Buick GM Speaks Out

[Guest electralacrosse]

This in reponse to LA Times article:

LINK

[BUICK RACER]

I fixed the link, interesting this letter seems to be the exact same thing they've(GM/BBuick) been saying over and over!

[NTX5467]

For some reason, the posted link does not work. Seems like the LA Times also has some registration requirements too (which are "free", typically).

Although some "response" from GM might be desired and appropriate in this case, I rather doubt it will really make any difference, with all due respect. Everybody is entitled to their own orientations on things, yet some media people CAN tend to push their own private agendas on some things in the articles they write. On the Editoral pages, there are usually in-house and syndicated columnists that write on various subjects with varied orientations and outlooks on life. Key thing is to remember that what is written is THEIR orientation and not necessarily that of the newspaper it is printed in. Diversity of orientation can be good, plus each columnist has a particular niche target market they "play" to -- which helps sell newspapers and radio shows.

Unfortunately, many readers/listeners take what these people say as "gospel" and take it to heart without considering that there might be other sides to the story or that their favorite columnist/radio host might be pushing a hidden or personal agenda of their own. Same thing with cable television news reporting/commentary. Some of these columnists and radio hosts can deliberately be a little "extreme" sometimes, on purpose, to get people to think about things which can affect them, but some people, as mentioned, take it to heart and don't question anything--which can be unfortunate.

In the case of the LA Times' automotive reviews, which have been an issue in prior times, not everybody looks at cars/vehicles the same way we might. Some might desire just basic transportation, reliably and dependably, whereas others demand the latest whiz-bang trendy gimmicks too, as still others don't care for all of the added complications of owning a "sophisticated" vehicle but want to be comfortable and stylish and safe (by their or their peer group's orientations). Unfortunately, you have to read a particular automotive reviewer's reviews for a good while to determine if they are similar to each of our's orientations of if the reviewer is "a little too radical" for our tastes, or as one news network puts it . . . "Fair and Balanced" . . . or a a local billboard ad for a local DFW-area sports commentator noted "Fair and Biased".

By observation, a "good" automotive reviewer will put themselves in the mind-set of the basic target market consumer for a particular vehicle as they use and drive the vehicle during their evaluation. In the sales world, it's called "empathy", I believe, where you put yourself in the "customer's shoes" as you address their purchase needs. By the same token, a reviewer might state that they would not buy a particular vehicle as it is not to their orientations, but when the target market is considered, it's really good. In other words, there are many things to "talk about" rather than to arbitrarily state "I don't like THESE cars!" and go on to detail why (as if to justify their position). Some of these "bashings" might even relate to the individual's latent insecurity issues?

End result, a reader reads one review from a noted publication, from somebody that's supposed to be "fair and knowledgeable" in their assessments (by association with the noted publication), and believes (rightfully so) that it's accurate. If it's a "bashing", they mark that vehicle off of their list--whether it deserves to be marked off or not and go on down the road. If it's a favorable review, they go look at the vehicle and make their own decision--just as we are prone to normally do.

It's normal to want to publically respond to some of these reviewers' comments, but it might not solve anything--just depends upon if the manufacturer takes on a "victim mentality" in their response rather than possibly purchasing ad space to quote other reviewers' comments on the same vehicle, which were favorable. Advertising "warfare"??? Covertly discrediting the particular publication's review in the process by showing a general "favorable" orientation to it by other national reviewers.

I'm not registered with the LA Times website, so I'm making these comments based on knowledge of the basic situation between GM and the publication in prior times. Plus other times that GM has not been too happy with reviews in other automotive publications.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[BUICK RACER]

LETTERS

GM's Buick Brand Has a Bright Future

April 16, 2006

The Times' April 2 article "Buick Sales Epitomize GM's Woes" painted a misleading and inaccurate picture of Buick.

Buick's sales of 282,000 cars and trucks last year put us at 19th among the 50 automotive brands in the U.S. market, ahead of Volvo, Infiniti, Audi, Lincoln, Audi and Jaguar, among others. That's hardly a weak position.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Times implies that Buick's quality is less than that of some other leading automotive brands. In fact, Buick for years has been one of the highest-ranked brands in independent rankings of automotive quality. Buick consistently outranks Toyota, Honda, Infiniti and several others in J.D. Power & Associates' initial quality study, long-term dependability study and sales satisfaction index. J.D. Power also ranks the GM plants where Buicks are built among the highest-quality assembly plants in North and South America.

