Will General Motors declare bankruptcy?

[Young_Warrior]

We shall see with skoda.

 

[///M-Spec]

They cut corners to their standards but didnt leave the customer feeling unsatisified in the fact that it didnt fall to pieces and the interior was of a high quality.

Nonsense. 986/996 interiors, particularly the early ones, were cheap looking from top to bottom. As for falling to peices, do a google search for REAR MAIN SEAL, LEAK and 986, then get back to me.

My good friend owns a '99 and will tell you himself that the interior is the LAST thing he bought it for. He'll also tell you that the top mechanism broke on the DAY HE BOUGHT IT. The car only had 29,000 miles on it.

You sound like someone with little to no personal experience with the Boxster. Or any Porsche for that matter.

And it was porsche who actually said they couldnt do everyhting they wanted with the car and had to rush it out or face bankruptcy therefore cutting corners compared to their perfectionist selfs.

Which supports your argument that Porsche isn't interested in making as much money as possible how, exactly?

But if they never told us no one would have guessed.

If by no one you mean people who read about them in magazines instead of people who have driven and owned them, then you might be right.

Porsche makes some pretty good cars. They don't exactly walk on water. And they DEFINATELY want to make as much money as possible. Anyone whose ever looked their the Tequipment catalog will see that.


M

 

[Duke]

You sound like someone with little to no personal experience with the Boxster. Or any Porsche for that matter.

Anybody else sensing a pattern, here?
💡

 

[Young_Warrior]

Hold up where did I say they never looked to make alot of money. Why wouldnt abnyone be in buisness other than to make money. They didnt start off that way but once they found that they were in a position to make alot of money they took it. My whole point is that porsche made their cars desirable by starting off as a company who made fine tuned machinery which looked good and felt good. GM just slapped cars together didnt do anything much innovative and just copied other peoples designs using cheap quality parts.

As for the leak I mentioned that a couple of posts ago. The propper term for the leaking is called RMS.

As with most early cars they had faults. Any boxster today runs like clock work like the 911 part from the RMS issues.

 

[TwinTurboJay]

M, are you gonna buy a porsche ?

 

[Omnis]

Anybody else sensing a pattern, here?
💡

Someone get him a twix, quick.

 

[Duke]

As for the leak I mentioned that a couple of posts ago. The propper term for the leaking is called RMS.

Quick - tell me what "RMS" stands for.

Nobody else help him.

 

[Young_Warrior]

LOL nobody else help me.Im pretty certain that im one of the very few if not only that has ever mentioned RMS.

RMS stands for rear main seal. Its cfaused by a design flaw in which the engine starts leaking oil.

 

[Zardoz]

GM has a long, long way to go before their perception in the US market improves (and even longer until they are looked well upon in world markets).

GM continued to have good sales figures right up until the second oil crisis in '83, even though they had been selling, basically, crap (and this is being kind) for the past 10 years. Even in the 80's, uninspired '70s technology still sold pretty well and GM kept market share.

So if it took 10 (or more years) for GM to loose it's reputation, it'll take them at least that long to win it back. Although all of the new GM vehicles are leaps and bounds better than their predecessors, how long will it take the consumer to realize this?

You're exactly right. You've summed up GM's marketing problem in three short sentences.

During the 80s, my wife and I both worked for companies that furnished us with GM company cars. We would get new ones every two years, so between the two of us, we had a lot of cars. I won't go into a long litany of everything that went wrong with those wretched pieces of crap, but I'll mention two of them: I had an '84 Buick Skylark that had to be towed in three times in its 56,000-mile lifespan, and my wife had an '87 Pontiac 6000 that was such a disaster her company had her park the damned thing in a corner of their warehouse until the lease ran out, and got her another car.

Of course everything is different now, and GM's overall quality is quite good. But as you said, bad reputations are very hard to get rid of.

 

[///M-Spec]

Hold up where did I say they never looked to make alot of money.

Perhaps here?

