General Motors

[Crafty_]

Willy Nilly said:

There are what car? threads on here about 3 times per week and nobody ever says buy a Vauxhall, so why is this is what I'm getting at?

Is it marketing, is it the products? I bought my Jazz this time last year, because I wanted a small, practical reliable car and never gave a Corsa a second thought, what have I missed out on? What are all the people that bought Golfs missing that an Astra offers?

On any company car thread, everyone wants a German car because they are a bit aspirational, once in a while people will say a Mondeo is acutally a better car than a 3 Series, but nobody ever says they should get an Insignia in that sector.

It's not Vauxhall/GM bashing on my part, I'm just interested where they fit in, because it seems to me they are in no mans land in a land where we are spoiled for choice.

The main reason for not suggesting a Vauxhall is because there is still a contingent on here that will start the Vauxhall bashing.

I seem to recall several people more recently praising the Insignia, especially for styling ? can't be arsed to search for the threads though.

There is no more reason to dismiss Vauxhalls than any other brand.

[cptsideways]

[quote=H100S]

made in Britain.
[/quote

You might to check that

[anonymous-user]

While this thread does look like trolling there is actually an element of truth to this. Internationally GM have produced a huge variety of models under different brand names but how many of those are actually memorable or interesting to an enthusiast? I'm not saying their cars are all crap or anything of the sort but they do seem to have produced an awful lot of duds and dross over the last 4 decades. I'd actually say that Opel/Vauxhall must be one of the better GM divisions for producing decent and occasionally interesting cars though!

Anyway, we always have Chrysler to show that GM aren't even then best at being st.

[Crafty_]

dme123 said:

While this thread does look like trolling there is actually an element of truth to this. Internationally GM have produced a huge variety of models under different brand names but how many of those are actually memorable or interesting to an enthusiast? I'm not saying their cars are all crap or anything of the sort but they do seem to have produced an awful lot of duds and dross over the last 4 decades. I'd actually say that Opel/Vauxhall must be one of the better GM divisions for producing decent and occasionally interesting cars though!

Anyway, we always have Chrysler to show that GM aren't even then best at being st.

Corvettes tend to have a bit of a following, as do the Monaro/VXR8s here and in Oz too.

Plenty of guys in the states like their camaros/firebirds etc, from the 60s right up to the current day models.

You could level the exact same comments at other car markers, what have Toyota done in the last 40 years ? Ford (other than the RS models that get a following, purely because it says RS on it), Mazda ? Alfa ? Fiat ?
We could go in circles all day.

[SidewaysSi]

The GM brand is huge, spanning models from Corsas to Corvettes, the latest ZO6 is apparently on a par with a 991 GT3. Saying they are in no man's land is a little odd. Maybe Vauxhall suffers a little from a lack of direction, however I do think it has one of the finest looking "normal" car ranges.

If you want marques that are completely lost then Peugeot and to a lesser extent Renault are them.

[anonymous-user]

Crafty_ said:

dme123 said:

While this thread does look like trolling there is actually an element of truth to this. Internationally GM have produced a huge variety of models under different brand names but how many of those are actually memorable or interesting to an enthusiast? I'm not saying their cars are all crap or anything of the sort but they do seem to have produced an awful lot of duds and dross over the last 4 decades. I'd actually say that Opel/Vauxhall must be one of the better GM divisions for producing decent and occasionally interesting cars though!

Anyway, we always have Chrysler to show that GM aren't even then best at being st.

Corvettes tend to have a bit of a following, as do the Monaro/VXR8s here and in Oz too.

Plenty of guys in the states like their camaros/firebirds etc, from the 60s right up to the current day models.

You could level the exact same comments at other car markers, what have Toyota done in the last 40 years ? Ford (other than the RS models that get a following, purely because it says RS on it), Mazda ? Alfa ? Fiat ?
We could go in circles all day.

While Toyota may not have done that much exciting they also haven't done that much terribly wrong either. Some of the st GM have turned out is astonishing - every single Cadillac for 25+ years was a joke and even now nobody outside the US would touch them with a barge pole. All of their mainstream offerings in the US from 1970 until very nearly the current day was a half arsed effort at best. Hubris and arrogance shines through in practically everything GM does domestically and why not, the last 10 years have shown that they don't have to bother actually being any good because the state will sort them out if the chickens ever come home to roost. They have practically no incentive to be any better than the bare minimum they can get away with, and I personally think it shows.

