GM On the Rise

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:


Quote:



I would get into that car and drive it to either coast of this nation today, without fear of failure. Yes that is an impression I have.




I'd do the same with my 1988 Mustang GT. It'd be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy it would get on a trip like that.




I think you'd have more fun in the Mustang than the fellow with the Toyota four-banger, but that is just my biased opinion.
patriot.gif
banana.gif
driving.gif
 
Hardly, but as you grow older, you come to realize that driving enjoyment comes from what you bring to the car, not what the car offers you. I daresay that I enjoy driving my Aerostar as much as my Accords, my Mercedes or my BMW. These are all very different vehicles, but the fun of driving comes from my joy in extracting performance from any of them. You don't need a special car to enjoy driving, or to be an enthusiast.
 
I love the Lexus IS series. After having a BMW it's the only Toyota product I would consider to fill the niche of a RWS sedan.
 
Last edited:
Quote:


Some people on this board just can not accept that GM and Ford have made some terrible mistakes over the last 30 years.
Quote:




So? I've made some terrible mistakes over the past thirty years. I've made some in the past thirty months that don't look that great in hindsight, but I try to be forward looking although I am not always successful.




The main point here is did you learn from your mistakes, unlike GM ?


Quote:


I'm sure you know that Volkswagon and phrases like "high quality" or "reliable" are not often heard in the same sentence, right?
hide.gif
cheers.gif





I totally agree on this, but I love these cars. Always have and always will.
 
Our family refuses to buy GM products. We have been screwed over so many times it is quite frankly disgusting. If we are going to buy American, it's going to be a ford next time.
 
The last real VW was the Vanagon, when it still had the air cooled Type IV. I had one, and I really liked it. The lack of heat in really cold weather, and the lack of power, were its only minuses.
 
I saw an 07 Outlook on my way home today...beautiful car. GM is finally starting to have some competitive products on the road today.

However, many of the new GM cars still fall short as far as resale value and overall refinement. Both of those areas are quite important to me...at the very least, if I was to give up some resale value, give me a better quality interior and more refined car. (Hint: Hyundai) At the same time, driving a domestic car in this neighborhood makes me stick out like a sore thumb too...
wink.gif
 
Quote:


Quote:


Quote:



I would get into that car and drive it to either coast of this nation today, without fear of failure. Yes that is an impression I have.




I'd do the same with my 1988 Mustang GT. It'd be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy it would get on a trip like that.




I think you'd have more fun in the Mustang than the fellow with the Toyota four-banger, but that is just my biased opinion.
patriot.gif
banana.gif
driving.gif





Until you hit snow and ice!
 
I'd also take my Corolla over any car for coast to coast driving but that's just because I know it so well and it's already been the most reliable car I've had. I've already driven it to #@$%! and back with not one malfunction. Now, since I said that, I likely just activated Murphy's Law.
crazy.gif
 
Quote:


Alanu, You are wasting your time telling some people you have spent your life working on cars for a living and that qualifies you to comment on car quality. I also have worked on them for a living for over 15 years but what do we know? We must have some secret agenda for telling people what we have seen every day over and over again.

Some people have the same attitude that GM has. GM says there is no quality problem and just becouse your 5.3L knocks like a diesel does not mean your engine was poorly designed. You are just being too picky. Hey,the truck only cost you 35grand so what do you expect?

I started my repair career out with FO MO CO and they had the same mentality. Their cars were just as good as the Toyotas but the owners were just too stupid to realize it. That is why the nameplate called Taurus is dead and the nameplate called Camry is selling better than ever after 22 years. Thats why the domestics have to come up with new names for their cars every few years. People have paid hard money for a POS and wont buy another one so they just come up with a new name instead of fixing the problem. The Accord nameplate has been around since the late 70s? No need to change the name every few years like GM does cause theres a huge market that have had nothing but good service from every one of them they have purchased.

I wish GM would change and do right by the customer but they simply can't do it without a massive change in the way they make cars. It is all well and good to build cars like the Vette and the Z-28 as well as other enthusiast based rides but that won't keep you profitable in this market. With gas pushing 3.50 a gallon in some ereas;you better be able to build something that customers will want to own more than a Corolla,Civic,Camry,Accord and GM simply can't afford to do that in their present configuration.