The notion that golf tournaments don't reach out to young buyers is simply false. Almost two-thirds of the television viewing audience for golf is 54 or younger (Mediamark Research, 2004). Golf provides Buick with the affluent and educated buyers whom we are targeting.

The U.S. automotive market is the most open and competitive in the world, offering customers an incredible array of choices. We do not take anything for granted, we appreciate each and every customer, and we are not resting on the laurels of Buick's past success. We're in the process of revamping the entire Buick lineup to offer customers vehicles with more style, luxury features, world-class quality and incredible value. This is vividly evident in the new Lucerne, which has received excellent media and consumer reviews, is selling fast and has helped Buick record monthly sales increases since it went on sale in December.

It is disappointing that none of these positive facts were included in the Times article. The fact is that Buick has a bright future.

Steve Shannon

Buick General Manager

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The notion that golf tournaments don't reach out to young buyers is simply false. Almost two-thirds of the television viewing audience for golf is 54 or younger (Mediamark Research, 2004). </div></div>

What does it tell you when the boss thinks 54 is "young"?

From USA Today's 2/16/05 issue:

<span style="font-weight: bold">Cars of choice</span>

Car buyers' median age by brand:

Division Median age

Rolls-Royce 62.9

Lincoln 62.8

Buick 60.8

Mercedes 58.7

Chrysler 56.4

Mercury 55.1

Cadillac 53.4

Jaguar 49.8

Lexus 49.4

BMW 46.1

Ferrari 45.6

Hummer 45.6

Acura 45.3

GMC 44.4

Saab 44.4

Pontiac 43.4

Porsche 43.4

Dodge 42.9

Chevrolet 42.7

Honda 41.9

Toyota 41.9

Infiniti 41.6

Mitsubishi 41.3

Volvo 40.3

Ford 39.7

Land Rover 38.9

VW 38.7

Jeep 37.6

Nissan 35.1

Mazda 34.6

Suzuki 33.2

Isuzu 32.7

Subaru 31.7

Saturn 30.9

Hyundai 29.8

Kia 28.1

Primary drivers, personal use vehicles only; Source: CNW Marketing Research

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Times implies that Buick's quality is less than that of some other leading automotive brands. </div></div>

Am I the only one who read the article? Even the GM didn't catch this part of the "negative" article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GM scored a small public relations coup in 1991 when the LeSabre won top domestic car honors in the widely watched J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey. Buick has received a number of quality awards since, but has been unable to turn them into an effective marketing tool. </div></div>

Or this one:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A pair of new sedans, the LaCrosse launched in late 2004 and the full-size Lucerne introduced in December, though not runaway hits are selling well and receiving positive reviews. Critics also praise the sleek look of the Buick Enclave, a sport utility due later this year. </div></div>

Seriously, I often wonder how much of this "bad reputation" rap is self-inflicted. It seems playing the martyr was too much fun when it was the only remedy to a terrible position a few decades ago, and now some Buick fans and even some Buick executives can't (or just don't know when to) stop.

[Reatta Man]

When someone comes on this forum and complains that a GM product they bought 20+ years ago was lousy and uses that to judge a GM brand, THAT is ridiculous. And, yes, that HAS happened here in the Buick forum!

The same thing can also be said if someone claimed a Honda they bought 20+ years ago was a bad car and that was justification for not buying one today.

Another example happened yesterday when a local NAPA shop owner was saying on an automotive repair show here in San Antonio. He regularly sees owners who own domestic and premium imports who brag about paying $1800 for their 10, 15 or 30,000 'checkup' on their foreign car (Jaguar was the brand used as an example) at the dealer, then complain about a $400 repair needed on a Suburban with similar mileage!

THIS says a lot about the quality bias many Americans have about foreign cars.

And, yes, I've heard owners of Hondas and other foreign cars make similar comments about what they pay for their routine checks on their Tokyo cars, but then complain about everything that goes wrong on their Ford, GM or Chrysler product.

As for 54 being young, he also said the viewers were "54 AND YOUNGER." And, when buying a major ad buy like golf, a LOT more goes into the decision than just the likely age of the buyer. For example, it does absolutely NO good to hit a 25 year-old target demographic, if the research ALSO shows THEY DON"T HAVE THE INCOME TO BUY A PREMIUM PRODUCT! That is why Kia and Hyundai push price and payment in their ads--their buyers are LOOKING for a cheap price and a low payment.

