Dull at Any Speed
GM Never Learned to Shift Gears

By Maryann N. Keller
Post
Sunday, June 12, 2005; B01

In a Detroit suburb in the late 1980s, General Motors established a large technical facility it called the Mona Lisa center, where its engineers disassembled Honda Accords and Toyota Camrys in a desperate search for the secret of their Japanese competitors' success. They analyzed the smallest pieces trying to figure out the best attributes to include in future GM models.

The reasons for GM's decline could have been found there on the floor of the Mona Lisa center, but not among the parts. It was the whole approach. Taking apart existing cars is a backward-looking exercise; it doesn't tell you what's going to sell four or five years down the road. So while GM was staring in its rearview mirror, its competitors were zipping ahead.

What ails GM today is much the same as what ailed it then -- and it's not just a matter of big pension plans, health care costs for workers or undervalued Asian currencies. The problem is that GM has forgotten how to make cars that people want to buy.

That's why the 25,000 layoffs that GM announced on Tuesday were only part of the week's distressing news for the automaker. The company also said that it is hard at work at a concept car called the Buick Centieme, a seven-passenger "crossover" vehicle designed to compete with popular rivals from Honda, Ford and Chrysler. (Crossovers have SUV attributes, but are built on car, not truck, platforms.) GM's lack of a seven-seat crossover wagon to sell in 2005 is a problem now, but the new model car won't arrive until sometime between 2007 and 2009. Will it be substantially better than what I could buy today? GM has never behaved as if it understood that the competition is always moving forward. The car I can buy today is not something I want in four years. The company might as well still be stuck in the Mona Lisa center.

It's hard to pinpoint when GM lost its touch. At the start of my career as an auto industry analyst in 1972, General Motors had a triple-A credit rating and a portfolio of distinctive and powerful brands that suited America's growing affluence and emerging suburban lifestyle. I myself had bought a new Pontiac Tempest just after college in 1966 and I loved it.

But I've owned only one GM car since then. For the past 33 years, I have watched, analyzed and chronicled the decline of GM's market share and leadership among the world's automakers. In the 1970s, the company lost its creative edge, paying more attention to financial calculations than consumer tastes. Since the 1980s GM has been forced into more downsizings and restructuring than I care to document. Each time, it has touted multibillion dollar cost savings and a corporate revival based on new products in the pipeline.

That's what happened, again, last week. At the company's annual shareholder meeting, chief executive G. Richard Wagoner Jr. delivered a statement essentially identical to what we've heard time and again. He announced yet another round of job cuts and factory closings while expressing confidence in the success of future models. GM stock surged, just as it has after every other cost-cutting scheme.

But while Wagoner is trying to exude confidence, GM cars are languishing on dealers' lots. And history tells us that getting rid of people and factories is not going to close gaps in product development and production efficiency with competitors such as Toyota. It is simply aligning the company's assets to a new reality of a permanently lower market share.

This would have been unimaginable to Alfred Sloan, the legendary GM chairman who rebuilt the company after an earlier brush with bankruptcy and who retired in 1956. He had left behind a heritage of engineering innovation and financial controls that supported smart decisions without stifling creativity. The company was so dominant, it could have run on cruise control -- at least for a while.

Sloan's successors lost touch with consumers. People used to speak with awe about the executive offices on the 14th floor of GM headquarters. Visitors had to go through two sets of electronically locked glass doors and file past guards. Inside, it was like a sanctuary -- very, very quiet with beige carpeting and wood paneling. The executives had their own private dining rooms and secretaries sat watch over closed office doors, preventing any opportunity for casual conversation. Cocooned there, GM's executives became smug.

By the 1970s, new forces -- rising gasoline prices and competition from Japan -- were beginning to assault the company and Sloan's world was passing. GM responded to cheap Japanese imports by cutting quality. One Chevy model actually left out the back seat to cut costs. Brand definition, Sloan's genius, was blurred.

In the 1980s, Roger Smith, whose long tenure as CEO was marked by GM's greatest failures, took the company through a disastrous reorganization and then proceeded to spend more than $15 billion on robots and factory automation, none of which helped product quality or cut costs.

Smith also acquired Electronic Data Systems, which Ross Perot had founded, to shake up the company's culture and Hughes Aircraft to introduce space age technology into the car. Money that should have been devoted to designing better automobile engines and restoring the luster of, say, Cadillac (which had degenerated into a tarted-up Chevrolet) was spent on diversions. Smith also added Saab to the roster of money-losing ventures. A multi-billion-dollar investment in Saturn was supposed to spur a cultural revolution by getting management, labor and dealers to work together. But in the 1990s, GM's next CEO, Jack Smith, and his team starved that division, which had enjoyed modest retail success at the outset because of a strong and dedicated dealer body. Today Saturn has been relegated to just another undistinguished GM brand that has cost the company more than $10 billion.

During the 1990s, GM focused on productivity and quality with some success. Profits soared for a while. But once again dollars that should have been invested in cars were diverted into stock buybacks at prices considerably above the current level, vehicle production in China and elsewhere in Asia, Internet startups and lastly into Fiat, the Italian automaker. That Rick Wagoner can argue, as he has, that the $4 billion to $5 billion it cost to get in and out of Fiat (about half to buy a stake and half to get out of an obligation to buy the rest) was money well spent is beyond belief. It is baffling that GM -- a company supposedly run by "bean counters" demanding forecasts of double-digit returns before approving investments -- wasted so much.

Jack Smith, who got the top job in 1992, brushed aside concerns about the slide in the company's U.S. market share by saying that GM's global share mattered more because of faster market growth abroad. No one at the company seemed to understand that the United States has been, is and will be the source of virtually all of the profits earned by world automakers. How could GM think that it could save itself in Asia when the Japanese and Korean auto companies have been intent on increasing sales here because this is where the profits are?

Jack Smith also blamed GM's U.S. problems on poor marketing rather than poor vehicles. In an effort to establish unique brand identities in the increasingly crowded American market, the company expanded the influence of market researchers even as it reduced the ranks of engineers. GM convinced itself that by using "psychographics," a hocus pocus term that means a combination of psychology and demographics, it could profile the U.S. population and create niche products. Car designers surrounded themselves with photos of their intended customers . I remember being taken through these studios with then-executive vice president for marketing Ron Zarella. On the wall of one studio hung large photographs of vital young men and women doing the things that GM associated with Pontiac. One photo showed a Spandex-clad young woman rock-climbing, the supposed inspiration for the prototype of what would become the Aztek. The car, by comparison, was anything but agile and sleek. GM managed to create a vehicle that everyone hated.

One has to wonder why it has been so hard for GM to figure out what car buyers want and then give it to them. The company has not been able to leap ahead of the competition since the early 1980s when it led the way into front-wheel drive. Its failures are numerous.

Chrysler launched the first minivan in 1984. It took more than a decade, but the Japanese established themselves in the sector while GM failed to come up with a desirable model. Today, GM's minivans still lack the seating configurations that have become the norm, forcing the company to lure consumers by offering thousands of dollars in "incentive" discounts, ultimately a self-defeating exercise that gives the impression (correctly) that the company is having trouble selling its cars.

GM has all but given up trying to come up with a competitor to the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord that its Mona Lisa center took apart. But Toyota added a hit SUV, the RX 300 in its Lexus line. When Toyota realized that the Lexus brand was attracting only older buyers, it created Scion and matched unique style with unconventional marketing to appeal to the young generation. When GM faced the same problem of appealing only to seniors with Oldsmobile, it ended up killing off the brand and sacrificing more market share.

