EXACTLY! CEO drives an Accord and Camry into the product planning department and says, "beat this!"

A couple of years later, they deliver the Malibu.

That is the very definition of a broken car company. Is it the designers who can't design? The engineers who kick back the good design and say they can't build it? The parts suppliers who say, "we have no nice vinyl, how about this batch from 1987?" or the union floor workers who say, "Meh, close enough, give me that hammer"?

IROC, a lot of "program cars" (cars with known defects) end up in rental fleets. Unfortunately, it has the effect on potential buyers you just expressed.

Jon, one thing that I feel keeps American cars boring is that the UAW has significant input into the design process. They want all cars to be easy to assemble. Sometimes, "easy to assemble" directly contradicts "stylish", "innovative", and "ergonomic".

Re: GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, writes WSJ Editorial
 

--essentially, we've sold fewer high-profit SUVs and more lower-profit cars
You weren't b!tching a couple years ago when you were pulling it in hand-over-fist selling pimped-out bodies on low-budget truck chassis, were you? You put all your eggs in one basket, which turns out to have a hole in it labelled 'gas prices'. The market is fickle. If you haven't yet figured that out, maybe you should have gone to truck driving school instead of MBA school.

In this year's Harbour Report, which measures manufacturing productivity, GM plants took three of the top five spots in North America, including first and second place.
That, and $3.50, will get you a latte, but it won't sell more cars.

In the latest J.D. Power Initial Quality Study, GM's Buick and Cadillac ranked among the top five vehicle brands sold in America,
I haven't been able to figure out what this "JD Power and Associates" thing is. What is "Initial Quality?" Sounds like a MotorMeister engine build - if you're able to start it after the rebuild, it's a good rebuild. Since I only seem to ever hear the term on GM commercials, it sounds like a shill.

And GM offers more models that get over 30 miles per gallon (highway) than any other automaker.
I'll bet this is part of the problem...

The fact is, we're building the best cars and trucks we've ever built at GM,
That's great, but it's apparent that people don't want to buy them.

In fact, for the first time in our history, we will sell more cars and trucks this year outside the United States than inside
...but does that really mean anything, when domestic sales are in decline?

Our ability to compete has made us the world's No. 1 automaker for 74 consecutive years, and we're fighting hard to stay on top.
At this point you're fighting to stay alive.

While we've led in technologies like OnStar
GPS + cell phone + minimum wage call center lacky soon to be outsourced to Bangalore. Be still my heart.

We will step up our performance in this regard.
We'll believe it when they find the bodies of your design team floating face-down in the Detroit river.

Manufacturing (...) creates about 15 million American jobs.
In a country of almost 300 million...

One is the spiraling cost of health care in the United States.
And in this respect, we're hosed. The health care industry is like the oil industry: they've got us where they want us. There's no real competition, and any effort to break the monopoly is met with brutal resistance. Just ask Hillary.

Last year, GM spent $5.2 billion on health care for its U.S. employees (...) Foreign automakers have just a fraction of these costs, because they have few, if any, U.S. retirees, and in their home countries their governments fund a much greater portion of employee and retiree health-care costs.
According to the Mul-and-Fint crowd, goverment paying for health care = socialism, and socialism is evil. So evil socialist governments have allowed their companies to kick GM's ass.

Some argue that we have no one but ourselves to blame for our disproportionately high health-care "legacy costs." (...) Today, we are maligned for our poor judgment in "giving away" such benefits 40 years ago.
I don't think they (or anyone) could have forseen the dramatic rise in health care costs. At the same time, I don't recall reading anything that blamed GM for this; everyone seems to want to blame the unions.

Another factor beyond our control is lawsuit abuse.
Yup. While there are legitimate cases, I'll bet a lot of the cases are people wanting $200k for slipping in a puddle at WalMart. The tort system has become a lottery.

Another major concern is unfair trading practices, especially Japan's long-term initiatives to artificially weaken the yen. A leading Japanese automaker reports that for each movement of one yen against the dollar, it gains 20 billion yen in additional profitability -- or nearly $170 million at today's exchange rate.
I hadn't heard this, either.

There are other issues, of course,
Like making cars that look like freeze-dried ass? Ergonmics on par with Legos? Producing ***** for the past 30 years, and suddenly expecting people to suddenly forget?

Some say we're looking for a bailout.
You are. You want the unions neutered/eliminated and and airline-style reprieve from your long-term financial obligations, which you'll convert into healthy executive bonuses just like they did.

While I'll agree there are external "challenges" that are beyond GM's control, it seems like they still don't want to acknowledge their own screwups and short-sightedness. This editorial feels more like it was written by the marketing department.

Whaaaa? So the crap GM is designing is the UAW's fault now, too?

Take one of their surveys some time. It's the most biased, poorly designed sack-of-**** market research you'll ever see. They surveys are heavily biased to favor low expectations. You can't ask a Hyundai buyer and a Mercedes buyer to rate their respective cars, then use the results to compare Hyundais and Mercedes. Yet that's exactly what they do.

