Comments on: Saving the General

By: Amos

Amos — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:23:11 +0000

On Obama destroying General Motors: Nobody is saying he brought them to the point they were at on the day of his inauguration. What we’re saying is that while GM’s well was dry, Obama poisoned it. Bush took water from another well and diverted it to GM. Shouldn’t have, but we get it. Obama has fundamentally changed what that well is, and who can use it. (Not the consumer or the people who lent GM money, but them that supports his regime.)

Once, GM could have been bought out in whole or in pieces by private parties. Now, the only thing we can do with it is swear it off. The UAW, GM and Obama have stolen our wealth for their benefit. The only honorable thing to do, other than toss them out of power, is to boycott their products and toast marshmallows on their smoldering ruins.

By: john from cinncinatti

john from cinncinatti — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:39:58 +0000

landrover is that a japanese brand. suv means offroad, not a 4 wheel drive station wagon for soccer moms.

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:14:16 +0000

Must be a new memo out from Soros. Now SUVs are nice, clean, green, ecomobiles, and are no longer spawn of the devil. More Calvinball.

By: G Alston

G Alston — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:52:41 +0000

#39 — The SUV as personal transportation was caused by CAFE. Our congress caused the SUV as everyday vehicle. To combat 12 MPG cars, we got 8 MPG SUVs.

I don’t know where you get this from. Our mid-80′s 4Runner got 25 mpg, and that was with CA emissions equipment. At the same time we owned a Mazda hatchback that got just shy of 40 mpg.

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:46:03 +0000

The SUV as personal transportation was caused by CAFE. Our congress caused the SUV as everyday vehicle. To combat 12 MPG cars, we got 8 MPG SUVs.

And these Einsteins are at it again, only stupider this time.

By: G Alston

G Alston — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:59:48 +0000

#36 — Gee, we have a lot of smart people here…

I’ll say.

I’d said — “SUV’s as we know them were brought here by the Japanese.”

Obviously I was referring not to sparsely selling rolling behemoths based on humongous pickups, but smaller SPORTY vehicles based on the smallish mini-pickups.

Unless of course you’re trying to claim that the gargantuan POS Blazer which sold in dribbles somehow spontaneously and for no apparent reason sparked the revolution.

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:53:45 +0000

Err…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Suburban

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:53:04 +0000

Detroit outside of the Jeep cherokee didn’t do SUV’s until the Japanese made them popular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_K5_Blazer

The Chevrolet Suburban is a large sport utility vehicle from Chevrolet. It is the longest-lived continuous automobile nameplate still in production, dating from 1935…

Gee, we have a lot of smart people here…

By: G Alston

G Alston — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:10:24 +0000

#31 — They’re a one-trick pony, and that’s big SUVs.

That’s a bit wierd. Detroit outside of the Jeep cherokee didn’t do SUV’s until the Japanese made them popular. We had a 4Runner in the mid 80′s, many years before the Explorer came out. At one time we were one of the few on the road with that sort of vehicle.

With all due respect to Mr. Douglas, marketing can’t solve the fact that Detroit doesn’t innovate. How long ago was Toyota and Honda selling hybrids? SUV’s as we know them were brought here by the Japanese. Current big hit for the younger set? The rolling refrigerator look from Scion and Kia. Not a Detroit vehicle in sight. Marketing can’t fix a lack of innovation.

Douglas’ other point seems to be in that squishy zone of suggesting that we’re all GM buyers, but somehow we lost our way. Tempted by the dark side of Toyota. Some of my age group is that way, but I’ve owned non-Detroit vehicles for some 40 years now. No amount of marketing would cause me to take a Detroit vehicle seriously; I wouldn’t have one for a gift, much less pay for it. Like #15 I’ve traveled a lot more than I care to admit to and have had the misfortune of getting stuck with most Detroit makes/models via rentals over the years. Marketing isn’t going to fix crappy vehicles.

Lastly, my kids all drive, and not one of them would consider a Detroit made vehicle. It doesn’t matter how much Bob Seger (more cowbell!) is used. What did they buy? Two Hondas, a Nissan, and a Toyota. They all share comfort and reliability. Just like the learned inertia that allowed for family lifetime GM buying, the inertia is now no longer in favour of GM. Marketing isn’t going to fix inertia.

Sorry, Mr. Douglas. Marketing couldn’t convince people to like “new coke” and it’s useless here as well.

By: Self-hating Boomer

Self-hating Boomer — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:46:30 +0000

Meanwhile, the GM brass continues to dazzle us with their understanding of the market:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/05/gm-marketing-boss-mark-laneve-apparently-unaware-that-diesel-is/