GM's product planning has also ignored the possibility that fuel economy might again become a priority for consumers. When I was a member of a National Academy of Sciences panel studying the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for the auto industry in 2001, GM argued against raising them. At the same time that it was forecasting bigger auto sales in China, it was denying the impact that would have on oil markets. And it is virtually alone in arguing that aging models explain its falling SUV sales while every other vehicle manufacturer points to fuel prices as the reason. The SUV boom of the 1990s is over and with it the huge profits that these titans generated.

GM's management tells us to wait until the new GMT 900 series of SUVs and pickups hit the showrooms next year. These will be followed by more new models, including the new entrants into the surging crossover category. But GM's Asian competitors are introducing new models and refreshing existing ones at a faster pace, so that GM is always reacting rather than forcing its rivals to respond. And there are just too many examples of the company's failure to match the competition, let alone innovate, leaving us to wonder why we should believe that what's in the pipeline will be any better.

It's true, as management argues, that health care costs are a huge burden for GM. But management agreed to the health care provisions in past contracts based on faulty assumptions of rising production. It seems unfair to ask hourly workers to sacrifice wages without equal sacrifice among executives or the shareholders who still get a $2-a-share dividend from the company's large but rapidly dwindling cash horde.

What is so tragic about the GM story is that the company has always attracted highly talented and dedicated people who want to do the right thing. No one at GM wants to close factories or bribe customers with rebates or employee pricing. GM invests more money and time in the creation of a new model than Toyota. So why does GM get it wrong so often? Why was Lee Iacocca able to save Chrysler? How is it that Carlos Ghosn was able to turn Nissan around in a few years and GM hasn't been able to stabilize itself in three decades?

It's hard to change a corporation's culture, especially when the corporation is as large as GM. The age-old refrain about GM is that its executive ranks are dominated by treasurer's office graduates while car guys are nowhere to be found. Yet Jack Smith moved the company away from Roger Smith's imperial style to consensus management. Rick Wagoner, admitting a lack of product expertise, brought in Bob Lutz and gave him the freedom to revive GM styling. But a stifling corporate culture plagued by slow decision-making and a lack of accountability is hard to change.

Perhaps Ghosn's and Iacocca's secret weapon was a willingness to admit to a crisis. So far, GM has only told us to wait for the new models while it leans on the United Auto Workers for concessions.

Back in the Sloan era, GM was so dominant that it was worried that government trustbusters would order a breakup of the company. Those days are long gone. And while the company still has substantial resources, unless it can come up with some more appealing vehicles, no amount of UAW concessions or layoffs will be enough.


Maryann Keller, of the consulting firm Maryann Keller & Associates, is the author of "Rude Awakening: The Rise, Fall, and Struggle for Recovery of General Motors" (William Morrow) and "Collision: GM, Toyota, Volkswagen and the Race to Own the 21st Century" (Doubleday).

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

I found this read on an Autoweek forum. I wanted to stray away from that other thread about GM using employee discounts to attract buyers. While Keller makes a good argument about GM's current situation, it kind of hides GM's successes. What about the story of the Corvette, and its racing heritage? What about GM's racing heritage, period? The article fails to address these triumphs, which in turns makes GM look even worse than it is. I'll admit, 25,000 people are going to lose their jobs, however, the General is up in arms. What else can they do? Keller is somewhat correct. They really screwed themselves over after the 1970s, but GM saw a resurgence of sorts in the 90s, with SUVs and a sexier Corvette, for example. Now, there's no Oldsmobile, the XLR is pretty much a flop (hate the tailights BTW), but GM is not down and out. Hopefully, new models like the Solstice and the Sky will bring in convertible-hungry consumers, even if they are front-engine derivatives of their VX220 roadster. However, I wish GM had a little bit more ingenuity than spending x-amount of dollars to import cars like the Holden Monaro (though I hear they are redesigning a new GTO. Too little too late IMO). Yeah, R&D is a bitch when you only have a limited budget and very little time. Personally, GM should take time in designing cars, the way they do with the Corvette. I believe timeless designs are the key to bringing in consumers. I'm probably going to forget about the GTO's or XLR's styling in a few years, and I'm certain the guys in Detroit don't want to hear that. Somehow I felt cars like these, including the Aztek (styling-wise), were rushed in order to compete with the rest of the world. If GM is supposed to be the number one auto maker in the world, they should act like it. Lead, never follow. But in a time where things look bleak, looks like the General is fucking itself again.

The Corvette and a racing heritage don't mean dick when a the company as a whole is so far out of touch with the marketplace. The Corvette and its racing heritage is not what will keep the company a float. This article is making the point about GM nor being relevant today. Sure they make a dam fine car in the Corvette, but that is a narrow sliver of the market place.

At the very least they should be looking down the street at what Chrysler is doing. They make stylish cars that appeal to very specific markets....it doesn't even seem to matter that their quality is pathetic.

The Corvette is actually the embodiment of GM's thinking that this guy is talking about.

The only reason it is a success is because of it's lineage. It's history. Aside from the HUD the Corvette really isn't the epitome of forward looking technology. It's old technology and old design re-engineered to today's markets. Again, looking backwards instead of forwards.

The Corvette is actually the embodiment of GM's thinking that this guy is talking about.

The only reason it is a success is because of it's lineage. It's history. Aside from the HUD the Corvette really isn't the epitome of forward looking technology. It's old technology and old design re-engineered to today's markets. Again, looking backwards instead of forwards.

Can't argue with their success regarding the Vette though. Lineage is not the only reason or we'd still have a Camaro/Firebird.

The new Mustang is the epitome of looking backwards (even moreso than the Vette). Looks like it was a good decision for Ford thus far. The latest technology doesn't always translate into the best product.

yes but the Mustang is a car for the masses...the Vette isn't.

It seems that the solution car companies have had is to go backwards. All the retro styling especially. Now the pushrod LS, that is an example of old technology that is good, because that is one of the best V8s in the world. It's very light. But leaf springs are a bad example of looking backwards. What's my solution? Have all American car companies invest in the engine of the future, the Rotary :p.

THe new mustang takes cues from the past, but it is a new machine built on current market data. Yes, it has history and a long successful lineage, but it incorporates new technology/design and is a response to what the market currently wants.



Can't argue with their success regarding the Vette though. Lineage is not the only reason or we'd still have a Camaro/Firebird.

The new Mustang is the epitome of looking backwards (even moreso than the Vette). Looks like it was a good decision for Ford thus far. The latest technology doesn't always translate into the best product.

Ditto on the mustang. It has traction control, it has drive-by-wire throttle... the engine has overhead cams. And for not having IRS, it supposedly handles pretty damn well... it's done well in racing. With a good suspension package... Saleen or Rousch... it'll probably handle REAL well.

shelleys_man: In your posts about the domestic car industry, you seem to keep stressing the importance of bringing exciting cars to market, and you blame the R&D people for failing in this respect. However, as others have pointed out, cars for enthusiasts are not what keeps companies profitable. It's the bread and butter vehicles like sedans, SUVs, and trucks that are responsible for most of the profits. GM and Ford are losing market share in these segments, mainly because of increasing competition. Back when the Explorer first came out, there were only 3 SUVs in the segment! Compare that with over seventy now, and the rising cost of gas, and you can see why GM and Ford are struggling to grow in the SUV and truck segment. Now they are facing a massive overcapacity problem, and they need to dump hourly workers to stay profitable. If GM can manage to bring out some hot new vehicles, it will certainly help their situation, but it's almost inevitable that their market share will continue to decline due to incresed competition.

