In my not always so humble opinion, I think GM, Ford, ChryCo and the such have all shot them in the foot.

Why do I need a car with with so much on it for options? What happened to stripper models? I have 4 kids, do I want a mini van? No! I want a good old fashioned 4 door sedan. V8 rear drive. No ABS, no Traction Control, no PW/PL/PS/PT/PBW (that is Power Butt Warmer), etc. If I want that, I will buy a Cadillac, if I don't, I buy a Chevy.

But no, everything comes with a jillion options. I don't NEED it all, want, maybe, NEED, no. I would much rather pay cash for my car and have it paid for instead of financing something I don't need for FAR too long than I should. You are talking interest in the THOUSANDS of dollars now! You can finance your LOW end cars for 72 months now!!!!! OMGosh! That is 6 YEARS. Most people ditch their cars long before then!! The cycle never ends.

So, bottom line. I need something like a Suburban, I need a base model, 4WD, with basic options. But no, a general consumer isn't allowed to buy these, only fleet sales. In 1999 you could get a base Suburban for $25K C1500. $27K for 4WD. What happened, the same vehicle now is over $40K! In only 5-6 short years!

What happened to the days of the Bisquane, Bel Air, Impala, and Caprice? 1 car, 4 trim levels. Or a Delmont 88, Delta 88, Delta 88 Royale. Trim levels. You need more room, 98, or Electra, or luxo, get a Fleetwood. Now we get expensive and really expensive. !

How much does it cost to make a low end FULL SIZE CAR? What happened to the cars like the Impala SS, but not with $10K of fluff. Just a basic 4000 boat with the biggest engine in the factory? You can't convince me that it would be hard for GM to emissions certify the 454 or 496 in a car like the 94-96 Impala/Fleetwood/Roadmaster/Caprice. Sure, sales were down by then, so it would be hard to justify. But tell me, what would happen to sales? They would skyrocket it you could get a lower end car with the top engine!

Or get cars like the Z28 and Trans AM back to reasonable prices! They died off because of floundering sales, well, tell me, who has $35K to pay for a car that seats 2 comfortably? What happened to an affordable version that still had a V8? Bet you anything a 4.8L LS1 powered Firebird or Camaro with manual windows, locks, etc would have sold like hot cakes. It did with Ford and the LX Mustang in the 80's. But did GM pay attention? No. Did they make a killer stripper verison of the RS Camaro for the police? Yes. Did it have all the creature comforts? No, was it fast? Yes. Did they sell it to the audience that would buy it? NO. Duh.

Heads need to roll at GM. They need to get some fresh thinking in there. Look at what the Herb Adams, John Z Delorian and Jim Wangers did for Pontiac? They made it an icon for performance! What did they do? Build cars people wanted to buy.

Yes, I agree, there is tons more profit margin in getting people to buy PW and junk like that. No denying that. BUT, if you can double or more the sales of the cars, forget the profit margins on the fluff, sell the cars! Come on GM, wake up! Look at what Toyota is doing now, they have started a LOW tier car line, Scion. A box that has no style, no options, but is NEW for under $15K. GM doens't have anything that seats 6 in the line up under $25K. Can the average income in the US support that without going into serious debt? NO.

Ok, I will get off my soap box for now. I think GM needs to rethink the businesses they have. Get back to basics. Cadillac is on the right track, that is about it at GM. There is WAY too much internal politics and competition. If they would get thier heads out, they would get a clue on the fact they would sell 2-3x more cars than they eve have if they would just make cars people WANT and can AFFORD! Not just throw in every bloody option to make the lowest car fancy and make it wantable. Affordable is key too. How many sales are lost a day because the car was to expensive to meet the needs of the buyer? I surely don't want to be in debt up to my eyeballs just to have a car with so many options I don't know what to do with them all.

So until GM figures it out, I will buy my older used cars that meet my NEEDS that I can afford and pay cash for. Cars last so much longer these days than before, it is cost effective to keep them for a long time. The bean counters kill what is worth while, and promote what has higher profit margin, and guess what, it hurt overall sales. Survey how many Mustang owners if they would have bought a GM Z28/Trans AM if it was the same $ or less than the Mustang....

What it comes down to now, is GM makes not a one car that I would be interested in buying anymore. V8 RWD 6 passenger car for me, and a 8+ passenger vehicle for my wife and kids. 4WD is needed for this weather in the north (I live in rural SE WI, so it is best to have for the family). And I don't want to pay my salary for the year just to get one of them.

Good post. :thumbsup:

The trick is to get as many options as possible for the lowest price. No one needs a V8 in a typical mid sized family sedan. You can build a I4 or a V6 cheaper and put money into power windows, locks, ABS(safety) etc. It's a different economy than it was 20 years ago.
Though, I do agree GM needs to make some good solid cars and have trim levels that don't have all the bells and whistles. When you get rid of the "fluf" you can really make a car more reliable.
I assume you want them to make something like the crown victoria?

Having been in the car business for 27 years, I'll attempt to shed some light on this.
The first part has to do with the market. The buying public today - the lions share thereof - WANTS loaded cars. They want heated seats, power toys and all the fluff.
The second part has to do with manufacturing, which is extremely costly, moreso than ever before. Therefore options (for the most part) are grouped together, for less complexity in manufacturing.
Thirdly, the youth market today has a higher earning power than ever before in history. Youth spend money, simple as that, many live for today & today only & want continual instant satisfaction.
Cars are a big part of their life. Status, pleasure, achievement. Like TV, like the movies and like almost all advertising, everything is pitched to the youth market.
Payment. A large percent today lease, so the purchase price is "a number somewhere out yonder" ~ in la la land. "How much a month" is what they need to know. So with leasing leading the way, it's not how much does it really cost, nor how much interest am I paying, nor the fact that I am paying alot for something that will NEVER be mine....it's (again) how much a month!

Sadly, at the dealership level, neither dealers nor salespeople are making a dime more, than they did in 1996, some 9 years ago. The add'l. profits are going to pay for sky high pensions & assembly line workers Health Care & Benifits, as well as corporate insurance.

I agree with your thoughts as you stated. But, it's never going back to "then" ~ just trying to very briefly explain the why of it.

