GM files bankruptcy monday

[smithy]

Go figure. Saturn makes a car I'd actually buy and they scrap the whole line. The SKY is a wicked looking little car. Not really for my climate region though, I'd probably go with the Hyundai Genesis coup instead.

Check out the Sky's twin sister, the Pontiac Solstice. They do a hardtop coupe version of it as well. The Solstice is probably going to be axed next year as well though.

Regarding Chevrolet, do they label cheap Asian cars as Chevrolets in the US like they do in Europe? I always found it disturbing that they just replaced the Daewoo brand with Chevrolet.

There is also the Captiva and the Cruze. More and more "world car"s are coming from GM Daewoo. The new Beat, Spark and next Aveo (2012 - yes, unbelievable that GM would rather sell the current Aveo than the Corsa the US) are by GM Daewoo too.

 

[Glaucus]

@JoBBo

@Glaucus

I'd probably go with the Hyundai Genesis coup instead.

The Genesis Coup is a nice looking car, but may I ask why you'd choose that over the new Camaro v6? It might be interesting to hear why GM missed your theoretical sale.

Ummm... Good question. Haven't thought much about the Camaro. I don't mind it really but I can't see myself owning one. Probably for a number of reasons. It would take a lot for me to own a GM. What puts me off the most is the styling and build quality. If you look at the new Camaro, both internally and externally you see they're doing the same thing Ford did with the Mustang, and that's to take the old classic look and make it new. It's a good idea, but I think they take it too literally. The dash and cluster just don't look as clean and modern as the Genesis. I really like the look of the Genesis - especially the inside and that's where most US cars fall short for me. Sure, the Camaro has a much bolder look then the Genesis, but I don't like cars that look too big. That's something I also don't like about the new Mustang. It looks like they padded the car on all sides just to make it look bigger and tougher. I prefer the more compact sporty looking cars. As for performance, 3.6l vs 3.8l, the Genesis would probably win the race - although I'd imagine it would be real close. Hard to say really as power curve and weight also play a major factor, but whatever.

Also, I like Hyundai, they're a company that knows it has lots to prove and they know they're the under dogs. I believe they are now where the Japanese were 30 or so years ago - they're building affordable and exciting cars and the quality is there. I think they will eventually give Honda and Toyota a good run for their money. It seems Korea is Japan's natural rival.

GM on the other hand is a sick company. They seem out of touch with the market and I doubt they even know where they're headed. They need to re-invent themselves. The Camaro was a great car in the 60s, but I'm not sure that's the car for 2010. It's legacy I suppose works against it. Time for something new and exciting.

 

[ilwrath]

Thanks, Glaucus. Living in Detroit, it's kind of hard to step outside the bias and see what shapes the determination.

Haven't thought much about the Camaro. I don't mind it really but I can't see myself owning one. Probably for a number of reasons. It would take a lot for me to own a GM.

So bang, right off the bat, a problem with the GM badge and both the company and product perception.

What puts me off the most is the styling and build quality.

Styling aside for the moment... But perceived build quality WORSE than a Hyundai? Really? Wow...

As for performance, 3.6l vs 3.8l, the Genesis would probably win the race - although I'd imagine it would be real close.

True. Though the base engine in the Genesis coupe is not the 3.8. Adding that engine puts it over $2000 more expensive than the base Camaro. And if you want to start throwing around engine options... Camaro's got a few of it's own.

If you look at the new Camaro, both internally and externally you see they're doing the same thing Ford did with the Mustang, and that's to take the old classic look and make it new. It's a good idea, but I think they take it too literally. The dash and cluster just don't look as clean and modern as the Genesis. I really like the look of the Genesis - especially the inside and that's where most US cars fall short for me. Sure, the Camaro has a much bolder look then the Genesis, but I don't like cars that look too big. That's something I also don't like about the new Mustang. It looks like they padded the car on all sides just to make it look bigger and tougher. I prefer the more compact sporty looking cars.

As promised, back to the styling. To be honest, I completely agree here. I'm not at all a fan of the overly retro styling. I don't mind some throwback cues, but the car needs to stay true to what it is supposed to be.