Consider Toyota, the healthiest automaker on the planet right now. Do you think that "exciting vehicles" is one of the main reasons for their success? I would certainly answer no to this question, and I think the majority of consumers would agree. Toyota's success is a result of the stellar reputation they have built through manufacturing excellence. Heck, they don't even need a mass-produced sports car to attract customers.

It's going to be a long and hard road for GM and Ford, because reputation is not something that can be changed with a lineup of new vehicles. It's going to take a committment to quality and many years to earn back the trust of consumers who have fled to foreign automakers.

Actually, this is the precise reason we do not have the Camero of Firebird anymore. The Vette has an almost occult like status. The other cars do not to the same extent, despite sharing some of the 'vettes technology and basic body layout.

Can't argue with their success regarding the Vette though. Lineage is not the only reason or we'd still have a Camaro/Firebird.
.

It takes as much courage to stick with a good thing when convention pushes you to go with the newest thing as it does to go with the new thing when convention wants to stick with the old thing.

What the article is saying is that convention is pushing but GM consistently follows, instead of drives the market. It's good to have history, but innovation is key. Otherwise we'd still all be in Model-T's.

It takes as much courage to stick with a good thing when convention pushes you to go with the newest thing as it does to go with the new thing when convention wants to stick with the old thing.

shelleys_man: In your posts about the domestic car industry, you seem to keep stressing the importance of bringing exciting cars to market, and you blame the R&D people for failing in this respect. However, as others have pointed out, cars for enthusiasts are not what keeps companies profitable. It's the bread and butter vehicles like sedans, SUVs, and trucks that are responsible for most of the profits. GM and Ford are losing market share in these segments, mainly because of increasing competition. Back when the Explorer first came out, there were only 3 SUVs in the segment! Compare that with over seventy now, and the rising cost of gas, and you can see why GM and Ford are struggling to grow in the SUV and truck segment. Now they are facing a massive overcapacity problem, and they need to dump hourly workers to stay profitable. If GM can manage to bring out some hot new vehicles, it will certainly help their situation, but it's almost inevitable that their market share will continue to decline due to incresed competition.

Consider Toyota, the healthiest automaker on the planet right now. Do you think that "exciting vehicles" is one of the main reasons for their success? I would certainly answer no to this question, and I think the majority of consumers would agree. Toyota's success is a result of the stellar reputation they have built through manufacturing excellence. Heck, they don't even need a mass-produced sports car to attract customers.

It's going to be a long and hard road for GM and Ford, because reputation is not something that can be changed with a lineup of new vehicles. It's going to take a committment to quality and many years to earn back the trust of consumers who have fled to foreign automakers.

Amen Buckeye! Well said. America CAN build quality cars. It's not cheap nor is it easy but they can do it. The minute they do, I will buy American again.

Americans do build quality cars, they build the Honda Accord...........

Ditto on the mustang. It has traction control, it has drive-by-wire throttle... the engine has overhead cams. And for not having IRS, it supposedly handles pretty damn well... it's done well in racing. With a good suspension package... Saleen or Rousch... it'll probably handle REAL well.

I know what you're saying, and won't doubt it's a step up from the old Mustang, but overhead cams, drive by wire, and traction control aren't really these new innovations per se. They are reverse engineered ideas that GM didn't develop, but took from competitor cars that already had it, like the Mona Lisa facility did in the article. I think what the article is talking about it say if GM focused on doing things like inventing VTEC in the first place instead planning to incorporate an equivalent into their cars after Honda did it, they would be in a much better position today.

Amen Buckeye! Well said. America CAN build quality cars. It's not cheap nor is it easy but they can do it. The minute they do, I will buy American again.


America DOES build quality cars. They build half the "Japanese" cars. And GM is ranked higher than any European make and most Japanese makes on almost every reliability analysis. It's not that Ford or GM or the UAW can't build a quality vehicle, because they most certainly can and do today. It's that, frankly, if GM started making the most bulletproof cars in the world today people still wouldn't buy them. Even if they looked good and offered a lot of nice features, people still wouldn't buy them. Not in the droves that they buy Toyotas these days anyhow.

GM, Ford, Chrysler, they are suffering from reputations that they earned (and for the most part rightly) 10-20 years ago. Boring, Slow, Unexciting, Pieces of crap. But that largely doesn't hold true today. But people still think so. And, what's perhaps worse, is that the media largely perpetuates this image.

For 20 years we've been swamped with "Japanese Quality is Superb" and "European Quality is Superb", and GM probably takes the brunt of the "American Quality is Crap" argument despite the fact that General Motors surpasses every European make and most Japanese makes in terms of overall reliability. Are GMs cars largely boring and unexciting? Yes. But so are Hondas and Toyotas.

With rare exception the media dotes after the Japanese carmakers as if they can do no wrong. When Ford announced it made $1.2B in profit in the first quarter the press focused on a couple of their models that didn't meet expectations, most articles didn't even mention the fact that Ford made double what Wall Street expected it to make. When a US automobile gets recalls or bad safety tests the media openly rails on them, to the point where it's apparently worthy of the 6 o'clock evening news. But when the same problems occur with Japanese automakers they're either covered up by stories of how poorly American automakers did in the same tests or just flat-out not mentioned at all.

And it's not like I'm anti-Japanese automaker or something. I love Mazdas, like most of Nissan's lineup a great deal, and although they're not Japanese, I can appreciate the work that Hyundai has done to turn estabish themselves and formidable competitors in the marketplace. I just keep up on industry news (what most people would consider the boring business side of things) a lot and have noticed this occuring with more and more frequency.

America DOES build quality cars. They build half the "Japanese" cars. And GM is ranked higher than any European make and most Japanese makes on almost every reliability analysis. It's not that Ford or GM or the UAW can't build a quality vehicle, because they most certainly can and do today. It's that, frankly, if GM started making the most bulletproof cars in the world today people still wouldn't buy them. Even if they looked good and offered a lot of nice features, people still wouldn't buy them. Not in the droves that they buy Toyotas these days anyhow.

GM, Ford, Chrysler, they are suffering from reputations that they earned (and for the most part rightly) 10-20 years ago. Boring, Slow, Unexciting, Pieces of crap. But that largely doesn't hold true today. But people still think so. And, what's perhaps worse, is that the media largely perpetuates this image.

For 20 years we've been swamped with "Japanese Quality is Superb" and "European Quality is Superb", and GM probably takes the brunt of the "American Quality is Crap" argument despite the fact that General Motors surpasses every European make and most Japanese makes in terms of overall reliability. Are GMs cars largely boring and unexciting? Yes. But so are Hondas and Toyotas.

With rare exception the media dotes after the Japanese carmakers as if they can do no wrong. When Ford announced it made $1.2B in profit in the first quarter the press focused on a couple of their models that didn't meet expectations, most articles didn't even mention the fact that Ford made double what Wall Street expected it to make. When a US automobile gets recalls or bad safety tests the media openly rails on them, to the point where it's apparently worthy of the 6 o'clock evening news. But when the same problems occur with Japanese automakers they're either covered up by stories of how poorly American automakers did in the same tests or just flat-out not mentioned at all.