The fact remains, and still is true that the LA Times let their anti-GM bias show and the facts (quality, customer satisfaction) didn't support their statements, thereby highlighting their bias.

By the way, who can name the manufacturer and country of origin of the car that WAS COMPLETELY BOUGHT UP AND DESTROYED BY THEIR MANUFACTURER? Hint: it was NOT made in the USA.

[Dave@Moon]

You're reading a completely different article.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For example, it does absolutely NO good to hit a 25 year-old target demographic, if the research ALSO shows THEY DON"T HAVE THE INCOME TO BUY A PREMIUM PRODUCT! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Land Rover 38.9,... Volvo 40.3,...Infiniti 41.6,... Saab 44.4,... Jaguar 49.8,... Lexus 49.4,...BMW 46.1,...</div></div>

Your inability to grasp that these figures are averages that <span style="font-style: italic">certainly</span> include some of very the 25 year olds you're talking about confirms why. <span style="font-weight: bold">All</span> <span style="font-style: italic">good</span> market consultants/analysts will tell you that people over 25 have already pretty well made up their minds on brand loyalty, and it takes a serious problem beyond that age to affect those loyalties (like Mr. Wozniak in the first article who needed three lemons in a row to abandon GM).

You don't need or want to make 25 year olds <span style="font-style: italic">buy</span> your product. You <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">[color:\\"red\\"]absolutely must</span></span> make them <span style="font-style: italic">want</span> it (in advance of when they can get it). Decades of forgetting that has cost GM more than any union contract. <span style="font-weight: bold">That's your "bias". That was the point of the first article, not to promote the "bias" but to explain it.</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">My</span> point was that dopey comments like the Buick GM's recent tirade and yours here play <span style="font-style: italic">directly</span> into these impressions and reinforce the "bias". Just the simple inability to read that analysis of history out of the article speaks volumes as to what's wrong here. He (and you) sound like a bad bush league pitcher complaining about the umpire. Good pitchers, and good car companies, don't do such things. Their work shows for itself.

I wouldn't call what's showing here GM's best work.

[NTX5467]

I concur with the bragging about the cost of repairs/checkups of an "exotic" import or a "desired" import as if it's part of their pride of ownership, yet when they have to spend a much lesser amount on repairs for a common domestic vehicle, they complain. If the domestic vehicle inconvenienced them or left them stranded somewhere, it's one of the worst things around, but if their import did that . . . well you can't let just anybody work on those things and they do "charge" for it.

As much as Buick and GM have used the JDPowers survey results in their advertising, many "in the know" people are not seemingly aware of it and will still talk about Toyotas as being better vehicles (even with their higher "check-up" costs or other maintenance costs.

In many respects, "54" is a "younger" age . . . which many younger people will find out after they reach that point and progress past it. Just as with vehicles, in prior times, you were eagerly dreaming of retirement and then your trip to the grave . . . but it's not THAT way anymore. Cars last much longer and people can and do to.

I concur that the success of the lower price (entry level) brands hinge upon their low purchase cost and monthly payments. BUT there are also some highly competitive price points and monthly payments for many of the similar USA brands! Remember that GMAC and their new 36 month car notes, plus some good price points, put Buick in the #3 sales slot in 1955 and later.

Buick never was supposed to be a "high volume" low priced vehicle, but was and is a more premium brand for a not-so-young new vehicle customer. In some cases, it takes somebody 54 years old to get to that point in life (and INCOME level) where they can reward themselves with a new vehicle like a Buick!

Now, all of those age averages are for NEW Buick customers. Nobody has ever thought to mine the data for USED Buick customers, which, by observation, takes some huge jumps downward with each buyer of a particular Buick as the vehicle progresses into the 2nd and 3rd and later owners' possession.

All of the alleged "experts" like to talk about sales numbers being down and a particular brand's placement in some sort of sales ranking, as if to justify talking about how "off" that product and its sales might be, in some sort of "loser" orientation. But when you look at the hard numbers of sales performance and position them against others in the same price point area, things suddenly take a different turn toward looking much better than initially represented.

