| Author |
Message |
Dad
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:34 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
| Quote: | You forgot Chrysler.
|
There are many reasons that we'd all like to forget Chrysler! PT
Cruiser, Prowler, Viper, Stratus, Sebring, etc., etc., etc.
| Quote: | Chrysler covers 7/70 on an 03 Stratus and 04 Sebring
the Wife and I have.
|
There's a ringing endorsement, if ever I heard one! LMAO! I might have
known that you'd be driving some pussified anemic little wussmobiles!
Those two vehicles have no style, no class and no power! Not unlike
yourself!
| Quote: | I had a 03 Malibu...but it only came with a 3/36
warranty. I dumped it before it could get the gasket and piston slap
problems.
|
Which like millions of others, you may never have had problems with.
Gawd, you sound like an hysterical little girl! You see ghosts behind
every door!
| Quote: | It was a POS car anyway in comparison to the cars we have now.
|
Now there's a real slam! James those two little wussmobiles you now have
will depreciate far quicker and deeper than the Malibu. And they are
possibly the ugliest cars to come out of Detroit since the AMC Pacer!
| Quote: | At least the sludge problems of the 2.7 Chrysler engine can be owner
mitigated by using Synthetic oil.
|
That sounds like wonderful quality you bought there James! You are one
odd duck!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:09 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:UrCdnTEkVrh23A7eRVn-oA@rogers.com...
| Quote: | James C. Reeves wrote:
This is an excellent suggestion. I don't think GM would loose much on
this deal...at least it would be far less that $3K-$6K per unit that they
loose now with these crazy profit-busting sales. And those costs would
come over several years, not up front.
What a surprise that you agree with Horner! Neither one of you would
appear to have even a basic knowledge of the economics of Horner's
suggestion. And together, your combined IQ's would fall well short of your
respective shoe sizes!
|
Chrysler has been doing it for years. And, at the moment, their sales have
been up for the year as have their profits. Deferring costs is a viable
business alternative. Certaintly better than taking the hit up front as
happens with cutting the sales prices to bare-bones.
| Quote: | However, I still personally wouldn't buy a GM vehicle again.
Then why do you remain in this News Group? Take a look up above James - it
say's alt.autos.gm up there! *lol*
|
I come from a decades-long GM family...both sides. I'd like to end the
estrangement at some future point. The problem is, only one side is really
trying.
| Quote: | Quit tormenting us and troll on over the the News Group whose vehicles you
will be buying in the future.
|
Which *could be a GM*. I haven't written them off completely. ;-)
| Quote: | My gosh, how you moan and whine!
|
Except I'm not alone. If one wants to sell cars, one needs to listen to the
customer base. Especially when there is no rational reason not to and most
of the competition is listening on the subject matter and responded
appropriately to them.
| Quote: | I like some of their models, when the lights are off and you can actually
see them. But all of them are most annoying
"lights-in-your-face-all-the-time" cars. I just don't want to even drive
such a annoying vehicle.
I'd pay a surcharge to GM to keep producing their
"lights-in-your-face-all-the-time" cars, if it would drive you and Horner
out of the News Group.
|
Poor reason. But if you have the money, knock yourself out. The problem
is, that attitude to the customer won't sell cars.
| Quote: | The only nice thing about reading whiney posts from you and Horner is that
I know that the rest of day has to be better! Your "woe-is-me" posts make
me realize how lucky I am, not be be a malcontent like you and Horner!
|
I'm perfectly fine, thank you. Not sure why you want to make this personal
though. The topic of the op was to post ideas on how to improve sales. You
disagree with the ideas. Not a problem for me. I'm certainly not going to
claim a low IQ on your part for it.