Look at what Toyota is doing now, they have started a LOW tier car line, Scion. A box that has no style, no options, but is NEW for under $15K.

Whoa there. The Scion DOES have options, and they all have the same options, which is why they are cheap (i.e. you can't really choose which ones you want, they all come in every car, which lowers the costs). And besides, they started the Scion because Mazda put out the Mazda 3 which kicked major butt in terms of standard "options" compared to other compact cars. In fact, I'll probably get one when the Lac finally explodes:lildevil: or throws a rod.

And GM does make a car with no options. It's called the "Aveo":lildevil:. I think its just time for you to catch up with modern times N0DIH. People want options. If I wanted a car with no options, i'd call enterprise to pick me up. I mean, this is CadillacForums, meaning we have Cadillacs, meaning we all wanted a car with options - leather seats, Premium Bose Stereo, Power Butt Warmers:coolgleam, etc. It's hard for us to understand the no options arguement. You could always get a Honda Civic that doesn't even have Power Steering - talk about lack of options for you:p

When it comes to options. I think we haven't seen nothing yet. Just wait in few years will have more options. I enjoy them. as I spend alot of time driving, I want to be as comfortable as I can get.

One issue that seems to be on the horizon is that cars formerly known as "economy" models now really do have so many amenities and good-looking interiors (like Hyundai) that it's becoming difficult to differentiate them from luxury cars.

The question is where do luxury brands go from here? What happens when people expect Cadillac-levels goodies in their Chevrolets?

This is part of the reason why GM is having trouble in Europe with their Opel and Vauxhall subsidiaries. A full-size Opel would be in direct competition with a 3-Series BMW for essentially the same price. Buyers there just go for the badge instead, which is why, I believe, Opel isn't likely to offer another full-size car again.

Frankly I'd love to see something simple and built by GM that's an equivalent of the Crown Vic. Many of us would. But what's the point. Women are the car-buying decision makers as a whole, and they want mini-vans and SUVs. If you ask me though, 25 years of a "FWD is God," ideology didn't help anything either. I don't believe that any Cadillac with a Northstar should have been FWD, but that's another topic. GM, in thought to the thread's name, has many problems.

1. Corporate arrogance. This has been talked about before. GM could and should have learned so much more from both its competitors and its joint ventures, but instead, it chose to ignore valuable lessons from companies like Toyota, who happens to have the most efficient manufacturing plants in the world and the best-built cars in the world.

2. Financial difficulties. When you're the largest auto manufacturer in the world, you have to learn to deal with the money. However, threats like the UAW are biting the hand that feeds them. This however, doesn't excuse GM from 2 significant financial crisis within 13 years of one another. Get the money where it needs to be, and deal with the UAW.

3. Poor quality, public perception, and marketing. For many years, GM has not produced the best cars it could, because of planned obsolescence, and because of cutting costs. Many of the Caddys we drive were built when GM could have been outbuilt by a classroom of 2nd graders, but we love them and keep them running well. As a whole, when cars rust, break down, dissapoint the owners, and are viewed as being poorly built, the public opinion will remain that way for a long time. It's very easy to create negative publicity, and very hard to build long-term confidence.
Lastly, GM has never really captured the audience with stunning advertising. BMW had fantastic videos on it's website. Before the new F-150 was launched, there were ads everywhere on the internet! Even Dodge with its stupid hick "that thing got a Hemi" ads were memorable. However, I do realize that GM quality has vastly improved, just look at Buick or the new Cobalt. GM's problem though, is in not getting the message that it builds high-quality vehicles to the public. If Joe Blow doesn't know that GM builds fine cars, then what's the point.

4. Poor and slow reaction. GM shelved its plans to re-introduce a line of RWD passenger vehicles, while at the same time, poured money into re-designing its truck and SUV lines. Consumers don't want new trucks, nor do they want FWD cars any longer. ALso, trying to use Buick as a Lexus fighter isn't effective. Any person will tell you Lexus is a damn fine car, very very well built! They may or may not say the same thing about Buick, but Buick isn't a luxury brand.
The introduction of the V family to Cadillac was a stroke of genius. However, the wheel hop / differential issues with the CTS-V have caused a lot of headache and GM bashing. Since Cadillac is GM's luxury brand, shouldn't it truly be able to compete with its competitors? Will an STS-V beat an AMG E55? Most likely not, but the race is in the hands of the driver. What about the M5? With BMW's quality, it's hard to argue it's not one of the finest cars on the road, looks being subjective. GM must react to consumer demand and then let the consumer know that GM has heard.

5. Market Cannibalization. There's little point in building cars that compete with one another by the same brand. GM doesn't have clear distinctions between each of its subsidiaries, Cadillac being the exception. Define each brand more bodly, and then design each car according to the tastes and preferences of the consumers who desire that brand. Sporty and muscle cars for the younger drivers who prefer Pontiac. Solid sedans and trucks for families driving Chevy. Smooth ride and easy of ownership for the elderly who enjoy Buick. Performance and luxury for Cadillac owners. GM has the potential to clearly market each distinct brand with unique cars to each. However, failure to do so will result in overlapping sales; market cannibalization.

I realize GM is on the track to try and address each of these problems. I have simply stated what I believe have been GM's biggest follies which it must correct or deal with larger problems in the future.

Brian

No one needs a V8 in a typical mid sized family sedan.

Which is why it should be an option so others can have their V6.

That V6 then becomes the hot rod motor for our I4.

Which is the hot rod motor for our K car.

When it comes to options. I think we haven't seen nothing yet. Just wait in few years will have more options. I enjoy them. as I spend alot of time driving, I want to be as comfortable as I can get.

:thumbsup:

There is a segment that does want too many options, like the Suburban a friend of mine just got. 2004, and more buttons and more things to drive you batty on the road. Sure it is nice, but overkill too. But a segment that also wants "value" in a car, get the car that meets thier needs and doesn't have these high profit margin options.

