What's up with the reverse lights on GM cars?

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

It had everything to do with loosing market share. The last 50-60 years GM wasted R&D budget for gimmicks not for real improvements for the cars or SUV or truck. Didn't you see the terrible reliability of GM vehicles in the 80's and 90's ?

If you look at US market share of Toyota since 1960 you will see they gain market share every decade. How ? They made better cars at every new release(about 4 years) without any gimmick.


OK, now it's a GM bashing thread. They used the reverse lights because it didn't cost them a dime, not because they were just blowing money on gimmicks...every car has them, and they are already controlled by the BCM. From that standpoint it's smart, I just don't like that they used a lamp that indicates something to other drivers for that task. It's not an indictment of GM as a company for the past half century.

GM made plenty of great vehicles in the 1980s and 1990s. If a vehicle is over 20 years old here, it is most likely a GM or Ford. Plenty of imports too, but you can't throw a rock here without hitting a GMT400.

And Toyota definitely uses "gimmicks" to sell cars. What do you think all of their SXP-X or whatever packages are? I don't know of a mainstream car or really any car that is sold without gimmicks, at least in the US.

Here's a nice 1990s GM to make everyone feel better...

https://www.mecum.com/lots/DN0716-252671/1994-chevrolet-blazer/

 

[Tomioka]

This is probably the third or fourth topic I've seen on GM reverse lights on this forum. Heck I wish my truck had that feature, only missed it by a year.

But you know how with X-brand bashing threads. I remember it was funny to bash Toyota back then for it's runaway cars.

 

[Blinker]

So I bet not many people know the purpose of this "reverse light" feature. Yes, it acts as a courtesy light in the dark to an extent. It also acts as a vehicle finder in a crowded parking lot to an extent. But the main reason is for pedestrian safety. Mainly children. The lights come on to inform other drivers in parking lot situatuons that people may be exiting the vehicle, and children often run around the vehicle and many times get struck by cars passing by in the parking lot. As soon as we see reverse lights come on we assume the vehicle will be reversing, which makes us more cautious to avoid a collision; subconsciously we are more aware of the situation and guess what, you are more likely to avoid running over a pedestrian because you were already prepared. Chrysler did a similar thing with their minivans when one of the sliding doors were opened. The turn signal for that side of the vehicle would start flashing.
Exiting a minivan can be dangerous on city streets because other drivers dont always notice that the door is open and people may be exiting.

 

[BHopkins]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
This is one of the stupidest features that GM has ever done. It infuriates me when I am walking in a parking lot and seeing backup lights on, I stop and wait for the car to back out, only to realize after a few moments that there is no one in the car. Argh! It raises my blood pressure just thinking about it.

One more reason why I hate GM vehicles so much!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must hate your Oldsmobile alot then!


Haha! Good observation.

The Alero is my commuter car. It's got 195k miles on it, and I'm planning on driving it to 250k. I bought it in Dec. 2003, and I can't get rid of it yet, as it's not worn out yet.

At the time that I bought it, I was a fairly loyal GM customer. Up to that point, except for a VW, a Toyota, a Plymouth, and a Saab, all I've ever owned had been GM products. While I knew thay had problems, I always overlooked them, reasoning that all car companies have their issues.

Then I started working a job where GM is a customer. That changed my entire perspective towards GM. I've come to believe that any company that treats their suppliers as [censored] as GM does, can't have any respect for the supplier. And if they feel that way about their suppliers, then they probably hold their customers in just as much contempt. That was my belief, and one shared with practically everyone whom I have ever met in my professional career, who has worked as a supplier to GM.

Then there were the deceits that GM told the American people about paying off their government bailout. the ignition switch issue came along, and it validated my hypothesis in regards to GM's attitude towards the customer. I honestly believe that Mary Barra is trying to turn GM around, but I have my doubts that she can succeed. The culture goes way too deep.

America never should have bailed out GM.

But I'm off topic. What about those annoying backup lights?

 

[Falcon_LS]

Can't help but laugh at much of the responses to this thread.

