GM Quality Control - Page 6

SpoiledMan · 12-23-05, 08:55

Mike, I just don't know how that person could be anything but fired. Aztec is a whole lot of poor use of cheap plastic. If it's going to be that bad looking it has to be fast as hell!

IMHO, the RR got better (whole lot of 7 series in those from what I understand) and the Bentley are a lot more "fun" to drive now. With the addition of the Continental GT the brand has become a common sighting these days.

CarWeenie · 12-24-05, 10:34

[quote]Guys, calm down a little! GM's problems are a little more complicated than just that they rebadge some models

Well said! GM's current problem is very systemic. Yes, they build "boring" cars with not so great reliability. However, one of the big problems is their pension/health care cost for the present workers and retired workers/family is eating them alive. It is calculated that these costs add an extra $1500 to $2000 for every car that GM sells. Since GM seems to be incapable of moving their cars off the lots without significant consumer incentives, this extra cost is killing them. In contrast, Chryler has the same legecy health care cost. However, they do seem to make "fun" cars. They can sell their cars without deep discount.

I guess we as a republic need to have a healthy debate about national health care system. Currently, some old time big corporations (such as GM) are left on their own devices to provide health care benefit for their retirees while other industrialized countries do have some form of national health care system. Newer players such as Walmart do have very lousy health care benefit (who can afford it when you are trying to shave off the last pennies on your merchandise). Without some kind of national health care system, our manufacturing base is just not playing on the same level playing field. I must say it galls me to say this (since I am a kind of right-wing guy). But we really need to be pragmatic about issues like this. If this means a bit more tax for me - so be it. I don't want to live in a country where I have to surround myself in electried fences/molt trying to protect myself from the fellow have-not citizens. Of couse, I am also not willing to sign a blank check for a national health care system without making sure that there is no excessive drug benefit, fivorous lawsuits, and our fellow citizens getting healthier. As a country, we spent close to 13% of our GDP on health care and we don't even haveuniversal health coverage - this is stupifying!

ebpcivicsi · 12-24-05, 12:05

I don't really care who rebadges what, doesn't matter to me.

Bottom line *for me* is why would I buy a cobalt over a civic? Or a G6 over an accord? There is no reason, period. GM's vehicles depreciate faster, the fit and finish is lacking, long term reliability/durability lacks, etc. I just don't see how the cars can even compete in the same category.

At the very least GM is going to have dig themselves out this hole, then work on their public perception. They *may* be building excellent cars, but when I see one, I think--it looks good now, but it will be a POS in five years. When I see a Honda, I think-- man all that and it is good for 200,000+ miles.

I wish GM would create a car that was at least on par with what other foreign manufacturers are making. I would love to buy American, but right now it's not there. People use to ask me why I don't support America with my car purchases. I tell them I do, I purchase foreign cars in the hope that we as Americans will eventually be forced to make a better car.

lbls1 · 12-24-05, 01:28

Well I sure hope they can get their act together. They have been missing products in the middle market for years. GM has to get it in their heads that they can't only sell light trucks and suvs, or corvettes. Honda and Toyota are killing them, and GM doesn't have enough good ideas to soundly compete with their products. Daimler Chrysler is also adding irritation by beating GM in their own strong area with their new "old school" cars. GM needs a fresh restart, maybe a regime change, or else they may need to consider filing for bankruptcy if all else fails.

GM DOES build reliable cars, however. I can personally attest to that. Their image of quality has taken quite a beating, IMO largely due to their past history of unreliable cars, most notably during the period of the eighties and even up to the very early nineties.

Tasty · 12-24-05, 01:44

[quote=CarWeenie]

Quote:

Guys, calm down a little! GM's problems are a little more complicated than just that they rebadge some models

Well said! GM's current problem is very systemic. Yes, they build "boring" cars with not so great reliability. However, one of the big problems is their pension/health care cost for the present workers and retired workers/family is eating them alive. It is calculated that these costs add an extra $1500 to $2000 for every car that GM sells. Since GM seems to be incapable of moving their cars off the lots without significant consumer incentives, this extra cost is killing them. In contrast, Chryler has the same legecy health care cost. However, they do seem to make "fun" cars. They can sell their cars without deep discount.