Ford does have a decent car with the Crown Vic, but GM doesn't. what GM needs is something like the Impala SS back, something like the RS/SS back, something like the Formula Firebird. Not something so overpriced like the GTO and last gen Z28 and Trans AM. Sorry, GM killed themselves with them, they are so bloody overpriced, no one can stomach the $500 a month to pay for them, you need to keep the cost of the car below $25K. Remember here, the market for those cars ARE younger people, and they typically don't have jobs that can support them for another 10-15 years. You add in 2-4 kids in your family, and house (look at the average house cost these days, and the serious inflation in home ownership now), and there is no way to afford the car payments anymore. Even with 2 incomes.

As for options coming, yes, my company is working on something new for interiors, but unfortunately, GM's competition, like almost ALL of it, will get it.

As for stripper cars, the Aveo is a joke, at least make it decent looking. The Monza was a lot better looking! But at least it got a V8 as an option. The Aveo is not RWD and not available with a V8. Heck, get the Colbalt up to speed and drop in a 4.8L LS1, make it RWD or AWD and have a ball. Heck, I probably would buy one then. Oh, can't do that, it would spank the flagship, the Corvette, you know what happens everytime that happens in GM. Death. SD455, GN Regal, GNX, GSX, Turbo Trans AM (3.8L and 301 Turbo). Some unwritten GM code, don't spank the flagship. We know the SC3800 can do wonders, but it still kept under "control" by GM. Let Buick let loose on it and package it in a Grand AM or something. Imagine it. Why wasn't the SC3800 allowed in a car like a Camaro RS or a Firebird Esprit? Oh, right, it would kill off the EXPENSIVE car sales! Hey, volume overrides margin unless the margin is so screwed up you can't afford to have less sales on the top model. Which that is wrong in the first place.

Take the cars they have, make the GT versions worth it. If I want a GT car, it better be a stripper with the top dog engine and trans with killer gears and HUGE brakes. Then let me add what I want. The 1LE was the first car on the right track. Oh, it died off too....

Keep limits on the options at GM.
Chevy: No dual zone climate control, no fully automatic climate control, limit top engines some. Limits on the engines, no 3800 in the Impala, just a 3400. The 3800
should be exclusive to the Buick and Pontiac car lines.

Buick: No sport options, or limited sport options. Keep the older image, luxo mushmobiles. No 3400's, ShortStar and 3800's only. 4.8L LS V8's optional. Get them some big cars with V8's again. Bring back the Electra 225, 5.3L V8 standard, RWD.

Pontiac: Sport, power rules, all cars get top engines, no "base" engines. All cars are FE2 or higher, no FE1. 3800's, ShortStars and 5.3L V8's in everything. No 3400s, 3500's (the bigger 3400, not the ShortStar). Get me a G6 with a ShortStar and you have something worthy. If you want power, you come to Pontiac. Get a Bonneville out there with a V8 and RWD. Not this FWD junk, but a worth world class RWD chassis across all carlines. 6.0L Alum V8 optional, 5.3L std. If fuel economy is an issue, 4.8L std. No V6's in the flagship. Let Pontiac do to the Bonneville what they really want, not limit them in everything like Corp has been doing.

Cadillac: They got it right, they are doing well. Leave them alone. Ok, one thing, drop the 6 cyls. Leave them to Buick and Pontiac. Cadillac should have nothing less than 280hp in any of the cars.

Bring back the Camaro and Firebird, bring back the Mid size V8 chassis. Get some V8 RWD cars out there. Ask the truck owners, they bought trucks and SUV's for the V8 RWD. They would have bought a car if they had the option available. But no, they don't, so everyone was forced into a new catagory.

So, back to utilitarian for Chevy, sport for Pontiac, mushmobiles for Buick, and Cadillac is just Cadillac...

Why they have allowed all carlines to have all the same options is beyond me. They sorta hurt themselves that way.

My point is since the loss of the Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood, GM makes no cars that would possibly be of interest to me. My requirements are: 6 passenger, no minivan, V8, RWD, 250+ hp, able to tow, and reasonable cost. I don't want a SUV, no bloody way I will drive a minivan daily, and I don't want a pickup truck. What does GM have? Nothing. Nada.

We have 4 kids, so 6 passenger is a requirement for both. V8, I won't put up with a 6 cyl again. You can't convince me that the hp that these new V6's has will compete with the LT1. Sure, it may have more, but it isn't a V8, it will never had the torque of a V8, and the low end power. I HATE having to drive a car that I have to rev or step on it ALL the time just to get decent performance. The LT1 is bare bones acceptable for me. The 4.9L I had was ok, but the LT1 is finally in the ballpark.

I am destined for used Cadillac Fleetwoods I guess! I will keep mine till I can't keep it on the road any longer. Then get another.... Unless GM comes up with something. And Fords? No, I don't like them. They won't put the 5.4L in a Crown Vic, and 4 valve engines need to be run to hard to make decent power. The low end isn't there. Well, maybe I should get one cheap and drop in a port EFI Pontiac 455 and THM200 4R. That would work for me....

Have you thought about that new Dodge Charger:sneaky: or maybe even the Magnum? Would you drive a wagon?:rolleyes:

EDIT: There's always the Buick LaSabre or the Mercury whatever. The fact is, that if you want a family sedan with a V8 (besides the Crown Vic.), then you're going to have to go with one of the near luxuries (Mercury, Buick, etc.) . I suggest you look into a V6, they aren't that bad, and I mean, you're going to be hauling around 4 kids, not racing in the Indy 500;). The Toyota Avalon has a V6 that puts out 280 HP, and then there's always the Impala SS with 240 HP...

Having been in the car business for 27 years, I'll attempt to shed some light on this.
The first part has to do with the market. The buying public today - the lions share thereof - WANTS loaded cars. They want heated seats, power toys and all the fluff.

Sadly what I see if so many people going into so much debt it is sickening. I don't feel it is right, I have plenty of my own, and sure wishing I made some wiser decisions 10 years ago. I am not too bad off, but I am learning that we are in a sad society that is a "give it to me now" mentality and credit to get it is way to easy to get with a high interest rate.

There is no one to blame but ourselves, but the car companies have made it hard to "refuse", and made cars to what people want, and have abandoned the ones that people NEED. All in the interest of $$. Some irresponsiblity there too. Most of it is on the side of the buyers.

Sure, I do love my 94 FWB. I may have wanted it too in 1994 new, but would never have been able or willing to stomach the $42K pricetag (my est with all the options mine has based on a website with $$) new on an Army salary ($1200 monthly gross) at the time.