Beacuse theyre busy trying to make as much money as possible their infact failing. Just look at porsche they did the opposite and theyre the most profitable car company in the world going by the number of cars sold.

Moving on...

As for the leak I mentioned that a couple of posts ago. The propper term for the leaking is called RMS.

The "propper" term? What do you think RMS stands for? Could it possibly be Rear Main Seal? 💡 Since when does abbreviating something become more proper than spelling it out?

EDIT: Ah.. Duke, as usual, is quicker on the draw than I am.

LOL nobody else help me.Im pretty certain that im one of the very few if not only that has ever mentioned RMS.

Whaa...? Are you seriously trying to take credit for something a trained monkey can accomplish in about 10 seconds?

As with most early cars they had faults. Any boxster today runs like clock work like the 911 part from the RMS issues.

Which is like saying a person is in top health apart from a heart condition that will either cause him severe pain for the rest of his life or simply kill him at any moment.

Do your research. 986s have other problems in addition to leaky seals. They are not terribly unreliable cars, but they are not utterly bulletproof.

M, are you gonna buy a porsche ?

About this time next year, I will be leasing a company car for a daily driver and buying a dedicated weekend/autocross/track car. The 330i will be traded-in/sold. That's the current plan anyway. It may not happen that way.

A late 986-S is a consideration. So is a late 993. And (back on topic) a Z06. But a C5, not a C6. I might even buy my friend's car because he's been wanting a new Cayman.


M

 

[Young_Warrior]

Get the 993.

You have assumed that I said porsche wernt in it for the profits. I didnt actually outrightly say it and it was open to interpretation.

 

[///M-Spec]

Get the 993.

Your recommendation is noted and will be taken at proper value.

You have assumed that I said porsche wernt in it for the profits. I didnt actually outrightly say it and it was open to interpretation.

Uh-huh.

Beacuse theyre busy trying to make as much money as possible their infact failing. Just look at porsche they did the opposite.

Then doing the opposite of trying to make as money as possible is what?

Can we get a second opinion here?


M

 

[Young_Warrior]

Ok they didnt actively do the opposite but were doing the opposite. Its the same with say ferrari if they were to introduce a couple of cheaper models Im sure they could overtake porsche as the most profitable car company. But then they would have to make something starting at 60 grand.

 

[neanderthal]

Your recommendation is noted and will be taken at proper value.


M

underlined portion tells us all we need to know.
i guess its up to someone with a little more credence than YW to make a recommendation.

get the 993.

 

[Young_Warrior]

Id better recommend the ZO6 then.

 

[Kent]

I'm suggesting that you all let M-spec decide on his own and when he asks for your opinions, then you give them.
Otherwise, keep it to yourselves.

Regarding Porsche trying to make money and his intentions at the begining...

Who are you all kidding?

He started his company for a multitude of reasons, but I imagine it was mainly so he could take the full profit his designs earned instead of letting the people at VW get all the benefits of his work.
(btw, atleast I've got the balls to use the word "Imagine" rather than acting like I know something about what was going on inside that man's head!)

Now regarding GM...
I think it would be best to avoid comparisons with any companies like Porsche when talking about buisness strategies.

Comparing Porsche and their troubles to GM and their troubles is like comparing Tag Heuer and Casio.
Sure they both make watches but one is a hell of a lot more specialized than the other.

Porsche is a company that makes sports cars first and fills the product line with money makers if they need to (don't ask me what they were thinking with that SUV, and don't try to tell me either ... Unless you actually work for Porsche).

GM is a totally different story.
With such a diverse and enormous product line it would be nearly impossible for anyone here to honestly address their problems without being a CPA with a MBA (not to mention the need for going over all of their books for atleast the last 5 or so years).

Of course, educated guesses like M-spec's reply in post #3 are a good start. 👍

But still...
It's just silly to see the Porsche comparison.

The idea that Porsche isn't in this to make money!

I suppose that new SUV of their's is going to be a real contender next year at the 24hours race huh?