Now, back to the topic. What are your ideas (other than alienating
customers to go elsewhere, that is)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
James C. Reeves wrote:
| Quote: | John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile powertrain
warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic, a vehicle
maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in 200,000
miles. Where does one draw the line of practicality? John, the answer to
this question is held in assessing the odds of component failure. i.e. the
longer the time period, the greater the risk of component failure. Not to
mention the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles from
person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
You answered your own question. GM simply needs to chart out where the line
of negative return is. If it is at 3/36, then they *are* building junk. My
bet is that GM could go 6/60 with minimal additional cost and that warranty
would boost sales significantly.
|
But James, what about the 10 years forward, 9 years back warranty
recommended by Horner? If I may quote your ealier response:
"> James C. Reeves wrote:
| Quote: |
This is an excellent suggestion. "
|
Now you say 6 years. James the only thing consistent about you is your
inconsistency.
In one post, you say "However, I still personally wouldn't buy a GM
vehicle again." Now tonight you say: "Which *could be a GM*. I haven't
written them off completely. ;-) " Well which is it James? You can't
suck and blow at the same time. ;-)
James, with all due respect, you are all over the map on this issue.
Just go back and see the contradictions in your own posts. What's that
old saying James? "It's better to remain quiet and appear stupid, than
to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Think before you speak James.
That's all I'm saying here. 'Nuff Said!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Horner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
Dad wrote:
| Quote: | John Horner wrote:
snip
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start with
a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM do this?
If their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained by-the-book should
not have any powertrain failures in 100,000 miles. This should also
be made retroactive to all GM vehicles sold in the past 9 years.
John, you are such a doorknob!
|
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and other
forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is doing
everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your world.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Muhammed Mustafo Goldstei
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cJ-dnd3-LttCIA7eRVn-jg@comcast.com...
| Quote: |
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:FLWdnalPfu3goA7eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
John Horner wrote:
snip
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start with a
10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM do this? If
their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained by-the-book should not
have any powertrain failures in 100,000 miles. This should also be
made
retroactive to all GM vehicles sold in the past 9 years.
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile powertrain
warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic, a vehicle
maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in
200,000
miles. Where does one draw the line of practicality? John, the answer to
this question is held in assessing the odds of component failure. i.e.
the
longer the time period, the greater the risk of component failure. Not
to
mention the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles from
person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
You answered your own question. GM simply needs to chart out where the
line
of negative return is. If it is at 3/36, then they *are* building junk.
My
bet is that GM could go 6/60 with minimal additional cost and that
warranty
would boost sales significantly.
\
I dont think GM believes in there product enuff to do dat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:FLWdnalPfu3goA7eRVn-gA@rogers.com...
| Quote: | John Horner wrote:
snip
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start with a
10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM do this? If
their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained by-the-book should not
have any powertrain failures in 100,000 miles. This should also be made
retroactive to all GM vehicles sold in the past 9 years.
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile powertrain
warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic, a vehicle
maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in 200,000
miles. Where does one draw the line of practicality? John, the answer to
this question is held in assessing the odds of component failure. i.e. the
longer the time period, the greater the risk of component failure. Not to
mention the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles from
person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
|
You answered your own question. GM simply needs to chart out where the line
of negative return is. If it is at 3/36, then they *are* building junk. My
bet is that GM could go 6/60 with minimal additional cost and that warranty
would boost sales significantly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:FPednQV0GtEk2Q7enZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@rogers.com...
| Quote: | James C. Reeves wrote:
You forgot Chrysler.
There are many reasons that we'd all like to forget Chrysler! PT Cruiser,
Prowler, Viper, Stratus, Sebring, etc., etc., etc.
|
Those products exist and many Chrysler models sell, especially the 300C
these days (not sure why, they're ugly as hell). But why so seemingly
bothered by their existence?
| Quote: | Chrysler covers 7/70 on an 03 Stratus and 04 Sebring the Wife and I have.