We'll start with the interiors, which I think seriously miss the mark. The terrible ergonomics, the silly deep dish gauges, the horrible hard-to-read fonts. All that stuff was best left forgotten in the 60's, yet they drubbed it all back to life. WHY? There were legitimate packaging and production issues that caused these distractions to be present back then. Those no longer exist. What benefit does it serve the driver to make the tachometer LESS readable today?

And I think the exterior designs look too "forced". There is a graceful but taut natural line to the Genesis Coupe. The styling follows the shape which follows the function. For the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger, all three, it looks like this was reversed. The styling seems to dictate the shape, which was then scaled to fit over whatever functional parts make it all work.

I agree that this methodology of styling really turns off the younger buyers. I own a 2001 SVT Cobra. You can't argue that I'm not right in the middle of their target market. And while I'd love to have the 5.4L Supercharged V8 out of the new GT500, I'd just as soon keep the styling of mine. I'm actually actively discouraged by the current retro designs.

Also, I like Hyundai, they're a company that knows it has lots to prove and they know they're the under dogs. [...] GM on the other hand is a sick company.

And back to the company perception. GM really missed the boat a long time ago in letting this slip so badly. The wrong turns on styling simply seem to reinforce this idea. It makes ya wonder if there actually is any chance of saving the company at this point.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Go figure. Saturn makes a car I'd actually buy and they scrap the whole line. The SKY is a wicked looking little car. Not really for my climate region though, I'd probably go with the Hyundai Genesis coup instead.

Nice incidental proving, Glaucus.

 

[Glaucus]

A good analysis of my comments there. You're right, the styling mis-steps seem to translate to the greater perception of the company. But there's more to it then that. GM just doesn't appear as a leader any more. Companies like Honda and Toyota have been technology leaders for some time now. Things like vtec and hybrid cars really highlight the fact that the Japanese are the leaders in this field. My '97 Prelude TypeSH for example was the first mass produced car to have an active torque transfer system designed to eliminate over/under steer on FWD cars (Honda also developed an AWD equivalent). It's now standard on the Accord and other cars. That's not to say that GM never invented anything, but when they focus on just building bigger cars with bigger engines, they just seem like the low-tech alternative. Liter for liter, I think in just about every case a Honda or Toyota engine will put out more power then the equivalent GM. Look at the S2000 which has a higher hp/liter ratio then even Ferrari.

Now, technologically speaking, I don't think Hyundai is at the same level as the Japanese car makers. But that's where their sights are and they are clearly moving in that direction. Still not sure where this new Camaro is going. Is GM trying to revive the muscle car? They're certainly trying to revive their former glory, but that's so long ago few people really remember it. As far as I'm concerned, the best Camaro ever made was in the late 60s (which is from when the 2010 Camaro takes it's design cues from). GM needs to slim down and cater to what people want today, not it's former glory. As much as it frustrates me that Toyota cut the Supra, Celica and MR2 and transformed the Corolla from an exciting rally sport racer into a very boring, fuel efficient and practical family car, the mere fact that Toyota axes cars the instant they start under performing has put them on top. They do not waste any time trying to sell what people are not willing to pay for. GM needs to learn these lessons and I don't see any sign of that.

 

[Glaucus]

Go figure. Saturn makes a car I'd actually buy and they scrap the whole line. The SKY is a wicked looking little car. Not really for my climate region though, I'd probably go with the Hyundai Genesis coup instead.

Check out the Sky's twin sister, the Pontiac Solstice. They do a hardtop coupe version of it as well. The Solstice is probably going to be axed next year as well though.

Ya I know. It's not bad, but styling wise I much prefer the Sky. If I were to buy a Solstice the first thing I'd do is take it to a body shop and have them remove all traces of the Pontiac logo!

 

[ilwrath]

GM just doesn't appear as a leader any more. Companies like Honda and Toyota have been technology leaders for some time now. Things like vtec and hybrid cars really highlight the fact that the Japanese are the leaders in this field.

Sure, GM's hybrids are weak. But the bigger problem is did you even know they had hybrids? Probably not... They never mention it. vtec is just a fancy marketing term for variable valve timing, which GM has on most of its common models, including the Chevy Malibu. Of course, they never call out that, either. GM has allowed themselves to be defined by bad public relations.