If GM says that there is no problem, then they should have no problem issuing a 15 year unlimited mile hassle free warranty on all of their new vehicles. After all, if there is no problem, they will not have to pay for any warranty repairs as a consequence of what would be a marketing stunt. The only thing is that despite there being "no problem," they are unwilling to stand behind the quality of their vehicles, which is a problem.

Quote:


Quote:


The Aura completely out classes both the Accord and Camry.




Thats simply an opinion that cannot be substantiated with sales figures
Oh and by the way;what will they call it 5 years from now when they have to change it's name due to the poor service record it will have? Maybe Borealis?
laugh.gif
laugh.gif
crackmeup.gif
crackmeup.gif





Have you ever been in a Camry? I was in a 2007 Camry LE loaner car while my 1995 Toyota Avalon XLS was in the shop, and my experience with the Camry was lousy. The interior was terrible (e.g. lack of a leather and wood interior, lack of power passenger seating, the vents consistently reopened five minutes after closing them, the design of the dash board was inconvenient, the design of the stick shift was illogical, etcetera), the horn was not very loud and the acceleration was poor as a consequence of the I4's torque output. The only things that I liked in comparison to my Avalon were the fuel economy, the suspension (it did a much better job of softening the bumps in the road than the one in my Toyota Avalon), the low engine noise and the in glass antenna, besides that, I found it to be a pretty poor value.

Looking at the pictures and specifications of the Aura and Camry, I can say that the Camry's fuel economy and demonstrated reliability are the only advantages that the Camry appears to have over the Saturn Aura and that is not an opinion, that is a qualitative analysis. Now if you were to compare the 2007 Saturn Aura with the 2007 Toyota Avalon, the Toyota Avalon would blow the Saturn Aura away in everything except for the stickshift, which demonstrates that Toyota needs to improve the value of their lower end offerings and reintroduce the first/second generation stickshift to the Toyota Avalon.
 
Quote:


Have you ever been in a Camry? I was in a 2007 Camry LE loaner car while my 1995 Toyota Avalon XLS was in the shop, and my experience with the Camry was lousy. The interior was terrible (e.g. lack of a leather and wood interior, lack of power passenger seating, the vents consistently reopened five minutes after closing them, the design of the dash board was inconvenient, the design of the stick shift was illogical, etcetera), the horn was not very loud and the acceleration was poor as a consequence of the I4's torque output. The only things that I liked in comparison to my Avalon were the fuel economy, the suspension (it did a much better job of softening the bumps in the road than the one in my Toyota Avalon), the low engine noise and the in glass antenna, besides that, I found it to be a pretty poor value.



So, a Camry LE (Auto) stickers at just over $21,000, and an Avalon generally stickers for at least $5,000 more…why are you even bothering to compare cars that aren’t in the same segment? Perhaps your comments would have greater credibility if you were comparing a ’95 Camry to a ’07 Camry, or a ’95 Avalon to a ’07 Avalon.
smirk.gif


Quote:


Looking at the pictures and specifications of the Aura and Camry, I can say that the Camry's fuel economy and demonstrated reliability are the only advantages that the Camry appears to have over the Saturn Aura and that is not an opinion, that is a qualitative analysis. Now if you were to compare the 2007 Saturn Aura with the 2007 Toyota Avalon, the Toyota Avalon would blow the Saturn Aura away in everything except for the stickshift, which demonstrates that Toyota needs to improve the value of their lower end offerings and reintroduce the first/second generation stickshift to the Toyota Avalon.



Again, the Aura isn’t even in the same class as the Avalon…not a good comparison. The Camry does have one huge advantage: resale value. However, that’s starting to drop as evident in the recent years due to increasing fleet sales.
 
Quote:


Quote:


Have you ever been in a Camry? I was in a 2007 Camry LE loaner car while my 1995 Toyota Avalon XLS was in the shop, and my experience with the Camry was lousy. The interior was terrible (e.g. lack of a leather and wood interior, lack of power passenger seating, the vents consistently reopened five minutes after closing them, the design of the dash board was inconvenient, the design of the stick shift was illogical, etcetera), the horn was not very loud and the acceleration was poor as a consequence of the I4's torque output. The only things that I liked in comparison to my Avalon were the fuel economy, the suspension (it did a much better job of softening the bumps in the road than the one in my Toyota Avalon), the low engine noise and the in glass antenna, besides that, I found it to be a pretty poor value.