There's a ringing endorsement, if ever I heard one!
|
Their sales numbers have been improving over the past year or two. And they
are making money (at least for now). So, results like that say yes those
ideas the Op has put forth are worth looking at before dismissing
"out-of-hand".
| Quote: | LMAO! I might have known that you'd be driving some pussified anemic
little wussmobiles! Those two vehicles have no style, no class and no
power! Not unlike yourself!
|
Can't stick to the subject matter at hand I see. <sigh> I'm not sure what
your opinion of me personally or with the particular vehicles I referenced
has to do with the topic. Neither provide any ideas on how to sell more GM
vehicles.
However, you may want to check the performance numbers and general
statistics in any car rag...they are virtually identical in that year
(2003). So in the final analysis, neither product has any glaring advantage
over the other based on the raw statistics. Style and design are largely
personal taste. GM makes some nice looking and desirable cars as far as I'm
concerned. (I like the style of the 2003 Malibu). Some disagree (I just
don't happen to disagree in this particular area).
| Quote: | I had a 03 Malibu...but it only came with a 3/36 warranty. I dumped it
before it could get the gasket and piston slap problems.
Which like millions of others, you may never have had problems with. Gawd,
you sound like an hysterical little girl! You see ghosts behind every
door!
|
Diversion noted...again.
| Quote: | It was a POS car anyway in comparison to the cars we have now.
Now there's a real slam! James those two little wussmobiles you now have
will depreciate far quicker and deeper than the Malibu.
|
The cars are comparably priced (see www.carmax.com) or (www.edmunds.com).
Fact is, *ALL* US made cars depreciate too quickly. Doesn't matter if it's
GM, Ford, Chrysler. The Malibu and Stratus are no exception.
| Quote: | And they are possibly the ugliest cars to come out of Detroit since the
AMC Pacer!
|
Opinion counts for just that..opinion. Some poeple liked the Pacer (I
wasn't one of them). So what? I don't see the point on how Chryslers you
think are ugly will help sell more GM's. Unless you can explain the
rationale to your statement.
I will say that neither vehicle had been in the shop for warranty work
during their first year. I can't say the same for the Malibu, I had..and I
only had it for 9-months. The worst problem was that the body seams were
not sealed. the car leaked like a seive when ever it rained. It took the
dealer 5-days to fix that little problem and repair the damage from the
water. My experience with the Malibu is not likely typical. However, the
car was simply too much bother to keep...I'm sure you can appreciate that.
I doubt many people would keep a car under the circumstances.
| Quote: | At least the sludge problems of the 2.7 Chrysler engine can be owner
mitigated by using Synthetic oil.
That sounds like wonderful quality you bought there James! You are one odd
duck!
|
What is so odd about accepting a product fault that has a easy owner-applied
solution? It's hard to claim (as you just did) that I am claiming product
quality here since I had disclosed a fault in the product, don't ya think?
Chrysler has it's problems, no question about it.
By the way, the topic is to discuss ideas on how GM can sell more cars. My
example was to demonstrate that some of GM's competitors (Chrysler in this
case) are offering increased warranty coverage as an incentive (and that
supports the Op's suggestion).
Now so far, not a single idea on the topic from you. Zip. Nada. Do you
have any? Or is your idea to keep doing what isn't working? Or do you
prefer to simply call people names instead? How productive is that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:mdidneOMG6dCow7enZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@rogers.com...
| Quote: | Muhammed Mustafo Goldstein Jr wrote:
Horner is right..I got burned myself ...
Muhammed Mustafo Goldstein Jr! Now there's a good Irish name! *lol* Well
that's good enough for me Jr! If you got burned, Horner must be right! You
have just joined the exclusive "Bitchers, Whiners, Moaners and Losers
Club"! You join John Horner and James C, Reeves as one of only 3 members!
*lol*
|
My guess the number is higher than three. Perhaps four. ;-)
Actually, the family has had very good experience with GM vehicles over the
past 50 years. I had one that I drove close to 200K miles and ran fine when
I traded it. My parents got very good service out of their GM vehicles. In
fact, the 1984 LeSabre that my father owned lasted well over 200K miles,
then sold it to a co-worker that drove it 4-5 years longer (don't know the
final mileage).