And it's not like I'm anti-Japanese automaker or something. I love Mazdas, like most of Nissan's lineup a great deal, and although they're not Japanese, I can appreciate the work that Hyundai has done to turn estabish themselves and formidable competitors in the marketplace. I just keep up on industry news (what most people would consider the boring business side of things) a lot and have noticed this occuring with more and more frequency.


I'm talking about a car with a Ford, Chrysler or GM nameplate on it. I KNOW Americans build half of the Japanese cars we drive but it's not the same thing. I'm talking about cars designed, and built in America. As of right now, except for the Corvette, there are no American cars worth owning IMO. "General Motors surpasses every European make and most Japanese makes in terms of overall reliability." Okay :confused:

I know what you're saying, and won't doubt it's a step up from the old Mustang, but overhead cams, drive by wire, and traction control aren't really these new innovations per se. They are reverse engineered ideas that GM didn't develop, but took from competitor cars that already had it, like the Mona Lisa facility did in the article. I think what the article is talking about it say if GM focused on doing things like inventing VTEC in the first place instead planning to incorporate an equivalent into their cars after Honda did it, they would be in a much better position today.

Yeah.. the best you could get from GM is actually being able to keep up with the rest as far as tech goes... god forbid they step out and try to invent something new.

I dunno GM, Ford... for some reason is all about sticking with whats tried and true.. this follow the leader thing in an ultimate effort to pass savings on to the customer. They are so out of touch that they dont even know that the people WILL pay for a product (pricier or not) provided you show them why they are paying what they are paying.

I'm talking about a car with a Ford, Chrysler or GM nameplate on it. I KNOW Americans build half of the Japanese cars we drive but it's not the same thing. I'm talking about cars designed, and built in America. As of right now, except for the Corvette, there are no American cars worth owning IMO. "General Motors surpasses every European make and most Japanese makes in terms of overall reliability." Okay

So you're not talking about "Quality" you're talking about "Exciting" or perhaps "Well-Performing", since the Corvette is far from the pinnacle of reliability. But it's not like Toyota or Honda are exactly making the world's most exciting cars either.

I'm talking about a car with a Ford, Chrysler or GM nameplate on it. I KNOW Americans build half of the Japanese cars we drive but it's not the same thing. I'm talking about cars designed, and built in America. As of right now, except for the Corvette, there are no American cars worth owning IMO. "General Motors surpasses every European make and most Japanese makes in terms of overall reliability." Okay :confused:You see, this is exactly what Sigma was trying to say. Many people immediately dismiss all American cars as being unreliable because of the reputations they developed in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. I'm not saying the quality and reliability of American cars is quite up to the standard of the Asian automakers at this point, but all the metrics suggest that it's pretty dang close. When people have an American nameplate and something goes wrong, they say "Gee, what a surprise, it's an American piece of crap"; however, when something goes wrong with their Accord or Camry they say "I must have just got a bad one, because everyone knows these cars are rock-solid." This type of mentality is what is killing the domestic automakers right now, and it's going to be nearly impossible to reverse.

You see, this is exactly what Sigma was trying to say. Many people immediately dismiss all American cars as being unreliable because of the reputations they developed in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. I'm not saying the quality and reliability of American cars is quite up to the standard of the Asian automakers at this point, but all the metrics suggest that it's pretty dang close. When people have an American nameplate and something goes wrong, they say "Gee, what a surprise, it's an American piece of crap"; however, when something goes wrong with their Accord or Camry they say "I must have just got a bad one, because everyone knows these cars are rock-solid." This type of mentality is what is killing the domestic automakers right now, and it's going to be nearly impossible to reverse.
C'mon. If GM believed in the reliability of their cars and cared what people thought of them, thenthey could do what Hyundai did and offer REAL warranties on their cars instead of the penny-pinching 36/36,000 that's out there now.

To go along with what you're saying, Buckeye, I believe that, generally, people don't take care of their cars. No oil changes, driving with CEL on for months at at time, etc. When the American one breaks, the owner blames the brand. When the Asian one breaks, they blame themselves, go buy a new one, and tell themselves that it lasted "really long" for how much they abused it...

C'mon. If GM believed in the reliability of their cars and cared what people thought of them, thenthey could do what Hyundai did and offer REAL warranties on their cars instead of the penny-pinching 36/36,000 that's out there now.

To go along with what you're saying, Buckeye, I believe that, generally, people don't take care of their cars. No oil changes, driving with CEL on for months at at time, etc. When the American one breaks, the owner blames the brand. When the Asian one breaks, they blame themselves, go buy a new one, and tell themselves that it lasted "really long" for how much they abused it...Hyundai took a huge risk by offering the 100,000 mile warranty, but they needed to do so because their reputation was far worse than any American brand. The risk paid off, because it's one of the main reasons that people started buying their vehicles. However, their long warranty is a huge financial burden and I'm willing to bet that they'd like to reduce it if given the opportunity. Hyundai doesn't offer this warranty because they believe in the reliability of their cars--it's a marketing gimmick more than anything.

With the domestic manufacturers, the 36/36,000 warranty is something that has existed for a long time. However, it doesn't apply across the board--many domestic vehicles are offered with longer warranties. I wouldn't be surprised if a lengthening of the warranty period becomes a part of the strategy for domestic automakers. They are going to need to do something to restore confidence in their vehicles. The problem is that if this increase in warranty period doesn't translate into an immediate increase in sales, all the warranty extension is doing is eating away profits. It's not as simple as "believing in the reliability of their cars".

You see, this is exactly what Sigma was trying to say. Many people immediately dismiss all American cars as being unreliable because of the reputations they developed in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. I'm not saying the quality and reliability of American cars is quite up to the standard of the Asian automakers at this point, but all the metrics suggest that it's pretty dang close. When people have an American nameplate and something goes wrong, they say "Gee, what a surprise, it's an American piece of crap"; however, when something goes wrong with their Accord or Camry they say "I must have just got a bad one, because everyone knows these cars are rock-solid." This type of mentality is what is killing the domestic automakers right now, and it's going to be nearly impossible to reverse.

All I can say is this, the last American car I had left me on the side of the road two times. It was three years old with less than 50K on the odometer. I have owned five Japanese cars since then with three of them being 98% pure Japanese and I have never been to a repair shop since. All of my cars receive the same care. I am anal to a fault.

The reason I mentioned the Vette is because it is a phenomenal performance value.
I know it's not reliable.

So you're not talking about "Quality" you're talking about "Exciting" or perhaps "Well-Performing", since the Corvette is far from the pinnacle of reliability. But it's not like Toyota or Honda are exactly making the world's most exciting cars either.

I am talking about quality. I mentioned the Vette only because it is a phenomenal performance value. I agree that most Honda's & Toyota's are dull cars. The one thing that isn't dull about them though is their resale value.

All I can say is this, the last American car I had left me on the side of the road two times. It was three years old with less than 50K on the odometer. I have owned five Japanese cars since then with three of them being 98% pure Japanese and I have never been to a repair shop since. All of my cars receive the same care. I am anal to a fault.

The reason I mentioned the Vette is because it is a phenomenal performance value.
I know it's not reliable.What type of car was it that gave you so much trouble? What were the failures? Since you say you've owned at least 5 cars since then, it must not have been a recent model. It's no secret that American cars during a certain period of time left a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, I understand how an experience like that could leave a really bad taste in your mouth, but remember that even Honda and Toyota make lemons. My last 3 cars have been designed and manufactured in Japan, and they have had their fair share of problems. Additionally, my wife had a '99 Accord V6 as her previous car, and she hated it, not only because of how bland it was, but because of the number of problems it had (although to be fair, it was used, so there's no telling how much the previous owner abused it).