 

[Young_Warrior]

Lamborghini made a SUV just like porsche did

And toyota is a bit like GM but japanese and succesful.

 

[Kent]

Lamborghini made a SUV just like porsche did

And toyota is a bit like GM but japanese and succesful.

The point is?

Maybe instead of coming back with rolling eyes and new comparisons you could have just let it drop.

I mean, where did you previously compare GM to toyota?

And how does any of that negate the fact that you've been arguing about Porsche up to this point?

Fact is,
Toyota is similar to GM, but you haven't been saying that until just this last post.

And Lambo did make a SUV, but that was about, oh, 20 years ago!
I don't see how that is related to Porsches attempt to cash in on the SUV craze about 3 years after it began to die.

So with that in mind I would have to say... No, lambo did not make a SUV like Porsche did.
Rather, Lambo made a SUV on their own, well before the craze and without much success.


In any case, I'm still not seeing where you get off coming in with new comparisons and just dropping your old argument.
Seems to me like your a gambler who wants to switch ponies mid-race.

Even with your switch, it doesn't erase the past replies you've made.

Oh and...
Right back at you.

 

[Zardoz]

This is very sad:

30,000 jobs, nine more plants - gone...

I hope GM can survive. It seems questionable that the company will exist in a decade or two.

 

[///M-Spec]

get the 993.

It's pretty high up there on the list. Can't quite rationalize stretching for a Turbo, though. The Boxster S would go over much better with the wife as she's a big roadster fan. We'll see. Heck, I might just get an Elise or even Miata instead.

Ok they didnt actively do the opposite but were doing the opposite. Its the same with say ferrari if they were to introduce a couple of cheaper models Im sure they could overtake porsche as the most profitable car company. But then they would have to make something starting at 60 grand.

This makes no sense whatsoever.


M

 

[MrktMkr1986]

This is very sad:

30,000 jobs, nine more plants - gone...

I hope GM can survive. It seems questionable that the company will exist in a decade or two.

This is what bothers me about corporations and their "leaders". They can slash jobs and slash plants. But will they slash their bonuses and executive compensation?

 

[Young_Warrior]

Ok how about this. You say porsche are now rich because they decided to make a SUV. Well GM has been making lots of SUV's for lots of years yet Porsche has made 1 SUV for a couple of years and is still in its first carnation....

 

[Duke]

Ok how about this. You say porsche are now rich because they decided to make a SUV. Well GM has been making lots of SUV's for lots of years yet Porsche has made 1 SUV for a couple of years and is still in its first carnation....

People who buy Porsches do not go into a dealership and dicker them to death to get the absolute minimum price.

People who buy General Motors vehicles do.

What was the point of all this again?

 

[Young_Warrior]

and the Tourage?

 

[Duke]

You mean Touareg? What about it? Again, nobody bought a Touareg as a value-driven vehicle, so price is not the primary concern, whereas price is the primary concern with the bulk of GM's vehicles.

Again, what is the point of this?

 

[Wolfe]

Ok how about this. You say porsche are now rich because they decided to make a SUV. Well GM has been making lots of SUV's for lots of years yet Porsche has made 1 SUV for a couple of years and is still in its first carnation....

What the...? What kind of logic is that?? "How can a huge company, that's always sold SUV's, not profit from selling ordinary ones at a low price, while a small company known for exotic, reputable sportscars profits greatly from one expensive luxury SUV?"

Porsche built a premium SUV for a premium price, and even saved on development costs by working with VW. The Cayenne was targeted towards upper-middle-class and upper-class citizens, and it hit its mark. I've seen 5-6 different Cayennes in my town. I've seen 1, maybe 2 Boxsters.

I don't know why you cling to the Boxster so much as the "savior of Porsche." Yeah, it's an excellent-handling car, and is revered by automotive enthusiasts, etc. But the Cayenne was the cash cow that put the company's profits into overdrive.