GM makes a good product, generally speaking. They should be fine standing
behind the vehicles with an additional warranty idea to attract buyers. I
can't believe it would cost them anywhere near the $3K per vehicle on
average it costs them now to discount so heavily. And even if it did, those
costs would be years out (in business terms...deferred!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:16 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
John Horner wrote:
| Quote: | Dad wrote:
John Horner wrote:
snip
If GM were serious about treating customers right it would start
with a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty. Why doesn't GM
do this? If their stuff is good, then a vehicle maintained
by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in 100,000
miles. This should also be made retroactive to all GM vehicles
sold in the past 9 years.
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile
powertrain warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic,
a vehicle maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain
failures in 200,000 miles. Where does one draw the line of
practicality? John, the answer to this question is held in
assessing the odds of component failure. i.e. the longer the time
period, the greater the risk of component failure. Not to mention
the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles from
person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
|
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic
that the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is
the same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first
place! How's that for irony?
In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right. The recent
U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time will tell
the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still has the
financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that major
cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed. For my money, the GM
execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves. They have gotten
through tough times before and GM will surely be in business when you
and I are long gone! It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's
management's fault that the company has problems." That's another wussy
copout John. You could say that every time a company fails. With a
major, complex entity like GM, there are far too many influencing
factors to pin the sole blame on management. Management don't have
reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how effectively foreign
competition is going to impact them. Nor can they forcast how many
short-sighted Americans are going to buy imported cars for the
short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors are well beyond
management control John. Open your eyes and mind John. There is none so
blind as he who will not see! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:48 pm Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:17:44 -0500, "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Actually, the family has had very good experience with GM vehicles over the
past 50 years. I had one that I drove close to 200K miles and ran fine when
I traded it. My parents got very good service out of their GM vehicles. In
fact, the 1984 LeSabre that my father owned lasted well over 200K miles,
then sold it to a co-worker that drove it 4-5 years longer (don't know the
final mileage).
|
I just don't understand it.
I've owned several GM autos over the years.
I've had pain-in-the-ass problems with all of them.
Yet I talk to guys who say;
Drove my Chevy 200K miles,
and never even changed the oil or spark plugs.
Are these like fishing stories ?
BTW;
I owned a Chevette too. ( Shove-It )
Another case where GM spent more $$ on advertising
than on engine/drivetrain reliability.
<rj> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Larry Stowell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:54 pm Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"" wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:17:44 -0500, "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com
wrote:
Actually, the family has had very good experience with GM vehicles over the
past 50 years. I had one that I drove close to 200K miles and ran fine when
I traded it. My parents got very good service out of their GM vehicles. In
fact, the 1984 LeSabre that my father owned lasted well over 200K miles,
then sold it to a co-worker that drove it 4-5 years longer (don't know the
final mileage).
I just don't understand it.
I've owned several GM autos over the years.
I've had pain-in-the-ass problems with all of them.
Yet I talk to guys who say;
Drove my Chevy 200K miles,
and never even changed the oil or spark plugs.
Are these like fishing stories ?
|
Just traded in my 99 Century for an 05 Century and I had about 150K km on it and
I never did change the plugs.
As a mater of fact the reason I traded it was because I sent my wife in to have
the plugs changed and she phoned back saying they wanted $1000 to change the
plugs and replace the wires. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the car.
| Quote: |
BTW;
I owned a Chevette too. ( Shove-It )
Another case where GM spent more $$ on advertising
than on engine/drivetrain reliability.
rj |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:41 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"<RJ>" <baranick@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:fvn8p19ui37j8blark7sr7rc1ni8pmc0j2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 22:17:44 -0500, "James C. Reeves" <jcnospam@nospam.com
wrote:
BTW;
I owned a Chevette too. ( Shove-It )
Another case where GM spent more $$ on advertising
than on engine/drivetrain reliability.
rj
|
The wife owned a '78 Chevette when we got married. That one *was* a dog.