I am fearful that in todays economy, we are in debt up to our eyeballs, and jobs are being farmed out across our borders thanks to things like NAFTA, and the bean counters in corporate America who can save pennies to dollars by sending out work to other countries. Those employees don't have the benefits the US employees have, and the benefits of todays US employees are dwindling at an alarming rate. Pensions are the first thing to go, and those who have pensions are getting more and more scared that they won't have one to draw upon when they are at the age that they can.

So, who is to blame for what is happening to GM now?

Thanks for the insite Sandy, as always very appreciated. And to everyone else, this has been an interesting thread. Lets hope that GM can get thier heads out and pull out of it and get back in the game.

I'm not convinced of Dodge knowing how to build an engine yet. I am seeing still way too many Dodge/ChryCo cars running around burning oil. Even Intrepids now that are only a couple years old. My Aerostar van with 276K miles went to the crusher not burning a drop. And that was with petroluem oil and it being run into the ground. Ford 4.0L's are some long lasting engines. Ford is just clueless on how to build a decent transmission!

And I am not a Dodge fan. But Dodge is coming around to getting with the program. They are aiming at the market I am talking about. Will GM do the same? Oh, yeah, they don't have anything to compete with!

4dr sedan is fine, even a 6 pass coupe is fine. I doubt any are 6 pass though. Wagon? Maybe....

Have you thought about that new Dodge Charger:sneaky: or maybe even the Magnum? Would you drive a wagon?:rolleyes:

You bring up alot of good points. I do think that unfortunately the automobile market these days for better or worse is targeted to my generation, and we are a "give us more" set for sure, but GM still needs to get its act together with some of its cars. Right now there are segments being ignored, OVERLAP of segments that arent necessary money makers, and nice cars that are OVERPRICED. An example of the "not threatening the star seller" mentality you were talking about for me is the new STS-V. Not only did GM NOT go for the gusto by TOPPING the competitors in its market, they have NOW dangled the carrot in front of their prospective buyers by producing a model that says "hey we CAN do it, we just chose not to! Suckers!!" in the SAE STS 505hp show car. Instead they blew the NS* took its displacement DOWN .2L and get a halfway decent 425horses out of it (ok 469... whatever).

If it were my money being plunked down, I sure wouldnt like feeling like I got jipped out of a better alternative that very well could have been produced. But my theory (and thats all it is) is that this was halted in order to give the Z06, which is by all means a MONSTER and deserving of its praise, the full spotlight of the over 500hp stage.

GM Really needs a complete overhaul from the inside out...

Have you thought about that new Dodge Charger:sneaky: or maybe even the Magnum? Would you drive a wagon?:rolleyes:

EDIT: There's always the Buick LaSabre or the Mercury whatever. The fact is, that if you want a family sedan with a V8 (besides the Crown Vic.), then you're going to have to go with one of the near luxuries (Mercury, Buick, etc.) . I suggest you look into a V6, they aren't that bad, and I mean, you're going to be hauling around 4 kids, not racing in the Indy 500;). The Toyota Avalon has a V6 that puts out 280 HP, and then there's always the Impala SS with 240 HP...

Well, all those are Wrong Wheel Drive. I don't care for it and I am done with it (I have had 3, 91 Lumina, 91 SDV and 91 Bonneville). And I won't touch a car that was not made on American soil, yes I found out:eek: my Lumina was 90%+ Canadian. And please don't tell me that Toyota's are made in America:lies: , assembled, yes, made, no. And the profits STILL go to Japan, not to the US. So, no they are out, period.

The Impala SS (1994-1996) were all 5 seaters. Bummer, because that is what I really want. The family prime mover is the Suburban, my car must be a backup, but only me 98% of the time.

But it all goes back to the main point, these cars are all high end high $$ cars, none are low $, utilitarian status with a V8 RWD. I am looking for a 6 pass V8 RWD for under $25K. I don't think it exists, and hasn't for a long long time. If Dodge would release an equivelent to the Plymouth Belevedere with a V8, they would have an instant winner.

GM is really blowing it by only offering RWD in their luxury / sports cars. Who cares if you can get a SC Bonneville? If you can't mash the go-pedal and make the rear tires chirp, what's the point.

Brian

And please don't tell me that Toyota's are made in America:lies: , assembled, yes, made, no. And the profits STILL go to Japan, not to the US. So, no they are out, period.

Maybe Toyota's aren't, but Hyundai's are. Right there down in Alabama. Imagine that, Alabama has one of the most sophisticated car plants in the world. And they have a MB plant too! And they don't even wear shoes down there:p! j/k:lildevil:And they make Honda's in Ohio. I'm sure that the American workers get some profits, i mean, how else do they get paid?

The fact is, that GM doesn't make a RWD, jumbo family sedan anymore. But Dodge does. So if you MUST buy American, you will just have to get a Dodge Charger/Magnum or a Crown Vic. But really, I still don't see what's wrong with having FWD in a family sedan. You aren't racing, you're carrying around a large family. And furthermore, there's nothing wrong with buying Toyotas. They do, afterall, make the most popular, and probably most reliable, family sedan. The Toyota Camry...

Maybe Toyota's aren't, but Hyundai's are. Right there down in Alabama. Imagine that, Alabama has one of the most sophisticated car plants in the world. And they have a MB plant too! And they don't even wear shoes down there:p! j/k:lildevil:And they make Honda's in Ohio. I'm sure that the American workers get some profits, i mean, how else do they get paid?

The fact is, that GM doesn't make a RWD, jumbo family sedan anymore. But Dodge does. So if you MUST buy American, you will just have to get a Dodge Charger/Magnum or a Crown Vic. But really, I still don't see what's wrong with having FWD in a family sedan. You aren't racing, you're carrying around a large family. And furthermore, there's nothing wrong with buying Toyotas. They do, afterall, make the most popular, and probably most reliable, family sedan. The Toyota Camry...

You obviously have never tried to get 6 people into a Camry! :cookoo: Let alone any other Toyota sedan. Just ain't happening...