All 3 of my Fords have auto lamp, which illuminate as soon as you unlock the doors, depending on lighting conditions. If it's in a parking garage, I still have some idiot reversing like a bat out of [censored], just because my tail lights illuminated and I'm going to pull out. It's like these people have 360 degree views of parking spots. The response is no different with my GMC, which has backup lights integrated into the rear bumper and do a perfectly good job at parameter lighting in dim conditions. The Mitsu just flashes the turn signals, which STILL attracts preying drivers looking for a parking spot. It doesn't matter whether you drive a GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or VW - people looking for a parking spot are still on the watch out.

From a personal perspective, I hate people who block traffic in parking garages, just because they're going to take someone's spot that's a 10 second walk from the entrance. Then there's the idiot who lays on their horn, because you haven't pulled out yet.

 

[edwardh1]

GM cars of the 80s were really bad (I owned an 84 Olds), but in the best tradition of US companies their CEOs made a lot of money, usually multiples of what the Japanese CEOs were making, something like $300k for a Japanese ceo, 2.5 mil for head of GM .

I can understand the GM guys making Junk, its just that they were so clueless and insulated in Detroit they did not "see" that they were producing junk.

 

[Silverado12]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
GM cars of the 80s were really bad (I owned an 84 Olds), but in the best tradition of US companies their CEOs made a lot of money, usually multiples of what the Japanese CEOs were making, something like $300k for a Japanese ceo, 2.5 mil for head of GM .

I can understand the GM guys making Junk, its just that they were so clueless and insulated in Detroit they did not "see" that they were producing junk.


I still see S-10s and fullsize from the 80s around here and other domestic trucks. Not so much the cars, but the trucks last forever. I had bottom of the barrel Cavaliers and I swear they were more reliable and required less maintenance than Hondas of that era. GM did make some junk, though. I'll give you that one, but not everything was.

 

[Falcon_LS]

GM B-Body and C/K vehicles sold like hot cakes in this part of the world in the 80s and 90s, primarily for their ability to put up with the heat, ice cold air conditioning and reliability. Broken outside door handles, collapsing sunvisors and cracking dashboards were common, but them cars kept on trucking for hundreds of thousands of miles, despite [censored] poor quality fuel and lubricants. The FWD C-Body offerings were garbage IMO, unlike the RWD C-Body offerings like the Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Then I started working a job where GM is a customer. That changed my entire perspective towards GM. I've come to believe that any company that treats their suppliers as [censored] as GM does, can't have any respect for the supplier. And if they feel that way about their suppliers, then they probably hold their customers in just as much contempt. That was my belief, and one shared with practically everyone whom I have ever met in my professional career, who has worked as a supplier to GM.

In the 80's I read from 1 of the big 3 car magazines about an opinion of a part supplier sale rep, he said something like this:

He presented a new switch/button to a group of domestic manufacture, the very first question was "how much", next question was "how much if we buy several hundreds thousands parts in a year"

The same sale guy with same part but with Honda people(some of them were Japaneses), the first comment was "this is good, but not good enough for our cars", the next one was "we like to see a more tactile feel when it is engaged and disengaged". After some discussion of how to improve the part they started to ask about price.

Two big differences between the two cultures, one is looking for cheap parts, work well or not isn't as importance. The other is looking for quality parts, price will be negotiated later. If the part doesn't work well then it is need to be improved before thinking about price.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Then I started working a job where GM is a customer. That changed my entire perspective towards GM. I've come to believe that any company that treats their suppliers as [censored] as GM does, can't have any respect for the supplier. And if they feel that way about their suppliers, then they probably hold their customers in just as much contempt. That was my belief, and one shared with practically everyone whom I have ever met in my professional career, who has worked as a supplier to GM.

In the 80's I read from 1 of the big 3 car magazines about an opinion of a part supplier sale rep, he said something like this:

He presented a new switch/button to a group of domestic manufacture, the very first question was "how much", next question was "how much if we buy several hundreds thousands parts in a year"

The same sale guy with same part but with Honda people(some of them were Japaneses), the first comment was "this is good, but not good enough for our cars", the next one was "we like to see a more tactile feel when it is engaged and disengaged". After some discussion of how to improve the part they started to ask about price.

Two big differences between the two cultures, one is looking for cheap parts, work well or not isn't as importance. The other is looking for quality parts, price will be negotiated later. If the part doesn't work well then it is need to be improved before thinking about price.