Remeber folks, what is "more exciting" to consumers in general is not necessarily what's "more exciting" to enthusiasts.

And this isn't a domestic/import thing. Chrysler/Dodge is kicking ass right now, Ford's doing well. It's just GM that is losing money hand over fist because they make uninspiring, generic "platfrom" cars, then make a flavor of that car for every brand they have.

Peace
policy

What type of car was it that gave you so much trouble? What were the failures? Since you say you've owned at least 5 cars since then, it must not have been a recent model. It's no secret that American cars during a certain period of time left a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, I understand how an experience like that could leave a really bad taste in your mouth, but remember that even Honda and Toyota make lemons. My last 3 cars have been designed and manufactured in Japan, and they have had their fair share of problems. Additionally, my wife had a '99 Accord V6 as her previous car, and she hated it, not only because of how bland it was, but because of the number of problems it had (although to be fair, it was used, so there's no telling how much the previous owner abused it).

My last American car was a '94 SHO which I bought in '96. It was perfect when I got it with 20K on the odometer. In less than two years I replaced the starter, alternator, fuel pump and front & rear rotors (the starter & fuel pump left us on the side of the road two seperate times). I'm not even going to mention the electrical problems I had. The motor was built by Yamaha and was the only thing that didn't break down. I know it wasn't just this car because there were five SHO's in my family between my dad, my brother and myself (one'90, one'91, one'94 & two'95's). All five cars experienced the exact same problems. We bought them because at the time, there was nothing else with four doors that could keep up. I know that Japanese cars break down but it's generally with much less frequency.

I do need to correct a fault on a previous statement. When I mentioned there wasn't an American car I would buy other than a Vette, I neglected to mention the 300C Hemi and SRT8. I'm not happy that the DUB society has taken it as their poster child but that is one car Americans can be proud of. The car may have some issues but what car doesn't? It's a perfect example of an American auto maker taking a chance and breaking the mold. GM needs to pay attention. The Aztek is not a good example of breaking the mold. I guess when it comes down to it, I do rank excitement over reliabilty but not too much higher. :p

Well, yes, the SHO was quite unreliable. But it was little more than a modded Taurus. Factory-modded, granted, but modded none the less, complete with all the problems that they usually have -- supporting equipment that frequently breaks. That certainly doesn't mean all American cars are that way. I and my immediate family have owned some 13 American cars over the past 10 years and about 6 Japanese ones -- none stand out as being particularly more reliable or unreliable than another.

And, fact of the matter is, every single reliability study done these days puts GM right up there with the best Japan has to offer. Only Honda and Toyota ever get above average reliability rankings. Every Japanese make is generally well below with Nissan occassionaly getting close to average. Ford, not quite as high as GM, but still besting the rest of the Japanese. Mazda? Mazda is often dead-last or damn near it. The last JDPower put Mazda #40 out of 41 in initial quality and still well below Ford and GM (as every Japanese maker aside from Honda and Toyota are) in overall quality.

C'mon. If GM believed in the reliability of their cars and cared what people thought of them, thenthey could do what Hyundai did and offer REAL warranties on their cars instead of the penny-pinching 36/36,000 that's out there now.

I guess Honda and Toyota must really not believe in their cars either:

Toyota only has a 3/36 standard warranty
Honda only has a 3/36 standard warranty

Honda provides no more warranty coverage than Ford or GM does. And Toyota while have an extended 5/60 on Powertrain is actually bested by Chrysler who has an extended Powertrain warranty of 7/70.

So when are Honda and Toyota gonna offer "REAL warranties" and stop "penny-pinching"?

Yours is exactly the kind of attitude that I was talking about in my initial post.

I do need to correct a fault on a previous statement. When I mentioned there wasn't an American car I would buy other than a Vette, I neglected to mention the 300C Hemi and SRT8. I'm not happy that the DUB society has taken it as their poster child but that is one car Americans can be proud of.

Why would I want to be proud of a gigantic, gas-guzzling, sloppy-handling, boat of a car?

If anything the 300C illustrates exactly what is wrong with American automakers -- We'll take an overall poor car, chock it full of old technology and nothing really innovative (with the exception of DoD), and stick a big-ass engine (and old big-ass engine at that) in it and pray that they'll buy it. GM is doing the exact same thing now and making an "SS"-everything. And they have been buying the 300C. I'll grant them that. But the fad has been quickly dying out. And more importantly they haven't been buying the standard 300, which is the bread-and-butter model. The 300 is resorting to a whopping 25% fleet sales just in order to keep the plant up and running.

The only thing saving DCX right now is the Hemi. Without it their entire new lineup of cars would be floundering. Their designs are not very classic and likely won't stand the test of time, particularly the 300. Eventually consumers will tire of them, just as they quickly did with the standard 300, and the lots will be full. All the cars are numb-driving, poorly-braking, poorly-handling boats (I'll exempt the Charger as I haven't driven it yet) that, with the exception of how fast you can get to the next stoplight, hardly fit into the "exciting" category. Even if you want you can't have fun with them because their damn computers are so damn conservative (thanks to both a litigous society and a society full of people that haven't driven RWD in decades) they prevent you from doing anything remotely exciting without butting in.

While Toyota and Honda embrace hybrid vehicles with Toyota having waiting-lists of tens of thousands for multiple new cars, DCX goes to the opposite spectrum and builds a bunch of cars that require paying a $1300 gaz-guzzler tax to own. It's doubtful that, in the long-term, there's room for both to succeed.

So, I'm sorry, I little reason to be "proud" of the 300C. It's selling well, and close enough to sticker to get a good profit margin, but it's the recipe for a disaster in the long-term. DCX has bet the pooch on its' entire lineup on a design that's likely quick-to-age and gas prices.

Why would I want to be proud of a gigantic, gas-guzzling, sloppy-handling, boat of a car?

If anything the 300C illustrates exactly what is wrong with American automakers -- We'll take an overall poor car, chock it full of old technology and nothing really innovative (with the exception of DoD), and stick a big-ass engine (and old big-ass engine at that) in it and pray that they'll buy it. GM is doing the exact same thing now and making an "SS"-everything. And they have been buying the 300C. I'll grant them that. But the fad has been quickly dying out. And more importantly they haven't been buying the standard 300, which is the bread-and-butter model. The 300 is resorting to a whopping 25% fleet sales just in order to keep the plant up and running.

The only thing saving DCX right now is the Hemi. Without it their entire new lineup of cars would be floundering. Their designs are not very classic and likely won't stand the test of time, particularly the 300. Eventually consumers will tire of them, just as they quickly did with the standard 300, and the lots will be full. All the cars are numb-driving, poorly-braking, poorly-handling boats (I'll exempt the Charger as I haven't driven it yet) that, with the exception of how fast you can get to the next stoplight, hardly fit into the "exciting" category. Even if you want you can't have fun with them because their damn computers are so damn conservative (thanks to both a litigous society and a society full of people that haven't driven RWD in decades) they prevent you from doing anything remotely exciting without butting in.