You'll find the same is true for the French manufacturers. They have a certain guaranteed domestic market and all the state support they will ever need should things get ugly, hence they don't really try very hard either. BL tried the same trick until the UK government had a change of ideology and basically pulled the flush on the lot of it.

Aren't GM doing away with all domestically designed/produced Holden models? The following for the imported Holdens here is probably a market so small even Lotus wouldn't get out of bed for it.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 18:48

[Crafty_]

Shock horror, US car makers making cars for the US market, if anyone else takes an interest all well and good, but frankly they didn't care about international markets. Want proof ? 50 years ago Ford launched the Mustang, its taken until now for it to be officially available here - 50 years!!

You could level the exact same criticism at Ford, Dodge, Chrysler in the US. Its probably one of the reasons that the Japanese stuff is very popular over there - but even then, many of those products were Japanese made, designed for the US market - Toyota Camry or Tundra for example (there are many more).

Only recently have cars started to be shared between the US and Europe en masse. Offhand I'm guessing that BMW & Merc have been doing this longest of all ?

You still haven't come up with a statement that is particularly applicable to GM that you can't level at other manufacturers.

[H100S]

cptsideways]100S said:

made in Britain.
[/quote

You might to check that

Ok more specifically Ellesmere Port. Home of the Astra.

[RobinBanks]

But there is nothing especially wrong with any current GM cars I can think of. In fact, they're mostly pretty good.

And historically I think that the three cars in this video are ok:
http://www.streetfire.net/video/top-gear-america-0...

[anonymous-user]

Crafty_ said:

You still haven't come up with a statement that is particularly applicable to GM that you can't level at other manufacturers.

Ok how about this one: No company ever went bust by making good cars that the market wanted, and GM went bust in a big way.

ETA - The chap above is right, they do seem to have finally learned that you need to actually make decent products to stay alive and their current cars seem to be good enough to sell to people other than those who buy GM out of habit.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 18:59

[xRIEx]

dme123 said:

Crafty_ said:

You still haven't come up with a statement that is particularly applicable to GM that you can't level at other manufacturers.

Ok how about this one: No company ever went bust by making good cars that the market wanted, and GM went bust in a big way.

Of course, Ford and Chrysler were absolutely fine, business as usual.

It was rather more "market" than "good car/bad car".

[Crafty_]

dme123 said:

Crafty_ said:

You still haven't come up with a statement that is particularly applicable to GM that you can't level at other manufacturers.

Ok how about this one: No company ever went bust by making good cars that the market wanted, and GM went bust in a big way.

ETA - The chap above is right, they do seem to have finally learned that you need to actually make decent products to stay alive and their current cars seem to be good enough to sell to people other than those who buy GM out of habit.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 18:59

And Ford were perfectly okay of course ?

Like I said you still haven't come up with a statement about GM that doesn't apply to other manufacturers.

[xRIEx]

dme123 said:

While Toyota may not have done that much exciting

MR2, Supra, Celica, GT86, LFA. Not too shabby a list.

[anonymous-user]

xRIEx said:

Of course, Ford and Chrysler were absolutely fine, business as usual.

It was rather more "market" than "good car/bad car".

Using Chrysler just sort of reinforces my point about market forces speaking volumes about the product. Chrysler made really, seriously, unarguably st cars and went bust too. They were half dead before the crisis even began. Ford were making much better cars and managed to pull through without a government bail out, although they had to make some sadly very short term decisions about divesting themselves of certain divisions. There is a pattern forming. All car companies were affected by the same market forces at the same time and only GM and Chrysler actually went pop, and it was in no small part because they were already in a weak position from decades of being uncompetitive.

Just look at the comparison between Daewoo/Chevrolet trying to sell against Kia/Hyundai in that segment of the UK market when it really took off over the last 10 years. Hyundai and Kia had good products to offer at that price point while GM tried to shovel absolute st. GM have now had to pull out of that segment and accept they cannot compete. They only seem to be able to manage in long established markets where huge numbers of people buy their products through habit and inertia and it takes decades for them to finally twig. They just accidentally make the odd good car in the process.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 19:42

[xRIEx]

dme123 said:

xRIEx said:

Of course, Ford and Chrysler were absolutely fine, business as usual.