With all due respect, it seems that many media operatives have come to embrace the orientation that "doom and gloom" are what "news" is all about anymore. Who shot whom? Who's going to be executed for what indiscretion years ago? These things tend to get people's attention and motivate them to buy the news publications--much more so than "happy" or "Look what We Did" articles. That same mindset can also spill over into the columnists and such that a particular newspaper/publication purchases or employs themselves. These things tend to set the tone for the publication, in many cases, and in the case of automobiles, as CA is a highly import-oriented market, the LA Times probably feels they have a choice market to play to. I suspect that, at some point in time, such orientations might start to affect their bottom line profits and then they might reevaluate their orientations.

Many people like to downgrade GM for their past "situations" and current situation, kind of like a "fair weather friend" in reverse. Yet these same people fail to look at the positives and what is already in the pipeline to happen in the near future. Things that are already funded to happen and generate profits for the company's operations in North America and World Wide. When new products are introduced, there's always the concern that they might not be "enough to save the company" in their articles too, seemingly.

In many respects, the fate and fortunes of automobile companies seems to be somewhat cyclical--no matter who they might be or where they might be from. Little has been mentioned about problems with Mercedes, for example, or Toyotas, or Hondas, nor the "Chryslerization of Mercedes". Yet let some USA brand have a hiccup and it's front page news. Yes, those hallowed import brands, as with any other vehicle makes, DO have their problems just as USA brands do. No particular company builds a "perfect" vehicle, but some come closer than others do--which can also be a "point of reference" issue too, resulting in a moveable target situation.

Jaguar is a prime example of a brand that had a horrid reliability record but was still cherished for its other qualities. Then Ford bought it, got the reliability and similar issues addressed, and has made it a much better vehicle as a result--but it took several years to get to that point. Proving that it could be done without significantly harming the cherished good points of the vehicle, which people generally bought it for. Also proving that high rankings in the JDPower surveys might not be the only criteria for the perceived "goodness" and desireability of particular vehicle products, but a combination of certain factors (all considered together) that leads to sales successes.

Buyer behavior, like economics, has many answers and orientations that result in us parting with our money for products. An equation full of many variables that are highly variable themselves, depending on many aspects of the purchase and ownership experience and their interaction with buyer demographic issues.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Reatta Man]

NTX,

You raised a very good point.

<span style="font-style: italic">Jaguar is a prime example of a brand that had a horrid reliability record but was still cherished for its other qualities. Then Ford bought it, got the reliability and similar issues addressed, and has made it a much better vehicle as a result--but it took several years to get to that point.</span>

Jaguar was considered by most to be a HORRIBLE car as late as the early 1990s. Ford buys it, infuses it with a ton of money, and it is considered a turn-around hit. Buick does virtually the same thing, going from a multitude of problems in the 1980's to one of the best brands on the market......and it is still "just an American car." So, if bias isn't real, why doesn't Buick, and many other vastly improved American makes, receive the same respect given the Jag for virtually an identical turnaround? Hmmmm.....

Lee Iacocca proved this years ago, taking a new domestic model vs. a similar import, with the names removed or disguised, and they were competitive in customer appeal and other measurements. REVEAL the names, run the same tests, and customers just seemed to 'prefer' the import.

Although some people in here and other forums continue to preach the superiority of certain other brands, the evidence that domestics (with Buick virtually leading the list) are statistically equal to Japanese imports and CLEARLY SUPERIOR to European makes, often costing twice as much as a similar domestic.

[BUICK RACER]

Raisins? Lutz says, no, thank you

What, me worry?!? General Motors' house optimist, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, says the media are way too downbeat about the company's prospects. At an April 12 Swiss American Chamber of Commerce lunch in New York, he read a selection of the gloomiest assessments, ranging from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial that declared "GM cars are boring," to a jab about Lutz's contributions in the Wall Street Journal. "Robert Lutz has been surprisingly ineffective at GM, as if mired down like a raisin stuck in oatmeal," wrote the Journal's Paul Ingrassia. "I'm especially fond of that last metaphor," Lutz said. "That was a new one for me. I didn't even know raisins got stuck in oatmeal. I always thought they sort of floated there proudly, going about their business." Raisins don't get mired; nuts might.