While Toyota and Honda embrace hybrid vehicles with Toyota having waiting-lists of tens of thousands for multiple new cars, DCX goes to the opposite spectrum and builds a bunch of cars that require paying a $1300 gaz-guzzler tax to own. It's doubtful that, in the long-term, there's room for both to succeed.

So, I'm sorry, I little reason to be "proud" of the 300C. It's selling well, and close enough to sticker to get a good profit margin, but it's the recipe for a disaster in the long-term. DCX has bet the pooch on its' entire lineup on a design that's likely quick-to-age and gas prices.

We are straying from the original reason for this thread so I'll be brief. You obviosly haven't read a car magazine lately. The SRT-8 300C will keep up with a vette in straigh line acceleration and keep up with an RX-8 in braking. The skid pad is the only place where it obviously can't compete as well (.88g compared to the RX-8 @ .91g). As far as gas guzzling, the 6.1 Hemi does a better job at sipping fuel than a 1.3 rotary.

I subscribe to every car magazine in print, including not only the popular newsstand rags bbut many on the industry itself, thanks.

My comments were in reference to the 300C (as stated) not the SRT-8. The SRT-8 is produced in very limited numbers at a relatively high consumer cost and significantly less margin for DCX and in no way points to the serious capabilities or the needs of American automakers today. Everyone knows that Detroit can make a nicely-performing car, they've been doing it for decades with the Corvette like you stated, and even the GTO or Mustang GT pulls similar track-numbers as the SRT-8, just with less luxury attached and with the pricetags reflect that.

But Detroit doesn't need ~$45,000 good cars. It has those. Has for some time. And it's pretty good at making them. The CTS-V is a hell of a nice car too, offering very similar performance to the SRT-8 at roughly the same price. Or, if you've got the money, the STS-V is available. You didn't mention I should be proud of those.

The strategy of going after the Europeans, which is precisely what all the above cars were made for, hasn't bode well for Detroit. For one, it's not a big market to begin with. But primarily it's not the market that's eating away at their share. And it's a market of elitists who would rather buy the European product no matter how much better the American one was, making attracting buyers a difficult prospect.

I certainly don't want to be "proud" of yet another attempt to steal a tiny marketshare away from a company that wasn't even a threat. It's akin to Burger King starting to sell Fried Chicken because McDonald's is kicking it's butt in the burger business. The SRT-8 and the -Vs are all great cars, but everytime one comes out it's just another example of Detroit throwing up its' arms against the Japanese and turning to fight the one group that maybe they can hold off. It's almost embarrassing not pride-instilling.

rx8 buckeye,

very true insights about our big three's mentalities and the way the media gives it a negative rap. All this from a buckeye? I'm impressed. Glad to have you in detroit. :)

Remeber folks, what is "more exciting" to consumers in general is not necessarily what's "more exciting" to enthusiasts.

And this isn't a domestic/import thing. Chrysler/Dodge is kicking ass right now, Ford's doing well. It's just GM that is losing money hand over fist because they make uninspiring, generic "platfrom" cars, then make a flavor of that car for every brand they have.

Peace
policy

Exactly!

It's not domestic vs. imports, its GM. You can debate reliability all you want, but GM WAS (and still IS) the largest Automaker in the world. With that position, you expect leadership. What you get in the last couple of years still what a follower does. Heck, Hyundai has been more gutzy than GM.

GM does not exercise price leadership. It is VERY guilty of degenerating the indsutry into a price war with it's deep rebates and financing plans. Thank god, Toyota and Honda didn't follow suit with huge price cuts. GM does not exercise product leadership. This is what I think the author was pointing to. Why wasn't GM on the leading edge on hybrids? Why did they miss the boat on the crossovers? GM does not exercise manufacutring leaderhsip. Why did GM enter a joint venture with Toyota to setup NUMMI to try to learn the "Toyota Way" of manufacutring?

Actually the TPS is not that big of deal and does not lend itself to many types of manufacturing. Most Japanese companies copy it just to say they use it because Toyota is the most famous company whether it makes sense to what they do or not. There are things done in Japanese companies that are actually funny just to copy what the big two do over there. The unions are still hurting American companies by having strict job descriptions (hey that screw is loose, well shut it down till maintenance can drag the butts up here) and by defending real slobs that even all the other union members know is a real slacker. GM does have many problems they need to address but the unions have to change to make the companies better, not hinder them. Most don't know it but Japan has many unions too but their goal is to make sure the company does well in the long run as well as the workers.

American brands need to stop digging around in the past, and start creating vehicles that can stand on their own merit.

Toyota had to recall and insane amount of vehicles(i'm sure most are aware here), hardly any news about it..in comparsion to a American builders recall. Our own disgusting media has a very negative impact on this countries auto builders.

One question, why is GM still using the same auto tranny they developed in the 80's? BMW has a 7 speed auto out now! SVT trannies are starting to make waves, Audi's new auto is amazing. No technology and extremely uninspiring cars. If GM could get a clue and design an appealing car for the masses, I have an idea for them, make it a hybrid with something other than that crappy 4sp auto tranny, make look nice, comfortable, and the interior quality better than the last Yugo. Get 1 car right to start righting the ship and go from there!

One question, why is GM still using the same auto tranny they developed in the 80's? BMW has a 7 speed auto out now! SVT trannies are starting to make waves, Audi's new auto is amazing. No technology and extremely uninspiring cars. If GM could get a clue and design an appealing car for the masses, I have an idea for them, make it a hybrid with something other than that crappy 4sp auto tranny, make look nice, comfortable, and the interior quality better than the last Yugo. Get 1 car right to start righting the ship and go from there!The masses don't care whether a vehicle has a 4-speed instead of a 7-speed automatic transmission, or a 3.0L DOHC V-6 with variable valve timing instead of a 4.0L SOHC V-6, as long as it meets their fuel economy and performance expectations. GM is able to do this with older technology and shouldn't be faulted for it just because a small group of enthusiasts disapproves. Take the Corvette, for example, which uses a pushrod V-8 engine to achieve 26-28 highway MPG! That's pretty good if you ask me, and it's a heck of a lot cheaper to build an engine like this than one with more "modern" features like DOHC, variable valve timing, etc. When GM's fleet of vehicles starts to lag in fuel economy and performance, then I might buy the argument that their lack of innovative technology is what's hurting them.

SVT trannies, eh? :cool: You mean like the Tremec 6-speed in the Cobra??? :D J/K, I know what you mean. I don't think a CVT transmission is a selling point for most people. And regarding hybrids, these vehicles are only good for shaping the image of a company at this point. No manufacturer makes a decent return on their investment in this segment yet. The volumes are too low and the extra tech is too expensive to make it very profitable at this point.

And regarding hybrids, these vehicles are only good for shaping the image of a company at this point. No manufacturer makes a decent return on their investment in this segment yet. The volumes are too low and the extra tech is too expensive to make it very profitable at this point.

Not to mention the fact that it takes the customer forever to actually realize any cost savings associated with the better gas mileage.

Actually, this is the precise reason we do not have the Camero of Firebird anymore. The Vette has an almost occult like status. The other cars do not to the same extent, despite sharing some of the 'vettes technology and basic body layout.

Maybe the Vette has a larger following, but the Camaro/Firebird has a large enough following to be at least equal to that of the Mustang. I'd like to see them come back with some updated technology to challenge the Mustang again.

This is true, I'm not sure why they got rid of it in favor of the GTO. I guess that was thier attempt at being preceptive to new market needs.