But what would one expect from a $3K car. It was built as a "throw-away". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:52 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:SfCdncyyLMUcUw7enZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@rogers.com...
| Quote: | James C. Reeves wrote:
John, you are such a doorknob! Why not a 20 year/200,000 mile powertrain
warranty? If their stuff is good, then using your logic, a vehicle
maintained by-the-book should not have any powertrain failures in 200,000
miles. Where does one draw the line of practicality? John, the answer to
this question is held in assessing the odds of component failure. i.e.
the longer the time period, the greater the risk of component failure.
Not to mention the impact on powertrains of the varying driving styles
from person-to-person. John, wake up and smell the burning clutch!
You answered your own question. GM simply needs to chart out where the
line of negative return is. If it is at 3/36, then they *are* building
junk. My bet is that GM could go 6/60 with minimal additional cost and
that warranty would boost sales significantly.
But James, what about the 10 years forward, 9 years back warranty
recommended by Horner? If I may quote your ealier response:
|
I personally don't think the retroactive component of the idea would help to
sell cars. However, it is worth studying to know for sure.
| Quote: | "> James C. Reeves wrote:
This is an excellent suggestion. "
|
The idea, yes. The terms are up for study/debate.
| Quote: |
Now you say 6 years. James the only thing consistent about you is your
inconsistency.
|
If 6-years is where the ROI charts out, sure. It could be ROI is 4 years.
It could be that it's 10 years. Some research would be required to know
where the financial line crosses. The Op has no idea. Neither do I. The
idea to take a look at enhancing the wrranty is a good one though.
| Quote: | In one post, you say "However, I still personally wouldn't buy a GM
vehicle again."
|
I don't remember saying the word "again". If I did, it was a mistype.
Place the period after the word "vehicle". The sentence will then be
present tense, not future tense. Does that help?
| Quote: | Now tonight you say: "Which *could be a GM*. I haven't written them off
completely. ;-) " Well which is it James? You can't suck and blow at the
same time. ;-)
|
If GM changes some things (not worth drudging up the voluminous list here
again), I'd buy one in a second! Seems like a simple concept to grasp.
| Quote: | James, with all due respect, you are all over the map on this issue. Just
go back and see the contradictions in your own posts. What's that old
saying James? "It's better to remain quiet and appear stupid, than to open
your mouth and remove all doubt." Think before you speak James. That's all
I'm saying here. 'Nuff Said!
|
Perhaps these clarifications help. :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:51 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
| Quote: | "Dad" <knockers@fisher.net> wrote in message
news:bPKdnYy1Ycm-Tg7eRVn-uQ@rogers.com...
John Horner wrote:
People who do not have good arguments always resort to insult and
other forms of personal attack. I guess that in your world GM is
doing everything right and has nothing to worry about. Enjoy your
world.
John
What a wussy copout John! If you find it insulting that I criticize your
ludicrous suggestion, you have to grow thicker skin. I find it ironic that
the lack of common sense displayed by your silly recommendation is the
same lack of common sense that got GM into trouble in the first place!
How's that for irony?
|
Although I'm sure John can speak for himslef, I don't think he was referring
to the fact that you disagree with the idea. It is certaintly fine and
respectable that you don't think the idea has merit (based on what basis of
statistical/research, I have no idea). I believe he was referring to the
use of tems like "wussy" and statements like "I bet this person is smarter
than you are..." types of responses. Which, in the end, is more of a
reflection on the person using such forms of dialog in a civil discussion
than it is a reflection on the person it was aimed at.
| Quote: | In my world, GM is indeed doing a lot of things right.
|
There is a fair amount of truth to the statement that GM is doing a lot of
things right. No question. However, the results in the real world (which
is apparently a different world than your world, it seems) is that their
business is failing and loosing market share by the minute. They have to do
better in the areas where they aren't doing things right (or as well as they
could).
| Quote: | The recent U.S./Canada announcement was a major step for them. Only time
will tell the full story. As someone said in an earlier post, GM still has
the financial wherewithall to get through these tough times, now that
major cost-cutting plans are in place and being executed.
|
And we are all with you in the hopes that you are right, I'm sure. However,
that "announcement" only addresses the "cost" side of the balance sheet.