[BUICK RACER]

As a GM Salary employee of almost 27 gears, I am scared to even tell you all I work for this conpany, but I have to beleive there is a plan to make it a profitable entity of the world. Some don't believe it is possible, but I have to, and hope that we can make a diffence in the USA Manufacturing Market, cause I know we can be cost effective and continue to rule the world in Manufacturing if we all decide some things are not worth spending $$ on like cleaning restrooms in manufacturing plants, give that up to the $10/hr folks, that will do a great Job, and let the $27/HR folks continue to produce the best products out there! Just my .02 cents, Have best friends that are UAW and do their job everday, and make a difference!

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jaguar is a prime example of a brand that had a horrid reliability record but was still cherished for its other qualities. Then Ford bought it, got the reliability and similar issues addressed, and has made it a much better vehicle as a result--but it took several years to get to that point. </div></div>

Here is where the "bias" card plays out. Clearly playing the martyr is just too much to give up. The myth:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Jaguar was considered by most to be a HORRIBLE car as late as the early 1990s. Ford buys it, infuses it with a ton of money, and it is considered a turn-around hit. </div></div>

The reality: Jaguar's Final Days. And even this article (less than a week old) sugar-coats Jaguar's biggest problem. With all of the advances in reliability they've made (and there have been some), they still rank sixth from the bottom in that category overall. Only Mercedes, VW, Land Rover, Hummer and Porsche rank lower in the latest <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> survey (the last 2 based only on one model for which there was adequate data).

The grass isn't always greener on the other side. Insisting that it always is shows that you're spending too much time looking at everyone else's grass and not enough on your own. That might be O.K. for an apologist/cheerleader on a meaningless automotive forum. [color:\\"red\\"]When your top executive starts singing that song it's time for a change of attitude on <span style="font-weight: bold">everyone's</span> part!

[Reatta Man]

Roberta,

I also think and hope you are right.

GM's problems seem to center around that huge number of current and soon-to-be retirees who have all but been guranteed free health care benefits for life, due to agreements made years ago before either GM or the UAW knew how much they would actually cost.

When those agreements were made, many of today's life-saving drugs and proceedures didn't exist, but now they are covered and locked in. It is not unusual for an emergency room cost that may have run a few thousand dollars in the 1970s and 1980s to now be well over $100,000. That is like putting a package of steaks in your cart at the store with them marked $2.99 per pound (when you agreed to pay for these items), and by the time you get to the checkout, they have changed the price to $7.99 per pound (when the actual bill comes due).

Once GM gets these costs down, and gets all of their look-alike cookie cutter cars out of the pipeline, replaced by exciting desirable models, much like Cadillac has already done, they will be on top again.

Unfortunately, this whole process has turned into something like the old Roman gladiator days when the emperor was feeding Christians to the lions when the crowd yelled loud enough for him to do so. As NTX stated earlier, some in the media have come to believe their only news-reporting function is to report actual, expected or projected BAD news, and not a balance of all that is happening.

Good luck to you and everyone that works hard for GM.

Joe

[R W Burgess]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="font-weight: bold">Jaguar is a prime example of a brand that had a horrid reliability record but was still cherished for its other qualities. Then Ford bought it, got the reliability and similar issues addressed, and has made it a much better vehicle as a result--but it took several years to get to that point. </span> </div></div>

NTX,

In a recent(couple of years ago) AutoWeek test, the testers were complaining that the switchgear looking like it was "lifted right out of the other Ford Product bins". <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Jezz, you use a proven reliable part and they still run down the JAG! <img src="http://forums.aaca.org/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Wayne

[Dave@Moon]

Wayne,

Jaguar uses a unique (and often derided) "J-type" switchgear, a term which refers to the pattern made by the shift locations. It's not a Ford part. I read the <span style="font-style: italic">Autoweek</span> article too, and I think they were mainly complaining about it's cheap looking appearance (something <span style="font-style: italic">way</span> out of character for Jaguar) in that particular model.

[R W Burgess]

Could be Dave. I just remember the complaint. I would have thought it to have been beneficial for a "owning partner" to use the best parts available. But, then the XKE was the only Jag that ever appealed to me.

Wayne

[Guest bkazmer]

The first wave of Ford assistance did improve reliability. They actually built a car with no Lucas parts, I heard. Then the S-type platform spawned the Lincoln LS and the Mustang (albiet with a step backwards for the live axle) - still pretty different vehicles. The shared platform of the XK and Aston is more a concern for Aston than Jaguar. But the X-type is the nightmare Jaguar fans feared when Ford took over - this badge-engineered Ford Mondeo is easily outrun by its lesser Ford cousin. A Ford with a double dose of Mercury-itis.