I guess we as a republic need to have a healthy debate about national health care system. Currently, some old time big corporations (such as GM) are left on their own devices to provide health care benefit for their retirees while other industrialized countries do have some form of national health care system. Newer players such as Walmart do have very lousy health care benefit (who can afford it when you are trying to shave off the last pennies on your merchandise). Without some kind of national health care system, our manufacturing base is just not playing on the same level playing field. I must say it galls me to say this (since I am a kind of right-wing guy). But we really need to be pragmatic about issues like this. If this means a bit more tax for me - so be it. I don't want to live in a country where I have to surround myself in electried fences/molt trying to protect myself from the fellow have-not citizens. Of couse, I am also not willing to sign a blank check for a national health care system without making sure that there is no excessive drug benefit, fivorous lawsuits, and our fellow citizens getting healthier. As a country, we spent close to 13% of our GDP on health care and we don't even haveuniversal health coverage - this is stupifying!

Wow. A very astute post on a very worthwhile topic. Health care in this country is ridiculous, and it WILL come to a head at some point. We could go all night on this one. Yeah, legacy costs are eating them alive.

nadir · 12-24-05, 04:29

LOL damn that's hilarious

truzoom · 12-24-05, 07:10

I really think the HHR was a bad idea.

Tasty · 12-24-05, 07:23

Yeah, I forgot to chime in on that one. Certainly not gonna help GM to introduce a PT Cruiser clone when the PT itself sucks.

Setec Astronomy · 12-24-05, 08:00

Well, the PT Cruiser has been quite successful (I think), but it hardly needs a redux in the HHR. I don't really get the retro craze, although the Mustang is really well done (and of course, they emulated probably the best looking Mustang, ever). GM lost their stylistic leadership a long time ago, I guess in the mid-80's when Ford, who had traditionally just copied GM, struck out on their own with the Taurus, and GM then became the follower, rather than the leader. As has been mentioned, Chrysler has probably assumed the leading edge role in styling among the domestic brands.

blkZ28Conv · 12-25-05, 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

As has been mentioned, Chrysler has probably assumed the leading edge role in styling among the domestic brands.

That's a very sad state-of-affairs if this is the case (excluding the Viper). IMHO opinion ALL manufacturers have become generic in their styling. Hyandais and Hondas look like Merc, Nissans look like anything they can copy, and Mitsi's front end treatments just are plain ugly.

Intercooled · 12-25-05, 07:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Setec Astronomy

Well, the PT Cruiser has been quite successful (I think), but it hardly needs a redux in the HHR. I don't really get the retro craze, although the Mustang is really well done (and of course, they emulated probably the best looking Mustang, ever). GM lost their stylistic leadership a long time ago, I guess in the mid-80's when Ford, who had traditionally just copied GM, struck out on their own with the Taurus, and GM then became the follower, rather than the leader. As has been mentioned, Chrysler has probably assumed the leading edge role in styling among the domestic brands.

I agree, It seems to be the same ol same ol for GM. I believe they just started upping their warrenty periods which will help them out. Also from what I understand, the Cadillac Escalade is suppose be completely redone with some real nice state of the art components. They have also mentioned making the fit and finish more "European" with some real tight tolerances. Sounds promising and a step in the right direction. The Hummer line also has some nice fit and finish. (not the best, but good). I also know first hand that their parts inventory is being decrreased and some of the older parts are no longer going to be produced. In the past year there have been al least 6-7 key relays and parts from GM for my GN that have become completely depleted and impossible to get. Until afternarket products are made some of us with older GM cars might find it difficult to locate certail items.

Setec Astronomy · 12-25-05, 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkZ28Conv

IMHO opinion ALL manufacturers have become generic in their styling. Hyandais and Hondas look like Merc, Nissans look like anything they can copy, and Mitsi's front end treatments just are plain ugly.

Isn't everybody just out of ideas (or afraid to take risks) in general? Every movie today is a remake of an old one or of a tv show. Everything is a retro something. Is there no originality anymore? Or have we really just done everything already?