I heard that one too. It's up there with the story about the guy that invented a carburetor that got 100 MPG but the oil companies bought it so that it wouldn't kill gasoline sales.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
In the 80's I read from 1 of the big 3 car magazines about an opinion of a part supplier sale rep, he said something like this:

He presented a new switch/button to a group of domestic manufacture, the very first question was "how much", next question was "how much if we buy several hundreds thousands parts in a year"

The same sale guy with same part but with Honda people(some of them were Japaneses), the first comment was "this is good, but not good enough for our cars", the next one was "we like to see a more tactile feel when it is engaged and disengaged". After some discussion of how to improve the part they started to ask about price.

Two big differences between the two cultures, one is looking for cheap parts, work well or not isn't as importance. The other is looking for quality parts, price will be negotiated later. If the part doesn't work well then it is need to be improved before thinking about price.


In the '80s, Mitsubishi went out for a set of brakes for the Mitsubishi Magna...they specced four wheel disks.

One of the local brake suppliers offered them three disk options, of varying performance and cost, but also threw in a disk/drum combo that had lower cost but better performance than the lowest level of their disk brake offerings.

Mitsubishi accepted the price of the disk/drum combo, but wanted four wheel disks, and pressured the supplier for a disk/disk combo that would meet their budget expectations...they got it, then advertised as the first family car to have four wheel disks as standard.

They purposely pushed for a poorer performing arrangement...for cost and marketting.

(From an engineer that I was at Uni with who did a stint at the brake manufacturer).

 

[HTSS_TR]

That's why Mitsubishi is going down, at least in USA. Mitsubishi vehicles were never on the top ten most reliable brands of any study.

 

[SLCraig]

I am glad someone posted about this... I can't think of a single thing I think that is more stupid ever done by a car company. I am used to not waiting for people to back out now. But one of these days it won't be a GM car and something will happen..

MORONIC feature.

 

[BHopkins]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Then I started working a job where GM is a customer. That changed my entire perspective towards GM. I've come to believe that any company that treats their suppliers as [censored] as GM does, can't have any respect for the supplier. And if they feel that way about their suppliers, then they probably hold their customers in just as much contempt. That was my belief, and one shared with practically everyone whom I have ever met in my professional career, who has worked as a supplier to GM.

In the 80's I read from 1 of the big 3 car magazines about an opinion of a part supplier sale rep, he said something like this:

He presented a new switch/button to a group of domestic manufacture, the very first question was "how much", next question was "how much if we buy several hundreds thousands parts in a year"

The same sale guy with same part but with Honda people(some of them were Japaneses), the first comment was "this is good, but not good enough for our cars", the next one was "we like to see a more tactile feel when it is engaged and disengaged". After some discussion of how to improve the part they started to ask about price.

Two big differences between the two cultures, one is looking for cheap parts, work well or not isn't as importance. The other is looking for quality parts, price will be negotiated later. If the part doesn't work well then it is need to be improved before thinking about price.


Many years ago a plant manager related the following experience to me. During the era where global auto relationships were being formed, a man he came to know later was called into his manager's office. They were employees at a Toyota assembly plant in Japan. His manager gave him the assignment of giving a tour of their plant to a group from GM. The employee balked, saying that it was unwise to give GM a tour of their plant, as they would steal technology from Toyota. The manager explained that upper management had approved it, as GM was now a partner in the NUMMI venture.

During the tour, the GM visitors would ask questions about why Toyota had selected the transmission for a particular model, or how much torque an engine was rated for, and other similar questions. When the tour was done, the employee reported back to his manager. He told him "They can come back any time they would like. They just don't get it." He explained to his manager that they asked nothing related to quality control processes, or how operations were poke yoked (error proofed), nothing about process improvements.

This was over 22 years ago. I believe a lot has changed within GM, Chrysler, and Ford. But they still don't respect the customer. For GM in particular, the customer is nothing more than a means to an end. GM needs the customer to provide returns to the stockholders. They don't understand that the customer should be #1.

 

[PeterPolyol]

BHopkins, you seem to be describing Toyota but only implicating GM, Chrysler and Ford by name?