 

[Young_Warrior]

You mean Touareg? What about it? Again, nobody bought a Touareg as a value-driven vehicle, so price is not the primary concern, whereas price is the primary concern with the bulk of GM's vehicles.

Again, what is the point of this?

X5 LANDROVER AND THE Q7.they each will make profits for their respective companies. You guys are saying the Caymen has everyhting to do with porsches success but without the boxster there might have never been a porsche around long enough to make a cayenne. Hardly anyone in europe buys the cayenne. Just mainly Americans....

Whilst in europe they sell more boxsters and a whole hep of 911's.

What the...? What kind of logic is that?? "How can a huge company, that's always sold SUV's, not profit from selling ordinary ones at a low price, while a small company known for exotic, reputable sportscars profits greatly from one expensive luxury SUV?

My whole point.

Porsche built a premium SUV for a premium price, and even saved on development costs by working with VW. The Cayenne was targeted towards upper-middle-class and upper-class citizens, and it hit its mark. I've seen 5-6 different Cayennes in my town. I've seen 1, maybe 2 Boxsters.

In my city.... the city of london its the opposite. I will probably see aout 10 cayennes in a year and about a hundread boxsters and 911's.

don't know why you cling to the Boxster so much as the "savior of Porsche." Yeah, it's an excellent-handling car, and is revered by automotive enthusiasts, etc. But the Cayenne was the cash cow that put the company's profits into overdrive.

When the cayenne was being designed the company was far from finincial trouble and was very prosperous.

 

[Wolfe]

Hardly anyone in europe buys the cayenne. Just mainly Americans....

Whilst in europe they sell more boxsters and a whole hep of 911's.

You've almost got the idea, there.

My whole point.

You honestly expect GM to reap in huge profits from selling ordinary SUV's that everyone is familiar with (and many are tired of), for low prices? Whereas the idea of a rich person, looking to buy an SUV, sees a Cayenne and goes "OOH PORSCHE!!" doesn't make sense to you?

In my city.... the city of london its the opposite. I will probably see aout 10 cayennes in a year and about a hundread boxsters and 911's.

Which is bigger, has a higher population, and is fixated on the idea that everyone must have a car, and the bigger/fancier, the better?

London, or New York? The UK, or California? Western Europe, or the usa?

 

[Young_Warrior]

You honestly expect GM to reap in huge profits from selling ordinary SUV's that everyone is familiar with (and many are tired of), for low prices? Whereas the idea of a rich person, looking to buy an SUV, sees a Cayenne and goes "OOH PORSCHE!!" doesn't make sense to you?

This is my whole point. There are more non rich people out there than rich people and so in turn it becomes cheaper to build cars for the poor etc etc.

So instead of GM making so many different SUV's and Trucks they should spend less money on developing them cut back theyre range and just make one or two good quality SUV's than what theyre making now.

I mean why do you think GM arent doing well? At one point they were trying to take over the automotive world. Maybe that was theyre downfall... Greed.
If you were to make a list as to why GM arent doing well I would come up with this:

Cars arent pretty or objects of desire (other than the vette).
The interior is poor compared to european cars.
Fuel economy (if you live in europe)
The handling is lacking

A bit like every non sporting mercedes smaller than a E-class really....But worse.

And the euopean manufactures that GM own that are struggling because theyre not competitive compared to the german counterparts and kind of boring.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If you were to make a list as to why GM arent doing well I would come up with this:

Cars arent pretty or objects of desire (other than the vette).
The interior is poor compared to european cars.
Fuel economy (if you live in europe)
The handling is lacking

Here's my list:

Rising interest rates
High oil prices
Crippling debt
"Pesky" unions demanding "high" wages
Billions of dollars per quarter lost on INTEREST PAYMENTS ($3.7 billion to be precise last quarter) as a result of rising interest rates
Unjustified executive compensation (no one has the right to lose $1.1 billion in one quarter and still expect to get paid)
Aggressive Competition
...and more...

GMs "success" has little to do with the individual cars they sell. Their cars are great, actually -- management is poor.