Doesn't matter where it is assembled, the profits go to Japan, or Korea, or wherever. But not the US. They are doing nothing more than avoiding paying import taxes, and the Fed Gov allows them to get away with it. sure, a few people get jobs. But the real money leaves this country forever. That is the issue with them. And we wonder why our economy is going to pot.

Chargers/Magnums are 5 passenger, not 6. They are out of the picture. Toyota doens't make a 6 passenger sedan, let alone RWD. http://cars.about.com/od/toyota/ss/pp_05avalon_3.htm A Real 1968-1970 Charger fits the bill though! Those are my favorites....

This car is my daily driver, and a backup family cruiser. So yes, I am having fun with it daily! I drive 600 miles a week, might as well enjoy it!

You obviously have never tried to get 6 people into a Camry! :cookoo: Let alone any other Toyota sedan. Just ain't happening...

Doesn't matter where it is assembled, the profits go to Japan, or Korea, or wherever. But not the US. They are doing nothing more than avoiding paying import taxes, and the Fed Gov allows them to get away with it. sure, a few people get jobs. But the real money leaves this country forever. That is the issue with them. And we wonder why our economy is going to pot.

Chargers/Magnums are 5 passenger, not 6. They are out of the picture. Toyota doens't make a 6 passenger sedan, let alone RWD. http://cars.about.com/od/toyota/ss/pp_05avalon_3.htm A Real 1968-1970 Charger fits the bill though! Those are my favorites....

This car is my daily driver, and a backup family cruiser. So yes, I am having fun with it daily! I drive 600 miles a week, might as well enjoy it!

I agreed with alot of your other points, but I think we all really need to grow up and get past this whole America only crap... and thats what it is ladies and gentlemen... its CRAP. We live in a GLOBAL economy, I sure wouldnt be proud to be an American if I knew that potentially better, safer and more reliable products were being made in other parts of the world, and the only thing keeping me from owning them was a last ditch attempt to save a tiny slice of the Economy.

Moreover, (and if I had a nickel for everytime Ive said this...) the complete lack of any foreign competition in this country would lead to a disastrous and potentially inevitable erosion of quality on our shores that would put us so far behind the rest of the world we would become the laughing stock of the auto industry. I take pride in our auto industry because no one would ever compare us to a Renault or Citroen (and those are not terrible cars) OR GOD Forbid... Yugo. If you took away the driving force that keeps the domestics on their toes and forging ahead whats the point? It is amazing to me that people think you could solve America's economical problems by pulling out all foreign products like pulling a tooth. It aint happening. Even the domestic auto heads would tell you they wouldnt want foreign compeition stifled.

Lets face it, the Swiss make the best watches and Chocolate, the Japanese make the finest electronics, the Colombians grow the best Coffee... Foreign influence is here to stay, and by Golly Im proud to live in a country that recognizes and respects the potential of the rest of the world.

What all this crap about FWD, RWD!
If you do not drive a car hard you can not feel the difference. And most of the drives out there would not know the diff between the two.
What GM should do is make the car with 5 year 100,000 warrenty.
But they probably make more money with people trading them in every three when the warreny is up.

..

What all this crap about FWD, RWD!
If you do not drive a car hard you can not feel the difference. And most of the drives out there would not know the diff between the two.
What GM should do is make the car with 5 year 100,000 warrenty.
But they probably make more money with people trading them in every three when the warreny is up.

1. You don't have to drive your car hard to know, just do some work on it just once, you'll know.
2. Try to pull the transmission on a FWD, you'll know.
3. Take a decent corner, you'll know. Remember, we are not talking sports car, so don't use that as a benchmark, use your LeSebre, you won't be amused..
4. With 250+hp, just try to launch hard, you'll know.
5. FWD the balance of the car is way off, too nose heavy, I have been driving FWD and RWD for 22 years now, I know them all well, I will take RWD anyday. Heck, even most RWD cars are more nose heavy than they should be, but read my thread on relocating the battery will fix a lot of that.
GM DOES offer 7yr./70000 warranty on Cadillacs. Else gets 3yr/36K. upping the warranty will increase the cost of the car, which is part of the problem. In reality, it won't hurt muich and will give more customer satisfaction, so, ues, they should do it. At least match the competition. Even offer a 10/100K as a cost option on the car when you buy it would be wise. Keep the $ all GM, not aftermarket. GM was offering 3ry/50K on the 91 cars. IT should be at least 7/70 IMHO.

It is amazing to me that people think you could solve America's economical problems by pulling out all foreign products like pulling a tooth. It aint happening. Even the domestic auto heads would tell you they wouldnt want foreign compeition stifled.

You are missing the point, we need more equal trade. Not necessarily 1:1, the population doesn't support that, but a appropriate %. Right now it is so one sided and so lack of taxed as compared to the other country, it is no wonder we are in such a trade deficit. Balance, there must be balance to the force... Why should Japan make it so hard for the US to get ANYTHING in to Japan's economy but we allow nearly ANYTHING from Japan to here? Or China for that matter, China is likely the worst exporter to the US with lack of US imports back in. It doesn't have to be the same type products, but there should be a balanced $ amount back and forth. And if Japan or China taxes a higher import % coming in to thier country, then we should match it. And we will start to send a message that trade must be balanced. If they do not accept our exports into thier country, we will not accept thier exports to our country. I am not against trade, we need it, but we need some balance to it.

What all this crap about FWD, RWD!

I would like Chevy, Pontiac and/or Buick to offer RWD V8 sedans and coupes sold for a reasonable price.

With Chevy being the cheapest and the lightest before options. :thumbsup:

Who wouldn't want a brand new Camaro using the C6 engines? Or an Impala with manual roll up windows and 400hp.

What if we made the Nova a RWD I4/V6 compact? (With just enough room for a V8, not that anyone would do such a thing in the future)

I am not against trade, we need it, but we need some balance to it.

We could export our cheap American rwd V8 car's, instead of letting Australia. :thumbsup:

exactly!

and by Golly Im proud to live in a country that recognizes and respects the potential of the rest of the world.