That's not to say that GM never invented anything, but when they focus on just building bigger cars with bigger engines, they just seem like the low-tech alternative.

Ironic then that GM was the only of the major auto makers that has actually brought to market a complete electric car in the past 20 years... Yet their PR botched this up, too. Instead of being seen as a daring visionary, the company was cast as the killer of the electric car. They were pushing new technology development. Sometimes it doesn't work quite as well as hoped...

As far as I'm concerned, the best Camaro ever made was in the late 60s (which is from when the 2010 Camaro takes it's design cues from). GM needs to slim down and cater to what people want today, not it's former glory.

Well, this is getting back to what I skimmed on with design. What made the 60's Camaro great. Sure, it had some nice styling. But that car wasn't a "forced" design. The original Camaro's design goal was small, cheap, lightweight, fun to drive and easy to work on. The new Camaro's design goal was to look like the old Camaro. That's the problem, in my book. The design goal should have been the same as the original. Small, cheap, lightweight, fun to drive. Let's see how the old and new Camaro stack up.

Small - old 100% / New - 25% (The 2010 is small inside...)
Cheap - old 100% / New - 100% (it's a nice price.)
Lightweight - old 100% / New - 0% (1968 - 2930lbs / 2010 - 3750lbs)
Fun to drive - old 100% / New - 75% (Even though it's way too heavy, it has a lot of power. The better suspension components and tire compounds help mask the weight.)

So, by the past Camaro design specs, the new Camaro averages a 50%. That's a fail. (I dropped easy to work on, because with modern regulations, I don't think we'll be able to see an easy to work on car ever again... That's not really GM's fault.)

They [Toyota] do not waste any time trying to sell what people are not willing to pay for. GM needs to learn these lessons and I don't see any sign of that.

WHAT?!? That was the decision that sealed the bankruptcy of GM. They neglected their car lines because people were only buying trucks and SUVs...

 

[Glaucus]

They [Toyota] do not waste any time trying to sell what people are not willing to pay for. GM needs to learn these lessons and I don't see any sign of that.

WHAT?!? That was the decision that sealed the bankruptcy of GM. They neglected their car lines because people were only buying trucks and SUVs...

Good point, but perhaps that was the last line of defense for GM. I mean, the Japanese just weren't as competitive with large trucks (although that was slowly changing too as overseas auto makers were starting to target the US truck market), leaving GM one last market to dominate. Smaller cars still sold, just ask Toyota, Honda and Hyundai, just not from GM lots. Unfortunately for GM the large truck market imploded over night and they're now stuck competing in markets they no longer dominate. At any rate, I think GM took too long to axe the TransAM and Camaro, although they seem to have kept the Corvette relevant.

 

[ilwrath]

I mean, the Japanese just weren't as competitive with large trucks (although that was slowly changing too as overseas auto makers were starting to target the US truck market), leaving GM one last market to dominate.

But that one last market was the largest and most profitable US market... It was a ruthless bottom-line enhancing product lineup that caused GM to lose sight of what it should have been doing.

At any rate, I think GM took too long to axe the TransAM and Camaro, although they seem to have kept the Corvette relevant.

Yes and no on the TransAm and Camaro axing. Those cars did languish too long without a refresh at the end. But, unlike Toyota, GM's labor costs are largely fixed costs, thanks to the agreements with the UAW. (GM still ends up paying 85% or more of salary to laid off workers due to the jobs bank...) Cutting those lines earlier and laying off the workers may have worked out to be costlier than running them another few years before transferring those workers to another project. Having those vehicles languishing out there doesn't do much for your corporate image, though...........

And, as for Corvette....
Mid 50's - 60's Corvette design goal: World class sports car at an aspirational but reachable price.
New Corvette's design goal: World class sports car at an aspirational but reachable price.
Hmm... I wonder why it's still relevant.

 

[Glaucus]

And, as for Corvette....
Mid 50's - 60's Corvette design goal: World class sports car at an aspirational but reachable price.
New Corvette's design goal: World class sports car at an aspirational but reachable price.
Hmm... I wonder why it's still relevant.