So, a Camry LE (Auto) stickers at just over $21,000, and an Avalon generally stickers for at least $5,000 more…why are you even bothering to compare cars that aren’t in the same segment? Perhaps your comments would have greater credibility if you were comparing a ’95 Camry to a ’07 Camry, or a ’95 Avalon to a ’07 Avalon.
smirk.gif


Quote:


Looking at the pictures and specifications of the Aura and Camry, I can say that the Camry's fuel economy and demonstrated reliability are the only advantages that the Camry appears to have over the Saturn Aura and that is not an opinion, that is a qualitative analysis. Now if you were to compare the 2007 Saturn Aura with the 2007 Toyota Avalon, the Toyota Avalon would blow the Saturn Aura away in everything except for the stickshift, which demonstrates that Toyota needs to improve the value of their lower end offerings and reintroduce the first/second generation stickshift to the Toyota Avalon.



Again, the Aura isn’t even in the same class as the Avalon…not a good comparison. The Camry does have one huge advantage: resale value. However, that’s starting to drop as evident in the recent years due to increasing fleet sales.




I am not trying to be unfair, but the Toyota Avalon is what I drive and what I like so when I read about a new car, I compare it to what I like. It does not matter to me if the car is in another class, as I do not own vehicles of various classes to care about the class, so when I read about a new car, I compare it to two things, my 1995 Toyota Avalon XLS and the current Toyota Avalon on sale. I was sharing my observations based on that (and my 2007 Camry LE loaner car experience), and if you find them to be unfair or offensive, too bad, as I am not changing my preferences to suit you.
 
Since the Avalon and the Camry are both about as exciting as a Form 1040, I'm not too sure what you two are arguing about. One of you likes the store brand, since it is a better value, while the other prefers Wonder Bread.
 
Quote:


Back from where?
crackmeup.gif





They were out to lunch for about 30 years...
wink.gif




But here is another positive commentary from The Washington Post:

Quote:


This new GM is not the old GM many of us loved to hate. The entire corporate attitude is different. Somewhere along the road from original success to malaise to self-destruction, the company has rediscovered its fighting and innovative spirits.




Post Article
 
Some good news
cheers.gif
patriot.gif




http://www.leftlanenews.com/gm-sales-rise-ford-chrysler-slip.html



................................................................................. GM sales rise; Ford, Chrysler slip
Despite an expected decline in U.S. industry sales, GM reported a 3.4 percent total sales increase, compared with February 2006. The sales gain was due to an 11 percent retail sales increase. Retail and fleet sales by GM dealers in the United States totaled 311,763 vehicles, compared with sales of 301,545 in February 2006. Fleet sales were down 18 percent due to a planned 25 percent reduction in daily rental sales.



"Our pickup, SUV and crossover business was terrific across the board. Our customers are telling us that we have the winning formula - the best products, industry-leading fuel economy and the best value," said Mark LaNeve, vice president, GM North American Sales, Service and Marketing.


Retail truck sales were up 16 percent compared with February 2006 and total truck sales were up 7 percent. Leading the retail sales gains were full-size pickups, up 36 percent compared with February 2006, with positive showings by Chevrolet Avalanche, up 110 percent and Silverado, up 34 percent. GMC Sierra retail sales volume was up 27 percent compared with last February.


Driven by an increase in Chevrolet Aveo retail sales, GM's economy car segment retail volume was up 17 percent compared with February 2006. A 45 percent retail increase in Pontiac G6 and a 65 percent increase in Chevrolet Impala retail sales, compared with the same month a year ago, pushed GM's mid-car segment retail volume up 25 percent. [data sheet]


Ford


Ford's February U.S. sales declined 13 percent compared with a year ago. The company's February sales totaled 211,150, compared with 244,021 a year ago. Lower sales to daily rental companies (down 16,000 units) accounted for about half of the decline. Sales to individual retail customers were down 8 percent compared with a year ago.