[Ron Green]

Quote; "Once GM gets these costs down, and gets all of their look-alike cookie cutter cars out of the pipeline, replaced by exciting desirable models, much like Cadillac has already done, they will be on top again."

One has to wonder how many years in a row GM can lose billions of dollars before it is too late? If they lose another 10.5 billion dollars again this year it may be the final blow, hopefully I'm wrong. I don't think their vehicles are any uglier then most of the imports. Of course there are exceptions on both sides.

[Reatta Man]

Ron,

A company's ability to survive losses like that usually depend on two things; their cash reserves on hand, and their ability to borrow money.

While GM has had trouble borrowing money due to the beating Wall Street has given them, they have sold off some assets, still continue issuing debt devices and doing other things. Hopefully, the

vultures have a few more years before GM will be a target for them.

[JohnD1956]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GM's problems seem to center around that huge number of current and soon-to-be retirees who have all but been guranteed free health care benefits for life, due to agreements made years ago before either GM or the UAW knew how much they would actually cost.

</div></div>

Okay, this may start a whole round of complaints but I'm tired of hearing people pull this argument out of the bag as if this is the one factor bringing GM , or any company down. While it may be true that these benefits are costing GM big time, what was really happening in the economy when they offered these enhanced benefits? I happen to be in a similar situation. And I can say that in the years of increases in employee benefits, this was a trade off for low or no increases in salary. And before you think I made a ton of money back then let me tell you that I started my job in 1974 making 9,700 per annum and the very first year our raise was $200.00. Does anyone remember 76-78, days of 19-24% credit costs? Well in 75 there was no pay increase and in 76 and 77 there was 4% and 3.5% increases. Meanwhile the benefits grew as compensation for lack of compensation.

What I'd like to ask is if someone in the know can please tell me when GM execs ever matched their salary to what their front line worker was making?

To me GM's problems stem from executive greed and an arrogant attitude towards their customers in the 73-86 years. Cars that were under engineered, under powered, unreliable in the long term, and designed with little or no rust prevention considered, is, in my opinion, what cost the big three the most.

What they failed to see was not the future cost of those health benefits, but the big tree of resentment that grew from the seeds of discontent they planted with their own greed and arrogance. So I say stop blaming the front line worker or those who did their part for the company and subsequently retired.

And for that fact, stop bashing the General alltogether, and Ford too. There are some seriously nice cars being produced. Lets get on the kick of talking it up folks, lest they do go under and the cost of carrying those benefits befalls the rest of us common taxpayers.

JD

[NTX5467]

From what I recall of the road test commentaries of the Jag S-Type compared to the Lincoln LS, the Jag operatives were fine with it as it was built. Had the Jag styling cues that worked well and the road testers were also happy with the ride/handling calibrations for a Jaguar vehicle.

But when they took the Ford Mondeo and tried to work the same magic, they HAD to do something different to differentiate it from the other Ford products. Not much to be spent on styling or other things that would be unique to that particular Baby Jag, so they made it ALL WHEEL DRIVE exclusively. Adding the weight and complication of AWD to that car might have made some Audi-oriented people look at it, but it also hurt the vehicle's performance and fuel efficiency. It was more about giving Jag an entry-level, lower price point car to gain new customers than anything else. I doubt anyone would call it a success in that venture.

I also suspect the Jag that AutoWeek might have been referring to was the re-badged Mondeo rather than the S-Type--just my gut suspicion, all things considered.

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

Dave, with all due respect . . . I, personally, do NOT care what Consumer Reports might report from their "Sample"--appliances and similar things they seem to do quite well with, but automobiles are not something I have observed them to continue their "winning ways" with.

Regards,

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

JohnD, I recall those days too. In those prior times, the union seemed to have to have "something" to make an issue of, be it dental insurance, guranteed income during low production times, or whatever. I concur that many of the issues that are now blamed for GM's financial problems really began about 20+ years ago. Of course, SOMETHING has to be blamed by the "experts", whether it's accurate or not!

Having a little knowledge of what it's like to work (by observation) on an automotive assembly line, I am of the orientation that any "benefits" that the workers were given are VALID and GOOD for the type of work they do and in the "big box" environment they do it in. AND they need to be honored, NO MATTER WHAT!!! I suspect that many of those that call for these benefits to be decreased or diminished have never worked in an environment of that nature.

Were the benefits better than many other industries? Probably. Were they expensive then? Probably not, comparatively speaking. Yes, it was a different world back then, but a contractual promise is a contractural promise whenever it comes time to pay up.

Now, as Ed Wallace mentioned in one of his columns a while back, if you figure that many of GM's sales were to employees (something like 2 new vehicles/year/family were allowed, it seems), then you figure how many earlier employees took early retirement packages in the 1980s and 1990s, add in the prior loyal Oldsmobile customers that were put out "into the cold", so to speak, positioned against the yearly sales of Oldsmobile nameplate products. Now, when all of those figures are shaken up and laid on the table, there's probably enough lost sales to keep some of the lower volume car brands in business. Sales, gone forever, due to a combination of issues at different times in GM's recent history. Sales that went "somewhere else"--period.

I suspect that if GM still had at least 1/2 of that number of sales, there might not be any financial issues at GM now. If 1/2 of that number of employees was still employed by GM, working rather than being "retired with benefits" or in a Jobs Bank, what might their corporate profits look like now, providing that they still had decent market share?

To me, the whole issue of retiree benefits per vehicle produced (currently) is an unjustified smoke screen of sorts. It's an easy target, which might have some validity, but is NOT the whole story.

Historically, the North American units of Ford and GM have had their good and bad profitability years. It was mentioned that Delphi-North America was the only unit of Delphi that was having profitability issues at this time.

You can beat the drum about unions driving up the cost of consumer goods or being slow to work with management or whatever--some of which might have been more true in decades prior to 1980--but that's an "old song" that has lost its lustre and meaning, in many respects. BUT when you consider that similar unions exist in Europe and other places than the USA, that can put that whole argument into a somewhat different light, possibly leveling the playing field of sorts a little bit. There's probably very few big-ticket products we purchase today, "Made in the USA", that are not union made--I know, there are some foreign automobile plants in the USA that are not unionized and have voted NOT to be for many years now. -- And that's as far as I expect that thought to be taken in this discussion--period. --

IF General Motors did "sell out" to pay bills, it would take years to get it all taken care of. It would make many auctioneers mountains of money in commissions, I suspect. There would be some financial groups that would consider what they got to be a bargain, too, I suspect. And, I suspect, the Wall Street operatives would be commenting "I knew it would happen", while also not admitting to the fact that mostly everything GM has done (combining operating units, closing plants, selling prior assets, etc.) was done at the "suggestion" of people working on Wall Street to gain efficiencies and economies of operations and SHOULD have resulted in greater shareholder value (according to them). It seems that the Wall Street operatives, although having never worked in an automotive assembly plant or whatever ALWAYS seem to know how to run the business entity/operation they have extensively researched and reported on. To me, if you haven't been in the trenches, you probably don't know how to best fight the battle.

Considering all of the trouble it would take to liquidate GM piece by piece, it might raise the question as to if it might be easier to just get it working right again and go on down the road? I'm sure many people would rather see it going good again rather than end up in a piecemeal auction!

Also, this is not the first time that GM has had financial problems. Charles Nash and Walter Percy Chrysler were operatives in getting things "fixed" in those early years. Yep, they received seemingly unrealistic compensation for their work, but it seems that it was worth it as what they did really worked well. Lutz helped engineer the rebound at Chrysler Corp (post Lee) through strict cost initiatives and practices in procurement (which were aided by bringing the vendors in as "partners in design" rather than viewing them as traditional adversaries to be beat down on price). Maybe Lutz needs to get Bob Eaton and Tom Stallkamp at GM so they might work their magic again?

In one respect, the financial issues facing the automobile manufacturers could well be a side issue of "industrial globalization". Using such globalization to your advantage is what Lutz was involved with in Europe--getting asssembly line machines where they could be shipped globally, where and when needed, from one plant to another and just plug them into the system and they work on that new line as they did on the old one--without having to buy a new machine to fit a particular assembly line environment, but use an existing machine instead.