Ya I guess. For $50K you can get the entry level Corvette with a modest 430hp. For $55K you can get the soft top. Or for $58K you can get the BMW M3 Coup with a mere 414hp. If I had that kind of cash, I'd take the M3 easy. However the ZR1 with 638hp goes for $105K and the M6 Coup with a puny 500hp goes for $102K. I'd still take the M6 for styling reasons, but you have to admit the ZR1 would appeal to a great many people. However, at that price point it's far from affordable.

 

[Glaucus]

Here's an article that's kinda discussing what we're discussing here; why GMs don't sell. The article concludes it's because GM cars lack one vital feature: reliability.

Detroit's New 'Green' Delusion

Environmentalism has become the latest distraction and delusion for Detroit. Chrysler admits that small, fuel efficient FIAT models aren't going to sell in large numbers--but hey, they're going to have a "halo effect" that will "burnish" the entire Chrysler line! Chevrolet will only sell a few thousand Volts--but the bicoastal elite appeal of green will suck media-addled buyers into the "reinvented" GM.

No. Detroit cars will sell when they're bulletproof, not when they're green (or, in Lutz's new spin, when they're made by a company that also sells something "green"). But only one of the Big Three U.S. car manufacturers has made dramatic progress catching up to Japan on the bulletproof front--and it's not Chrysler or GM. It's the one that hasn't gone broke.

 

[JoBBo]

No. Detroit cars will sell when they're bulletproof, not when they're green (or, in Lutz's new spin, when they're made by a company that also sells something "green"). But only one of the Big Three U.S. car manufacturers has made dramatic progress catching up to Japan on the bulletproof front--and it's not Chrysler or GM. It's the one that hasn't gone broke.[/i]

First of all, I agree with the author that the sales potential for small environment friendly cars is most likely overestimated with regard to the United States. However, I assumed that Daimler-Benz had managed to improve the reliability of Chrysler cars during their 9 years long involvement.

With regard to Europe, I can report that American cars are generally not considered to be of low quality based on my experience. They are just expensive with low brand appeal (compared to European premium cars in the same price range) and excessive fuel consumption / high taxes.

 

[Glaucus]

I'd argue that Mercedes doesn't have the greatest reliability records either. From what I know, most German makers (except BMW) rate only slightly better then GM. They instead make their sales based on their exotic-ness or styling, which I admit is typically superior to NA cars. Now, if Toyota (or even a behind the scenes company like Yamaha) bought a slice of Chrysler I would definitely expect to see some improvements. Hmmm... Come to think of it, Yamaha could have been an awesome company to make things right with Chrysler - everything they do they do well and they're not already in the auto industry but have worked with companies like Toyota and Subaru in the past. Anyway, I hope Fiat manages to do what Daimler couldn't.

 

[JoBBo]

I'd argue that Mercedes doesn't have the greatest reliability records either. From what I know, most German makers (except BMW) rate only slightly better then GM.

Mercedes had quality issues a few years ago but they have bounced back in European consumer polls since. But then again, maybe there are severe differences in reliability between Mercedes models that are produced in NA and those that are produced in Europe (for whatever reason).

Anyway, I hope Fiat manages to do what Daimler couldn't.

Fiat is notorious for quality problems (also involving brands like Alfa Romeo) over here. My brother drives a Fiat Barchetta convertible which is not a bad car as far as reliability goes, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I hear snipe remarks about Fiat quite frequently.

 

[Glaucus]

Fiat is notorious for quality problems (also involving brands like Alfa Romeo) over here. My brother drives a Fiat Barchetta convertible which is not a bad car as far as reliability goes, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I hear snipe remarks about Fiat quite frequently.

I hear ya. The only Italian cars I'd ever consider are Lamborghini and Ferrari, and if I could afford those I could afford to fix them too. You know what Fiat stands for? Fix It Again Tony. :-D

 

[JoBBo]

You know what Fiat stands for? Fix It Again Tony. :-D

Yeah, the German equivalent is "Fehler in allen Teilen" (faulty in all parts).

 

[faethor]

Quality isn't the only issue. Preception is perhaps the bigger issue.

Come to think of it, Yamaha could have been an awesome company to make things right with Chrysler - everything they do they do well and they're not already in the auto industry but have worked with companies like Toyota and Subaru in the past..

and Ford.