Maybe the Vette has a larger following, but the Camaro/Firebird has a large enough following to be at least equal to that of the Mustang. I'd like to see them come back with some updated technology to challenge the Mustang again.

This is true, I'm not sure why they got rid of it in favor of the GTO. I guess that was thier attempt at being preceptive to new market needs.My understanding is that the Mustang was trouncing the F-body vehicles in sales. I would agree that there were probably just as many F-body enthusiasts as there were Mustang enthusiasts, but these are people who would only consider buying the V-8 versions. Now consider the fact that the base V-6 models have historically accounted for about 70% of Mustang sales. Camero/Firebird V-6 models weren't selling nearly as well as the V-6 Mustang, so they just weren't viable programs. The popularity of the V-6 Mustang is what has kept it alive.

This is true, I'm not sure why they got rid of it in favor of the GTO. I guess that was thier attempt at being preceptive to new market needs.


The Camaro wasn't dropped in favor of the GTO. The Camaro was dropped because it was hemmoraging money for GM. It had been a money loser for many years and they finally cut the cord. The GTO was brought over to be a GTO, and does a damn fine job of it, not to fill any lost gap in the market.

The Camaro wasn't dropped in favor of the GTO. The Camaro was dropped because it was hemmoraging money for GM. It had been a money loser for many years and they finally cut the cord. The GTO was brought over to be a GTO, and does a damn fine job of it, not to fill any lost gap in the market.

No the Firebird was dropped in favor of the GTO. They are obviously targeting a very similiar segment. The GTO does do a damn fine job being a GTO.... but why did they make the car look so boring? The last gen Trans Am WS6... now that looks like a muscle car.

My prediction is that they won't bring back the Firebird as long as the GTO is around.... but I think we'll see a resurgence of the Camaro at some point as a lower cost Mustang competitor.

No the Firebird was dropped in favor of the GTO. They are obviously targeting a very similiar segment. The GTO does do a damn fine job being a GTO.... but why did they make the car look so boring? The last gen Trans Am WS6... now that looks like a muscle car.

The Firebird was dropped because the Camaro which was 2/3 of the platform sales was dropped. The factory was shut down because the line couldn't provide enough sales to keep it open. They were literally dropping every year for 20 years before GM finally threw in the towel. In '95 the sales fell in half. Towards the end of its' life it was dropping at a rate of almost 20% a year. Pontiac didn't even begin working on bringing the GTO over as a Holden from Australia until well after the last Firebird rolled off the line.

And the GTO looks boring because that's what a GTO is supposed to look like. The original GTOs were nothing more than souped-up Tempests and certainly didn't look very exciting. The original GTO looked like every other Pontiac just as the new one does.

Personally, towards the end the TransAms/Firebirds started looking like rejects from an Alien movie which is arguably one reason why the sales plummetted so badly towards the end.

And the GTO looks boring because that's what a GTO is supposed to look like. The original GTOs were nothing more than souped-up Tempests and certainly didn't look very exciting. The original GTO looked like every other Pontiac just as the new one does.

Personally, towards the end the TransAms/Firebirds started looking like rejects from an Alien movie which is arguably one reason why the sales plummetted so badly towards the end.

The GTO is suppose to look boring.... wow, I guess GM has done it again. That was a genious design decision that's obviously paying off for Pontiac in both sales and critical acclaim. The fact that the car is a Holden tells me they were plugging holes and needed to do it fast.

GM should have just left the styling how it was on the Monaro. I don't care how they try to justify or rationalize it -- making the GTO look like a Grand Am was just plain dumb.

I don't care how they try to justify or rationalize it -- making the GTO look like a Grand Am was just plain dumb.

I agree...

I cant see one viable reason for doing wht they did with the GTO.. not one

The GTO is suppose to look boring.... wow, I guess GM has done it again. That was a genious design decision that's obviously paying off for Pontiac in both sales and critical acclaim.

After a crappy '04 year the '05 GTO is selling very well and hitting expectations. They're generally difficult to find on lots, particularly in the color that one wants, as most dealers only have 1 or 2 at a time.

The critical response of the US media I find a little funny personally. The European media, in stark contrast to the US media, loves their Monaro both on and off the track. In fact Top Gear and Fifth Gear some of the most well-respected auto media in the world, both used almost exactly the same phrases to describe the driving experience of the Monaro as they did the RX-8; and if you've ever seen their reviews of the RX-8 you know they loved it. And these are stodgy European-types that one wouldn't expect to enjoy an essentially American muscle car, and neither did they. They were very surprised by how well the car drove and handled.

The fact that the car is a Holden tells me they were plugging holes and needed to do it fast.

That same Holden is sold under a LOT of different names throughout the entire world including Holden Monaro, Vauxhall Monaro, Opel Monaro, and Pontiac GTO. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when what you have works fine. GM wasn't filling holes all around the planet as fast as possible, it was fulfilling market demand with a car that is extremely popular throughout much of the world.

The reason that it makes sense for Holden to make it is because the GTO was meant to be a limited production vehicle, with expectations around 16,000 units. GM doesn't have the flexibile facility design in the US to produce a vehicle of such production numbers while Holden had a brand-new flexible facility in Australia that was under-utilized. Their production facility needed some more units to produce, the cost to R&D it was cheap, Holden had a car that was immensely popular throughout the world, and GM could have used a car in the GTOs range in the US -- it was a perfect, sensible fit for the company as a whole. It would have worked better if GM wasn't losing money on the '04s but GM has had a good year with the '05s. Even selling them at cost (which it must be near because the Monaro sells for a great deal more throughout the rest of the world) GM is able to get production numbers high enough so as not to lose money on the plant itself.

GM should have just left the styling how it was on the Monaro. I don't care how they try to justify or rationalize it -- making the GTO look like a Grand Am was just plain dumb.

The styling difference consists of nothing more than a different front bumper, a few people have imported them, they're not that pricey at all. It's not like they changed the entire car. They could have brought it over as-is, but it would've looked awkward in the lineup with it's definitive Holden looks; same with the Vauxhall version.

The styling difference consists of nothing more than a different front bumper, a few people have imported them, they're not that pricey at all. It's not like they changed the entire car. They could have brought it over as-is, but it would've looked awkward in the lineup with it's definitive Holden looks; same with the Vauxhall version.
Gee, then I guess Dodge and Chevrolet both made huge mistakes by not styling the Viper and Corvette to look like a Neon or Cavalier. Oddly enough, many people seem to like these cars anyway, even in spite of this "akwardness."

Why do you think there's so much buzz surrounding the Solstice and Sky? Because someone at GM finally grew a pair and realised that you don't build a brand by making every single car in your lineup resemble a cheap ugly econobox.

Gee, then I guess Dodge and Chevrolet both made huge mistakes by not styling the Viper and Corvette to look like a Neon or Cavalier. Oddly enough, many people seem to like these cars anyway, even in spite of this "akwardness."

The Corvette is a brand in its' own right. It does fit in it's lineup since it's one and only. As for the Viper, Dodge never really did follow the whole "Branding" thing that almost every other automaker in the world does. Almost all Dodges looked unique in their own rights, although that has changed recently. The Viper will stay unique as, much like the Corvette, is has virtually become its' own brand.

The Corvette, the Viper, the GT -- these are the Halo cars for the respective Big Three. They were never meant to be, look, or act like anything else in the lineup. For Mazda the same principle lies with the RX-8.