Too bad most of them don't respect our industries. :nono:

An example of the "not threatening the star seller" mentality you were talking about for me is the new STS-V. Not only did GM NOT go for the gusto by TOPPING the competitors in its market, they have NOW dangled the carrot in front of their prospective buyers by producing a model that says "hey we CAN do it, we just chose not to! Suckers!!" in the SAE STS 505hp show car. Instead they blew the NS* took its displacement DOWN .2L and get a halfway decent 425horses out of it (ok 469... whatever).

You haven't even seen it perform yet and you don't even know the cost yet, so STFU and quit trashing the car. It gets old. If it can't beat either the E55 AMG or the M5, and it costs $78k, THEN you can trash it, until then shut it. And I thought the import people's favorite statistic was hp per liter, which is over 100 in this car, even though it doesn't mean crap all the import people seem to just eat it up.

Too bad most of them don't respect our industries. :nono:



You haven't even seen it perform yet and you don't even know the cost yet, so STFU and quit trashing the car. It gets old. If it can't beat either the E55 AMG or the M5, and it costs $78k, THEN you can trash it, until then shut it. And I thought the import people's favorite statistic was hp per liter, which is over 100 in this car, even though it doesn't mean crap all the import people seem to just eat it up.

Ill say whatever I want about it when it pleases me to do so thank you very much. And where do you get off copping that kind of attitude to me, I havent ever attacked your (sometimes questionable) views in such a hateful way like that. I personally dont care WHAT the car does at this point. The bottom line is the execution was poor from the BEGINNING and I feel strongly about that and Im not going to simply paint a picture of rainbows and lollipops because the car hasnt hit the streets yet. The CTS-V was HIGHLY anticipated before it was even on the market because it proved Cadillac could not only MATCH its closest competitor (the M3), but they could DESTROY it altogether with at least 70 more horses and all around better car for LESS MONEY Most of the public perception about THIS car is already that it could have been more than what it is going to be and a WOULDA COULDA scenario is NOT what GM needs right now. This isnt my opinion alone, there has been plenty of talk about this over the past few months. ON TOP OF THAT, GM goes in and only JUSTIFIES the negativity by producing a version of the car that VERY CLEARLY could have been another "CTS-V Home run" in the 505hp version, proving they had a drivetrain setup that could handle the torque and do it WELL. This would have left the N* for the XLR-V which is absolutely fine with that engine.

If you read the title of the thread, its called GM'S PROBLEMS. THIS IS ONE OF THEM, Im only offering up my opinion of specific examples where I believe poor judgement was executed. This IS a forum after-all. If I had started a whole new thread saying "THE STS-V: WHY IT SUCKS AND WHY YOU SHOULD HATE IT" then yea, id tell myself to stfu also.

...And I thought the import people's favorite statistic was hp per liter, which is over 100 in this car, even though it doesn't mean crap all the import people seem to just eat it up.

Maybe we should start to pay attention to torque per liter. HP is calculated off the measured torque anyway. HP is primarily a marketing game again these days anyway.

Doesn;t matter anyway, most import owners are so clueless that if they belive hp/liter is important, they have no idea what "area under the curve" means, and that is something GM does. Hence the balls the LT1 has. They are playing the numbers game some with the LT1.

(off on a tangent....)
For me, I started getting some hope when I drove a 99-00 Malibu with a 2.4L Quad 4 that had an overdrive cruise rpm of 2500@75 mph. It drove quiet well actually. Not that I could tolerate it daily, but there is hope that GM can gear stuff better. Now compare that to a 85 Cavalier with a 2.0/2.2L 4 cyl that would try to do it without OD and still keep revs down to 2000 rpm at the same speed. Performance sucked. So in the late 90's They finally started gearing the cars properly! Something the Germans have figured out for years. But as we all know, GM did much better than the Germans on fuel economy too for the same class car. Sure, the German cars ran better performance wise, but they sacrificed mileage to do it.

So when GM was concentrating on CAFE, other companies didn't, and never had the higher end cars to match anything GM had. GM cars typically cover a much wider audience, so the CAFE ratings are tougher. That is another reason GM should diversify the divisions. Focus on the market, and allow the division some of their own engineering on the drivetrains more than what is allowed now. When was the last time a car division in GM was allowed to change cam and gearing to match what they wanted in performance for the car? Like a Cadillac FWB with an LT1 ~should~ have a different cam in a 2.56 geared car to a 2.93 to a 3.42. And then allow the cars to be available with any gear the customer wanted. As for me, my 3.42 geared Cad FWB LT1 is a bandit, you (well, not FOSS members....) would be shocked how well a 4700# beast flies when you mash it. And it doens't stop accelerating till the speed limiter. I know, emissions cert costs big $$, so that would need to be justified to corp office. Back in the old Pontiac days, a stickshift car got the 068 cam while an auto got an 067. There was a need to better match the powerband to the gear and the lack of a converter you can run a stouter cam with a little more overlap and get away with it.

On my ride, I think the similar specs of the B/D cam with more lift and maybe a little more duration would better match the power of the LT1 in my car. Where the existing B/D cam was likely intended with 2.56 gears.

So what I am saying is GM could do better if some additional engineering $ were spent. I agree, if GM would make a LeMans off of the new GTO, sales would be great, but it would hurt the GTO and the Grand Prix. But it might hurt sales of the Mustang too. Make it with a 3800 std, a 4.8L V8 optional, and if you want a 6.0 (where is the 6.5L V8?? :hmm: ) V8 you must get a GTO. And there is no problem with a bigger V8 installed later in either car. People will buy what is affordable and modifyable. Ask Ford, they figured it out. Embrace the hotrodder, not alienate them!

Maybe we should start to pay attention to torque per liter. HP is calculated off the measured torque anyway. HP is primarily a marketing game again these days anyway.

Doesn;t matter anyway, most import owners are so clueless that if they belive hp/liter is important, they have no idea what "area under the curve" means, and that is something GM does. Hence the balls the LT1 has. They are playing the numbers game some with the LT1.

Exactly. Most people think that engines make horsepower. They don't look at the bigger picture. My good friend's X5 has the 4.4 liter. His peak torque is something like 320 ft. lbs. However, his torque curve looks like a mountain. He's lucky to get 14 mpg HIGHWAY. My 350 makes 300 ft. lbs peak, but the curve looks like Kansas. I get 20-21 mpg highway. What happened to the 5.0 liter B-bodies of the 80's that got even better than that, held 6 people comfortably, parts were a dime a dozen, and they had different trim packages. Naturally the answer would be into SUVs, but this left GM with no real solid basic RWD passenger vehicle platform, which was a poor mistake, in retrospect.

