Why GM will STILL fail, part deux

Cotton wrote: "Boring cars with a flaccid chassis"? That's pretty funny considering their current performance offerings.

Either I can't write so good, or others can't read so good (could be me, I admit). I know their current offerings are leaps and bounds better than say, 10 or even 5 years ago. That's why Bob leaving is such a big deal. He had what it took to push cars through that folks (that don't work for GM) actually wanted to buy. The G8 was great, another victim of GM though since only cops can get it now. Now that there isn't a car guy at the helm I'm hoping that they won't stop making cars like the Solstice, G8 and C6 (again, they only sell one of the three models mentioned). I'd like to see both GM and Chrysler rise up and blow peoples minds, they can and I hope they will.

Dr. Hess wrote: So Bob comes in to a failing company to turn it around and 9 years later leaves after the bankruptcy and takeover by the Federal Government. Man, I think he needs a really good severance package for that. Hey, maybe he and that guy that almost destroyed Home Depot (and it being worth One Quarter Billion Dollars for Home Depot to fire him) before finally destroying Chrysler can get together and make a new car company.

methinks you don't really know what caused GM to have to declare bankruptcy, or who was responsible. It certainly wasn't the product that Bob helped push through. GM was on a product turnaround that, thanks to the general public not wanting to take a chance on that prodcut early on, meant that while things were improving, when the financial sh!t hit the fan for EVERYONE, they weren't strong enough yet to weather it. But whatever you say about the top brass (and beancounters) at GM, Bob's push for better product (the reason he was hired) is not part of the reason for them nearly going under.

In reply to John Brown:

Thanks John!

I don't mind the occasional swipe here or there at a company/person/car, especially when it is in the context of a discussion (and doubly so if it's deserving). It's that it seems to me that there has been a lot of active bashing of one sort or another, where the bashing itself has been the topic du jour, and not merely some sideshow.

If someone was asking about what minivan they should buy, there's nothing wrong with heckling the Montana SV6 for being a "sports van", or for having three Siamese siblings. The same way I rib my neighbor after he bought a new Eclipse (ducks rotten tomatoes from Eclipse owners).

I think I speak for more than myself when I say that the "This company sux teh ballz" threads are bit tiresome. And yes, I just made the title of this thread 20x more childish.

I wuz just givin' Bob a hard time there. I like C6's, GRM said the Solstice will hang with a Miata, which is good enough for me, and those GTO's look great on the freeway when you pass them at 120 in a turn.

GM went bankrupt because: 1. They made cars no one wanted to buy. 2. They financed these cars to people without money to pay for them. 3. They financed houses for these people who couldn't pay for them. 5. They let the unions butt berkeley them with those pay to do nothing pools and it takes 6 people to put lug nuts on rules. 6. They refused to follow Hess' advice and post a large sign over every door in their organization that said "Good Enough Isn't!!! Stop Making Crap!!!" (look at the interiors.)

GM went bankrupt because: 1. They made cars no one wanted to buy.

Let's just get that one out of the way right now. They made cars that a lot of people wanted to buy, and sold more than just about anybody, and continue to do so.

I'll give you the rest.

zomby woof wrote:

GM went bankrupt because: 1. They made cars no one wanted to buy.

Let's just get that one out of the way right now. They made cars that a lot of people wanted to buy, and sold more than just about anybody, and continue to do so. I'll give you the rest.

I agree, GMs sales didn't drop until they started asking for money From the gubmint. It seems to me that GM (as well as FoMoCo and ChryCo) is sad that they are not able to make SUV profits off every vehicle because they were such cash cows. The idea of selling more units is not foreign to them but they seem to prefer 4 million units at $23K profit versus 4 million units at $2300 profit.

John Brown wrote: The idea of selling more units is not foreign to them but they seem to prefer 4 million units at $23K profit versus 4 million units at $2300 profit.

Who wouldn't?

Cotton wrote:

John Brown wrote: The idea of selling more units is not foreign to them but they seem to prefer 4 million units at $23K profit versus 4 million units at $2300 profit.

Who wouldn't?

Any company with 1/2 a collective brain that realizes the units with the 23K profit will fall from favor when the fuel that is needed to run them gets expensive. Why they didn't know/think/daydream/immagine/suppose or prognosticate that fuel will get expensive since we don't/can't control the price is beyond me I don't know, maybe a little diversity would have been good?
then again what do I know, I'm not important enough to have the president of the United States fire me???

Sitting in a house a mere 4 blocks from the one of the closed factories that made those bloated SUV's........

The joke used to be that the only people that could afford to buy the Tahoe's made here were the people that built them.

I would have LOVED to be able to get a Tahoe and support the local economy but damn, the 52k sticker was a little rich for my blood. 2 of them would be more expensive than my house.

[p71 baiting mode off]GM has some significant issues lately. They can't keep leadership in their Volt program and they can't keep other leadership around. They are also completely off the recruiting radar of any proper engineering school. For the past 5 years nearly everyone who moved to SC to work for Cummins was a detroit refuge, mostly GM.

The company looks like it's heading into a talent gap situation. I see two outcomes:

1. Constant turnover at the top and throughout their senior level engineering management will mire the company down enough to slow down innovation development

2. They berkeleying scrap the lot of their current folks, throw the company into complete turnoil and uphevel, and then plot and course forward based upon competing in a global marketplace. Simplify as well.

I think we, as American's, only see one side of GM's business. The damn company needs to look at the places in the world where it is doing good things and share those best practices with other areas of the world. The company is tooooooo complicated. Strip yourself down, get rid of crap models and brands, and then build yourself up again. They have done some, but not a great deal.

I think adopting neutron Jack's mentality is the way to go here.. "Either be #1 or #2 in a segment or get out."

True Story:
This week when I heard Lutz was retiring I sent him an email thanking him for setting GM Product engineering on the right course, letting him know my wife loves her Malibu, wishing him well in his retirement, and inquiring whether he'd be writing another book.

I got a responce back from him five minutes later!

"Thanks, Bruce! A book is definitely in the cards! It'll take a while, but I can't dawdle, either, or people will have forgotten! "

This is the second time I've sent him an email in the last ten years and just like before he responded immediately. Maximum Bob at his finest