Why do you think there's so much buzz surrounding the Solstice and Sky? Because someone at GM finally grew a pair and realised that you don't build a brand by making every single car in your lineup resemble a cheap ugly econobox.

Well frankly I think the Solstice is rather ugly but is still very obviously a Pontiac in its' ugliest part -- the Front. The tacky slapped-on kidney grills on the front are far worse than those on the GTO. And put the Pontiac grills on a Monaro and you complain they should leave the Pontiac grills off it and you said that without the grills it would have been fine. But put the same Pontiac grills on a Solstice and apparently that's alright.

And the Sky is nothing more than an almost-copy of an Opel Speedster / Vauxhall VX220 externally. It's nothing new either and is another example of GM copying a design that worked elsewhere and bringing it to the US market. I believe someone said that same practice was called "plugging holes" in reference to the GTO. The design elements are totally new to Saturn, yes; the new look is part of GMs effort to move Saturn upwards in the marketplace. In the coming years Saturn will be getting a lot of Opel-like designs to go along with the Speedster making the design much more ubiquitous to the brand, and the Sky will look like every other car in the lineup much like the GTO does to Pontiac.

There are any number of fine individual "U.S." models -- the Corvette, CTS-V, etc. However, for "bread and better" models, the Japanese (including U.S. plants), now the Koreans, and soon the Chinese; simply offer a better value. In particular, almost every "mainstream" GM model has some glaring fault. Two that I most remember from rentals on trips were the Oldsmobile Achieva and I believe the Pontiac Grand Prix (it may have been a Grand Am). The Achieva was nominally a 4-seater, but was really only a 2+a very small two -- my two short-statured daughters barely fit in the back. The Grand Prix had a shift lever that "fouled" the (admittedly large) cupholder when it was in the "park" position. The new Chevy Maxx is ok, but just not up to a Honda Accord or even one of the larger Hyundais. I drove one and remember that the controls were clumsy.

Did anyone bother to acually drive the prototypes before they went into production?? You would think such glaring faults would have been detected.

Fortunately, with the RX-8 we have a true sports sedan.

I know what you're saying, and won't doubt it's a step up from the old Mustang, but overhead cams, drive by wire, and traction control aren't really these new innovations per se. They are reverse engineered ideas that GM didn't develop, but took from competitor cars that already had it, like the Mona Lisa facility did in the article. I think what the article is talking about it say if GM focused on doing things like inventing VTEC in the first place instead planning to incorporate an equivalent into their cars after Honda did it, they would be in a much better position today.


No no... I didn't mean it asn an example of leading, but rather that they ARE using the latest technology in the new Mustang.

Drive by wire... reverse engineering?! LOL... that's a good one. It's been in use in aviation for a loooong time now. More like the auto INDUSTRY reverse engineered it from somewhere else...

I know it was an example, but please.. VTEC? I don't see anyone ragging on BMW for not coming up with Double VANOS before VTEC? Dude... someone is going to come out with some hot new technology before you sometimes... you can't ALWAYS win. Honda is the company that got variable valve timing started in the mainstream auto industry. Speaking of which... that came from their F1 experience. That could be anothe source of Us automaker's problems... NASCAR isn't F1...

I hate Honda. I've probably said it on this forum before. I've owned two... '89 Prelude Si (japan built) and a '93 Ascot (JDM). The Prelude was bought used about 2 years old. That damn car went through 3 timing belts in about 140,000mi. Twice it broke... once at about 68,000mi and again at about 120,000 or so. The third belt change was lucky, because it looked ready to break when I had it done. The car also went through TWO clutch slave cylinders. Did I forget to mention that due to Honda engine design, if the belt breaks your pistsons run right into any open valves? Yep... remachine the heads, new valves... fun fun. The Ascot wasn't as bad... I did very little to it and it kept on running... but it was a double carb engine... no fuel injection! :eek: That might have something to do with it...

Now my Mazda... no trouble at all. Good car.

I also had a '90 Mustang 5.0 LX and my father a '87 GT... no problems with either one... other than the infamous heater core break/leak issue.

GM should have just left the styling how it was on the Monaro. I don't care how they try to justify or rationalize it -- making the GTO look like a Grand Am was just plain dumb.
Seeing as the Monaro and GTO look exactly the same (except for a different bumper/grill), you're basically saying that Holden designed their car to look like a Grand Am?

The only similar design element between a Grand Am and a GTO is the kidney grill, and even those are substantially different in shape.

Building GTO, Vette, etc... won't do anything for GM's bottom line. They may be good (?) product, but won't make anyone want to go out and buy a Cavalier.

The foreign makers got it right. Come out with good basic bread and butter cars that represent good value, keep the nameplate over many generations of the product and then halo cars will be something buyers aspire to. For instance, Honda built its automobile empire in North America on the Civic. Always kept the Civic name around, never a production year where there was no Civic. As a result the car now has a history. Those buyers will aspire to own an accord, maybe a prelude, maybe s2000. American carmakers typically kill off a nameplate in an attempt to erase a bad product. Remember the Omni? Pinto? That lack of consistency never engenders brand loyalty (with exception of nameplates like Corvette, Mustang).

If GM wants to survive, its got to make a great product and have it appeal to GenX and GenY price it below Honda. I think Scion is trying to do that. These buyers will then aspire to buy successively higher end products later. But it starts with a good product first.

Saturn was such an attempt, but the product was not good enough and they were going up against toyota and honda. They should have been going after Hyundai and Kia. By having devoted those resources to fighting Honda, Saturn let Hyundai and Kia take the low end market. Now that young drivers are hooked on the low end cars, Hyundai and Kia will start moving upscale. Today, hyundais are getting rave reviews. Not quite as good as the japanese, but many will buy hyundai before a chev aveo, no?

Now GM is in a squeeze. They relied on their truck and suv sales for too long, left the car market to up and comers.
I think Chysler looked around and saw all the minivans coming to the market and decided to go after the car buyer with innovative designs. Smart move, but even Chrysler needed some help from M-B.

Summary: there is no doubt that American carmakers can make a good product. They are just making the wrong products good. They have to make sure that the lowest end cars are great. Then apply that throughout the product line. That's how Honda and Toyota did it. People have to say, "If they can make this POS such a great car, imagine the Vette or the GTO."

People currently are saying, "Sure the Vette is good and the Cobra is good, but this is a POS and as soon as I have enough money, I'm getting a Mazda 3."

I don't think I will ever own another American car as a primary driver, but if I won the lottery tomorrow, I would definitely pick up a Mustang Cobra and a new GTO. They would be alot of fun to drive in small doses. That V8 power and throaty exhaust would be a thrill after the RX-8.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB111888029762560994-D0j1RS01fsmq1K3gECG2NLnvCa4_20060615,00.html?mod=T FFP1YAHOO

A 3 year old complained about the mustang backseats?! Come on... the freaking dimensions are VERY close to that of the 8...

Just another example of media bashing on the US makers...


http://motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0505_fordshelby/index1.html

Many assumed that a peek beneath the GT 500 would reveal an independent rear suspension, as with the 1999-2004 Cobra. Nope.

"Sure, we could've done it," notes Tai-Tang, anticipating this question. "We looked at the marginal handling improvement attainable by going to an IRS, and we didn't feel the gain justified the cost. The incremental benefit of an IRS is refinement, but not much more in terms of all-out performance. We've got good geometry and good shock-motion ratios, and we're happy with the suspension we have. We won't hesitate to have you do a driving comparison against IRS-suspended competitors."