They still need to address the declining "revenue" side of the balance
sheet. The ideal company business model is to see *both* revenues and costs
rising (i.e. growth). Management of a successful company will focus on what
it takes to enhance the revenue side. Announcing "cost cuts" is, in
business terms, admitting a declining business at best and defeat at worst.
Hardly gives one the "warm-and-fuzzies" (Management in a position of being
backed up against the wall right now by their own doing).
| Quote: | For my money, the GM execs are a lot brighter than you and Mr. Reeves.
|
That certaintly could be the case. Perhaps it is likely the case (I don't
know Mr. Horner). However that isn't relivant and isn't the point. Those
execs you speak of have racked up $278 billion (yes billion!) in debt on top
of a "profit" of negative $6 billion a year with just a little over 18-20
billion in cash. Do you have any idea how much money it takes to service
the interest on a debt of $278 billion? Basically they have 2-3 years on
the outside to make something drastic happen. With their corporate bond
rating of "junk", the cost of money for GM is very high compared to their
competitors. Another competitive disadvantage to add to the list.
| Quote: | They have gotten through tough times before and GM will surely be in
business when you and I are long gone!
|
I sure hope so, for my grandkids sake! There are some very respectable
financial people that don't seem as sure as you do. Also remember the
common investment advise! Performance history does not predict future
performance. In other words, what transpired before had no relivance to
what will transpire in the future. The fact that GM recovered before means
nothing to the current situation. Each situation is different.
| Quote: | It's too easy to use that tired excuse "It's management's fault that the
company has problems."
|
Who's fault is it?
| Quote: | That's another wussy copout John.
|
Since when is it a copout for management to accept blame and do something
about it? To say it's someone elses fault is the copout.
| Quote: | You could say that every time a company fails. With a major, complex
entity like GM, there are far too many influencing factors to pin the sole
blame on management.
|
Of course! That *is* who is to blame. Copout and excuses noted.
| Quote: | Management don't have reliable crystal balls John that tell them just how
effectively foreign competition is going to impact them.
|
No, but they have (or should have) technology like data warehouse systems
and management reports that would tell them exactly these things. It isn't
ricket science. If they don't have those tools, its their fault they don't
(again).
| Quote: | Nor can they forcast how many short-sighted Americans are going to buy
imported cars for the short-term financial gain. Many detrimental factors
are well beyond management control John. Open your eyes and mind John.
There is none so blind as he who will not see!
|
Copout noted.
So, instead of doing some research and running some numbers to see for sure
if looking into an idea like this might help to increase sales, management
should just poo-poo it out-of-hand like you are and sit back and do nothing
else except close plants and fire people? I'm not buying your version of a
plan "dad". Remember, the revenue side of the balance sheet needs help and
needs it badly.
Now, I'll ask again. What alternative ideas do you have that might increase
sales?
o John has put forth the idea to look at increasing
warranty coverage.
o I say turn the damn annoying daytime lights off if a
customer wants them off (among other things)
o What do you say? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C. Reeves
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:54 am Post subject:
Re: GM should give a 10 year/100,000 mile powertrain warrant |
|
|
"Muhammed Mustafo Goldstein Jr" <Pwee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11p7gqge9uboef9@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: |
\
I dont think GM believes in there product enuff to do dat.
|
I'm not so sure about that. I think most of the product lines will stand up
well. I doubt seriously that there is a significant failure rate below 60K
miles and 5-6 years that it would cost much. But, GM has the numbers to
know for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in