Our objective is to deliver more of the products that people want and, in doing so, stabilize retail share," said Mark Fields, Ford’s President of The Americas. “We're encouraged by the results we have achieved over the past several months. Our new products and our initiatives to strengthen our brands are starting to pay off."


Ford brand sales were down 15.2 percent, Mercury was down 13.2 percent, Lincoln was up 10.8 percent, Jaguar was down 28.3 percent, Volvo was virtually even at plus 0.7 percent, and Land Rover fell 10 percent. [data sheet]


Chrysler


Chrysler Group reported sales for February 2007 of 174,506 units; down 8 percent compared to February 2006 with 190,367 units.


Chrysler executives say their new product offerings, however, are a sign of things to come. The Dodge Avenger posted sales of 5,205 units. Jeep Wrangler and Wrangler Unlimited continued to post strong sales in February with 9,240 units, a rise of 63 percent over February 2006 sales of 5,673 units. Sales of the Jeep Compass increased 3 percent over the previous month with 4,071 units compared to 3,965 units in January 2007. The Dodge Caliber finished February with sales of 9,900 units, an
increase of 14 percent compared to last month with 8,672 units.


Chrysler brand sales fell 16 percent, Jeep fell 5 percent, and Dodge fell 5 percent. [data sheet]

Comment.....................
Evidently Toyota sold a whole 9500 tundras or thereab outs this month

Comment.....................
Breaking the numbers down by car company, when you rank sales this year so far, Toyota has slipped behind DaimerChrysler (with Mercedes sales added in) again!

Rank/ Company/ February/ Jan&Feb/
1 General Motors 311,763 559,227
2 Ford 211,150 377,985
3 DaimlerChrysler 191,810 365,187
4 Toyota 187,330 363,180
5 Honda 110,026 210,816
6 Nissan 85,218 167,862
7 Hyundai/Kia 58,012 108,257
8 BMW 24,642 46,453
9 VW/Audi 22,976 45,985
10 Mazda 22,067 41,332
11 Subaru 12,875 24,949
12 Mitsubishi 9,726 19,109
13 Suzuki 8,585 16,764
14 Porsche 1,967 4,951
15 Isuzu 559 1,059
Total 1,254,307 2,344,585
 
Last edited:
Another look from different point of view .

Excerpted


http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/01/news/companies/autosales/index.htm

General Motors (Charts), which just earlier this week had said it expected overall sales to be down 6 to 7 percent for the month, saw sales of cars and light trucks rise 3.7 percent compared to a year earlier.


A sharp drop in sales to rental car companies took Ford's total sales down 13 percent in February. A year ago it still made the Taurus, sold mainly to rental companies.
Photo Gallery See more photos


The rise in sales came despite an 18 percent decline in fleet sales to corporate customers, such as rental car companies. But that was more than balanced out by an 11 percent gain in retail sales.

Paul Ballew, GM's executive director of global market and industry analysis, said that the guidance of reduced sales had been a cautious one, and that the strength of the company's retail sales ended up being better than expected.

"A lot of the momentum in a couple of [vehicle] categories surprised us," Ballew told analysts. "We didn't mean to send mixed signals. I would characterize it as life happens."

Best cars of 2007: Consumer Reports
Part of GM's gain came in its newly designed pickup trucks, which gained while competing offerings from Ford and DaimlerChrysler's Dodge brand lost sales, as Chevrolet's full-size pickup sales gained 31 percent and the GMC Sierra sales were up nearly 23 percent
Overall GM's sales of light trucks, which includes pickups, SUVs and vans, were up 7.9 percent over a year ago.

Not surprisingly, Ballew said GM was pleased to beat even its own sales expectations.

"We feel like in a market that is below trend, we are hitting our mark," he said.

Jesse Toprak, senior analyst with sales tracker Edmunds.com, said GM was also helped by slightly adding to the sales incentives offered buyers during the second half of the month, a period when Ford and Chrysler were trimming their incentives from higher January levels.

"It helped them finish the month on a rally," said Toprak. "Their new pickups have also been very well received "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom