GM has to live down its history

Discussion in 'Chevrolet' started by 101101, Nov 15, 2017.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    One serious problem with buying an electric from GM is that it has to live down its history. Just think of the comments from people like Lutz. Think of the 50 years where profit has come before quality.

    When GM went bakrupt for being a petrol shil Obama lopped its head off. GM was whining it could compete because of Unions and because wages and benefits were too high and profit too low. But BMW had 2x the proit and 2x the revenue on 2x the wages and way better than 2x the benefits with much more employee input and a much much more powerful union.

    GM also killed off the electric car in the 90 (I know electrics have been around since the start.) It made some great electrics just so it could scrap them and say they didn't work. As much as I know every electric helps and this was Musk's plan and as crucial as the Volt was, I'd personally prefer GM went out of business or at least through a complete purge because it can't be trusted- its culture is bad and it would revert instantaneously if there were no Tesla. Its a convicted hard core petrol offender.
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    "I'd personally prefer GM went out of business" strange that you'd want the top selling plug-in maker in North America to go out of business. Guess you hate EVs.

    "or at least through a complete purge" a lot of this happened following bankruptcy. GM is a far better run company now than a decade ago. I would not have bought a Chevy pre-2007. Since 2011 I have owned 3 GM EVs and they have all been excellent cars.

    You have a lot of strong opinions that are less about EV growth and more about tribal loyalty. You talk about corporations like they are political parties.

    "One serious problem with buying an electric from GM is that it has to live down its history."
    What EV do you own? A Tesla? Nissan? BMW? Ford? I think if someone purchases an EV, the only thing they should think about is how good the vehicle is and whether it works for them. As long as they're buying a plug-in I support their brand choice. :)
    Domenick likes this.
  4. rgmichel

    rgmichel Active Member

    I bought a Pontiac van in 1993, and vowed never again to buy GM. It was a great van but totally unreliable. Not as though it actually dumped me on the road all the time, but that it constantly needed repairs. I did capitulate a couple of times and bought two of GM's rebadged Toyota Corollas (Prism), but stuck to my guns until the Bolt EV came out. My renewed faith has so far been supported by my excellent experience with the Bolt EV as both a local and long-distance driver. It just IS a great car. Reliability is likely to be better for a number of reasons, one being that reliability of some GM brands has improved since 1993, but also the technology itself is likely to vastly improve the reliability of ANY car because there are fewer moving parts in the drive train, and the rest of it has been proven in cars with the internal combustion engine (ICE). Its taken over 100 years to make the ICE more or less reliable, but it is still a noisy, dirty, quirky beast with many potential unreliability problems. Electric motor technology, and its electronic control has been proven on many transportation platforms over the years, railways, light rail, trams, etc, so I have no worries there. Battery technology was the holy grail and it is finally moving along at breakneck speed. Certainly, after 7000 miles of Bolt EV ownership, I have not yet lost faith in this absolutely beautiful car, and I can't wait for future improvements. I will never buy another ICE car again for sure.
    WadeTyhon and 101101 like this.
  5. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    My worry is its still a company (if the brand survives) that is about the most backward kind of capitalism. It full of economic religion people who think the purpose of the firm is to make money for back seat parasitic owners. Its also a firm believer in the delusional cult of management so that instead of trying to automate management out of the picture it will be trying to reinforce its hierarchical plantation model while continuing to whine about and blame labor.

    If this firm is allowed to survive by the public it will A. If at all possible ultimately slow the introduction of EVs and even if it can't it will be working hard to cheapen them out so they break on schedule while keeping prices stable so as to maximize its useless profit addiction- in a firm like GM profit works against the public interest, it whines about regulation but has to be forced to do things like air bags with constant appeals to its useless profit but it has no problem using perverse tax breaks for sponsorship to spend money to corrupt the media and politics. So in short its a supply side public exploiter that preys on the public and thinks of the public as a product. Its akin to an addicted crazed criminal, if it were a person it would be locked up doing hundreds of life sentences. Its also a typical petrol wefare queen in the extreme.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  6. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    Trust me dude, your way of discussing this issue will only annoy and piss off people who do not already agree with you.

    By exaggerating, misrepresenting and/or lying about the issues you are doing the adoption of EVs by the average person a disservice.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Except there is no lie or misrepresentation and zero exageration. No doubt there are people working hard on EVs at GM but really they should see if Tesla will pick them up or leave and try to start their own firm or work some place that supplies or does research for EVs. Always part of Musk's plan to get 'established' players to come along but most are exactly like I described GM above i.e., asking China to delay EV transition etc.
  9. Whether some of us "like" GM or not, it isn't going anywhere. And to address the the main point of the OP, the GM of 16 years ago isn't the same now. A good number of executives have moved on for one reason or other and is pretty much a completely different team, with a different perspective. So, while some may feel like punishing the company for past behavior, I don't think it really helps or hurts the corporation in any significant way.

    With Mary Barra at the helm, they are now one of the leaders in electric vehicles -- certainly miles ahead of Ford and FCA. The best way to encourage it to continue to expand its EV plans is to buy one. Or, at least, not knock them for the efforts they are making.

    Sure, they continue to sell lots of gas-powered SUVs and pickup trucks, and its efforts to bring some electrification into these lines is more than a little disappointing, but a company has to make money. If they stopped making these things, another company would be happy to collect its market share. Frustrating for those of us who think it should take a leadership position in these segments as well, but change will come to these vehicles as well, as the economics makes more sense for them.
  10. RJ Will

    RJ Will New Member

    I have serious doubts about GM's dedication to EVs. They have two excellent EV models in the Bolt and Volt. I own a Volt. However, when was the last time you saw a TV or even magazine or weekend newspaper ad for either of them? There is no support for these models. Their sales are at the bottom of the charts compared to any other cars in the GM line. The Bolt won "Car of the year award" at the Detroit International auto show. Had it been a truck, you would see ads proclaiming their victory every 10 minutes on TV. Without EV advertising there are no EV sales. There are large backorders for Volts (Ampera) in Europe. GM refuses to fill these orders and is even going to close down the plant. There are also large customer orders in Europe for the Bolt with paid deposits. And what does GM do? It raises the price $5,000, even though people have signed a purchase order for the original price. I think GM only sells enough EVs to raise its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE Standards) so that it can sell more large trucks and SUVs. The recent announcement about introducing more EVs in the future is mostly for China that is mandating EVs to reduce pollution. GM engineers know how to build excellent EVs, but GM marketing and management does not support their fine work. It seems to be a token support for EVs while they go full speed ahead on the largest trucks and SUVs they can produce and advertise them to the max.
    101101 likes this.
  11. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    I fully concur. Look at Lutz fool comments. On the one hand he says out with the MBAs and on the other is utterly irrational about the one company that follows his philosophy like no other.

    Dominick look at GMs behavior toward Tesla in Michigan on the dealer network.
    Their marketing is totally arrogant. They don't get how much pent up hatred there is for them and what they keep defending. There are countless people who think: we cut their money, reverse their politics and retroactively prosecute them for war crimes. They are literally fighting for their lives but they act clueless and arrogant about it. Every stall on climate is held against them like a late payment accruing interest set to go to total forfeiture. Masses of people operate on the formula petrol = terrorism. They don't just walk they get justice and they pay the bill. And GM was a marketing arm for a lot of this so it doesn't get a pass anymore than Bayer or AG Farben after WWII. If they'd have quit in the 1950s they'd be in the clear but instead they put every human life on the planet at risk over power mongering and greed- that has a cost. The bill collector is the global public. Stunts like the Trump admin don't help they just aggravate and accelerate.

    If they want to change this formula humility and honesty are the only way to do it as it opens the way to the magic of foregiveness. But right now their attitude is total non contrition and beligerance, communicating they would go at their wrong doing even harder if they could do it over. These are the same people during the crash saying the average person should take 3 jobs for half the money to make them whole. And now they're back trying to lord it over again.
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Cypress

    Cypress Active Member

    They don’t need to advertise, if they have more demand then they can fill. On the other hand, sales of smaller cars and sedans are slumping, which is why they are *temporarily* idling the Hamtramck plant.
  14. WadeTyhon

    WadeTyhon Well-Known Member

    We get it, you hate GM and you hate petrol. What EV do you drive then?
  15. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Not interested in ad hoc. But noted an article on Motley Fool on how GM will beat Tesla by focusing on profit.

    Isn't this exactly how they went bankrupt last time. How they got themselves destroyed by Toyota? So lets see, they will focus on executive ego with stock buy backs and options and bonus triggers, they will offer unnecessary dividends and fatten the margins on crony private sub contractors. Yep that is the way to compete with Tesla, cheapen and hollow out your product by paying off people who pay themselves first by weakening your product with both profit distraction and the insane arrogance of thinking you can go back to vehicles prone to programmed chronic break down in the face of a competitor offering million mile warranties. How typical- they do not learn. They couldn't even learn at NUMMNI with stuff being spoon fed to them.

    Lets talk about why Tesla could be spending even more tha a billion a day (hardly equal to total petrol subsidies) and it couldn't matter less. You see petrol didn't keep the US on top, at the very least it radically weaked US security painting a target on the US while incurring a huge bill. Lets list some of items in the bill and the damage that still needs to be paid for with interest yesterday:

    Over throw of the Democratic government of Iran over petrol nationalization
    70s oil embargo- US behind that
    Iran Contra
    Iraq 1
    Iraq 2 war of agression
    All the idiot decisions of the W admin
    2007 financial crisis
    Harvey, Maria, Irma, Nate
    Puerto rico
    Flooding of NJ
    Flooding NY
    Global polution 7 ocean plastic islands and polution of air and water
    Loss of global snow pack
    Displacement of hundreds of millions
    Countless global 'terror acts'
    Loss of the safety net
    Pension destruction
    Lack of mid east peace
    Global instability

    on and on possibly including
    Fukashima i.e., 311 Japan seeing that its petrol got cut leading to a nuclear holocaust in WWII sought even as a US client state to introduce the Prius as an electric trojan horse- after all if a redundant dual power train electric could succeed then it would automatically prove the electric vehicle which could spell the end of petro. Response off shore 2nd nuke to send spent rod cloud up, wind could have blown over Tokyo subjecting 100 million people to a nuclear cloud because idiotic petrol was again a choke point that kept people from leaving the city. Divine wind blew the other way a 2nd time. But in the aftermath Japan was reduced to infuriating increased reliance on petrol as nuclear had to be decommissioned at least for a while and Japan was very nuclear heavy having learned about petrol reliance in WWII.
    Tesla may have been born out of this as the pattern may well be that petrol leads to getting nuked.
  16. Cypress

    Cypress Active Member

    So, maybe you should lay off the weed and coke man.
  17. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    Maybe you shouldn't attempt to insult people you don't know.
  18. Cypress

    Cypress Active Member

    Only a small devote fraction do. If a majority or even “masses” did, then we would see a much faster pivot away from FF.
  19. 101101

    101101 Well-Known Member

    The reason the US stands alone in opposition to Paris Accord right? Forgot to add Paris and Kyoto to list above. Same fools that brought us 911 pulled out of Kyoto. Funny global consesus on 911 was USG false flag right after 911. In Germany it was 9 out of 10 Germans holding that view. Same in France. Years later no change. Ask people why and instant answer was to steal Iraq's oil and distract from killing the safetynet and tax injustice. Its only a certain segment of deluded Americans that doesn't get this. Their petrol sponsored media propaganda tells them otherwise. What do you think the average foreign politician thought when they saw the my pet goat footage? What was the Pope thinking when he recently announced that capitalism (petrol) was the cause of terrorism? What was Elon Musk thinking when he said on camera "**** oil"
    Oil is pretty stupid when you think about and contrary to what Christopher Hitchens said during the bubba admin its not important anymore what it is is obsolete and in the way.

    Notice took on rail, the sacred F150 and Semis all at once in the last presentation? This is not an offer to peacefully co-exist for decades its insurrection to totally completely absolutely supplant as fast as humanly possible. And this is why Gen Kelly seeing that oil well owners are exactly like plantation south slavers who saw other humans as Cadilacs now wants to talk Jefferson Davis style revision with a compromise on a right to exploit because he sees that people are going to pull the plug on oil wells (bans) the way they did slavery.
    So much for your minority viewpoint.

    US is in the position of a pimp/pusher that has to hold a gun to the head of customers to try to force them to buy because they found a much better close to free and legal supply. Its game over.

Share This Page