As to the STS-V, I agree with both sides of the issue. For one, they've done a great job in building a very solid classy vehicle with some balls. On the other hand, if they're going to do it, why not blow the competition away instead of barely matching or falling just short, which seems like typical GM to me anyways.

GM has come a long way over the past 5 years and I think if we're all patient, we'll continue to see growth and change, but not without some response and change from GM itself. You can bet your ass that somebody that works for GM is studying threads like these, probably even this one, with a fine tooth comb looking for marketing research. Well, they've got it right here.

GM, it's time to build a family of RWD passenger vehicles. It's time to use V8s. They get fine mileage, and they're desirable. It's time to strike and blow the competition away. Good job with the V series! Good job with the LS7. Keep ironing the details out and get RWD back to the average Joe. Give him some options too, but don't make power windows and butt warmers standard. You want opinions, you've got almost 30 right here.

Brian

I would like to see what is a better seller, Chevy base pick up or LS.
The main difference is over all a nicer interior , power windows , locks, cruise control, better radio.
Remember women buyers I believe make over 50% of the car buyers, They must design towards women. As the pick ups or design towards men

I always hate seeing ads "#1 car in America" and such, yeah? Oh, knock out FLEET sales and show me the REAL buyers. Ford and Chevy both fight over it for trucks and bread and butter cars (Tauris, Lumina/Impala). Even compacts like Cavalier and Escorts/Focus. Sales for them are meaningless.

The show some demographics on who buys what and with what.

And where do you get off copping that kind of attitude to me, I havent ever attacked your (sometimes questionable) views in such a hateful way like that...
Im not going to simply paint a picture of rainbows and lollipops because the car hasnt hit the streets yet.

That's not much attitude at all for an internet forum, and maybe I haven't been told to stfu because at least my questionable views are based in reality... this car isn't real yet, you can't go buy one at a dealer and you can't run one down a strip or stick one on a dyno yet. I don't want you to paint a picture of rainbows and lollipops because the car hasn't hit the streets yet, instead I want you to quit smearing it and painting a picture of dog crap and K-Car like you have been, because the car hasn't hit the streets yet. So if not painting a picture of rainbows and not painting a picture of dog crap means not saying anything, then don't say anything. :rolleyes2 Sure the 505hp SAE STS was nice, but before you say they should've gone that way wait until you see what this engine does.

instead I want you to quit smearing it and painting a picture of dog crap and K-Car like you have been, because the car hasn't hit the streets yet.


But he's soooo good at it!!;)

" I am looking for a 6 pass V8 RWD for under $25K. I don't think it exists, and hasn't for a long long time. "

You can buy a Crown Vic with the base V-8, manual air and a manual split-bench-seat for under $25,000.

You might even find one with the H&P package giving you the handling suspension, self-leveling rear susoension and REAL duals and 15 more hp if you're lucky, though must H&Ps on the lot are on loaded cars.

Body on frame too.

H&P Package? What does H&P stand for? Handling and Performance?

I will check it out, that is what I am looking for (not buying at the moment, my LT1 94 Fleetwood is doing just fine right now).

Kudos to Ford for keeping the 6 pass sedan alive!

" I am looking for a 6 pass V8 RWD for under $25K. I don't think it exists, and hasn't for a long long time. "

You can buy a Crown Vic with the base V-8, manual air and a manual split-bench-seat for under $25,000.

You might even find one with the H&P package giving you the handling suspension, self-leveling rear susoension and REAL duals and 15 more hp if you're lucky, though must H&Ps on the lot are on loaded cars.

Body on frame too.

I hope its WELL under 25k actually... Mercury is practically GIVING Grand Marquis' away right now. I am pretty sure you can walk out the door with a Grand Marquis GS for 17,995 right now. Thats a whole whale of alot of car for pocket change. You cant even get a loaded Cobalt for that.

"H&P Package? What does H&P stand for? Handling and Performance?"

That's right. Bigger wheels and tires, handling suspension with rear leveling, more power and a lower rear-end ratio.

I had a couple of H&P Vics, a 97 and an 03, and they're very capable and reliable cars. They accelerate more strongly than the 239 hp rating indicates (my 3.6 CTS is faster but not that much faster) and handle quite well. And they ride nice and are smooth and quiet and very reliable.

And few cars, if any, are more comfortable up in front.

I was very pleased with both cars and traded the 03 (with 50,000 trouble-free miles) for a CTS because my new wife wasn't comfortable driving such a large car. The CTS is nice and just as good for the long road trips we take because there are just the two of us. But when I load the trunk I miss the Vic.

From the Toronto Star
Avg cost /work/hr in the US-$59 in Canada -$50, India and China -$1-$3
GM's Oshawa assembly plants have won kudos for outstanding quality and efficiency. Just the same, warns Low, Canada is the world's second-most expensive centre for auto assembly, with an hourly pay rate for assembly workers of $50 (U.S.), trailing only the U.S., at $59. In emerging auto producers India and China, the wage rate is $1 and about $3, respectively.

"So we're going to have to be vigilant going into talks with the CAW later this year," says Low, "because Canada is in fact a high-cost environment."

But Jim Stanford, economist at the CAW, points out that GM's Canadian health-care burden is still far lower than stateside, accounting for about $120 per vehicle compared with the U.S. figure of $1,500. That is one reason Toyota announced last week it will locate its newest North American assembly plant in Southern Ontario rather than the U.S., despite the blandishments of Arnold Schwarzenegger and other U.S. governors.

"We've made two things very clear to GM," says Stanford. "We didn't cause GM's huge health-care problem — that's a U.S. issue. And we can't solve it. We could work for free in Canada and it wouldn't make a dent in GM's $77 billion (U.S.) in unfunded retiree health-care benefits."

A frustrated Low points to under-reported successes, including Oshawa's output of strong-selling Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks, along with promising new vehicles like the Pontiac Solstice roadster.

But there have been few hits.