It was rather more "market" than "good car/bad car".

Chrysler made really, seriously st cars and went bust too. Ford were making much better cars and managed to pull through without a government bail out, although they had to make some sadly very short term decisions about divesting themselves of certain divisions. There is a pattern forming. All car companies were affected by the same market forces at the same time and only GM and Chrysler actually went pop, and it was in no small part because they were already in a weak position from decades of being uncompetitive.

Just look at the comparison between Daewoo/Chevrolet trying to sell against Kia/Hyundai in that segment of the UK market when it really took off over the last 10 years. Hyundai and Kia had good products to offer at that price point while GM tried to shovel absolute st. GM have now had to pull out of that segment and accept they cannot compete. They only seem to be able to manage in long established markets where huge numbers of people buy their products through habit and inertia and it takes decades for them to finally twig. They just accidentally make the odd good car in the process.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 19:40

As Crafty has said at least twice now, you haven't said anything that doesn't apply to other manufacturers.

[Crafty_]

If Ford were doing okay how come they needed a bail out?

If you said that as a whole the US manufacturers got complacent and rested on their laurels I'd agree, but to try and make out that one was any better/worse than the other is weak at best.

As far as the Daewoo/Chevrolet thing goes from what I can see it was a very low budget approach to re-using existing platforms to increase market penetration - it didn't work. I'm pretty sure you'll find that Hyundai were working with a vastly bigger budget.

If you don't like GM stuff, thats fine but frankly you're talking a load of bks.

[anonymous-user]

xRIEx said:

As Crafty has said at least twice now, you haven't said anything that doesn't apply to other manufacturers.

I didn't realise the topic was "Only General Motors make st cars". Yes they apply to other manufacturers that make uncompetitive cars, and they continue to survive because of mechanisms like nationalisation (GM) and protectionism (Proton).

Seriously, you cannot be telling me that you think GM going bust happened despite the brilliant cars they had been turning out that were just exactly what people wanted to buy?? Many people decided that the cars were not competitive and bought something else in droves. Mostly Japanese cars.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 19:50

[Codswallop]

dme123 said:

All car companies were affected by the same market forces at the same time and only GM and Chrysler actually went pop, and it was in no small part because they were already in a weak position from decades of being uncompetitive.

You're conveniently forgetting that some of the biggest problems for those companies was a hugely expensive legacy pension scheme, and dealer contracts that were nigh on impossible to get out of. When car buying habits changed, the car makers were not able to respond for various reasons and this took it's toll.

[xRIEx]

dme123 said:

xRIEx said:

As Crafty has said at least twice now, you haven't said anything that doesn't apply to other manufacturers.

I didn't realise the topic was "Only General Motors make st cars". Yes they apply to other manufacturers that make uncompetitive (as in st) cars, and they continue to survive because of mechanisms like nationalisation (GM) and protectionism (Proton).

Seriously, you cannot be telling me that you think GM going bust happened despite the brilliant cars they had been turning out that were just exactly what people wanted to buy??

I'm not saying one way or the other because I don't know - I haven't driven all the models they produce(d) to form an opinion. I am saying that it likely wasn't the only factor (if it was indeed one). Rocketing fuel prices were blamed, as was this little thing they called the Credit Crunch.

[anonymous-user]

Codswallop said:

dme123 said:

All car companies were affected by the same market forces at the same time and only GM and Chrysler actually went pop, and it was in no small part because they were already in a weak position from decades of being uncompetitive.

You're conveniently forgetting that some of the biggest problems for those companies was a hugely expensive legacy pension scheme, and dealer contracts that were nigh on impossible to get out of. When car buying habits changed, the car makers were not able to respond for various reasons and this took it's toll.

It's all part of a bigger picture though, as you say they had the burden of these legacy costs but couldn't charge any more for the cars due to competition and so to maintain any sort of margin at all they had to squeeze harder to design and make the cars for less than their competitors operating without this cost base. This was reflected in the quality of the product, making it less competitive and starting a cycle. If anything the increasing quality and competitiveness of the cars they are selling now illustrates this point nicely, as the Chapter 11 process allowed them to shed a lot of these old commitments and come out of the other side a much leaner and more competitive business. This doesn't change the fact that for decades before this their uncompetitive business was reflected in uncompetitive cars.

Edited by dme123 on Sunday 1st February 20:00