but that is not a lsx engine.
The LSx engine has a place but I do not see that place in the future, the engines are amazing as a performance engine for racing and some street cars, but for the main stream car market the LSx needs to drop the pushrods, to allow for valvetronic, variable valve timing and possibly variable valve control, if GM wants to keep the LS running well into the future they are going to have to make some changes.
But that is not the reason why GM is going under. I just trollin.sigpicComment
-
To much Keynesian economics and not enough Austrian theory of economics. The economy must purge itself of firms that are economically inefficient. The only thing bailouts and similar assistance does is create a backlog of inefficient firms that will latter fail in larger numbers and have a larger negative effect on the economy.
The idea that jobs will be lost is also false. If GM fails it will create a void in the market, a void that will be filled by another more efficient company. So then you have the same employees being employed again at a more efficient company earning an income, and some few billions tax dollars free to invest.Your resource to do-it-yourself and interesting bmw and e30 stuff: www.rtsauto.com
Your resource to tools and tips: www.rtstools.comComment
-
ya this is long long overdue
what does gm contribute to america? Jobs? pitifully few actually. toyota employs a hefty amount of people too
I wont paraphrase but I believe toyota employs more american auto workers than gm does. If not, they are 2nd.
Ok well if not that, who contributes more in taxes to america.
Again paraphrasing but toyota contributes more in taxes to america than all 3 of the american auto makers combined ( please look that up if you want it could be dated)
The thing is if GM died tommorow we should all dance a jig.
Welll have our cars built overseas, maybe china. Leave the pollution over there.in
Or built here if its cheaper. build them whereever its cheapest and charge us less. That way we can put more of our money into ourselves.
What does GM contribute to us really? In good days they make billions.... and keep it. In bad days we bail them out, twice in my life.
Alll the talent in design let them work at bmw.
Comment
-
the double standards in this thread blow my mindComment
Comment