It has been mentioned that industrial globalization is part of the reason the middle-class (whose numbers were expanded by good wages, unionized wages even, in manufacturing plants which made consumer goods for an expanding post-war society) seems to be shrinking in numbers. Typically, when a well-paying industrial job goes away, the work the worker typically finds to replace it will not pay as well or have the same level of benefits as the prior factory job might have. What we might have seen with NAFTA could well be just a drop in the bucket to what might come in the future. -- I'll stop that train of thought right there, too. --

Any problem should serve as a feedback-loop learning experience. Many lessons can be learned from the complex mix of issues in GM's current "situation". NO simple answers to complex questions. Yet simple answers seem to be in abundance.

Just some thoughts and observations . . .

NTX5467

[Ron Green]

If the price of gas continues to climb as expected and the SUV's continue to gather dust along with last years employee disconnect fire sale of which sold a lot of vehicles (no profit) to people that would have probably bought a few years down the road, nobody with any business knowledge would lend GM money.

Their assets may not be enough to keep them going considering some of their companies are billions in debt (Delphi) and they sold the ones that were worth something (GMAC). The question is can they take another 10 billion dollar hit this year without huge restructuring / downsizing and or survival?

I bought a new GM car last year and couldn't be more happy with it. I think people won't let GM's past problems from many years ago die.

[Reatta Man]

NTX,

STRONGLY concur about the Consumer Reports bias or misrepresentation of the true GM picture, whichever terminology you are comfortable with.

Good sources of information includ CarPoint, Edmunds and others that either review the cars themselves, or use reviews by true automotive journalists. Also, consider www.epinions.com as a source of info about vehicles.

These sources seem to mirror the results of ownership surveys by J.D. Power and associates. Bottom line? If JDP or some other single source of info was slanted in favor of GM, the results wouldn't be validated by other sources. But, GM's quality improvements appear to be real and in some cases STRONGLY contradict the reporting by CR.

Joe

Joe

[Dave@Moon]

More martyrdom.

<span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> has been almost exclusively positive in it's reviews of GM cars for the last decade, often recommending them over "foreign" competitors. (That's been stated here about a dozen times in the last month by several posters. One hopes that most people are more open-minded than the prevailing sentiment here. )

Ron's point is more salient. Some people still do avoid buying GM cars often because they think they're still selling Somersets and Skyhawks. <span style="font-weight: bold">But</span> they're increasingly a minority. Nobody with <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> degree of automotive savvy feels sorry for a Lacrosse owner, the information coming from <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span> and other reviews simply doesn't allow it.

It's very seductive to think of yourself as put-upon. It's also corporate suicide to give yourself an excuse for failure by doing so. That's why Mr. Shannon's statements made me so angry.

[Reatta Man]

Let's put this "Consumer Reports is not biased" to a rest (if facts matter):

These listings show:

1. MAKE

2. JD Power # of problems per 100 cars

3. Consumer Reports' # of total models listed vs recommended models(%)

1. Buick 2. 163 3. 8 models, 4 recommended 50%

1. Cadillac 2. 175 3. 8 models, 2 recommended 25%

1. Toyota 2. 194 3. 19 models, 16 recommended, 84%

1. Honda 2. 201 3. 10 models, 8 recommended 80%

1. Acura 2. 203 3. 7 models, 5 recommended 72%

1. BMW 2. 225 3. 8 models, 5 recommended 63%

1. Nissan 2. 275 3. 12 models, 6 recommended (50%)

So, what does this show?

Although Buick and Cadillac have significantly fewer problems than Toyota, Honda, Acura and Nissan, CR recommend their cars at a rate two to three times higher than the GM models.

In fact, Nissan has almost twice as many problems per 100 cars as Buick, yet Consumer Reports recommends the same percentage of their models.

So, maybe now some people can stop selling the notion that CR isn't biased.

Source of data:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/makes-models-a-to-z.htm

http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So, what does this show? </div></div>

Decorum limits me. Suffice as to say not very much about cars or <span style="font-style: italic">Consumer Reports</span>, though.

[Gene Brink]

Joe,

Not enough info to know if CU is exhibiting a bias or not. For example look at Buick. 8 models, 4 recommended, 163 problems which is lower than any other marque listed. It could well be that 4 of the models were <span style="font-style: italic">way below</span> the average and the other 4 <span style="font-style: italic">way above</span> so were not recommended while the average appears to be great. CU's standard for recommending a particular model is really pretty low - at least average in reliabilty and no (what they consider to be) serious safety issues. Honestly that is not a very exacting standard and I would hope any manufacturer could meet that litmus test.