Put the owner of a BMW in a Buick and see how well the Buick ranks. :D

It's a contributing factor, not the sole cause. GM's bureaucracy is much more to blame.

Let me ask this:

Do you think GM will recover?

I do.

One thing Americans hate more than anything else is to lose. GM will restructure, make some great cars, and kick butt for 20-30 years when it finally gets its act together.

But a car with 7 miles on it? It was brand new!!

Mike

Like making cars that look like freeze-dried ass? Ergonmics on par with Legos? Producing ***** for the past 30 years, and suddenly expecting people to suddenly forget?

Now that's funny!:)

Legion, I have no doubt that you got your Gran Prix heavily discounted, but did you wonder why? Most of the imports don't have to discount their cars, because they sell without them. Better cars = no discounts = higher profits. My wife had a '99 Monte Carlo when we met. She had very few problems with it, but it got crappy gas mileage, had a thrashy engine (3400 who's lineage dates back to wooden wheels), many large exposed seams in the interior, tacky fake wood, carpet made of mouse hair and seats designed by someone into S&M. It torque steered like crazy, and had the numbest steering this side of a forklift. Oh yeah, and it was worth basically nothing when we got rid of it, even though it only had 60k or so on it.

There's more to making good cars than just making one that won't break down.

Unless they're able to turn this into a xenophobic "'us versus them" battle, I don't see how that's going to help.

Maybe GM will start running hit pieces like "Toyota - #1 car of choice of suicide bombers worldwide!" or "Do you like molesting young boys? Then you'll love the new Prius!"

Wow...you have no sense of competition.

Outside of the commune, people have to compete for resources...invisible hand...nevermind.

My 944 did the same exact same thing when I screwed up the plug wire order on the distributor. Sometimes it isn't the car...

So you're saying he took this rental car - with 7 miles - and re-arranged the plug wires?

So, you're saying that the lot lizards at National Rental car sabotaged this brand new Pontiac G6 just to piss me off? Just kidding.

My point was that GM touts their cars as "just as good or better" than the competition and then I get into a *brand-new* car and it barely functions. That does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes me think that GM is merely spewing the same rhetoric they have spewing for years and nothing has actually changed.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's irrelevant. My *perception* is that GM is still building crap. They can't keep doing this and expect my perception of them to change. That is GM's problem.

Mike

I'm plenty competitive; you have no sense of scope or motivation.

Outside of the Party, people only compete for things that are important to them. GM's fortunes are not important to me, therefore I feel need to 'compete' on their behalf. You apparently feel the need to go to bat for them, but you're swinging for the fence with what appears to be a wet sock of an argument.

If GM wants people to 'compete' on their behalf, there has to be some motivation for them to do so. Just like Ihr Führer has whipped the Red States into an anti-muslim frenzy, GM must do something similar to win back customers. It's obvious that their fisher price styling and legendary reliability isn't doing the trick, and whining in the financial rags isn't going to get them far, either. There's already a good start in the anti-union movement, but that in and of itself isn't enough to make people buy GM cars; they'll just hate unions while driving their Toyotas.

The Cayenne put Porsche at the bottom of the list (third from worst) in initial quality. There's a double-standard. We expect crap from GM, and when they deliver in instances, we are gratified. If we get crap from Porsche, we might dismiss it as "just a few bad days on the assembly line." Maybe water floweth from the water fountains on these days instead of the normal stout bier??? :)

Yeah, just like the Prius ads where they're "outrunning the photographers in an expensive American convertible." Putting ads for their cars in fake "Smart Consumer" inserts in car mags. How stupid do they think readers are? Do Toyota afficionados like being taken for sheep?

Let's be serious: the Corvette convertible, in terms of strict performance, indisputably $hits all over the Prius. And if they meant the Viper, same for that. Don't bother bringing up long-term reliability-I'm sure the Prius will need an expensive battery pack replacement, bringing up cost of ownership.

I'm saying stuff happens that isn't an inherent flaw with the car.

Very good point, but Porsche hasn't spent the last few decades screwing people with bad quality, so people tend to cut them slack whether it is warranted or not. Conversely, just because GM may crank out a great model here and there, people are reluctant to cut them that same slack because of the poor past performance.

It's not fair, really, but it's reality. Burn people too many times and they will not come back - no matter how good you tell them your product is. GM needs to wait until everyone who owned a GM product in the '70s and '80s dies.

Mike

I hate the Prius, even though we own a 4Runner. But you can't possibly be serious, comparing a Corvette or Viper to a PRIUS!? They have better performance, ya think?! The least you guys can do is compare similar cars, compared to a G6 the Prius is more expensive, slower, better fit and finish, and gets better gas mileage. Of course Prius is for the greenies who think that they're saving the world by paying too much for one, so I'm not sure if that's a legit comparison either.