The criticism of GM likely would not be so intense if it hadn't proclaimed 2005 to be the year of a new-product breakthrough. So far the news has been disappointing.

The Oshawa-built Buick Allure, marketed as the LaCrosse in the U.S., has gotten off to a slow start. Sales of the new Pontiac GTO were just 1,093 in May, compared to 19,721 Ford Mustangs. The Saturn L, part of an embarrassing recall of 291,000 Saturns from 2000 to 2004, has been dropped after dismal sales. In another recall a few months ago, GM pulled back more than 2 million vehicles for repair.

What GM lacks is a spirit of bold experimentation. It can't risk alienating Middle America, the biggest buyer of its products, and is compelled to keep its huge network of factories humming even if that means losing money. By contrast, an ailing Chrysler under Lee Iacocca bet the company on minivans in the 1980s.

"Perhaps Ghosn's and Iacocca's secret weapon was a willingness to admit to a crisis," veteran GM observer Maryann Keller wrote in a Washington Post essay soon after Wagoner revealed his turnaround strategy June 7.

"So far, GM has only told us to wait for the new models while it leans on the UAW for concessions," says Keller, author of Rude Awakening: The Rise, Fall and Struggle for Recovery of GM.

"But GM's Asian competitors are introducing new models and refreshing existing ones at a fast pace, so that GM is always reacting rather than forcing its rivals to respond. 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."

I find it very hard to believe that UAW workers are paid $59 an hour, that's higher than union Building Trades scales in cities like Chicago and Detroit.

The entire negotiated package PLUS workman's compensation insurance costs may come to that amount but it still seems high.

It Is The Uaw Who Is Screwing Over Gm.

It Is The Uaw Who Is Screwing Over Gm.
Would you say that if you were in the UAW.
Remember not all UAW members make that kind of money. I bet most of the supplies that are UAW member make 1/3 of the $59/hr

"It Is The Uaw Who Is Screwing Over Gm.'

Like any other player in a free-market economy the UAW seeks to get the most it can for it's product, it's product being it's member's work. This is entirely appropriate.

GM's problem isn't the union, it's that GM isn't making enough cars that people want to buy.

Why isn't there a fast V-8, RWD, Chevy Impala to go against the hot new Dodges? Or a fast, good handling Buick to go against the 300C? Why was the GTO a flop?

Management is the problem, not the workers.

"It Is The Uaw Who Is Screwing Over Gm.'

Like any other player in a free-market economy the UAW seeks to get the most it can for it's product, it's product being it's member's work. This is entirely appropriate.

GM's problem isn't the union, it's that GM isn't making enough cars that people want to buy.

Why isn't there a fast V-8, RWD, Chevy Impala to go against the hot new Dodges? Or a fast, good handling Buick to go against the 300C? Why was the GTO a flop?

Management is the problem, not the workers.

It most CERTAINLY IS the UNION bleeding GM dry, especially with the likes of 6 BILLION demanded for health care costs alone! That amount would pay for our entire health care system in Canada! This is also the reason you see more and more GM factories set-up here because Canadian workers are covered for health care by the government and therefore would NOT cost GM this amount every year. The union has to lighten up and realize they have become too powerful, whiney and draining of the profits. That 6 BILLION would be enough to engineer and build your RWD V8 Impala with money left over to help Buick and Pontiac get back on their feet!

Why is RWD so desireable, here in the Northeast it seems everyone wants frontwheel drive because of the snow. What is the advantage of RWD ?

Thanks

What is the advantage of RWD ?

Thanks

there is supposedly a horsepower limit with FWD around 300 I believe. RWD makes for a better balanced car having an axle in rear. From a performance standpoint, when you accellerate, you are physically distributing the weight of the car to the drive wheels as opposed to "off of them" as with a FWD.....

That's just a few, other than possibly a smoother ride but I'll tell you, I'll take FWD in winter anyday! My Grand Marquis was terrible on snow and ice!

Physics, really. An object in motion tends to remain in motion while an object at rest....... When you mash the fun pedal the weight goes back to where the force is being applied through friction to the ground. FWD or RWD, the front end lifts when you hit it. Where would you want the driving wheels to be?

GM's financial problems are stemmed directly from the UAW, among other things.

GM's poor platform and devlopement problems stem from management and accounting.

Don't believe the UAW isn't a major thorn in GM's side. They're biting the hand that feeds them. Like a parasite; a parasite is a failure if it kills its host, thereby killing itself.

Brian

GM NEGOTIATED their deals with the UAW. If the deal is costing more than GM can afford that's management's fault not the union's.

Before the union makes any concessions it must be made very clear that the money saved will go into the company and not the pockets of the executives and shareholders. Unions have been burned before with the concession game.

Funny how when a businessman runs a company into the ground and parts it out he's a hero but when working people take the short view---I want all I can get now---they're hammered on.

Who here wouldn't negotiate for every penny he can get? It's the other guy's job to lookout for his interests, not yours. That's capitalism fellas.

Besides, if they were selling cars we wouldn't even be hearing this stuff. Who in the Hell wants one of those rattle-trap Malibus anyway?

I am constantly amazed however that large American businesses (other than insurance companies) don't lobby for a national health care system in The United States. It would seem to be in industry's interests to do so, at least for those companies that intend to provide health insurance for their employees.

GM NEGOTIATED their deals with the UAW. If the deal is costing more than GM can afford that's management's fault not the union's.

Before the union makes any concessions it must be made very clear that the money saved will go into the company and not the pockets of the executives and shareholders. Unions have been burned before with the concession game.

Funny how when a businessman runs a company into the ground and parts it out he's a hero but when working people take the short view---I want all I can get now---they're hammered on.

Who here wouldn't negotiate for every penny he can get? It's the other guy's job to lookout for his interests, not yours. That's capitalism fellas.


It's true that it's the job of union leaders to negotiate the best deals they can for their workers (even though this can be short-sighted thinking when it ultimately torpedoes the company as it did to British manufacturers in the 1970s).

It's also true that GM management probably should've said "No" to the unions when signing those deals and sweated out a strike instead.

However, the final logical outcome for GM management (if they are smarter than the UAW) is to simply build their plants in low-cost labour countries like China. Now that is capitalism folks.